SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

California | Central Valley | U.S. | Government & Elections | Police State and Prisons | Front Page

Government Report on WTC Building #7 Defies Laws of Physics
by Dan Bacher
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2008 1:59 PM
Independent architects and structural engineers have submitted evidence of controlled demolition, disputing NIST’s theory of 9/11 building collapses as "contrary to all historical, visual and physical evidence."
200306wtc7.jpg
200306wtc7.jpg

Trish Stevens
Ascot Media Group, Inc.
1120 Nasa Parkway, Suite 220
Nassau Bay, TX 77058
tstevens [at] ascotmedia.com
http://www.ascotmedia.com
Office: (281) 333-3507
Direct: (281) 748-5094


For Immediate Release

Government Report Defies Laws of Physics

Architects & Structural Engineers Submit Evidence of Controlled Demolition, Disputing NIST’s Theory of 9/11 Building Collapses

Houston, TX, September 9, 2008 -- The conclusions from a recent report (8/21/08) submitted by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding World Trade Center-7’s destruction on September 11, 2001 is contrary to all historical, visual, and physical evidence, according to an independent worldwide organization composed of more than 470 engineers and architects. WTC-7 was a 47-story skyscraper located more than a football field away from the North Tower and was not hit by any airplane, yet completely collapsed hours after the Twin Towers fell in a similar manner.

“Our engineers are preparing a technical response to the many problems in NIST’s report,” states architect Richard Gage, AIA, “but one critical element is simple: In the history of steel-framed structures, no high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire before, even when other fires were hotter, more widespread, and lasted far longer…and yet this is the explanation NIST expects us to accept.”

Kamal Obeid, a licensed Structural Engineer, concurs. “Nothing we are being told by NIST justifies how the destruction of WTC-7 and the Twin Towers was so fast, so symmetrical, and produced so much pulverized concrete. Fire in steel-framed high-rises simply cannot cause it to collapse like a house of cards. Let’s remember the Twin Tower fires only encompassed the upper floors, and burned for less than two hours. And yet, what we witnessed were three total collapses at near free-fall speed.”

Adds Structural Engineer Ron Brookman, “Many people say that 9/11 changed everything, but it didn’t change the laws of physics.”

It appears there is one explanation that these structural engineers, architects, and physicists steadfastly agree upon: Explosive Controlled Demolition.

“There is an abundance of evidence which NIST refuses to look at or even account for that clearly points to controlled demolition as the source that destroyed these buildings,” states Dr. Steven Jones, a physicist and retired professor at Brigham Young University who examined the pulverized dust at Ground Zero. “Chemical analysis found traces of thermite, a compound long used to melt steel. It is disturbing that NIST refuses to acknowledge the presence of thermite in the debris or the pools of molten metal that numerous rescue workers found “flowing like lava” in the rubble. The extremely high temperatures (4,000 + degrees Fahrenheit) associated with this molten metal is confirmed by NASA sensors, and could never have been caused by jet fuel fires, which burn at 800-1,200 degrees Fahrenhe it. Steel melts around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Thermite is designed to melt steel, jet fuel cannot.”

More evidence pointing to a Thermite Controlled Demolition: Iron-rich microspheres discovered by the US Geological Survey heavily dispersed throughout the disaster site are only produced by thermite under explosive conditions. More than one hundred rescue workers testified they heard explosions just prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Family members of 9/11 victims asked many of these same questions at NIST’s recent technical briefing. Over 470 architects and engineers are lending their voices and considerable expertise to those 9/11 families and many others now demanding a true independent investigation with subpoena power to find out what really happened on September 11, 2001.

###

TIP SHEET

Richard Gage, Dr. Stephen Jones, Ron Brookman, and Kamal Obeid are available for individual or group interviews. Dr. Jones and Richard Gage have appeared on dozens of interviews worldwide, including the BBC.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Arthur Scheuerman
Wednesday Sep 10th, 2008 8:17 AM
The NIST investigation was mainly interested in what caused the WTC collapses. They have discovered that the long span open area high rise design and construction with week connections was unable to withstand the effects of a large out of control fire over several floors and that this fire was sufficient to deconstruct both the towers and building 7. NIST is saying is that explosives were not necessary and were not used in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc.

I would like to know who is paying the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth’s Richard Gage to go all around the country to spread his pseudoscientific deluge of misinformation typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent enough time and experimental effort examining the evidence. Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or fire protection area, just dismiss the reports of the top Fire Protection engineering experts in their fields and take some theological professor’s absurd babble as gospel. I suppose if their car broke down they would call the pizza man. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeatedly echoed on the internet without any research or fact checking. Four years after the 9/11 attack and without inspecting any of the steel the Architect Richard Gage was listening to some equally uninformed Philosophy Professor, David Ray Griffin and had an epiphany and from then on he ‘knew’ that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. “That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second.” How does he know all the columns failed at the same moment? These lower columns were out of sight of the cameras. The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but the outside frame was very strong and there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been many exterior columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower exterior columns had failed. Building 7 took over 13 seconds to collapse not 6. NIST computer models show that the building was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling beams, disconnecting structural steel, and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The connections were so week that that the collapse progressed across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. Now that’s an architectural and engineering problem. I want to hear what the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth think about a building that can loose one column which starts a progressive collapse that brings down the whole building.

