A Peer-Reviewed Professional Publication

[hotShot]

But did you consider unlike almost all other skyscraper the WTC towers main stability was it's steel exoskeleton.

 

Did you consider that every normal apartment fire creates temperatures of 800-1000 C.

 

Do you really think that the floors in the WTC were designed to carry the weight of a plane? I don't know how many kg/m2 it was designed for, but n normal houses you need to check the construction papers before putting in a large aquarium. Even parts of the plane will have been to heavy.

 

Burning steel turns into rust, that can be blown away as dust. Overheated concrete turns into fragile calcium oxide that can turn into fine white dust.

A lot of the interesting evidence have turned to dust and where blown away.

 

Important peaces of evidence will have been smashed into small peaces from lager peaces of debris. And small pieces in a big mountain of debris could have been overlooked, because nobody thought they would be needed at that time.

[luke warm]

Occam's Razor could not apply to our decision as not one of us has a clue how truly difficult or simple it would be to carry out such a plan, so there is no way for any of us to make a comparison of simplicity.

first of all, occam's razor does apply because the simplest explanation that covers all the known facts is the one offered... why would you disagree with that?

Let me aks you a two questions of my own.  If controlled demolition had been the actual cause of the collapses, would you want to know it?  If it had not been the cause, what is the harm in investigating its potential in order to rule out that cause?

i will answer yours directly, as i wanted you to answer mine (and as i hope you'll do as directly)... yes and none

Your only point seems to be a recurring reliance on the necessity of an alternative conspircy and how the difficulty of carrying out such a plan then makes it unnecessary to investigate this cause.

then you have misunderstood me... my point is simply that you accuse NIST of reaching conclusions based on assumptions, rather than investigating (to your satisfaction at that) to see whether or not the collapse was caused by reasons based on *your* assumptions... iow, it's my opinion that you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing... i'll go further, i'll say that i get the impression that you *want* there to be a cause other than the one stated

[jdonn]

my point is simply that you accuse NIST of reaching conclusions based on assumptions, [.....] iow, it's my opinion that you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing...

Not to join in this, but it doesn't look to me like winston has reached any conclusions. I don't agree with everything that he has said in this thread, but he seems to have gone out of his way to avoid reaching a conclusion, merely pointing out that he believes NIST has reached a conclusion prematurely.

 

FWIW my only-semi-informed opinion is that what happened is exactly what it appears to the naked eye happened, in other words I think I believe exactly what you do about what happened.

[Winstonm]

But did you consider unlike almost all other skyscraper the WTC towers main stability was it's steel exoskeleton.

 

From what I have read, this is not accurate. The support was a combination of the inner steel beams plus the outer skeleton.

 

Did you consider that every normal apartment fire creates temperatures of 800-1000 C.

 

A Red Cross website states the average house fire is 1100F, or in the 550C range, somewhat cooler than the claim made.

 

Do you really think that the floors in the WTC were designed to carry the weight of a plane? I don't know how many kg/m2 it was designed for, but n normal houses you need to check the construction papers before putting in a large aquarium. Even parts of the plane will have been to heavy.

 

Again, what I have read says yes - the buildings were built to withstand aircraft impact, and also there was tremendous redundancy built in so that the load-bearing beams could support the structure even if a number were damaged.

 

Burning steel turns into rust, that can be blown away as dust. Overheated concrete turns into fragile calcium oxide that can turn into fine white dust.

A lot of the interesting evidence have turned to dust and where blown away.

 

Rust is oxidation. Melted steel does not become rust.

 

Important peaces of evidence will have been smashed into small peaces from lager peaces of debris. And small pieces in a big mountain of debris could have been overlooked, because nobody thought they would be needed at that time.

 

If, for example, there had been therimite charges, they would have had to be in contact with the steel, and thus micoscopic evidence would remain at the site of the cut.

