Were mini nukes used on 911?

[W*GS]

Basic chemistry?

Yes, basic chemistry.

The following paragraph is from the site above. It's all the debunker could muster about the molten pools. I'm posting it to show just how thin to nonexistent his "case against the evidence" actually is.

Since what you and the other whackos suppose happened on 9/11 has far more grievous problems, then you're really not in a position to deride an explanation that meets all the evidence.

I'd like to know who put up this site.

About halfway down the index page there is a short FAQ with an email address. Why don't you ask him?

[mhgaffney]

Since what you and the other whackos suppose happened on 9/11 has far more grievous problems, then you're really not in a position to deride an explanation that meets all the evidence.



I'm asking you W*gs because you posted this.

The burden is on you to give us an example of a demolition that produced molten metals -- without the use of thermite (or thermate).That would provide some basis for this proposed alternative.

But you can't do it -- because there are none.

[W*GS]

The burden is on you to give us an example of a demolition that produced molten metals -- without the use of thermite (or thermate).That would provide some basis for this proposed alternative.

But you can't do it -- because there are none.

Indeed. Given that there was molten metal, the collapse of the WTC towers wasn't a demolition.

[mhgaffney]

Indeed. Given that there was molten metal, the collapse of the WTC towers wasn't a demolition.

W*gs is squirming! But there is no escape from this line of reasoning.

There have been many fires in steel frame skyscrapers -- but never until 911 did one collapse. Nor has one since 911. Yet three happened in a single day.

Since there are no other cases of collapse --the only other possible cases where molten steel might have occurred were in planned demolitions. This was the basis for my question. But let me phrase it another way:

If your alternative explanation is valid, then there must be other cases (apart from 911) where it produced molten steel. Give us one example!

[mhgaffney]

I posted the above challenge to W*gs 2 days ago -- and please notice he ran away from it -- allowed the thread to slide by not responding. It's obvious. He has no answer. His so called alternative explanation for the molten steel pools on 911 is bull****. If it was legit there would be cases -- and he has none to cite.

There was no energy source in the towers on 911 -- and nothing in the planes -- certainly not jet fuel -- capable of melting steel.

It's past time we faced the implications.

[W*GS]

There have been many fires in steel frame skyscrapers -- but never until 911 did one collapse. Nor has one since 911. Yet three happened in a single day.

From http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

[W*GS]

His so called alternative explanation for the molten steel pools on 911 is bull****. If it was legit there would be cases -- and he has none to cite.

It's not my fault you don't understand the interaction between steam and hot iron.

[mhgaffney]

NIST Report failed to rule out evidence
explosives were used on 911

The primary stated objective of the NIST 911 investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse.16 A close reading of the NIST report however, shows that from start to finish, NIST scientists assumed that the Boeing 767s caused the collapse of both towers: by setting in motion a chain of events that led to catastrophic structural failure. This assumption is even explicitly stated in the Executive Summary:

"The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact."17

NIST scientists never explored other alternatives during their investigation. So it should come as no surprise that their 43 volume report is governed by ipso facto reasoning. The report confines itself to the sequence of events from the first plane impact to the onset of collapse.

Because the agency never entertained other possibilities, such as a planned demolition, NIST scientists never bothered to test steel samples recovered from ground zero for evidence of explosives. Their omission was grossly irresponsible, and smacks of political interference, since two separate studies, one published in 2001, and another by FEMA in May 2002, had already detected sulfur residues on WTC steel samples.18 Sulfidation of steel can be a telltale indicator for the use of thermate (or other closely related compounds) developed by the military and commonly used to cut steel in demolitions work.19 This possibility needed to be checked and ruled out, but the agency chose not to go there.

notes
16. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, Preface, xxxi.
17. NIST NCSTAR, Executive Summary, p. xlvii.
18. J.R., Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson Jr., “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7,” Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12 (2001): 18; also see FEMA, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” May 2002, Appendix C.

More to Come...

[SteveTensi13]

Dont bother W*GS! Gaffney lives in a fantasy world of unicorns, fairies and magical elves. You could have God himself tell him the towers came down via the planes crashing into them and he still wouldn't believe it. America haters are just that way!

[Spider]

Dont bother W*GS! Gaffney lives in a fantasy world of unicorns, fairies and magical elves. You could have God himself tell him the towers came down via the planes crashing into them and he still wouldn't believe it. America haters are just that way!

you are no different , just on the other side of the fense ,you, Barrey ,Erand , all the same as Gaff ..............

[W*GS]

NIST Report failed to rule out evidence
explosives were used on 911

They failed to rule out matter rays from alien spacecraft, the use of telekinesis, and a smiting by God. Doesn't mean that the WTC collapsed because of any, or a combination, of those things.

This assumption is even explicitly stated in the Executive Summary:

Do you know what a "summary" is?

Because the agency never entertained other possibilities, such as a planned demolition,

You do realize that by continuing to support the demolition theory, it's got gaping holes that you've never addressed?

1) Why bother with the planes?
2) Who set the explosives?
3) How come no-one ever noticed the charges nor the detonation cord all through both towers?
4) How could the towers have been demolished with confidence once the impact of the planes and the resulting fires did the damage they did?

Sulfidation of steel can be a telltale indicator for the use of thermate (or other closely related compounds) developed by the military and commonly used to cut steel in demolitions work.

Note the "can be" above. It is not the same as "is".

Where did you get this piffle from? Sounds like Jones.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I posted the above challenge to W*gs 2 days ago -- and please notice he ran away from it -- allowed the thread to slide by not responding. It's obvious. He has no answer. His so called alternative explanation for the molten steel pools on 911 is bull****. If it was legit there would be cases -- and he has none to cite.

There was no energy source in the towers on 911 -- and nothing in the planes -- certainly not jet fuel -- capable of melting steel.

It's past time we faced the implications.
What I cant figure out is why he is wasting any of his time arguing with someone so delusional they believe the U.S. government blew up the WTCs with nuclear weapons.

[mhgaffney]

What I cant figure out is why he is wasting any of his time arguing with someone so delusional they believe the U.S. government blew up the WTCs with nuclear weapons.

The delusional people are the ones who ignore hard evidence.

As someone said -- if you commit a crime BIG enough people will swallow it. Indeed, the BIG lies go down much easier -- because people just can't face the truth. Its too BIG, too threatening, too scary, too subversive etc. They refuse to go there. This is the psychological reality of human nature -- and it's known as denial.

The writer's job, however, is to push the envelop --i.e., to follow the trail of evidence -- no matter where it leads. No matter how unthinkable the conclusion. The facts alone should speak.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

[mhgaffney]

I will be reporting both sides of this issue.

Here is a link to BYU physicist Steven E Jones' response to the mini nuke hypothesis. He doesn't buy it and gives his reasons.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/MiniNukeHypoth_Jones_300906.html

I would argue however that at present there is reason to doubt his main objections. For example, a pure fusion weapon would not produce the usual detectable fallout. Also, a very small weapon would be expected to produce only very small amounts of tritium. And there IS evidence that people at ground zero did have exposure to tissue-altering radiation. Some are now having health problems. The following report by Wayne Madsen explores a spike in Lymphoma.