The top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene immediately and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of Building 5 from fire when the steel beams pulled out from their connections. These are all recognized experts in their fields and have to get things right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt a person inexperienced in the fire protection field could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted by the 9/11 ‘truthers’ for being ‘in-on’ the conspiracy.

Kevin Ryan knew nothing about how floor assemblies are tested by his own company Underwriters Laboratory. He reported that they tested the steel and it withstood 2000 deg for 3 and 4 hours. The UL tests floor and wall assemblies not the steel per se. The problem is that the long span floors used in the towers were never tested in their long span composite configuration of 60 feet. Building 7 also used long span steel “I” beams. As any architect knows the longer span floors require either massive joists or beams uneconomical for high rise buildings or specially designed construction such as steel trusses. What most architects apparently don’t know is that lightweight, long span steel trusses and “I” beams can fail at fire temperatures not yet compensated for in the codes. The standard furnace test can only handle 17 foot lengths of flooring and doesn’t test the connections for fire exposure. The furnace standards were set in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s when about 15 to 20 feet was the standard span used in high rises built for the more conservative codes used at that time. These older buildings used shorter spans, more robust columns and beams, stronger connections and better fireproofing then now. If a floor failed the push-out forces of expansion and the pull-in (catenary) forces created by the short spans were easily handled by the strength of the rest of the structure. For this reason the codes allowed floors to have a shorter (3 hour) rating than the columns and girders (4 hours). The 17 foot furnace test, currently still used, is meaningless for the longer spans and connections. The main problem in the WTC flooring was due to the differential elongation (expansion) of the steel parts of the trusses. NIST’s studies found that the different expansion rates immediately deformed the steel parts, buckled the top chords and struts and disconnected the composite bond between the concrete slab and the joists. Greater thermal expansion of the bottom chords releases the tension and allows the cool top chord to sag until it acts as a cable in suspension creating pull-in forces on the columns. Contraction of sagging, long span steel flooring during the cool down faze after fire die down puts heavy pull-in loads on the connections. It is known now that Building 7 collapsed from expansion and contraction in the beams disconnecting enough of the beams and girders to affect column stability. The whole interior and core failed before the perimeter wall which came down as a unit at 40% less than free fall speed.

Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these loud sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse. Some ‘thunder’ sounds were heard before the columns buckled and these were probably from floors collapsing. Explosive forces great enough to destroy the columns would be as loud as ten times the decibel level (140 db) of standing next to the speakers at a rock concert.

The undamaged exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have had to have happened with controlled demolition.

When the undamaged south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. This bowing was witnessed and video taped by the Police Aviation Unit. In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when some floors apparently collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these 'supposed explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south column wall failure. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors after the top of the building began falling. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward from the building at great velocity by the bellows effect of the floors coming together so quickly.

Initial Collapse Cause

Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because once the collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration. By dint of super computers running for extended periods of time NIST did examine almost the complete collapse sequence of building 7.

Bar joist Floors

It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses in the towers with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying its composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses that buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and this also helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. Differential thermal expansion of the concrete and steel has also been shown by NIST to disconnect the knuckles (knuckles are the steel tops of the bent over bars in the trusses which are imbedded in the concrete slab) from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors.

All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (300 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Since the steel still has its strength expansion can break the bolts holding the beam and bow or buckle the beam itself and the longer the beam the further it can expand. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of sagging trusses or ‘I’ beams after the fire ‘burns out’ or dies down can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns and core columns due to the contraction of the sagging steel trusses or ‘I’ beams.

Columns

In order for a column to support the loads it has to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. The fact is, columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The tower buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists composite action affecting floor truss stability. The sagging, 60 foot long, floor trusses gradually pulled-in the 59 columns in one exterior wall in each tower and these column walls eventually buckled removing support on one entire side. In Building 7 floor failures from steel expansion and/or contraction disconnecting the floor beams exposed a critical column to loss of lateral restraint over many floors causing the column to buckle and remove support for all the floors above and starting the complete collapse of the building.

In the Towers once the exterior columns buckling spread, along an entire wall removing support on one face, the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and the towers began to tilt. With all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have began falling straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top building section pulled the core along with the entire top over to the south. This is especially telling since with all the damage from the plane impact on the north side, the tower should have leaned over to the north. The South Towers’ top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. Once the tower’s tops began tilting all the columns across the buildings would eventually be out of alignment enough to have easily buckled.

The core columns depended on the floors for lateral support once they lost lateral support and got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. After the upper part of the buildings began descending, with the incredible weight of the top of the buildings’ gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. This is coupled with the fact that the falling top section’s momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section's increasing mass of impacted floors acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts were increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing in amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than 'free fall' times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted tower’s tops began descending the columns hit the floors or the lower columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top, the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and plumb and this was impossible with the top of the building leaning causing eccentric angles of impact.

Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the east wall buckled in Tower 2, the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which were still attached and acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. Because of the weight of the accumulating collapsing floors, there was a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars.

Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana after the building top began to impact the floors, these wall columns may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns, these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapidity of the collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than 'free fall' times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.

The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (300 to 400 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesn’t break up as it falls outward it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls, however, did break at the weak splices as they fell. The fact that the exterior wall columns can be seen in the videos and pictures falling outward and downward and reaching the ground before the tower finished collapsing proves that the tower did not collapse faster than free fall times. These outer wall sections were falling at free fall speed and apparently were the first to hit the ground.