[Winstonm]

first of all, occam's razor does apply because the simplest explanation that covers all the known facts is the one offered... why would you disagree with that?

 

Sorry, but how many times will I have to repeat this until it sinks it? The NIST report does not address all the known facts - that is the problem.

 

You were kind enought to answer my questions directly so I will try to answer yours directly - if I get them right.

 

Do I believe there was a conspiracy? Answer: I don't know and neither does anyone else - it was ruled out without investigation.

Do I think controlled demolition is a possibility? Yes.

Do I want a conspiracy to have occured? No. I would much prefer that the possibility had been ruled out by science, as should have been done when investigating the initial crime scene.

[Winstonm]

Not to join in this, but it doesn't look to me like winston has reached any conclusions. I don't agree with everything that he has said in this thread, but he seems to have gone out of his way to avoid reaching a conclusion, merely pointing out that he believes NIST has reached a conclusion prematurely.

 

 

Thanks, Jdonn. You seem to be the only one who grasps what I have been trying to point out in the choice of titles and my statements - that the questioning of the NIST conclusions has now gone outside the realms of tin-foil hats into a scientific journal (withholding the peer-reviewed part in deference to JT. :-) )

 

That, in iteself, should give more credence to the doubts about the conclusions of the NIST, it would seem.

[luke warm]

my point is simply that you accuse NIST of reaching conclusions based on assumptions, [.....] iow, it's my opinion that you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing...

Not to join in this, but it doesn't look to me like winston has reached any conclusions. I don't agree with everything that he has said in this thread, but he seems to have gone out of his way to avoid reaching a conclusion, merely pointing out that he believes NIST has reached a conclusion prematurely.

 

FWIW my only-semi-informed opinion is that what happened is exactly what it appears to the naked eye happened, in other words I think I believe exactly what you do about what happened.

you may be right, but i really need to know his answer to those questions before i can say for sure

You were kind enought to answer my questions directly so I will try to answer yours directly - if I get them right.

 

Do I believe there was a conspiracy?  Answer: I don't know and neither does anyone else - it was ruled out without investigation.

Do I think controlled demolition is a possibility? Yes.

Do I want a conspiracy to have occured? No.  I would much prefer that the possibility had been ruled out by science, as should have been done when investigating the initial crime scene.

thanks for the effort, but my questions (quoted for accuracy) were:

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

and

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

i didn't ask if you wanted a conspiracy to have occurred, and i stated that of course neither of us can *know* if there was one or not... i simply asked the above

[jdonn]

you may be right, but i really need to know his answer to those questions before i can say for sure

Before you can say what for sure? I don't see how what he believes actually happened matters as far as what he is arguing. Of course it can be its own discussion which might be interesting.

[Winstonm]

O.K., Jimmy, I'll try again

 

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

 

I hope this answers you: if there was controlled demolition, then there most likely was a second crime commited that day (99.99%). If one person alone could have accomplished the crime, then it would not be a conspiracy.

 

 

and

 

QUOTE 

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

 

This is more difficult now than it would have been before the NIST report. Let me answer it this way - I believe the hypothesis of controlled demolition has been well-enough stated to be of extreme importance to rule out. Of the two presentations, the NIST to me has been weaker and more politicized, while the controlled demolition hypothesis was developed after examining the evidence and finding the NIST explanation insufficient.

 

The controlled demolition hypothesis so well fits all the observable facts that it should be investigated by an independent body as a potential cause of the collapses, with access to all evidence that was available to the NIST.

 

So, I guess that means that I believe there is a higher probability that the controlled demolition hypothesis better fits the facts than the explanation from the NIST. Had the NIST been better and gone on to explain the collapse times, the white-hot flames, the white smoke, the molten metal, and the hot spots in the ground after collapse, I may well have been defending their claims.

 

So the best way I know to answer you is this: I believe the verdict is still out. I believe a thorough re-investigagtion is warranted.