[cia-drugs] Cancer, Radiation from 911?
Vigilius Haufniensis

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:42:08 -0700

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Sept. 12, 2006 -- According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks. In addition to the respiratory problems among rescue workers at Ground Zero who breathed toxic "pulverized" concrete and other debris into their lungs, the radiation cancer is of extreme interest to researchers who suspect that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were brought down with the help of high energy releases. WMR spoke to a number of individuals who were at Ground Zero on 911 who are now experiencing symptoms resulting from severe damage to their immune systems -- a condition that is common among those exposed to high levels of radiation.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911. They believe that explains the reason for the "pulverization" of concrete, molten metals, pyroclastic surges and fallout, and other anomalies resulting from the catastrophe. It was also pointed out that some vehicles parked on the west side of the World Trade Center were "fused" on the sides facing the towers -- the doors being melted into the body frames. Other cars parked nearby were not similarly affected. There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers.

FEMA officials from Washington, DC were quick to ban any unofficial photography in southern Manhattan in the weeks following 911. Any photographers who had not received prior permission from FEMA

[mhgaffney]

to be in southern Manhattan found their photographic and filming equipment confiscated by the government.

[-Slap-]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[orangenblue2]

Gaffney lives in a fantasy world of unicorns, fairies and magical elves. You could have God himself tell him...

Speaking of a fantasy world...There's just as much evidence for unicorns, fairies, and magical elves as there is for this "god" you speak of. Sorry to the others for getting off topic, but when people can't see the similarity between...oh, f*** it...

[mhgaffney]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Thank heaven for the internet!

[orangenblue2]

Thank heaven for the internet!

That's "internets" to you, buddy...get it right

[mhgaffney]

Cancers Being Found in 9/11 Responders

Jun 16, 2006 10:59 AM
http://www.firechief.com/news/cancers06162006/

Since Sept. 11, 2001, 283 World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 have died of cancer, according to an attorney representing 8,000 World Trade Center responders, including firefighters, police and construction workers. Speaking to the New York Post, attorney David Worby said the cases include blood-cell cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's and myeloma.

"One in 150,000 white males under 40 would normally get the type of acute white blood-cell cancer that strikes a healthy detective," said Worby. "We have nearly 35 of these cancers in the family of 50,000 Ground Zero workers. The odds of that occurring are one in hundreds of millions."

Dr. Robin Herbert, a director of WTC medical monitoring at Mount Sinai Hospital, confirmed that some of the nearly 16,000 responders screened to date have been diagnosed with cancer. "We do not know at this point if they are WTC-related, but some are unusual cancers we see as red flags," Herbert said.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The truth is not a popularity contest.
Exactly!! But coming up with the most unbelievable conspiracy theory sure seems to be with untold numbers of Internet wackos giving their best shot at it.

[W*GS]

The delusional people are the ones who ignore hard evidence.

Almost all your "hard evidence" has been proven not to be, or else readily explained without whacko ideas.

The facts alone should speak.

Indeed. Your problem is that your command of the facts is quite poor, and then you engage in whacko flights of fancy based on interpretations and extrapolations that are wholly unjustified.

[mhgaffney]

The NIST Report:
The Official Explanation of the WTC Collapse

A Closer Look

Everyone agrees–––including the NIST––––that the WTC towers survived the initial Boeing 767 impacts on 911, despite horrendous internal damage. After penetrating the outer perimeter columns, the planes probably severed a number of steel piers at the core of the buildings. The towers survived because the WTC was hugely overbuilt: redundant by design. The structures simply transferred the load from the severed piers to other undamaged columns.

Upon its completion in 1970 the WTC was not only the world’s tallest twin-skyscraper, it was a state-of-the-art achievement of high-rise construction.21 Despite its relatively light frame, the WTC was engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds, and survive a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the time. In a 1993 interview the WTC’s principal structural engineer, John Skilling, stated that prior to construction he performed a structural analysis of a 600 mph 707 impact, and concluded “that the building structure would still be there.”22

The architectural firm that worked with Skilling described his 1,200 page analysis as “the most complete and detailed ever made for any building structure.”23 Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the WTC, seconded this view during a January 25, 2001 interview, when Demartini claimed that “the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.”24 Demartini kept an office in the North Tower. He was last seen on 9/11 assisting the evacuation on the 78th floor.25

The original architectural design called for the creation of open space within the towers, which meant doing away with the forest of interior columns so typical of steel frame high-rises of the day. Skilling achieved the objective with a double support system: a dense outer array of columns around the perimeter, and 47 central piers at the core. The large expanses of unobstructed floor space within the WTC was a novel idea in the 1960s, but is commonplace today.

The weight was distributed about equally between the two sets of columns. The core contained the elevators, stairwells, and utility shafts, while the rigid outer “skin” shielded the building from high winds. Both sets of columns were tied together by a novel system of lightweight steel trusses. Each story was supported by a truss assembly overlaid by a corrugated steel deck–––the bed for a slab of poured concrete. The prefabricated trusses and the overall modular design were major innovations that allowed for speedy construction and kept costs down. The advent of new high-strength steels made it all possible. In fact, the WTC had tremendous reserve capacity. In a 1964 article about the project published in an engineering journal Skilling boasted that “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs.”26

Damaged Fireproofing

The NIST investigation concluded that the towers would have survived the fires on 911 if the impacts had not dislodged the protective fireproofing insulation–––installed at the time of construction to protect the WTC’s steel infrastructure from fire-generated heat. Construction-grade steel begins to lose its tensile strength at 425°C (797°F), and is only half as strong at 650°C (1,202°F). The lightweight truss assemblies were especially vulnerable to fire, as they consisted of rather thin steel members. The trusses were coated with spray-applied insulation, whereas the larger steel piers/columns had a fire-barrier of gypsum wallboard.

The NIST concluded that the 767s dislodged a considerable portion of this protective insulation, while also spilling many thousands of gallons of jet fuel over multiple floors. The resulting 800-1,000°C (1,440-1,800°F ) blaze seriously weakened the now-exposed steel trusses. The trusses and floors sagged, which pulled the perimeter columns inward, causing them to buckle. The fires also weakened the central piers. The two towers became unstable and at a critical point they simply collapsed. Therefore, according to the NIST, the critical factor on 911 was the damage to the fireproofing material caused by the initial impacts.

There are a number of serious problems with this official explanation, however. In the first place, it is sharply at odds with the video record, which plainly shows that during the collapse of each tower perimeter columns and other structural members didn’t simply fall; rather, material was ejected up and out of the structure in a cascade that hurled even large chunks of steel 200 feet or more from the base of the buildings. Gravitation alone could not do this.

Photos of the mountain of wreckage also show very few large chunks of concrete. The rubble pile was mostly made up of twisted steel and aluminum. Concrete was conspicuous in its absence, even though each 500,000-ton structure was made up largely of concrete. Each floor of the 110-story WTC was roughly an acre in size, and consisted of a 4-inch thick slab of poured concrete on a metal deck. During the collapse something–––some force–––pulverized nearly all of this material into fine dust. Much of the dust was carried away on the winds, the rest deposited a foot or more deep on the 16-acre WTC site and across lower Manhattan.

Nor was the pulverization limited to concrete. Many other materials also disappeared without a trace, such as office furniture and thousands of computers, not to mention the victims who died on 911. Strange that almost no corpses and very few body parts were recovered in the wreckage. Why? The NIST report hardly mentions this vast pulverization of material. Evidently we are supposed to believe it was caused by gravitational collapse. But could gravity transform enormous slabs of concrete, totalling hundreds of thousands of tons, into fine dust? Absolutely not.