The compression of the 12 foot chunk of air on each floor down to a fraction of an inch in a fraction of a second as the floors came together would propel the air smoke and dust outward from the building at great velocity. The lightweight aluminum cladding as it broke free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This air compression would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off the aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive 'squibs'. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial compressive weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel and especially in aluminum, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.

The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out any path of least resistance or any of the HVAC air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards sideways from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shafts built into the building. These vertical shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors.
Deep Seated Pockets of Fire
After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity to the fire until the steel is glowing red, orange or yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith forge fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. I talked to a blacksmith at Old Bethpage Restoration on Long Island and he told me that he can create enough heat to burn and melt the steel and it sometimes happens when he is talking to people and absent mindedly keeps pulling the bellows chord and feeding air into the coals. Burning the iron melts the steel and ruins the work. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel or iron is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer.

The deep seated fires which occur in the rubble are supplied with air because natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its bouyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draws in more air. After a collapse there is more combustible material avalable to feed the fire. Like in a furnace the containment of heat by insulation provided by the compacted combustible material surrounding the fire allowes the gradual increase of temperature. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed in these deep seated pockets of fire in the rubble of a collapsed building.

Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation and the angle of the cuts were erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut. These steel microspheres could also have been produced during the buildings’ construction by welders and retained in the concrete or else where only to be released during the collapse.

The deep seated pockets of fire often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be quickly extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such ordinary fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with enough oxygen.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane or aluminum from the tower’s own cladding which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards. In the some people’s minds molten metal becomes rivers of molten steel.

Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid they are over in a matter of seconds and wouldn't last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed. As far as I know thermite has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn’t exist. Thermite is hard to control and can’t be held against the columns because it would burn or melt down through any material used to support it against the columns long enough to do enough damage to cause the column to buckle.

About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says "the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range." http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during the pouring and finishing operation.

Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 4 of their buildings collapsed from fire? (Building 5 had a serious interior multiple floor collapse due to fire.) Do you know that the Port Authority of NY, NJ didn't legally have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on most of the exterior column, bolted splices and not because of the ridiculous idea that they were broken up into short pieces, presumably by explosives, ‘so they would fit onto the trucks to be carried away’. The long span truss floors were never tested for fire resistance at their design length. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings after they collapsed while the building engineers had them all along? I am astounded to think the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth would be more accepting of a ridiculous excuse,-the wild idea that explosives or thermite was involved,- that would allow them to avoid the introspection necessary to fully realize their own ignorance of fire safety precautions.

About the eye witnesses hearing supposed explosions; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. Most of the people in tower 2 did not know tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and even felt the radiant heat produced by the fireball. Often at fires the ones closest to the fires and engaged in heavy work or evacuation have a very limited overall conception of what is actually happening. When you don’t know what’s happening especially in the dark your imagination starts to work. Barry Jennings said he was stepping over dead bodies when being led out of building 7 after it was hit by pieces of Tower 1. He later admitted that he never actually saw these bodies. He must have imagined it. When tower 2 collapsed most of the people in Tower 1 thought the sounds and vibrations came from the building they were in and they even felt a rush of air up the stairs as the air was compressed in the cellars. There can also be smoke explosions (backdrafts) particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. One elevator shaft that extended into the cellars had a fuel-air explosion from the jet fuel spilling down and evaporating in the shaft. There were other fuel-air explosions in the elevator shafts. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Explosives produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf or blow out eardrums and usually blow out all the windows on the particular floor and in any buildings nearby. This kind of sharp piercing crack was not heard. The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque or bending forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. These lower exterior columns were further apart than the columns above; this to let additional light into the lobby. The lower core columns were stronger and more securely braced to compensate for this weakness of the exterior columns. This fact was probably responsible for saving the lives of the members of Ladder 1 who were trapped in the stairwell during the collapse. It’s too bad this strength wasn’t continued up the core to the building top. It may have saved many more lives. The buildings were reported to sway several feet when the planes hit the towers. The reports of "explosions" in the cellars were also probably from such column or floor displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you imbed a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit.

How do you think that the alleged conspirators knew that Building 7 would be hit by pieces of Tower 1 which would set it on fire? They would have to know this beforehand in order to set the mysterious explosive charges. Why did they wait 5 hours while the fires burned before they set off these alleged charges, and how did these so called charges withstand the fires for 5 hours without igniting? The computer models show steel beam, thermal expansion, sagging floors and disconnection from the columns.

How come the, A&E, 9/11 ‘truthers’ never mention Building 5. Did building 5 which had a serious fire on many floors and had several floors collapse from the steel beams being disconnected from the columns due to thermal expansion sagging and catinary action tearing out the bolted beam connections. (ASCE, Building Performance Study) I propose that some of the ‘truthers’ never even read the American Society of Civil Engineer’s or the NIST’s report. Did building 5 also have charges set beforehand? How many other buildings had hypothetical charges set beforehand and were never set off? If they went to all the trouble to rig all these buildings with assumed explosives, why didn’t they just set them off and forget the planes and the fires. Waiting for the planes and fires would surely increase their chances of being detected

There are so many questions answered by the fire theories and so many unanswerable questions posed by the demolition theories that it is ludicrous to continue the proposition that explosives had to be employed to collapse these buildings.

BBC reporting error on Building 7 collapse.