[Winstonm]

you may be right, but i really need to know his answer to those questions before i can say for sure

Before you can say what for sure? I don't see how what he believes actually happened matters as far as what he is arguing. Of course it can be its own discussion which might be interesting.

Actually, discussing how a conspiracy could have occured might make an interesting subject - but not on this thread.

 

My main goal for this thread was to avoid supposition and stick to what is known. That is the reason I avoided being dragged into a conspiracy debate.

[luke warm]

you may be right, but i really need to know his answer to those questions before i can say for sure

Before you can say what for sure? ~~

before i can say that he believes it more likely there was a conspiracy than that there wasn't... and now that he answered the questions, we're both on record... i said he believed there was a conspiracy and he said he believed it was more likely there was a conspiracy than that there wasn't...

 

i believe there was no conspiracy, i believe 9/11 was an act of terror by forces who hate the u.s. ... any controlled demolition would have had to be planned weeks if not months ahead of time with foreknown data (and not by one person only, since the very fact that it had to be known would make it a conspiracy on some level)... i do not believe that happened

[Winstonm]

i said he believed there was a conspiracy and he said he believed it was more likely there was a conspiracy than that there wasn't...

 

Jimmy, there you go putting words into my mouth again. Would you please not do that? For the record, here is what I said:

 

So, I guess that means that I believe there is a higher probability that the controlled demolition hypothesis better fits the facts than the explanation from the NIST

 

All this means is that of these two probabilities, I judge one to be higher than the other. Perhaps there are third, fourth, or even fifth probabilites that explain all the observable data with no controlled demolition. In that case, I'd rate controlled demolition as a very low probabilty.

 

However, we are only talking about two hyptheses - the one from the NIST versus the controlled demolition hypothesis. It is not saying one is right and the other is wrong - it is saying of these two, one is more likely as it includes an explaination for all the data, where the other does not.

 

I go back to the analogy of investigating a death. We find a body with a gunshot wound to the temple, and a gun lying beside the dead man's hand.

 

Hypothesis #1 says: suicide.

Hypothesis #2 says: there is no powder residue on the temple, no residue on the dead man's hand, no fingerprints on the gun - murder is more likely.

 

Of these two, #2 is more likely due to the evidence. But it does not mean it is right....it is found that a hidden camera has recorded the entire scene. The man keeps the gun on top of a shelf. Just as he walks into the room, an earthquake strikes, dislodging the gun, which hits the floor, accidentally discharging a round that strikes the man in the temple, killing him instantly, and he collapses onto the floor with his hand beside the gun.

 

Capiche?

[luke warm]

well winston, i honestly don't think i put words in your mouth... you said

... if there was controlled demolition, then there most likely was a second crime commited that day (99.99%). If one person alone could have accomplished the crime, then it would not be a conspiracy."

how in the world is it possible for one person to do that, with no foreknowledge of coming events? coincidence? blind luck? and if there was a "second crime" committed, and ruling out coincidence and blind luck, there had to be a conspiracy

 

then, since in your opinion the probability is higher that a controlled demolition was the main culprit than not, the probability must be higher that there was a conspiracy than not

 

a. in the absence of coincidence or blind luck, if there was a controlled demolition there was a conspiracy

b. the odds favor a controlled demolition

therefore in the absence of coincidence or blind luck, the odds favor a conspiracy

 

now if that isn't an accurate reflection of what you've said i don't know what is

 

and yes, i capisci your analogy although i don't think it's particularly apt

[Winstonm]

I believe this to be the main point.

 

NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.

 

If you cannot provide an explanation, perhaps you should consider other causes.

[Winstonm]

first of all, occam's razor does apply because the simplest explanation that covers all the known facts is the one offered... why would you disagree with that?

 

I never got around to answering this question, but it appears that it is important, as I had thought you already knew about the missing or ignored data. The fact is, NIST does not cover all the known facts. Here are 4 of those points - and there are others.