The failure of the NIST to investigate and explain this important anomaly was another grave omission.

notes
21 In July 1971 the WRC won a national award when the Amercan Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) named it “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.” in Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center, New Brunswick, Rutger’s University Press, 1999, p. 117.
22. James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, New York, Times Books, 2003, p. 138.
23. City in the Sky, p. 134-136.
24. Cited at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
25. Richard Korman and Debra Rubin, “Painful Losses Mount in the Construction ‘Family’”, posted at http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20011001a.asp
26. “How Columns Will be Designed for 110-Story Buildings,” Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964, p. 48-49.


STAY TUNED -- more soon

[W*GS]

What's yer source?

There are a number of serious problems with this official explanation, however. In the first place, it is sharply at odds with the video record, which plainly shows that during the collapse of each tower perimeter columns and other structural members didn’t simply fall; rather, material was ejected up and out of the structure in a cascade that hurled even large chunks of steel 200 feet or more from the base of the buildings. Gravitation alone could not do this.

What video shows that "material was ejected up and out of the structure"?

Photos of the mountain of wreckage also show very few large chunks of concrete.

What's meant by "very few" and "large"?

Each floor of the 110-story WTC was roughly an acre in size, and consisted of a 4-inch thick slab of poured concrete on a metal deck.

Compute the gravitational potential energy of a 1 acre slab (well, about 208 feet by 208 feet by four inches) of concrete at a height of, say, 1300 feet. Next, compare that to the amount of energy required to fracture (dare I said "pulverize"?) said volume of concrete. Thanks!

During the collapse something–––some force–––pulverized nearly all of this material into fine dust.

Yep, gravity.

Much of the dust was carried away on the winds, the rest deposited a foot or more deep on the 16-acre WTC site and across lower Manhattan.

There's your answer to where all the concrete went.

Nor was the pulverization limited to concrete. Many other materials also disappeared without a trace, such as office furniture and thousands of computers, not to mention the victims who died on 911. Strange that almost no corpses and very few body parts were recovered in the wreckage. Why?

"Very few body parts"? Thousands, actually.

Interestingly, no traces of explosives or detonation cord were found either, yet certainly some would have survived, right?

The NIST report hardly mentions this vast pulverization of material. Evidently we are supposed to believe it was caused by gravitational collapse. But could gravity transform enormous slabs of concrete, totalling hundreds of thousands of tons, into fine dust? Absolutely not.

Prove the "absolutely not" with some calculations. Thanks.

[The Lone Bolt]

This has been one entertaining thread! Just when things get slow around here, we get MINI-NUKES!!Hilarious!

Keep up the good work guys!

[mhgaffney]

Compute the gravitational potential energy of a 1 acre slab (well, about 208 feet by 208 feet by four inches) of concrete at a height of, say, 1300 feet. Next, compare that to the amount of energy required to fracture (dare I said "pulverize"?) said volume of concrete. Thanks!

Interestingly, no traces of explosives or detonation cord were found either, yet certainly some would have survived, right?



Some of your questions are useful in that they help to clarify these points.

Consider the collapse. As each floor pancaked it would have fallen only 8-10 feet to the floor below it. This would have slowed and mitigated the collapse. Thus, large blocks of concrete should have remained intact in the pile. There are many photos of concrete buildings dropped by earthquakes that actually bear this out.

But it didn't happen that way on 911. The collapse was essentially a free fall. As a result the NIST had to abandon the pancake theory. The NIST study also showed that the trusses did not "unzip" as many believed. If they had the massive central piers would have been left standing -- but they fell as well!

The concrete was pulverized IN MID AIR -- BEFORE IT EVER HIT THE GROUND. Wrap your brain around this --assuming you have a brain.

So what force did this?

No traces of explosives were found -- well maybe because (as I already pointed out) the NIST didn't bother to look.

[W*GS]

Consider the collapse. As each floor pancaked it would have fallen only 8-10 feet to the floor below it. This would have slowed and mitigated the collapse.

So why do you and the other whackos insist on "free-fall", given that the collapse was "slowed" by each floor falling onto the one below?

Thus, large blocks of concrete should have remained intact in the pile.

Nope. There was more than sufficient potential energy to pulverize the concrete. A floor falling 10 feet onto the one below is still hundreds of feet above the ground. That energy still exists - it doesn't magically go away.

But it didn't happen that way on 911. The collapse was essentially a free fall.

Wrong.

As a result the NIST had to abandon the pancake theory. The NIST study also showed that the trusses did not "unzip" as many believed. If they had the massive central piers would have been left standing -- but they fell as well!

What "massive central piers"?

The concrete was pulverized IN MID AIR -- BEFORE IT EVER HIT THE GROUND. Wrap your brain around this --assuming you have a brain.

I do indeed have a brain - more than sufficient to knock down your whacko ideas, as has been proven time and again.

I've noticed that you haven't defined what "very few large chunks of concrete" means. What size, and how many, chunks of concrete would you expect? You do realize that concrete is quite brittle, don't you?

So what force did this?

Gravity.

No traces of explosives were found -- well maybe because (as I already pointed out) the NIST didn't bother to look.

NIST wouldn't have had to have looked - the evidence would have been plain to those who were at Ground Zero digging through the pile. No-one saw anything that resembled the remains of the explosives used in controlled demolitions.

And it's not at all clear that "pools" of molten steel were observed either:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[mhgaffney]

[QUOTE=W*GS;1344822]So why do you and the other whackos insist on "free-fall", given that the collapse was "slowed" by each floor falling onto the one below?

What "massive central piers"?


NIST wouldn't have had to have looked - the evidence would have been plain to those who were at Ground Zero digging through the pile. No-one saw anything that resembled the remains of the explosives used in controlled demolitions.
QUOTE]

I am not going to trade insults. (All you do by this is show what an asshole you are.)

The whole world watched the collapse. Time it yourself. From start to finish each tower fell in less than 10 seconds -- only slightly longer than the free fall of a piano from the 110th floor. Your gravity model does not and cannot explain this.

The NIST doesn't even try to explain it. The NIST report only seeks to model the sequence of events leading up to the start of the collapse. The report never discusses the collapse itself. This allows the NIST to side step the actual free fall and the pulverization issues. Very politic of them.

Each tower had 47 central piers. And at the lowest levels these were truly massive.

One of the few survivors was on the third floor at the time of collapse. He said the earth rumbled, a huge wind pressure blew up from below, then the floor beneath him simply dropped away. He fell with the debris yet somehow survived. This is consistent with the video which shows the tower on top of WTC 1 give way first -- before the collapse. Something took out the central piers.

Exactly what remains of explosives would there be? Only chemical analyses could determine this -- and the NIST didn't go there.

[W*GS]

I am not going to trade insults. (All you do by this is show what an a-hole you are.)

This from the guy who's said:

"Wrap your brain around this --assuming you have a brain."

Anyway:

The whole world watched the collapse. Time it yourself. From start to finish each tower fell in less than 10 seconds -- only slightly longer than the free fall of a piano from the 110th floor. Your gravity model does not and cannot explain this.

Sigh.

The WTC towers didn't fall in "free-fall":

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

And a paper:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Each tower had 47 central piers. And at the lowest levels these were truly massive.

What's "truly massive"?

These central piers were nothing like the central core that many other skyscrapers have, BTW.

Something took out the central piers.

Oh yeah, a pure fusion "mini-nuke", right?