You ask “How did the BBC know that the Towers were going to collapse?” The BBC didn't know. Did you ever hear a mistake made by a reporter? Or do you believe everything you are told by a TV reporter in the heat of an emergency? The BBC reporter on the air received an erroneous report that the Building 7 had collapsed before it actually did and reported it well before the actual occurrence. It was a simple mistake.

I can imagine how it happened. In addition to the damage done to Building 7 by the heavy steel column trees that pealed off of the collapsing twin towers some of these steel columns penetrated the roads and broke the nearby water mains. There was fire on many floors in Building 7 and without water these fires could not be controlled. The collapse possibility was anticipated by the Fire Dept. who ordered the evacuation out of the building and a “collapse zone” about 600 feet around the building. Apparently the only people who thought of the possibility that an out of control fire on multiple floors in a steel framed, long span, open area, office building could cause a collapse. They had just experienced the collapse of two similar buildings killing and trapping many of their brothers. The collapse zone was a large area including buildings and streets around Building 7 and clearing this large area of people was a problem. To get some people reluctant to move out of the area I can imagine someone saying “the building’s coming down”. A reporter called his boss and told him the building 7 is coming down. The person receiving the call believed the building was already collapsing. It went out over the air as the building had already collapsed before the actual occurrence. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant call and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed a few hours after the evacuation order was given.

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7.

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. Numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)


If you really believe that all the top fire protection engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and government scientists from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigating the collapse are in on a conspiracy and also want to accuse the BBC, the NYC Fire Department, the NYC Police Department, the Red Cross and all the Government agencies controlling access Building 7 of being ‘in on’ a secret controlled demolition even though there was no hard evidence than I would say you may be suffering from a case of paranoia. Paranoia can easily become contagious when people panic and no longer trust their government. We certainly have reason not to trust our present government. I would say that if you really believe these ridiculous demolition theories you should do some soul searching and possibly seek some therapeutic help.


In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced loud sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.

The good thing is that NIST now has an effective computer model to test whether a new or existing building is safe from collapse from fire. The architects and engineers should jump on this capability to assure any proposed or existing designs are safe. Another good thing is that any corrections proposed can be run through the computer and any tested for effectiveness. This NIST computer model which modeled the fires and every steel column and beam with their connections shows that Building 7 was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling beams, disconnecting structural steel connections, collapsing the floors and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The connections were so week that that the collapse of one column progressed across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. Now that’s an architectural and engineering problem. I want to hear what the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth think about a building that can loose one column which starts a progressive collapse that brings down the whole building. Design problem? They should be eager to get those computer models working instead of raving about some imaginary explosives having brought down these buildings.

Arthur Scheuerman
Ret. Battalion Chief
FDNY


by Mr. Rick Nichols
Saturday Oct 4th, 2008 2:13 AM


I am compelled to provide a response to this significant refutation of a rather insignificant article, because it seems rather heavy-handed and disproportionate. Please allow me to be particular in my explication by quoting the text directly, and bear with me as I define just a few terms in this preface [The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001]:

Fallacy - faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument
Speculate - form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence
Conjecture - a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information
Integrity - being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction

With all due respect to Mr. Scheurman, I find and maintain that his considerable effort is rife with fallacious reasoning, speculative conjecture, and a distinct lack of integrity. The only conclusive statement this work makes occurs at the outset with:

“The NIST investigation...discovered that...fire was sufficient to deconstruct both the towers and building 7.”

Well, now this is precisely what is being called into question by these “Architects & Structural Engineers,” isn’t it? The second premise of this work resorts to ad hominem attacks which amount to name-calling and therefore lacks both integrity AND substance:

“I would like to know who is paying the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth’s Richard Gage to go all around the country to spread his pseudoscientific deluge of misinformation typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent enough time and experimental effort examining the evidence. Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or fire protection area, just dismiss the reports of the top Fire Protection engineering experts in their fields and take some theological professor’s absurd babble as gospel. I suppose if their car broke down they would call the pizza man. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeatedly echoed on the internet without any research or fact checking.”

This is the same as saying “You’re wrong because you’re a poo-poo head.” It holds no weight whatsoever, logically speaking, and has no place in a rational argument.
----------
This next statement is an odd conjunction, apparently intended as an appeal to authority (N.I.S.T.) as well as a denigration of the persistence of inquisitive skeptics:

“I doubt a person inexperienced in the fire protection field could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying.”

Not only does it speak solely of people “inexperienced in the field of fire protection” as opposed to specifying architects, engineers, physicists, or theologians, per se, but it also fails to address the fact that seven years have passed since the horrendous event - plenty of time to explore a feasible alternative based on actual evidence.
----------
This next is ambiguous and/or equivocal, as it shifts from a past tense, “knew,” to the present, “are,” effectively rendering it entirely probable that, for example, when he was seventeen years old:

“Kevin Ryan knew nothing about how floor assemblies are tested by his own company Underwriters Laboratory.”

----------
Conjecture makes for extremely weak arguments:

“Some ‘thunder’ sounds were heard before the columns buckled and these were probably from floors collapsing.”

----------
Here we have a disjointed statement posing as direct causal relationship:

“the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse.”

