by Prof Jones
(911 Blogger)Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established
peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we
have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted
for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say
that we have ublished in the literature,?a major step in a nascent
line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to
science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their
journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the
editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters
chastising them?)
The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on æšear 2008?then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
(HTML version below. -rep.)
Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an æŠpen
e-journal.?TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may
download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and
engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was
chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do
Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?
In this Letter, we emphasize oints of agreement?with FEMA and
NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course,
we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a
public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the
title ?but then read morehe paper only six pages long:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley
Approaching this as oints of Agreement?is NEW, I believe
(obviously some æŠlder?quotes are cited in this new context) and we
hope this will be a fruitful approach! Mechanical engineer Tony
Szamboti and I are the æ·orresponding authors,?the ones people are
invited to write to with comments.
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the
discussion has reached a new level ?JREFæŠrs and others may attack,
but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal,
those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper.
It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise
in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather
than addressing the science ?that would not surprise me.
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
æ§ou, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple
task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an
article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or
more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your
article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil
engineers?To date, no one has been willing to submit an article — at
least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement
advocates, no one has been able to mention one…?/blockquote>
Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please
send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge
with him. You might note that the paper is published in a echnical
journal [one of those] in civil engineering,?to use his own words,
which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature
(e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987),
and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very
significant step in the history.
Further in the spirit of building bridges, I抎 like to quote from
Prof. Fetzer who wrote today ?and I agree: æ‘ would appreciate it?if
those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of
appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things
were done? I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less
disrespect for one another.?Agreed! In this paper, the authors are
both reaching out to the public (most can read this Letter with
understanding, I think) AND seeking to progress in figuring out how the
buildings were destroyed?
Now let work together to unify the 9/11 truth movement and show
some mutual respect, shall we? Suggest we seek a focus on getting NIST
(or other technical people) to work with us in doing a thorough and
proper investigation which will include release of NIST-held photos AND
the NFPA-921-mandated search for hermite residues? [Hint- good time
to read the paper if you disagree or don know really what I抦 talking
about here.]
Finally, I should note that the editor that we worked with was
polite and professional throughout the process. We hope others, in
their responses, will maintain that decorum. In the final analysis, all
THREE reviewers approved publication!
Time to celebrate, and move forward together.
Note: another blog will discuss the journal chosen and the Letter
format (as opposed to a typical rticle format?with methods, results
and discussion). Also, I will take note of your comments to this
announcement of a formal publication in a peer-reviewed civil
engineering journal!
HTML version (please note any hyperlink errors in the comments area).
From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay
out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center
on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for
productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas
where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time
countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
(WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at
near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise
which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later
at 5:20 p.m.
The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to æ‡etermine why and how
WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft
and why and how WTC 7 collapsed?1
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a
similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses.2
NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the
specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited
approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal
here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating
those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding
the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center
will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for
people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their
lives trying to save others.
DISCUSSION
1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
FEMA: he specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total
diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue?2
FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the
47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane,
collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We
certainly agree that FEMA best firebased hypothesis as only a low
probability of occurrence.?NIST final report on WTC 7 has been long
delayed and is eagerly awaited.3 Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.
2. Withstanding Jet Impact
FEMA: he WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental
impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport厰 2
NIST: æƒoth WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact,
standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with
structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable
reserve capacity?4
Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: he 110-story
towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole
the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial
aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur??sup>5
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was
interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North
Tower:
We looked at every possible thing we could think of
that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane
hitting the side, said John Skilling, head structural engineer?
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State
Building [which did not collapse], Skilling’s people did an analysis
that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that
all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There
would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, he said.
The building structure would still be there.
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn’t think a
single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to
a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and
even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
匒lthough Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are
people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a
structure like the Trade Center down.
I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of
work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with
explosives, I would bet that he could do it.6
Thus, Skilling team showed that a commercial jet would not bring
down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse
when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert
using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in
agreement.
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: æ˜IST findings do not support the ancake theory?of
collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor
systems in the WTC towers?Thus, the floors did not fail progressively
to cause a pancaking phenomenon?3
Agreed: the ancake theory of collapse?is incorrect and should be
rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA
report and promoted in the documentary hy the Towers Fell?produced
by NOVA.7
The ancake theory of collapse?is strongly promoted in a Popular
Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9
We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the ancake theory?is not
scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions
regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.
4. Massive Core Columns
NIST: æ‚s stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads?4
he hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and
thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft
impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time梕nabling large
numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely?10
acific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the
closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings
their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles,
Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up
the core?The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity
loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from
three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.?he
core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were
loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft
impact…. the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20%
of their capacity before the aircraft impact?11
We totally agree that the WTC Towers included assive?
interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition
to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much
of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the
false notion that the Towers were ollow tubes?with the floors
supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide
acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor
asserted, he structural design of the towers was unique in that the
supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the
walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a
tube厰.12
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial
load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns ?and on
this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial
load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns ?and on
this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.
5. Essentially in Free Fall
NIST: [Question:] æŒow could the WTC towers collapse in only 11
seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) ?speeds that approximate that of
a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air
resistance)??[Answer:] 匒s documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR
1, these collapse times show that: æ® the structure below the level of
collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building
mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the
downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity
of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of
deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation
provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the
falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially
in free fall, as seen in videos?3
We agree with some of this, that the building æ·ame down essentially
in free fall, as seen in videos.?This is an important starting point.
(Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the
exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings æ·ame down
essentially in free fall?seems correct when accelerations are viewed,
for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14
Further, we agree with NIST that he stories below the level of
collapse initiation provided little resistance?to the fall ?but we
ask ?how could that be? NIST mentions æºnergy of deformation?which
for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they
need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to
claim that the æƒntact structure?below would not significantly slow
the motion.
Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in
glibly treating the remarkable æ»ree fall?collapse of each Tower,
namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means
that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow
the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of
deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and
Momentum must both be conserved.)
Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving
the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their
analysis.13, 14
NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve
complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the
material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative
explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics.
We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall
destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and,
therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete
collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST
calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without
explosives.
We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of
Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three
WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that
are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these
near-free-fall events.
6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: æ˜IST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to
conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses
like those in the WTC towers? All four test specimens sustained the
maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing?The
Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in
the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling
issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September
11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially
different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the
[empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a
substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any
given location on September 11?4
We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four
russes like those in the WTC towers?survived the fire-endurance
testing ithout collapsing.?We also agree that he fires in the
towers on September 11 ?were substantially different from the
conditions in the test furnaces;?the test furnaces were hotter and
burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in
an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation.
As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the
concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests.
On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings
should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of
cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has
never occurred.
But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern,
steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an
uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly
what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings
like it around the country? Although the fireproofing was intended to
withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings
the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings
have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other
buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite
suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.15
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for
a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever
collapsed from fire?The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire
in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was
repaired and returned to service.16
Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7)
completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could not be
returned to service. There is much left to learn here.
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: he initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes?4
æ‚t any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures
near 1,000 癈 was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the
calculated temperatures were near 500 癈 or below?4
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how
did both towers experience sudden-onset failure of structural steel
over a broad area in each tower and how could the collapses of all
three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and complete?13, 14, 17 We seek discussion on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
NIST: æ‘n no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers
melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500
degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and
hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about
1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum
upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800
degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1,
figure 6-36)?3
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists
believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns
very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true….
The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most
definitely not capable of melting steel.18
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable
of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the
molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its
collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST
reported 1,100 癈.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.
9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence
NIST: æ˜IST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World
Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction
of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards
where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated
that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel
used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.?he lack of
WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure厰.1
Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC
Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened
to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?
For more than three months, structural steel from the
World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for
scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about
high-rise building design practices and performance under fire
conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again
in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of
government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific
investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I
have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA
921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the
destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.19
And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for
testing, it is clear that an æºnormous amount?of the WTC steel was
examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen
for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.20
We agree that only a mall fraction of the enormous amount of
steel?from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled.
The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene,
was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.
10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)
NIST: æ‚n unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper
photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical
yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of
white smoke, stands out?4
æ˜IST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright
spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four
windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the
flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds
before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this
location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower?3
We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of
an æ–nusual flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke?4
æ»ollowed by the flow of a glowing liquid?having n orange glow?[3].
With regard to the æ—ery bright flame?which is generating a plume of
white smoke? NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because
æ‚luminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures厰.3
Again, we agree.
The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of
an orange-glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST
opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these
significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.
11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation
FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute
investigative team): æample 1 (From WTC 7)?Evidence of a severe high
temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and
sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible
in the near-surface microstructure? Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)?
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to
a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 匱he severe corrosion and
subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No
clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified?A
detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed厰2
We agree that the physical evidence for evere high temperature
corrosion attack?involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds
for an interesting discussion: How were evere high temperatures?
reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that
attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions
may help us find the explanation for the otal collapse?of the Towers
and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
The WPI researchers published their results2, 21
and called for detailed study?of this igh-temperature?æŠxidation
and sulfidation?phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored
by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers?destruction.3, 4
Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking
phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this
oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their
long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe
high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well
established.22
It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we
offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding
and security.
12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations
NIST: he more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case
D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete
sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the
extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or
eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the
investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical
reality. Thus, for instanceå¼he pulling forces on the perimeter columns
by the sagging floors were adjusted…4
he primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to
provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter
columns.4
he results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the
building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse?sup>4
We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no
doubt djusted the input?to account for the Towers?destruction,
after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their
preordained collapse theory.
But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were
provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for
others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the
journal New Civil Engineer states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are
refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin
Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE
has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used
to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the
[NIST] investigators. 匒 leading US structural engineer said NIST had
obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact
and fire models. æƒy comparison the global structural model is not as
sophisticated,?he said. he software used [by NIST] has been pushed
to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications,
extrapolations and judgment calls?23
Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24
We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations
made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and
graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: his letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for
correction?we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse?25
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the
collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of
a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned
NIST to find a full explanation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for
the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report
stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the
point where each Tower as poised for collapse?4
We offer to help find that elusive æ»ull explanation of the total
collapse?of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in
the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can
back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.
14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] æ‡id the NIST investigation look for
evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition?
Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The
combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) slices through
steel like a hot knife through butter. [Answer: ] NIST did not test
for the residue of these compounds in the steel?3
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of
thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing
for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in
particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the
NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands
of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and
explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not
looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene
investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.26
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: ..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn’t look for evidence of explosives??Neuman [spokesperson at NIST,
listed on the WTC report]: Right, because there was no evidence of
that. Abel: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look
for it first? Neuman: If you’re looking for something that isn’t
there, you’re wasting your time… and the taxpayers?money.?27
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for
the fact that NIST approach here affects the lives of so many
innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other
residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is asting your time.?We may
be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues
in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods,
especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the
buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for
thermite use is mounting.13, 22
CONCLUSIONS
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with
FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking
destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at
near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree
that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the
idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the
Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors ancaked?to account for
total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7
(which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view
of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look
for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27
Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and
correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have
candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
æ®we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse?25
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a
matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives
of thousands of people may very well depend on it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory
Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R.
Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen, Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom,
Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.See Reference here.
Tags:
blogger,
cate,
common ground,
pace,
period of time,
premise,
spokesperson,
us congress
Related posts