Since these central piers were not a central core, there's no need to take them out to allow the towers to collapse.

Exactly what remains of explosives would there be?

Big strings of det cord, for one thing.

I've asked you numerous times, and you've never answered this question:

If WTC1 and WTC2 (and what the heck, WTC7) were actually felled by controlled demolition, what was the point of flying planes into WTC1 and WTC2?

[Rohirrim]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/903959/the_optimist.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/paulbubel/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[mhgaffney]

The WTC towers didn't fall in "free-fall":

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

And a paper:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

What's "truly massive"?

Since these central piers were not a central core, there's no need to take them out to allow the towers to collapse.

Big strings of det cord, for one thing.

I've asked you numerous times, and you've never answered this question:

If WTC1 and WTC2 (and what the heck, WTC7) were actually felled by controlled demolition, what was the point of flying planes into WTC1 and WTC2?

What a smoke screen. Yeah, so the collapse was slightly longer than free fall. That's a lot faster than the towers should have fallen -- if gravity allone had brought them down.

The dimensions of the piers are in the NIST report -- somewhere -- I'll dig this out.

The NIST scientists refer to the central piers as the core of the buildings. It's their lingo. You don't like it? Take it up with the NIST.

Would det cord be present with thermate? No.

As for the planes, your question is so shallow it doesn't rate a response. But here the answer anyway. This was given by the US military folks who cooked up Operation Northwoods -- back in the 1960s. Which was revealed in James Bamford's book BODY OF SECRETS.

The planes were a diversion to sucker the country. A false flag attack is just that. It requires a fallguy or patsy to be effective. Whether the 19 hijackers were real terrorists or simply dupes at this point is purely secondary.

[mhgaffney]

Purely secondary since the planes could not have brought the buildings down.

[mhgaffney]

These central piers were nothing like the central core that many other skyscrapers have, BTW.


This deserves a special response. So what are you saying here? That the WTC was not properly designed? That it was sub standard?

Baloney.

[alkemical]

My only conclusion is that it was 'magik'. Since the level of randomness needed to be just perfect for all instances to happen - i'm to the conclusion that magik was involved.

From the symbolism, to the date, etc - it's the only logical conclusion i have.

Someone was able to influence 'disorder' - to make this happen.

[W*GS]

What a smoke screen. Yeah, so the collapse was slightly longer than free fall. That's a lot faster than the towers should have fallen -- if gravity allone had brought them down.

Read this

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

And then come back properly chastened.

The NIST scientists refer to the central piers as the core of the buildings. It's their lingo. You don't like it? Take it up with the NIST.

If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Would det cord be present with thermate? No.

Show me.

As for the planes, your question is so shallow it doesn't rate a response. But here the answer anyway. This was given by the US military folks who cooked up Operation Northwoods -- back in the 1960s. Which was revealed in James Bamford's book BODY OF SECRETS.

Snore.

"Operation Northwoods" is hardly proof.

The planes were a diversion to sucker the country. A false flag attack is just that. It requires a fallguy or patsy to be effective. Whether the 19 hijackers were real terrorists or simply dupes at this point is purely secondary.

Why not just put your mini-nukes in a Rider truck, call it another bombing, and leave the planes out of it? Were the Pentagon and the (presumed) Capitol or White House also mere diversions?

BTW, have you any data to support your contention that EMP caused those cars blocks away to burn, even though EMP is highly attenuated in below-ground bursts? Thanks!

[alkemical]

Wagsy,

if the gov't has written up plans to stage and attack americans for the ability to justify a war - i'd say it's a good track record or indicator of the malice the gov't will take to exert even more power.

[mhgaffney]

My only conclusion is that it was 'magik'. Since the level of randomness needed to be just perfect for all instances to happen - i'm to the conclusion that magik was involved.

From the symbolism, to the date, etc - it's the only logical conclusion i have.

Someone was able to influence 'disorder' - to make this happen.

On the contrary I'd say the evidence of careful planning is everywhere -- to create the false impression of disorder.

There were at least 5 drills underway on 911. Some of them anti-hijacking drills. There were so many blips on the screens the legitimate people at the FAA and NORAD didn't know which were real and which were not.

This reeks of order -- careful planning -- by a few. And what about the planes -- only 25% full of passengers -- to minimize fatalities. Is that random? And why fly all the way around the pentagon to hit the section under construction? -- Again --this bears the stamp of planning -- to keep fatalities down. Real terrorists would hit the building head on.

[mhgaffney]

People don't want to believe that their own government is capable of carrying out such an attack against their own people. But there are many examples of governments doing this. It not just the US.

In his book THE WAR ON TRUTH Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed documents case after case. There was one in the Philippines -- terrorism staged by the Philippine security forces to look like Al Qaeda. The Madrid bombings are another example. Al Qaeda was blamed but later was shown not to be responsible. The Spanish government killed Spaniards for a political agenda.

Another case occurred in Russia -- bombings staged by the Russian secret police to look like Chechnyan terrorism. The motive? The Russian government wanted to reinvade Chechnya -- after signing a peace treaty -- and needed a pretext. The area is of critical strategic importance to Moscow due to its location astride the Russian pipe line out of the Caucacus. Only they botched it. One of the Russian agents was caught red handed planting a bomb -- so the truth came out.

The USA has done similar things. There is the ugly record in Europe -- hundreds of terror attacks carried out by NATO (i.e., the US) and blamed on the Italian communists -- or some other "enemy." The bombings included school buses and train stations. Only a few people finally leaked the truth and the facts came out -- though it's never been reported here in the US. Check Danser's book NATO'S SECRET ARMIES.

Then there was the Israeli attack on of the Liberty in June 1967, probably ordered by LBJ. Alex Jones interviewed the US admirals who were on the phone when Johnson said "I want that ship on the bottom." Israel was his helper. The plan: Sink the Liberty -- kill all hands -- and blame it on Egypt. This would give LBJ a pretext to intervene --- invade Egypt. The plan was foiled when a Russian ship appeared on the scene before the Israelis could finish the job. LBJ was willing to murder 100-200 US sailors. Why not kill 3,000? The only difference is numbers. But hey...

This is the sick way many leaders think. People to them are chattle.

[W*GS]

if the gov't has written up plans to stage and attack americans for the ability to justify a war - i'd say it's a good track record or indicator of the malice the gov't will take to exert even more power.

Read more about Northwoods to get a better view of what it actually entailed. Note also that it was dismissed immediately.

That such things exist doesn't mean that 9/11 was one instance.

[W*GS]

This deserves a special response. So what are you saying here? That the WTC was not properly designed? That it was sub standard?

The WTC didn't have a concrete core. That's all.

[W*GS]

On the contrary I'd say the evidence of careful planning is everywhere -- to create the false impression of disorder.

Uh-hunh.

There were at least 5 drills underway on 911. Some of them anti-hijacking drills.

Why would the conspirators tempt fate by executing their plan on such a day? Just to show that they could?

There were so many blips on the screens the legitimate people at the FAA and NORAD didn't know which were real and which were not.

All the blips were real - it's just that the planes hijacked on 9/11 had had their transponders turned off.

This reeks of order -- careful planning -- by a few.

Names, please.

And what about the planes -- only 25% full of passengers -- to minimize fatalities. Is that random?

Wait a sec here. Why "minimize fatalities"? Was the goal to kill enough innocent people to enable the conspirators to achieve their goal, but not too many? What's the magic number?