On the one hand we have the top 25 or so floors (?) of the bldg. maintaining its structural integrity while on the other hand we have the lower 85 or so floors (?) disintegrating completely. In addition, any mass falling AWAY from the bldg. is incapable of uniformly crushing it like a soda can; see the North Tower collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuAwptJTogA&feature=related
----------
Again, conjecture:

“The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors…”

----------
This next exerpt appeals to the authority of inaccurate “super computer” calculations and modeling:

“once the collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration. By dint of super computers running for extended periods of time NIST did examine almost the complete collapse sequence of building 7.”

----------
This is weird - here we have a description of “gradual” deformation that “eventually” cripples the integrity of a single side of the bldg.; a description befitting an asymmetrical deformation that by all rights would cause the upper portion of the bldg. to topple sideways, if at all:

“The tower buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing...The sagging, 60 foot long, floor trusses gradually pulled-in the 59 columns in one exterior wall in each tower and these column walls eventually buckled removing support on one entire side.”

----------
The next four paragraphs mention "buckling" sixteen times - which brings to mind this exchange between an iron worker and another fellow who were astounded when examining a massive steel beam from one of the bldgs: “It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this… Typically you’d have buckling, and tearing, on the tension side, but there’s no buckling… at all.” [http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/horseshoe.htm]
----------
Wow. It boggles the mind to consider that “for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance… was impossible…”:

“In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top, the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and plumb and this was impossible…”

Aren’t we considering something in the vicinity of 80,000 tons of structural steel? …designed specifically to support 1,000 - 2,000 times its actual load and NOT fall apart?
----------
Again, conjecture:

“These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west…”

----------
The following is entirely speculative conjecture, and contradictory, at that. Notice the “may have…might have…If this is possible…could have…might explain…could have”:

“Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana after the building top began to impact the floors, these wall columns may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns, these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapidity of the collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than 'free fall’…”

O-kay… so, now bananas peel themselves…?
----------

“Much has been made of the presence of molten metal…”

But no mention of “the meteorite” or iron or 10 tons of micro-spheres or the testimony of first-responders or the 1,000 + degrees of the rubble pile for months?
----------
…or the chemical signature of thermite or the miniscule, unignited fragments of new “super-thermite” technology found in the dust? Merely empty conjecture?

“As far as I know thermite has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn’t exist.”

----------
…just a flip-flopping sophistry that seeks “to make the stronger argument the weaker and the weaker argument the stronger?”

“There are so many questions answered by the fire theories and so many unanswerable questions posed by the demolition theories that it is ludicrous to continue the proposition that explosives had to be employed to collapse these buildings.”

----------
Here’s a perfect example of tautological reasoning - the WTC 7 collapse from fire is not unique because WTC 1 & 2 collapsed from fire:

“Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.”

----------
…more denigration and ad hominem insults:

“I would say that if you really believe these ridiculous demolition theories you should do some soul searching and possibly seek some therapeutic help.”

----------


“In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions…”

Oooh, watch out for “exploding air” folks!
----------
Finally, we are again impressed by the thoroughly meticulous nature of NIST’s “super computer” modeling capabilities and the fact that these structures were built so shoddily that the blame is easily deflected to these self-same “Architects & Structural Engineers.”

“This NIST computer model which modeled the fires and every steel column and beam with their connections shows that Building 7 was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling beams, disconnecting structural steel connections, collapsing the floors and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The connections were so week that that the collapse of one column progressed across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. Now that’s an architectural and engineering problem.”