 

1)

NIST: “NIST 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.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”.

 

There is no steel from WTC to test.

 

2)

NIST: “An 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

 

“NIST 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

 

Never explained by the NIST.

 

3)

FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 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. …The 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.

 

Is not covered by the NIST report.

 

4)

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did 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”.

 

Self explanatory.

 

The authors' response:

 

We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting 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.

 

These are some of the explanation problems that were not addressed by the NIST or by FEMA - leaving them out does not mean Occam's Razor shaved them off.

 

The really troubling aspect is that controlled demolition would explain these unexplained occurences.

[hotShot]

If you want to create a simulation of an accident the usual route to follow is to make controlled experiments with a lot of sensors producing data.

It was done for crash tests for cars, but because the engineers and scientists involved will never guarantee that the simulation is perfect, there are still a few cars crashed at the end.

 

There have been no test or simulations for planes *intentionally* hitting buildings. There had been simulations for nuclear power plants, but they where done assuming that the plane is slow and the crew is trying to avoid a collision.

The really troubling aspect is that controlled demolition would explain these unexplained occurences.

 

But how does controlled demolition explain these facts?

 

For controlled demolition of a building you need to drill holes deep into the structure to place explosives or thermite there. Usually the structure is weakened with big machines before that.

It takes days to weeks to drill the holes and weeks of planing.

 

How did anyone manage to do that (twice) between the impact of the plane(s) and the collapse?

 

If they did it prior to the attack, how did they manage to do that while the building was populated with more than 10000 people?

And why didn't they just ordered the airline to secure the cockpit doors as it is done in Israel for years.

 

Did they plant the controlled demolition materials inside the building, at the time it was originally built?

Wouldn't that be irresponsibly dangerous to do that?

[luke warm]

But how does controlled demolition explain these facts?

 

For controlled demolition of a building you need to drill holes deep into the structure to place explosives or thermite there. Usually the structure is weakened with big machines before that.

It takes days to weeks to drill the holes and weeks of planing.

 

How did anyone manage to do that (twice) between the impact of the plane(s) and the collapse?

 

If they did it prior to the attack, how did they manage to do that while the building was populated with more than 10000 people?

And why didn't they just ordered the airline to secure the cockpit doors as it is done in Israel for years.

 

Did they plant the controlled demolition materials inside the building, at the time it was originally built?

Wouldn't that be irresponsibly dangerous to do that?

exactly so... this was done years ahead of time, during construction - with an aim of bringing the towers down at the right time in the future to show good cause for an invasion of iraq... there will be another so-called terrorist attack within the year that will justify an attack on iran, this also planned years ago

[Winstonm]

But how does controlled demolition explain these facts?

 

Facts or suppositions?

 

For controlled demolition of a building you need to drill holes deep into the structure to place explosives or thermite there. Usually the structure is weakened with big machines before that.

It takes days to weeks to drill the holes and weeks of planing.

 

I think it is a stretch to call these claims fact unless you are a professional in the industry, but regardless I am not an expert so will have to rely on someone else to respond:

 

"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:

 

…Although 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.'

 

As the quote says, it is possible. I cannot address the difficulty or time as I am not an expert in that field. However, although not conclusive proof, pictures I have viewed of demolition experts placing thermite charges for building demolition show the thermite being placed on the outside of the beam at approximately a 45 degree angle. The thermite charges are not large, about the same size as a piece of rope.

 

How did anyone manage to do that (twice) between the impact of the plane(s) and the collapse?

 

This is a fact? I do not believe anyone has suggested this as fact or even supposition.

 

If they did it prior to the attack, how did they manage to do that while the building was populated with more than 10000 people?

 

I guess the "fact" you cannot correlate is that the building was populated? I agree with the fact that the building was populated - that has no bearing on the physical evidence of demolition. Do not place the cart prior to positioning the horse - first determine cause; secondly determine methods.