Why not go with the more rational explanation - the al-Qaeda hijackers had tracked passenger loads, and picked flights with low numbers to enable the hijackings to succeed more readily.

And why fly all the way around the pentagon to hit the section under construction?

See http://911myths.com/html/flight_path.html

-- Again --this bears the stamp of planning -- to keep fatalities down.

Same question as above about "fatalities down".

Real terrorists would hit the building head on.

They did. With an airplane, too.

[Rohirrim]

On the contrary I'd say the evidence of careful planning is everywhere -- to create the false impression of disorder.

I've got this guy on iggy, but I just couldn't pass this one up. This is one of those irrefutable statements, almost perfect in its conception: The chaos was an integral part of the plan. Ha!

"Okay! Hey you! Yeah, you! The guy covered in concrete dust! Run over here for the cameras! Pretend like you're upset!"

[mhgaffney]

I've posted this before -- but here's a link to more about Bamford's book. It's worth a look.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

[TheDave]

...

[TheDave]

..

[TheDave]

.

[mhgaffney]

On the contrary I'd say the evidence of careful planning is everywhere -- to create the false impression of disorder.

I've got this guy on iggy, but I just couldn't pass this one up. This is one of those irrefutable statements, almost perfect in its conception: The chaos was an integral part of the plan. Ha!

"Okay! Hey you! Yeah, you! The guy covered in concrete dust! Run over here for the cameras! Pretend like you're upset!"

The plan was to confuse the legitimate people at FAA and NORAD. You do this with drills, five simulated exercises of actual hijackings and other kinds of terror attacks. A sergeant who was at CENTCOM headquarters on 911 -- at McDill AFB -- has revealed that the 911 drills were classified top secret. She was shocked, since she had participated in many drills before -- and they had NEVER been top secret. Think about this.

Indeed, why top secret? In security drills and exercises the normal procedure is to inform the various departments, and local and state authorities, that a simulated terrorist exercise is underway. They have to know about it so they will understand it is not real. Right? This is obvious-- a no brainer. Yet on 911 the exercises were top secret. Wy?

Obvious!!!! To confuse and cause disorder -- thus short circuiting the nation's legitimate defenses and normal protocols. This is exactly what happened.

And you have me on ignore? What? Are you brain dead?

Ignore this:

http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm

[TheDave]

And Another...

[TheDave]

......

[TheDave]

..........

[Spider]

no way our goverment used nukes on us ............ but everything else is clearly Bush's fault ......

[mhgaffney]

This is for the Lord of the Rohirrim. What's incredible is that the mainstream media has gone to sleep -- not reported this:

CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information

Steve Watson / Infowars | September 26 2006
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm

Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by a former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro "LJ" Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This has led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.

In a letter that first appeared on the 9/11 Veterans For Truth Website, Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez responds to a Cincinnati Post hit piece article by outlining his own doubts about the official version of 9/11 and his personal experiences of the strange prelude to the events of that morning.

Despite early (and healthy) reactions claiming this may be a hoax designed to poison the well of the 9/11 truth movement, Sergeant Chavez has now provided us with evidence of his credentials, his honorable discharge documents showing the military installations he was located inside. The last station he held was inside United States Central Command in Tampa - the pdf can be viewed here.

Mr Chavez was quick to point out that he does not have all the answers, but does have what he feels is vital information regarding the events of 9/11:

''I'm in no way in a position to tell people that 'this is the official story so believe me', no, I want to give people the information so they can go away and look for themselves and formulate a logical decision with all the evidence." Chavez said.

Mr Chavez worked within CENTCOM, one of the five American regional unified commands consisting of Marines, Navy and air force officers. CENTCOM's area of jurisdiction is in the Middle East, East Africa and Central Asia. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the United States war in Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Chavez was stationed at CENTCOM's headquarters at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida. His commanding officer was Four Star General Tommy Franks.

Chavez worked in the J6 department that was in charge of all the computer systems, the network backbone of CENTCOM. Chavez ran a team of six soldiers on the helpdesk network side. He was personally responsible for the maintenance of commanding officers computers, including those of General Tommy Franks. He has letters of recommendation from Franks and even went to Franks' house to work on his computers.

Chavez described how the military has a ring of computer networks according to different security clearance levels. Chavez worked only with systems classified as top secret or higher.

On the morning before 9/11 Chavez was in the Secure Compartmented Information Facility, the secure bunker at the base of CENTCOM HQ which is populated by high ranking military intelligence personnel. This is a facility that requires a top secret gamma clearance. Inside are systems that can monitor weather systems and flight paths of all aircraft within the country.

That day he was involved with supporting computer equipment being used in the Vigilant Guardian exercise and another exercise based in Egypt. On this day Chavez got to see information that he wasn't supposed to see.

"I was working on psyops commander's computer and next to his PC was a top secret document that was open, his neglect was my ally, I was sitting there working on his computer and was waiting for some patches to download and I look over and I'm reading the document, and it's the off order for the exercise that they are participating in."

This raises major questions because normally wargames or exercises are not classified as top secret as it is a requirement to let some information be public, especially if the exercise is taking place in a populated area.

Chavez continued:

"So I'm reading this document and it's giving proposed situations for scenarios for this wargame the scenarios include a hijacked plane, most of them were hijacked planes, I saw one that was like a car bomb trying to blow up something, but one of them was a hijacked plane crashing into a nuclear power plant in California, the Sears Tower, the World Trade Center, The Pentagon obviously, the White House, our building was one of the targets as well."

Chavez went on to describe how CENTCOM HQ was being heavily fortified the day before 9/11 and access to the base was restricted to top secret personnel only. This ties in with a declaration of Martial Law by Jeb Bush two days previously throughout the entirety of Florida.

Chavez also described how during the exercises the aerospace grid with "enemy" blips on it has to be piped in to the air traffic controllers of all the airports in the affected area so they know there is a military exercise going on. This ties in with the released NORAD/NEADS and FAA tapes and accounts that are riddled with references to the drills and exercises taking place on 9/11.

[W*GS]

CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11

(Alex Jones isn't terribly credible as a source.)

http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

[alkemical]

(Alex Jones isn't terribly credible as a source.)

http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Is he any worse than Brit Hume? ;)

[mhgaffney]

Time to revive this thread.

The following was posted by the U of California in May-June 2002. It details a study that found micron sized and even sub micron sized particles near ground zero in October 2001. As the reports states, particles this size were not previously found in air samples. The question is: why were they present in the vicinity of the WTC site? What force produced them?

It has been stated that gravitational collapse pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete on 911. But gravitation cannot provide the energy necessary to produce micron sized particles. We are in the atomic realm here folks. Read and think.

Trade Center air laden with
very fine particles, DELTA scientists find

The UC Davis DELTA Group took air samples about a mile from the World Trade Center in early October 2001, several weeks after the towers collapsed. They identified high levels of coarse particles, above, which included powdered concrete and glass with a coating of combustion products, in size range of 5 to 12 micrometers diameter. Very fine particles were found at levels not previously seen in ambient air samples.

By Michael Dunlop and Aaron Broumas.
http://calag.ucop.edu/0203MJ/briefs.html

In the most thorough analysis yet of the dust and smoke blown through lower Manhattan after the collapse of the World Trade Center, UC Davis scientists identified unprecedented clouds of very fine particles, which can be riskier to human health than larger, coarse particles.

"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile," says Thomas Cahill, UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences. "Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don't exist."