I find myself unconvinced, and given the gravity of this conundrum perhaps I’ll favor Mr. Gage with a receptive audience, or review “some theological professor’s absurd babble.” This is still a free country, isn’t it?
by ResearchGuy
Saturday Oct 4th, 2008 12:27 PM
I agree with Nichols that the three WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I have some comments that will strengthen and/or correct his refutation of Scheuerman. “I would like to know who is paying the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth’s Richard Gage to go all around the country..." This is the main part of Scheuerman's first comment that constitutes a sort of ad hominem attack (one of the most common fallacies used to speciously defend the official account) -- which is what Nichols seems to be getting at with his "poo-poo head" comment. It is a sort of ad hominem attack because it implies that Gage's motivation -- to make money -- automatically corrupts his beliefs. There is potential legitimacy to Scheuerman's question. Even merely potential conflicts of interest are supposed to be disclosed, because money and other personal motivations certainly CAN corrupt people's ability to think rationally and honestly. If Scheuerman would agree to publicize the answer to his question as effectively as he has publicized the question itself, perhaps Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be willing to answer it. This is doubtful however, given the outrageously bad faith that most of the debunker community has consistently shown, and given that they have far better things to do than respond to pipsqueak personal attacks. Scheuerman's larger error is one of inconsistency. It seems not to have occurred to him that there are clearly evident, well documented conflicts of interest -- not merely potential ones -- among most of the top officials who "investigated" 9/11. Most of the 9/11 Commission members had ties to the very people who benefitted from 9/11. Top NIST scientists and contractors have ties to the development of nano-thermite, a high-tech incendiary that was evidently used to bring the Towers down, and to the defense industry, whose income has ballooned with 9/11 as the excuse. These points (excepting the one about NIST, which is newly discovered) have been well-publicized by 9/11 skeptics for a long time. It would not have been difficult for Scheuerman to have discovered these conflicts if he were truly interested in an even-handed assessment. It should go without saying that these conflicts provide much more funding and prestige than whatever Gage is getting from the 9/11 Truth community – by several orders of magnitude. So Scheuerman would also need to agree to help expose all of this, if he really wants to know the answer to his question. Scheuerman's first comment continues, accusing Gage of spreading a “pseudoscientific deluge of misinformation typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement.” The simplest refutation I can offer here is “Hello, black kettle.” Scheuerman is projecting the outrageous density, number, and seriousness of the flaws in his own side of the argument onto 9/11 skeptics. It is Scheuerman, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, ASCE, and NIST and the JREFers, who, in our unfortunate Orwellian world, are engaging in pseudoscience on this issue, completely ignoring the law of conservation of momentum, the second law of thermodynamics, the chemistry of fire, the physics of heat transfer, conventions regarding peer review and full disclosure of data and computer models, and so on. Scheuerman: “Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent enough time and experimental effort examining the evidence.” First, Gage is not and does not claim to be a scientist. He CITES scientists such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, as well as engineers from among the hundreds who have signed on in support of a real investigation. Speaking of time, how much is enough? The government, with resources beyond the imagining of the greediest tyrants of antiquity, has had more than seven years to get its story straight. The military doesn’t even bother, having changed its story twice, and having left uncorrected, for more than two years, what it now calls a false account (which it also provided) about why no jet fighters managed to intercept any of the hijacked jetliners. How much time should we give officials to determine and announce the truth, before we can reasonably call them liars and indict them for obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty, etc., at the very least? Scheuerman says that we 9/11 skeptics “just dismiss the reports of the top Fire Protection engineering experts.” His post doesn’t say who he considers the “top” ones. From what I’ve seen, such a characterization usually refers to people who have served in the federal government, which takes us back to potential conflicts of interest. Nor does he give us any reason to believe that he understands the difference between dismissal and refutation. However, he might be interested in reading statements by Scott Grainger and Edward Munyak, P.E., fire protection engineers with more than 20 years’ experience each. Scheuerman: “and [Gage takes] some theological professor’s absurd babble as gospel” David Ray Griffin did not become a professor emeritus of a respected school of theology by arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. He has decades of experience writing and criticizing extremely detailed, logical arguments about the nature and meaning of sacred texts and human religious experience. Before looking into 9/11 he had written or edited almost two dozen books and had written more than 100 scholarly articles and book chapters. He supports his claims by citing hundreds of mainstream media articles and official publications, showing that the 9/11 Commission Report contained more than 100 omissions, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods. More broadly he has shown that 25 core elements of the official story are not even internally consistent. Rather than playing the bully by calling Griffin names and resorting to pizza analogies, Scheuerman should cite flaws in Griffin’s facts or reasoning. (I’m sure that Scheuerman is smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing. Insults WORK with the masses of average onlookers -- that’s why bullies use them. But they have no place in this discussion. It’s your country, too, Scheuerman. Why don’t you start acting like it?) Scheuerman: “The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeatedly echoed on the internet without any research or fact checking.” Here, alas, I agree with Scheuerman. This is an unfortunate aspect of citizen-driven research which many more 9/11 skeptics need to take seriously. People should apply critical thinking to every claim that purports to undermine the official story (just as they should every claim that purports to support it). However, to use this observation to dismiss EVERYTHING that 9/11 skeptics say – especially, to dismiss all of Gage’s material out of hand -- is absurd and irresponsible. Nichols wrote: “Aren’t we considering something in the vicinity of 80,000 tons of structural steel? …designed specifically to support 1,000 - 2,000 times its actual load and NOT fall apart? Nichols should have written 1000-2000 PERCENT (10-20 times) the Towers’ live loads. This is according to chief WTC engineer John Skilling “as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964. "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Such figures matter because the design live load of the Towers exceeds their own weight. The News Record also stated "The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. [..] One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction." SCIENCE, HANDMAIDEN OF INSPIRED TRUTH,’ Or, PUTTING NIST IN PERSPECTIVE,” Michael Green, 12/12/2006. Back to Scheuerman: “As far as I know thermite has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn’t exist.” Sadly, in this case, there was a first time for everything. Scheuerman should read and respond to the article cited above, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,” and keep an eye out for an upcoming article to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal documenting unignited nano-thermite found in the World Trade Center dust.
by ResearchGuy
Saturday Oct 4th, 2008 12:28 PM
I agree with Nichols that the three WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I have some comments that will strengthen and/or correct his refutation of Scheuerman.

“I would like to know who is paying the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth’s Richard Gage to go all around the country..."

This is the main part of Scheuerman's first comment that constitutes a sort of ad hominem attack (one of the most common fallacies used to speciously defend the official account) -- which is what Nichols seems to be getting at with his "poo-poo head" comment. It is a sort of ad hominem attack because it implies that Gage's motivation -- to make money -- automatically corrupts his beliefs.

There is potential legitimacy to Scheuerman's question. Even merely potential conflicts of interest are supposed to be disclosed, because money and other personal motivations certainly CAN corrupt people's ability to think rationally and honestly. If Scheuerman would agree to publicize the answer to his question as effectively as he has publicized the question itself, perhaps Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be willing to answer it. This is doubtful however, given the outrageously bad faith that most of the debunker community has consistently shown, and given that they have far better things to do than respond to pipsqueak personal attacks.