This reasoning is flawed, that A cannot occur because B is difficult, as is also flawed the reasoning that A cannot occur because I cannot understand how B is possible, or that B seems impossible. This latter is the basis for the illusions created by magicians. Do you accept that because you cannot understand the mechanism, that the elephant on stage genuinely disappeared? Of course not.

 

Then what is the difficulty applying this same reasoning to the WTC towers?

 

And why didn't they just ordered the airline to secure the cockpit doors as it is done in Israel for years.

 

I guess here the "fact" is that Israel has done something for years? Were the WTC towers in Israel?

 

Did they plant the controlled demolition materials inside the building, at the time it was originally built?

 

 

What is the "fact" here? Regardless, I doubt this scenario occured.

 

Wouldn't that be irresponsibly dangerous to do that?

 

I would certainly think so.

 

Now let's look at 3 physical facts that were not addressed by the NIST:

 

1) A bright fire, releasing white smoke, was seen shortly before the collapse - introduced by NIST, left unexplained.

2) Core columns with sulphur residue and exposure to extreme heat - introduced by FEMA - left unexplained by NIST.

3) NIST 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” - This glowing, flowing liquid left unexplained by NIST.

 

Now let's simply look at these unanswered questions with a hypothesis of controlled demolition:

1) An extremely bright flame, releasing white smoke fits perfectly with ignition of thermite.

2) Thermite, or one of its derivatives, would expose steel to extreme heat - perhaps thermate would leave sulphur residue.

3) Thermite, or one of its derivatives, can melt steel - molten steel is the same color as this glowing, flowing liquid.

 

These are real facts, reported by the investigating bodies - perhaps you would care to show proof that the NIST could not that ariplane impact and jet fueld created all three physical occurences?

 

Of course, it is much easier to simply accept as fact that the elephant really did just disappear.

[Winstonm]

But how does controlled demolition explain these facts?

 

For controlled demolition of a building you need to drill holes deep into the structure to place explosives or thermite there. Usually the structure is weakened with big machines before that.

It takes days to weeks to drill the holes and weeks of planing.

 

How did anyone manage to do that (twice) between the impact of the plane(s) and the collapse?

 

If they did it prior to the attack, how did they manage to do that while the building was populated with more than 10000 people?

And why didn't they just ordered the airline to secure the cockpit doors as it is done in Israel for years.

 

Did they plant the controlled demolition materials inside the building, at the time it was originally built?

Wouldn't that be  irresponsibly dangerous to do that?

exactly so... this was done years ahead of time, during construction - with an aim of bringing the towers down at the right time in the future to show good cause for an invasion of iraq... there will be another so-called terrorist attack within the year that will justify an attack on iran, this also planned years ago

This seems to be an example of belief that if A=B, and I cannot understand or explain B, then A must be wrong and therefore I should disparage and belittle any claim of B.

 

But which is wrong, the claim made by B or the reader's understanding of how B might coccur? Is then the disparagement an excercise in reasoning or simply an assuaging of ego?

[jtfanclub]

1) A bright fire, releasing white smoke, was seen shortly before the collapse - introduced by NIST, left unexplained.

2) Core columns with sulphur residue and exposure to extreme heat - introduced by FEMA - left unexplained by NIST.

3) NIST 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” - This glowing, flowing liquid left unexplained by NIST.

I understand your 'method' completely...anything that would be contrary to imagined world of explosives is disregarded as 'non-expert'. Meanwhile, you bring up evidence like somebody talking about how to detect thermite IN A HOME ARSON CASE to argue that it would be easy to detect in a PLANE CRASH INTO A SKYSCRAPER.

 

At first, I thought you were an honest person wondering about something that some crackpots posted. Now, I see that you're one of the crackpots.