Cahill heads the UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols), a collaborative association of aerosol scientists at several universities and national laboratories, which monitors atmospheric conditions associated with global warming, weather, disasters and other events.

The DELTA Group collected air samples at therequest of the U.S. Department of Energy from Oct. 2 through mid-December, with a rooftop air monitor about 1 mile north-northeast of Ground Zero.

The results for October were released in early February, and Cahill testified at an investigative hearing before the national ombuds-person for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 23. The samples were collected continuously in eight separate-size modes from coarse (12 micrometers diameter) to ultra-fine (0.09 micrometers diameter), and were analyzed for dozens of substances that are likely to be associated with burning office buildings.

Coarse particles are typically filtered by the nose or coughed out of the throat and upper lungs, but they can irritate the mucous membranes and aggravate pre-existing breathing problems such as asthma. Very fine particles, however, can travel deep into human lungs, and are typically removed from the lungs through the bloodstream and heart, increasing the possibility of more serious health impacts.

In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period "an extremely high peak," Cahill says. "Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or in the Kuwaiti oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."

Virtually all the air samples from the trade center site also carried high concentrations of coarse particles. "These particles simply should not be there," Cahill says. "It had rained, sometimes heavily, on 6 days in the prior 3 weeks. That rain should have settled these coarse particles." The finding suggests that coarse particles were being continually generated from the hot debris pile.

Some metals in the very fine mode, such as vanadium, were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. Although some asbestos was used in the buildings for fireproofing and in floor tiles, the DELTA group found very few asbestos fibers, even in the very fine particles.

All evidence indicates that ambient air in New York City is no longer influenced by the World Trade Center collapse, especially since the fires are out and the debris pile has cooled, Cahill says. However, the presence of large amounts of very fine particles as late as October means that the cleanup of indoor air should be undertaken carefully, he warns. Very fine particles penetrate crevices and fabrics in a way that normal dust doesn't, and they are easily resuspended, which can re-expose the room's occupants.

Stay tuned. More to come soon......

[BroncoBuff]

Sounds like mini-nukes to me .... especially the parts of the article you hilighted in bold, gaffney. Good work!

[W*GS]

How does the existence of dust "prove" mini-nukes, when there are other far less exotic and eminently reasonable explanations?

[alkemical]

IMO this is why if there ever is a conspiracy (on any level anywhere)- the disinformation campaign is so very effective.

[mhgaffney]

The U of California study is corroborated by a US geological Survey paper. The USGS went to ground zero in the days after 911 and found high levels of very small particles of gypsum and concrete -- in the .3 to 3 micron range.

The report was titled:

Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

By Gregory P. Meeker, Amy M. Bern, Heather A. Lowers, and Isabelle K. Brownfield

Open-File Report 2005 - 1031

Figure 9 at the end of this paper graphs the distribution of the samples, which cluster around 3 microns in size.

A gravitational collapse cannot release enough energy to pulverize concrete and cement to this tiny size. More on this soon.

[W*GS]

A gravitational collapse cannot release enough energy to pulverize concrete and cement to this tiny size. More on this soon.

Wrong. Find out how much concrete there was in the WTC, the kinetic energy available, and go from there.

See pages 27-29 of

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

[mhgaffney]

According to the NIST report the WTC was made of lightweight concrete -- weighing only 100 pounds/cubic foot.

Each of the 110 floors was about 200 X 200 square feet -- poured one third of a foot deep (4 inch slabs)

Do the math and that's over 700,000 tons of concrete per tower. But let's be conservative and say it was only 600,000 tons.

According to a concrete expert it takes 1.5 kwh (kilowatt hours) of energy to pulverize concrete down to 60 micron siize particles.

here's the site address:
www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

Do the math and that's 900,000 kwh of energy to pulverize the concretein each tower to 60 microns

Given that each tower collapse released about 400,000 kwh of energy -- obviously there is a large deficit of energy EVEN to produce 60 micron particles.

When in fact we have hard evidence of an abundance of particles in the 3 micron range. It took a lot of energy to create those small particles.

Where did the energy come from?

Since it couldn't have been suplied by a gravtational collapse, we need to consider other alternatives...

[Barry Ramey]

Good grief. Are you still pushing this nonsense? Thing is when you keep pushing this stupid stuff like this, hard to take other things you write with anything but a grain of salt if you can be this naive to believe something like this. You really look like a fool here.


The U of California study is corroborated by a US geological Survey paper. The USGS went to ground zero in the days after 911 and found high levels of very small particles of gypsum and concrete -- in the .3 to 3 micron range.

The report was titled:

Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

By Gregory P. Meeker, Amy M. Bern, Heather A. Lowers, and Isabelle K. Brownfield

Open-File Report 2005 - 1031

Figure 9 at the end of this paper graphs the distribution of the samples, which cluster around 3 microns in size.

A gravitational collapse cannot release enough energy to pulverize concrete and cement to this tiny size. More on this soon.

[W*GS]

According to a concrete expert it takes 1.5 kwh (kilowatt hours) of energy to pulverize concrete down to 60 micron siize particles.

"kWh"? Why not Joules?

Obviously you haven't read the report for which I've posted the URL twice.

Since it couldn't have been suplied by a gravtational collapse, we need to consider other alternatives...

Wrong. Still.

[mhgaffney]

There is good agreement about the amount of energy released in each collapse.

Your expert calculates a different -- a smaller -- total for the amount of concrete in each tower, however.

But let's assume his figure is correct. His final calculations by his own admission are still below the total energy needed to pulverize the WTC concrete down to 60 micron sized particles

And we still have not accounted for the further pulverization down to 3 microns and less. This is twenty times smalled than 60 microns.

Obviously, there is an energy deficit.

[mhgaffney]

smaller

[W*GS]

But let's assume his figure is correct. His final calculations by his own admission are still below the total energy needed to pulverize the WTC concrete down to 60 micron sized particles.

Wrong. The concrete doesn't need to get pulverized down to 60 ?m, as about only 40% of the total mass was concrete. The other constituents of the WTC, gypsum and so forth, require far less energy to get particles of that size, and can account for the average particle size. The graphs in the Meeker et.al. paper show distributions of particle size - which you overlook when you demand that all concrete be disintegrated to 60 ?m or less.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Gaffney at home studying....
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2001/ChewingSelf.jpg

[mhgaffney]

Wrong. The concrete doesn't need to get pulverized down to 60 ?m, as about only 40% of the total mass was concrete. The other constituents of the WTC, gypsum and so forth, require far less energy to get particles of that size, and can account for the average particle size. The graphs in the Meeker et.al. paper show distributions of particle size - which you overlook when you demand that all concrete be disintegrated to 60 ?m or less.

You need to go back and read it again.

Your expert allots a portion of the total energy to pulverize gypsum and other materials. That is separate from his concrete calculation.

Regarding the concrete he states as follows:

"We can therefore conservatively assume that at least 5 X

[mhgaffney]

Wrong. The concrete doesn't need to get pulverized down to 60 ?m, as about only 40% of the total mass was concrete. The other constituents of the WTC, gypsum and so forth, require far less energy to get particles of that size, and can account for the average particle size. The graphs in the Meeker et.al. paper show distributions of particle size - which you overlook when you demand that all concrete be disintegrated to 60 ?m or less.

For some reason the quotes didn't come through -- I'll try again:

You need to go back and read it again.