Scheuerman's larger error is one of inconsistency. It seems not to have occurred to him that there are clearly evident, well documented conflicts of interest -- not merely potential ones -- among most of the top officials who "investigated" 9/11. Most of the 9/11 Commission members had ties to the very people who benefitted from 9/11. Top NIST scientists and contractors have ties to the development of nano-thermite, a high-tech incendiary that was evidently used to bring the Towers down, and to the defense industry, whose income has ballooned with 9/11 as the excuse. These points (excepting the one about NIST, which is newly discovered) have been well-publicized by 9/11 skeptics for a long time. It would not have been difficult for Scheuerman to have discovered these conflicts if he were truly interested in an even-handed assessment. It should go without saying that these conflicts provide much more funding and prestige than whatever Gage is getting from the 9/11 Truth community – by several orders of magnitude. So Scheuerman would also need to agree to help expose all of this, if he really wants to know the answer to his question.

Scheuerman's first comment continues, accusing Gage of spreading a “pseudoscientific deluge of misinformation typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement.”

The simplest refutation I can offer here is “Hello, black kettle.” Scheuerman is projecting the outrageous density, number, and seriousness of the flaws in his own side of the argument onto 9/11 skeptics. It is Scheuerman, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, ASCE, and NIST and the JREFers, who, in our unfortunate Orwellian world, are engaging in pseudoscience on this issue, completely ignoring the law of conservation of momentum, the second law of thermodynamics, the chemistry of fire, the physics of heat transfer, conventions regarding peer review and full disclosure of data and computer models, and so on.

Scheuerman: “Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent enough time and experimental effort examining the evidence.”

First, Gage is not and does not claim to be a scientist. He CITES scientists such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, as well as engineers from among the hundreds who have signed on in support of a real investigation.

Speaking of time, how much is enough? The government, with resources beyond the imagining of the greediest tyrants of antiquity, has had more than seven years to get its story straight. The military doesn’t even bother, having changed its story twice, and having left uncorrected, for more than two years, what it now calls a false account (which it also provided) about why no jet fighters managed to intercept any of the hijacked jetliners. How much time should we give officials to determine and announce the truth, before we can reasonably call them liars and indict them for obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty, etc., at the very least?

Scheuerman says that we 9/11 skeptics “just dismiss the reports of the top Fire Protection engineering experts.” His post doesn’t say who he considers the “top” ones. From what I’ve seen, such a characterization usually refers to people who have served in the federal government, which takes us back to potential conflicts of interest. Nor does he give us any reason to believe that he understands the difference between dismissal and refutation. However, he might be interested in reading statements by Scott Grainger and Edward Munyak, P.E., fire protection engineers with more than 20 years’ experience each.

Scheuerman: “and [Gage takes] some theological professor’s absurd babble as gospel”

David Ray Griffin did not become a professor emeritus of a respected school of theology by arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. He has decades of experience writing and criticizing extremely detailed, logical arguments about the nature and meaning of sacred texts and human religious experience. Before looking into 9/11 he had written or edited almost two dozen books and had written more than 100 scholarly articles and book chapters. He supports his claims by citing hundreds of mainstream media articles and official publications, showing that the 9/11 Commission Report contained more than 100 omissions, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods. More broadly he has shown that 25 core elements of the official story are not even internally consistent. Rather than playing the bully by calling Griffin names and resorting to pizza analogies, Scheuerman should cite flaws in Griffin’s facts or reasoning. (I’m sure that Scheuerman is smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing. Insults WORK with the masses of average onlookers -- that’s why bullies use them. But they have no place in this discussion. It’s your country, too, Scheuerman. Why don’t you start acting like it?)

Scheuerman: “The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeatedly echoed on the internet without any research or fact checking.”

Here, alas, I agree with Scheuerman. This is an unfortunate aspect of citizen-driven research which many more 9/11 skeptics need to take seriously. People should apply critical thinking to every claim that purports to undermine the official story (just as they should every claim that purports to support it). However, to use this observation to dismiss EVERYTHING that 9/11 skeptics say – especially, to dismiss all of Gage’s material out of hand -- is absurd and irresponsible.

Nichols wrote: “Aren’t we considering something in the vicinity of 80,000 tons of structural steel? …designed specifically to support 1,000 - 2,000 times its actual load and NOT fall apart?

Nichols should have written 1000-2000 PERCENT (10-20 times) the Towers’ live loads. This is according to chief WTC engineer John Skilling “as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964. "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Such figures matter because the design live load of the Towers exceeds their own weight. The News Record also stated "The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. [..] One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction." SCIENCE, HANDMAIDEN OF INSPIRED TRUTH,’ Or, PUTTING NIST IN PERSPECTIVE,” Michael Green, 12/12/2006.

Back to Scheuerman: “As far as I know thermite has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn’t exist.”

Sadly, in this case, there was a first time for everything.

Scheuerman should read and respond to the article cited above, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,” and keep an eye out for an upcoming article to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal documenting unignited nano-thermite found in the World Trade Center dust.
by ResearchGuy
Sunday Oct 5th, 2008 11:56 AM
Molten lead would flow away from the heat that melted it long before it got red-hot. Scheuerman has apparently not actually READ any of the many reports of molten metal, or given the issue any serious thought, or he would have realized that his explanation doesn't even begin to account for what was reported -- including by people such as Leslie Robertson, one of the key WTC engineers, who later expressed support for the official story without explaining or retracting his observation at all.