 

As previously mentioned, all three of these are explained by the melting and subsequent buringing of the aircraft fusilage. Meanwhile, nothing you mention is explained in the least by demolitions. A fire on the level of the Tower burnings would destroy any demolition device in existence, and whether it would detonate as it was destroyed would depend upon the explosive. I don't know if you think this was an invulnerable explosive or if Superman flew up there and planted the explosives just before it fell to earth, but both seem equally insane to me.

 

I'm sorry, but you've been gradually becoming more and more incoherent as this has gone on. You still don't have a single counter-argument as to why these three things could not be the fusilage burining. And I suspect, you never will.

 

The NIST report is conclusive. That you refuse to accept that is your loss.

[luke warm]

At first, I thought you were an honest person wondering about something that some crackpots posted. Now, I see that you're one of the crackpots.

i don't believe winston is a crackpot... i do believe, and have tried to show, that he has a penchant for suspecting conspiracy where the us gov't is involved

[Al_U_Card]

Imagine, for a moment, the worst possible scenario.

 

The US gov. wants its arab "Pearl Harbor" to exert its influence in the middle east. (For whatever reasons.)

 

The WTC has been a target in the past and a building contractor says.... give me the rights to the insurance payoff and I will make sure that no matter how little damage the towers sustain, they will not be habitable after the "incident".

 

The fact that the towers were so successfully eradicated is one of the main factors to discount conspiracy and planned demolition. Too good to be possible (especially by the doofus leadership) but a lifetime ago, they took out a "mothball" fleet in Hawaii to get into a war. The precedent exists.

 

The bigger picture is sometimes not very nice to look at.

[Winstonm]

I'm sorry, but you've been gradually becoming more and more incoherent as this has gone on. You still don't have a single counter-argument as to why these three things could not be the fusilage burining. And I suspect, you never will.

 

The NIST report is conclusive. That you refuse to accept that is your loss.

 

Because "why these things could not be fuselage burning" is not a good enough answer - supposition is not proof - and the refutations are available in many different articles, and any I would make would be a restatement of those that I might get wrong, and they would simply be met with more non-proven claims.

 

For example, molten aluminum is silvery in color, not glowing orange. If you believe the claims that this was molten fuselage mixed with other debris that turned it orange, then you have not looked at the evidence of this possibility (i.e., if indeed molten aluminum and other burning debris can be mixed to create an orange liquid - did the NIST show laboratory tests where they accomplished this feat?). In one of your initial posts in this thread, you called the authors of the article "whackos" because they did not bother to include the possibility of the molten aluminum from the airplaine - that to me shows a bias against anything that does not fit your worldview.

 

Closing of one's mind is the greatler loss, IMO.

 

No hard feelings. Best of luck to you.

[hotShot]

The NIST has a scientific and legal responsibility, they have to be able to prove anything they say. Their prove must be good enough to stand uncontested at court.

So if they say, they don't know, you should read it as "we can't prove it" and not as "we don't have a clue".

 

Lets use our imagination and assume that there is concrete that is cheaper than "the good stuff" that has more than traces of calcium sulfate in it. It's decomposition could release those sulfur components responsible for some of the steel corrosion. Such a finding your mean that the terrorists are not (fully) responsible for the collapse of the towers, but the architect, construction company and the officials who check such buildings.

It would make a much better conspiracy theory to say they are covering something like that.

 

The controlled demolition theory, has some very funny implications.

 

1) Everything was done between the impact and the collapse.

=> Superman exists.

 

2) The charges where present prior to the impact

=>Flying airplanes into the building was completely unnecessary, someone could have used the charges without them.

 

3) A lot of people have been bold and blind when the charges where planted.

 

If you think the NIST report does not explain everything, thats true, they don't. But what they find is not inconsistent with what everybody saw happen, it's more like they did not have data and events to compare their findings with.

 

And maybe controlled demolition may explain some of the details that NIST scientists refused to explain officially, but it is inconclusive and illogical and creates much more questions than it answers.