Your expert allots a portion of the total energy to pulverize gypsum and other materials. That is separate from his concrete calculation.

Regarding the concrete he states as follows:

"We can therefore conservatively assume that at least 5 X 10 11J of kinetic energy was available to crush the WTC concrete."

This is the number he uses in his calculation to account for the pulverization of concrete -- just concrete -- nothing else. And as I stated, he comes up short.

Here is his conclusion:

"Finally, we will calculate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single WTC tower (= 48,000,000 kg) to particles of a specified size. As we have noted before, the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 m particles = 3.2 X 10 11J which is only slightly less than the 5 X 10 11J of kinetic energy available. However, the energy required to crush concrete to 100 m particles is 1.9 X 10 11J, 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."

Notice, he fudges. He says well we are under 100 microns which is in the ballpark -- close enough.... Close enough for what? Government work?

Sorry - not good enough. The USGS and UC Davis scientists found a distribution sure but both note the extraordinary prevalence of the very fine stuff. The mean in the USGS sieved samples was 3 microns but the range went even lower -- down under .3 microns.

We are at least 20 times smaller here than what our government can account for. It takes a lot of energy to pulverize material this small.

Again, where did it come from? Not gravitation.

The next step is to try to calculate how much energy are we in arrears -- how much energy are we talking about to crunch concrete down to 3 microns?

The next step is to attempt to calculate the energy deficit -- how much energy are we talking about?

[mhgaffney]

To summarize:

If the official 911 story is correct we would expect to find 60 micron sized particles dominating the low end of the distribution curve. 3 micron sized partices would be present in trace -- vanishingly small amounts.

But that's NOT what the data shows. Instead the distributioon curve is well represented even down to .3 microns and under.

Nor can the energy released during a gravitational collapse of the WTC explain this.

Be assured -- the best is yet more to come.

[W*GS]

"Finally, we will calculate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single WTC tower (= 48,000,000 kg) to particles of a specified size. [B]As we have noted before, the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 m particles = 3.2 X 10 11J which is only slightly less than the 5 X 10 11J of kinetic energy available. However, the energy required to crush concrete to 100 m particles is 1.9 X 10 11J, 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."

Notice, he fudges. He says well we are under 100 microns which is in the ballpark -- close enough.... Close enough for what? Government work?

Wrong. You don't understand distributions, do you? Nor have you carefully read the Meeker et.al. paper.

Sorry - not good enough. The USGS and UC Davis scientists found a distribution sure but both note the extraordinary prevalence of the very fine stuff. The mean in the USGS sieved samples was 3 microns but the range went even lower -- down under .3 microns.

We are at least 20 times smaller here than what our government can account for. It takes a lot of energy to pulverize material this small.

Note that the concrete was generally 1/2 to 1/5 of the total volume of pulverized particles - most of them were gypsum particles. That, plus the distribution, easily allows for the amount of kinetic energy available just from gravitational collapse to create the particle distribution and particle types that Meeker et.al. observed.

The next step is to try to calculate how much energy are we in arrears -- how much energy are we talking about to crunch concrete down to 3 microns?

Consider that the bulk of material was gypsum and not concrete. The concrete can be pulverized down to 100 µm and the gypsum pulverized down to 0.3 µm and readily create the distributions seen.

No need to posit an additional energy source (much less a mini-nuke) to create the observed dust particle data.

You're quibbling over technical details.

[W*GS]

If the official 911 story is correct we would expect to find 60 micron sized particles dominating the low end of the distribution curve.

No. You don't understand how distributions are calculated or displayed.

[mhgaffney]

No. You don't understand how distributions are calculated or displayed.

You need to wake up. Go back and read the article I posted about the UC Davis study. You have gypsum on the brain.

We are not talking about soft easy to pulverize stuff like gypsum. The UC Davis study found the highest levels of sub micron particulates of various metals -- like Vanadium -- ever recorded in the US. We are talking concentrations of particles down to .09 microns. That's way way way smaller than the 60-100 micron stuff your expert thought he was dealing with. (Someone should inform him about the US Davis study.)

The USGS also found fine particulates of hard materials -- things like glass and concrete -- no mention of gypsum -- down to .3 microns. Large concentrations here -- not trace amounts. In fact, the USGS probably didn't find the sub micron metals because they were not equiped to detect them. The team from UC Davis had the equipment and expertise -- and so found the really small sub micron stuff.

I will repeat: UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS OF SUB MICRON PARTICULATES OF METALS. This is not the usual distribution curve. This is an anomaly -- that your favored conspiracy theory cannot explain.

[mhgaffney]

I'd like to see someone on this board face the evidence squarely. That would be a breath of fresh air.

I know people in New Zealand who were on to this months before me. They see it. They get it. The pattern is clear.

But Americans? Evidently we're a nation of narcoleptics. Denial has become our religion -- or maybe our national past time.

Same difference.

[SteveTensi13]

I'd like to see someone on this board face the evidence squarely. That would be a breath of fresh air.

I know people in New Zealand who were on to this months before me. They see it. They get it. The pattern is clear.

But Americans? Evidently we're a nation of narcoleptics. Denial has become our religion -- or maybe our national past time.

Same difference.

Look, a mini nuke! Boogy woogy!!Hilarious!

[mhgaffney]

It takes very high temperatures to produce sub micron sized particles of metal.

Consider Depleted Uranium, which ignites on high impact and burns in excess of 2500 Kelvin -- that's over 4000 degrees F -- much hotter than the melting point of steel.

The white hot graphite fire in the bowels of the Chernobyl reactor burned in excess of 5000 degrees F -- notice, in the same temperature range. It was a raging monster -- and it left the Soviet state completely dumbfounded -- No one knew what to do. There was no Boy Scout manual -- no prescription for a nuclear melt down. In the end there was no solution. The Soviets in desperation merely dumped thousands of tons of concrete on the nuclear furnace in an attempt to contain it. They buried it with concrete. Out of sight out of mind.

Both of these nuclear fires -- DU (in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan) and Chernobyl -- generated vast clouds of sub micro sized particles -- very similar to what was found near ground zero in New York City ater 911. It's the high temperatures of the nuclear furnace that does it.

The gravitational collapse of a large high rise -- doesn't even come close to achieving the necessary tenparatures.

The difference in the case of 911 of course is the absence of the usual cast of characters -- no uranium -- none of the usual nuclear fallout. Nonetheless, the cloud of sub micron sized metallic particles is a match -- and points to a nuclear furnace.

Time for some lite bed time reading:

Explaining How Depleted Uranium Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land

Nano-particles pinpointed

By Christopher Bollyn
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/explaining_how.html

Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people.

Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment.

While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.

In August 2004 American Free Press published a ground-breaking four-part series on DU weapons and the long-term health risks they pose to soldiers and civilians alike. Information provided to AFP by experts and scientists, some of it published for the first time in this paper, has increased public awareness of how exposure to small particles of DU can severely affect human health.

Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles—less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller—of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health.

Busby is one of the founders of Green Audit, a British organization that monitors companies “whose activities might threaten the environment and health of citizens.”

Moret’s writings were meant to assist Busby in a legal case being heard in the High Court in London where a former defense worker, Richard David, 49, is suing Normal Air Garrett, Ltd., an aircraft parts company now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, claiming exposure to DU on the job has made his life a “living hell.”

David worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers but had to quit due to health problems. He says he developed a cough within weeks of starting work.