What a joke. This is a great example of why 9/11 skeptics often don't bother responding to people such as Scheuerman. We would spend all our time pointing out obvious errors instead of spending it reaching out to ordinary people who know a demolition when they see one and asking them to join us in the call for a real investigation.
by many variations of 9/11 truthseekers
Monday Oct 27th, 2008 9:02 PM
There is no real "9/11 Truth" movement with any sort of monolithic version of what 9/11 activists hold to be "true". More like a search for the facts, so call us 9/11 truthseekers, trying to get as close to what really happened as possible with limited evidence (most sent to China for emergency recycling only days after 9/11 by order of the 9/11 Commission, Rudy "Firehat Hero" Giuliani and the many covert ops sent out under the GW bush regime) available from a physics test point of view..

The initial "9/11 truthseekers" were not a covey of crazed conspiracy theorists, they were the relatives, friends and families of the people killed in the WTC buildings on 9/11. Ever heard of the Jersey Girls? They were one of the original groups that posed serious questions about the so-called "facts" presented the public by the 9/11 Commission..

Many differences can be found among people who question the official version of 9/11 truth, some of us believe the theory of "blowback" as presented by Ward Churchill and others (Ron Paul?) is factually correct, a result of hostile U.S./Israeli interventionist policies towards the Muslim world in general..

Personally i feel that listening to and acknowledging the demands of al-Queda as reasonable is a beginning step in ending the terrorist group once and for all, though so long as we continue to bombard Iraqi civilians in their homes, fund Israel's apartheid occupation of Palestine and generally invade and occupy Muslim nations with our military, we can count on al-Queda responding likewise..

Since we are invading their homeland, we (U.S.) are in the wrong and they (al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc...) are correct in their actions of self defense, no matter how incorrect they may be in their extreme religious outlooks, our religions here in the U.S. aren't much better (convert the Native American "savages" into Christianity, so we can't really point the finger at religious intolerance when we're still persecuting non-Christians, homosexuals and other 'infidels' here also, albeit a more 'professional' form of religious intolerance). If al-Queda senior opertives weren't so hardheaded about their Sunni Wahhabist religious views, there's probably a few U.S. residents who would be eager to join them..

We don't all believe that al-Queda are "CIA patsies" as the Alex Jones wing of the 9/11 truth movement believes, and we acknowledge that the events of 9/11 were a sort of semi-victory for al-Queda, even if GW bush allowed and enabled the collapse of the WTC buildings with thermite devices planted in the middle and lower floors of the towers, the actual devices that caused the complete collapse.

The motives for the GW bush regime are clear in enabling al-Queda in this collapse, to invade Iraq under the deceitful guise of 'war on terror' and justify the patriot act surviellence state we all live under now. One needed step closer to fascism only indicates the impending failure of the capitalist corporate system we live under currently, and the events of 9/11 showed us that we were moving in this direction anyway. So in some ways it seems that al-Queda and the GW bush regime are feeding off each other's attacks and fundamentalism, though every resistance movement has incited the powerful ruling elite to respond in anger and violence. Just as the Boston Tea Party deliberitely dumped English imported tea off the boats in Boston Harbor, knowing full & well that there would be a response from the British. Would we refer to the Boston Tea Party folks as "patsies of the British Crown" because of their actions??

Would welcome another domestic al-Queda attack (Please, there's plenty of dams that need removing!), even if it led to martial law and further domestic oppression within the states, as this will only further ignite the flames of discontent and needed overthrow of the U.S. imperialist structure, be it run by neo-conservative McCain or neo-liberal Obama. Even if most people cower inside after imposed curfew, there'll be more down time at night to engage in activism without so many snitches driving around talking on their cell phones when we're out trying to accomplish something!!

BTW, i cast my vote for Green party candidate Cynthia McKinney because she is one of the few honest candidates, as evidenced by her exclusion from the televised debates. (What will NOT be televised? The revolution! Anyone who is honest!) Same goes for other third party truthtellers Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, though i'm loyal to the Green Party..

My personal belief of the 9/11 events were that had the thermite not been planted there by GW Bush regime opertives prior to the plane crash, the burning fuel and debris would have turned to ash and blown away, leaving the middle and bottom floors intact with a gaping hole on the top, sort of like a burning candle. Any further destruction would be slow like melting wax falling from the top down, not a vertical collapse of the entire building in only a few minutes!!

What GW's thermite accomplished in addition to the al-Queda flown planes was to increase the death toll of U.S. civilians (sacrificial 'pawns' used as media fuel in GW's 'war on terror'), and collapsed the entire wtc structures, and even WTC building 7 (storage of CIA records to be incinerated) managed to fall in the dust storm of the larger buildings' collapse..

There is NO PHYSICAL WAY that al Queda could have collapsed WTC BUILING 7! There were only two planes and two towers, so how did the third tower (building 7) collapse as a result of al-Queda? Talk about turning the laws of physics upside down!!

This complete collapse of the two main WTC towers isn't even what al-Queda expected, though they got the needed response, the invasion of Iraq and our current quagmire..

Needless to say it isn't GW bush's children who sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and he seems to have gotten his golf buddies (Exxon-Mobil CEO, etc..) some sweet deals on crude oil and record profit margins. Yes, in the process GW also destroyed the integrity of the U.S., but what does that matter to him (them) anyway!!

The semi-victory for al-Queda is in the fact that now the U.S. is the most hated/feared country in the world and as a result of the 'war on terror' we've lost our liberty domestically and are now plunging into a recession/depression. Where did all those billions of dollars spent on fancy U.S. bomber planes come from anyway??