 

The only problem I can see that the official explanation has is that they estimate (and they only have an estimation) the temperature caused by the fire is lower than the temperature they need to explain what happened

 

The reason for this is obvious, there are/were no former data to feed into a simulation that could calculate the temperature of this fire.

 

Scientist proved using all knowledge in biology and flight engineering had at that time, that the bumble-bee can't fly. No to mention what they said about the Titanic.

 

The are to many "don't know exactly" involved to calculate the temperature. You need an oxygen supply and something that acts as a chimney that draws (very) well. Without knowledge of the interior after the crash you are just guessing.

The NIST would have to say: "We don't know."

 

With all that debris from the buildings, it's easy to imagine that important evidence was not recognized as such when it was removed.

 

Nothing that was mentioned as unexplained, is unexplainable. The expected temperature inside the burning area will have been close to 1000 deg. C hot enough to cause all the damage necessary to make the building collapse. Aluminum burns with a very bright white flame, so seeing a bright white fire would not be unexplainable and eyewitnesses are often not very reliable. Especially if they saw the TV reports and heard other victims/witnesses talk about what happened.

[Winstonm]

The NIST has a scientific and legal responsibility, they have to be able to prove anything they say. Their prove must be good enough to stand uncontested at court.

So if they say, they don't know, you should read it as "we can't prove it" and not as "we don't have a clue".

 

Lets use our imagination and assume that there is concrete that is cheaper than "the good stuff" that has more than traces of calcium sulfate in it. It's decomposition could release those sulfur components responsible for some of the steel corrosion. Such a finding your mean that the terrorists are not (fully) responsible for the collapse of the towers, but the architect, construction company and the officials who check such buildings.

It would make a much better conspiracy theory to say they are covering something like that.

 

The controlled demolition theory, has some very funny implications.

 

1) Everything was done between the impact and the collapse.

=> Superman exists.

 

2) The charges where present prior to the impact

=>Flying airplanes into the building was completely unnecessary, someone could have used the charges without them.

 

3) A lot of people have been bold and blind when the charges where planted.

 

If you think the NIST report does not explain everything, thats true, they don't. But what they find is not inconsistent with what everybody saw happen, it's more like they did not have data and events to compare their findings with.

 

And maybe controlled demolition may explain some of the details that NIST scientists refused to explain officially, but it is inconclusive and illogical and creates much more questions than it answers.

 

The only problem I can see that the official explanation has is that they estimate (and they only have an estimation) the temperature caused by the fire is lower than the temperature they need to explain what happened

 

The reason for this is obvious, there are/were no former data to feed into a simulation that could calculate the temperature of this fire.

 

Scientist proved using all knowledge in biology and flight engineering had at that time, that the bumble-bee can't fly. No to mention what they said about the Titanic.

 

The are to many "don't know exactly" involved to calculate the temperature. You need an oxygen supply and something that acts as a chimney that draws (very) well. Without knowledge of the interior after the  crash you are just guessing.

The NIST would have to say: "We don't know."

 

With all that debris from the buildings, it's easy to imagine that important evidence was not recognized as such when it was removed.

 

Nothing that was mentioned as unexplained, is unexplainable. The expected temperature inside the burning area will have been close to 1000 deg. C hot enough to cause all the damage necessary to make the building collapse. Aluminum burns with a very bright white flame, so seeing a bright white fire would not be unexplainable and eyewitnesses are often not very reliable.  Especially if they saw the TV reports and heard other victims/witnesses talk about what happened.

That is the most reasonable presentation I have read. I have never claimed the NIST report was purposefullly deceptive, but I don't think it's too much to say that any government agency can be influenced by politics and politicians.

 

Most seem to think a puposeful controlled demolition too complex to have been carried out, and it seemed that way to me for quite some time. But the more I considered it the less complex it seemed.

 

At the same time, the NIST presentation is also quite complex and seems impossible.

 

And there is still the problem of WTC 7, left unexplained.