![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
I can't post replies anymore ,i guess the thread is too big.The comment box is gone and i ve been refreshing for the past hour or so.
Anyways
Lets make a case for 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
http://www.youtube.com/v/rQhnB5s_A5s
http://www.youtube.com/v/g6Z36kkixz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyqt-8RnKI&am...r_embedded
_________________
Evidence Of Thermite On
WTC Core Columns
http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm
_________________
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtcplan.jpg
Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc4a.jpg
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc5fire.jpg
Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc1a.jpg
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806building6.jpg
In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/911/9-11%20Picture4.jpg
wtc 7
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&am...r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6aEqAlTVU&am...r_embedded
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
---------------------------------
• Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
• Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&am...r_embedded
list of hundreds of professors questioning the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Griscom
---------------------------------
James James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES...llapse.wmv]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/...]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?cPath=...
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://patriotsquestion911.com%20/p
----------------------------
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.
Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.
I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.
Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).
Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."
------------------
Leslie Robertson - Structural Engineer / Designer of WTC:
On the Structural Engineers Association of Utah's website, James Williams (SEAU President) described what Robertson said at an October 2001 conference: "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running".
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/hotslagil3.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Bro...esized.jpg
NIST is the source of the photo above. NIST admitted doctoring the image.The intensity levels have been adjusted
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/5.jpg
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/ima...9top11.jpg
_____________________
America's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed
FDNY commander said south tower implosion "too even" to be caused by jet fuel
A man described as "the premiere collapse expert in the country" thought the collapse of the south tower of the WTC was caused by explosives and not jet fuel, before the implosion of the north tower killed him on 9/11.
Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command, was also described by colleagues as "the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was," and 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse."
According to a World Trade Center Task Force interview with FDNY' Chaplain Father John Delendick, immediately after the collapse of the south tower at 9:59am, Delendick met with Downey below the nearby World Financial Center and asked him if jet fuel had brought about the bizarre and sudden implosion of the building. According to Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."
Downey was a highly respected figure, having commanded rescue operations at both the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. His colleagues simply referred to him as "God" or "The Master of Disaster".
Downey was a 39-year FDNY veteran and the most highly decorated firefighter in its history.
Fire Chief Mike Antonucci , Downey's best friend, said that Downey's hobby was "To study building collapses, what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe."
The weight of Downey's eyewitness testimony and his conclusion that bombs brought down the south tower is of massive significance as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, a date of mourning for Downey's family due to the fact that he was tragically killed later that day following the collapse of the north tower as he tried to help others escape.
Downey's testimony is added to the assertions of hundreds of leading academics, scientists, former government and military officials and researchers , who have all questioned the impossible collapse of both the twin towers and WTC 7, and singled out incendiary or explosive devices as the only means by which the structures could have fell in the manner they did.
___________________________
Study claims ‘highly engineered explosive’ found in WTC rubble
A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* iphone app
In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal — a peer-reviewed, scientific publication — Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of “a highly engineered explosive,” contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.
“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center,” reads the paper’s abstract. “One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).”
link to the journal: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php...7TOCPJ.SGM
------------------------------------------
BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a ‘Conspiracy’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ&am...r_embedded
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse
____________________
Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus'
United Press International | June 14, 2005
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
______
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence
for Controlled Demolition
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/images//produ...ural_m.jpg
______
I posted about 30% of the evidence if that
Any questions ?
Anyways
Lets make a case for 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
http://www.youtube.com/v/rQhnB5s_A5s
http://www.youtube.com/v/g6Z36kkixz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyqt-8RnKI&am...r_embedded
_________________
Evidence Of Thermite On
WTC Core Columns
http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm
_________________
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtcplan.jpg
Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc4a.jpg
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc5fire.jpg
Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc1a.jpg
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806building6.jpg
In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/911/9-11%20Picture4.jpg
wtc 7
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&am...r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6aEqAlTVU&am...r_embedded
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
---------------------------------
• Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
• Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&am...r_embedded
list of hundreds of professors questioning the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Griscom
---------------------------------
James James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES...llapse.wmv]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/...]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?cPath=...
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://patriotsquestion911.com%20/p
----------------------------
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.
Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.
I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.
Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).
Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."
------------------
Leslie Robertson - Structural Engineer / Designer of WTC:
On the Structural Engineers Association of Utah's website, James Williams (SEAU President) described what Robertson said at an October 2001 conference: "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running".
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/hotslagil3.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Bro...esized.jpg
NIST is the source of the photo above. NIST admitted doctoring the image.The intensity levels have been adjusted
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/5.jpg
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/ima...9top11.jpg
_____________________
America's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed
FDNY commander said south tower implosion "too even" to be caused by jet fuel
A man described as "the premiere collapse expert in the country" thought the collapse of the south tower of the WTC was caused by explosives and not jet fuel, before the implosion of the north tower killed him on 9/11.
Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command, was also described by colleagues as "the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was," and 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse."
According to a World Trade Center Task Force interview with FDNY' Chaplain Father John Delendick, immediately after the collapse of the south tower at 9:59am, Delendick met with Downey below the nearby World Financial Center and asked him if jet fuel had brought about the bizarre and sudden implosion of the building. According to Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."
Downey was a highly respected figure, having commanded rescue operations at both the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. His colleagues simply referred to him as "God" or "The Master of Disaster".
Downey was a 39-year FDNY veteran and the most highly decorated firefighter in its history.
Fire Chief Mike Antonucci , Downey's best friend, said that Downey's hobby was "To study building collapses, what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe."
The weight of Downey's eyewitness testimony and his conclusion that bombs brought down the south tower is of massive significance as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, a date of mourning for Downey's family due to the fact that he was tragically killed later that day following the collapse of the north tower as he tried to help others escape.
Downey's testimony is added to the assertions of hundreds of leading academics, scientists, former government and military officials and researchers , who have all questioned the impossible collapse of both the twin towers and WTC 7, and singled out incendiary or explosive devices as the only means by which the structures could have fell in the manner they did.
___________________________
Study claims ‘highly engineered explosive’ found in WTC rubble
A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* iphone app
In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal — a peer-reviewed, scientific publication — Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of “a highly engineered explosive,” contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.
“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center,” reads the paper’s abstract. “One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).”
link to the journal: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php...7TOCPJ.SGM
------------------------------------------
BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a ‘Conspiracy’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ&am...r_embedded
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse
____________________
Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus'
United Press International | June 14, 2005
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
______
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence
for Controlled Demolition
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/images//produ...ural_m.jpg
______
I posted about 30% of the evidence if that
Any questions ?
44906 Hits