Today, David suffers from a variety of symptoms like those known as Gulf War Syndrome, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. Medical tests reveal mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes, which, he says, could only have been caused by ionizing radiation. He has also been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition.

Honeywell denies DU was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where David worked for 10 years until 1995. David claims that DU’s existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret.

David has asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume in April. “I don’t have any legal representation,” David said, “so I am representing myself. It is a real David versus Goliath case.

“I am confident I will win. I hope to set a precedent for other cases of people who have suffered from the effects of depleted uranium,” he said.

Moret’s letters on the particle effect of DU is based on research done by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist and former scientist with the Manhattan Project and the National Laboratory at Livermore, Calif. Fulk, who has developed a “particle theory” about how DU nano-particles affect human DNA, donates his time and expertise to help bring information about DU to the public.

Asked about Fulk’s particle theory, Busby said it is “quite sound.”

“DU is much more dangerous than they say,” Busby added. “I’ve always said that it contributes significantly to Gulf War Syndrome.”

When Moret’s correspondence to Dr. Busby was posted on the Internet over the New Year’s holiday under the title “How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops,” some 6,000 people read the letter in the first two days. The following Monday, a producer from BBC’s Panorama program contacted Moret to arrange an interview.

If the BBC follows up with an investigation on the health effects of DU, it may be hard for the U.S. media to maintain their cover-up. More than 500,000 “Gulf War Era” vets currently receive disability compensation, many of them for a variety of symptoms generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Experts blame DU for many of these symptoms.

“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.”

“DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”

U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWS

The U.S. government has known for at least 20 years that DU weapons produce clouds of poison gas on impact. These clouds of aerosolized DU are laden with billions of toxic sub-micron sized particles. A 1984 Department of Energy conference on nuclear airborne waste reported that tests of DU anti-tank missiles showed that at least 31 percent of the mass of a DU penetrator is converted to nano-particles on impact. In larger bombs the percentage of aerosolized DU increases to nearly 100 percent, Fulk told AFP.

DU is harmful in three ways, according to Fulk: “Chemical toxicity, radiological toxicity and particle toxicity.”

Particles in the nano-meter (one billionth of a meter) range are a “new breed of cat,” Moret wrote. Because the size of the nano-particles allows them to pass freely throughout the organism and into the nucleus of its cells, exposure to nano-particles causes different symptoms than exposure to larger particles of the same substance.

Internalized DU particles, Fulk said, act as “a non-specific catalyst” in both “nuclear and non-nuclear” ways. This means that the uranium particle can affect human DNA and RNA because of both its chemical and radiological properties. This is why internalized DU particles cause “many, many diseases,” Fulk said.

Asked if this is how DU causes severe birth defects, Fulk said, “Yes.”

MILITARY AWARE

The military is aware of DU’s harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU’s effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU’s chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone, Moret wrote.

Dr. Miller requested that questions be sent in writing and copied to a military spokesman. She did tell AFP that it should be noted that her studies showing that DU is “neoplastically transforming and genotoxic” are based on in vitro cellular research.

Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than micro-sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of the nano-particle is due to its size.

For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13 microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly all the mice died within 4 hours.

“Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion,” Moret wrote. “Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.

“When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain,” she wrote. “Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.

“Damage to the mitochondria, which provide all energy to the cells and nerves, can cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Hodgkin’s disease.”

[W*GS]

I'd like to see someone on this board face the evidence squarely.

Indeed.

You've been dancing now for months... Every time (and it happens every time) one of your theories is shot full of holes, you recoil and bounce off in another direction, generally more fantastic and exotic than before.

You're like the pinball in the pinball machine.

[W*GS]

You need to wake up. Go back and read the article I posted about the UC Davis study. You have gypsum on the brain.

You have mini-nukes (and now, apparently, DU) on the brain.

I will repeat: UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS OF SUB MICRON PARTICULATES OF METALS. This is not the usual distribution curve. This is an anomaly -- that your favored conspiracy theory cannot explain.

Wrong.

Please read the UC Davis studies (and a helpful PowerPoint presentation) at:

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

The refereed article ("Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001") is available from

http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk

There is no need to posit mini-nukes or depleted uranium to account for the observations. Period.

[ChargerChuck]

Indeed.

You've been dancing now for months... Every time (and it happens every time) one of your theories is shot full of holes, you recoil and bounce off in another direction, generally more fantastic and exotic than before.

You're like the pinball in the pinball machine.
Reading through this thread it seems you know mhgaffney personally (spending so much time trying to explain something to someone who actually believes the United States blew up buildings in NYC with nuclear weapons)? You know, like the flippers on that pinball machine :)

[W*GS]

gaffney, read this, too:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

[W*GS]

Reading through this thread it seems you know mhgaffney personally (spending so much time trying to explain something to someone who actually believes the United States blew up buildings in NYC with nuclear weapons)? You know, like the flippers on that pinball machine :)

I don't know gaffney at all, except by his posts here.

I just find it interesting to see someone so desperate to cling to some bizarre notion that they're willing to grasp at ever-more strange straws to maintain that belief.

It's an interesting sociological study, in a way - the conspiracists' mindset.

[The Lone Bolt]

I don't know gaffney at all, except by his posts here.

I just find it interesting to see someone so desperate to cling to some bizarre notion that they're willing to grasp at ever-more strange straws to maintain that belief.

It's an interesting sociological study, in a way - the conspiracists' mindset.


I've been following this debate with fascination. Gaffney, you have made a pretty outrageous claim and seem to be oblivious to just how weak your supporting evidence is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is why nobody here is taking the mini-nukes theory seriously.

You're going to have to do a lot better than microparticles.

[alkemical]

oh please wags, not all of us are like that.

[mhgaffney]

I don't know gaffney at all, except by his posts here.

I just find it interesting to see someone so desperate to cling to some bizarre notion that they're willing to grasp at ever-more strange straws to maintain that belief.

It's an interesting sociological study, in a way - the conspiracists' mindset.


Thanks for the links, W*gs. Your feedback has been very helpful -- even though your ability to think real and/or original thoughts is open to serious doubt.

Again allow me to point out that YOUR favored conspiracy theory --which has been force fed to all of America through the power of the media (based on repetition: like a mantra repeated again and again and again) does not hold up to the most superficial scrutiny, which impels us to look deeper. Even a high school kid could figure this out.

You (not me) are the one who posted the ridiculous theory that huge steel beams rusted under the effects of steam and somehow melted..... If you believe that nonsense -- then it's no wonder you have swallowed the official conspiracy theory.

You again run away from the hard data, e.g., the highest levels of sub micron particles of various metals ever recorded in the US. I looked at the first of the links. In no way did it subvert my thoughts on this board.

I am up to my neck in work at the moment. But don't go away. Coming up soon: my detailed analysis of the NIST report of the WTC collapse.

It was dead on arrival.

[mhgaffney]

Just how hot was the pile of debriis at ground zero?

Hot enough to melt the boots of the workmen -- according to the photographer Meyeowitz, who produced the book AFTERMATH, which is well worth examining.

Hot enough -- according to Dr Cahill -- to ignite paper dropped on the ground.

As pointed out - the USGS recorded temperatures as high as 1300 degrees F -- but note this was only the surface temperature. Doown below is where the real furnace raged -- spewing out an aerosol of sub micron particulates of glass, metal, human remains, computers etc etc.

Rust did this? Gravitation?

[Spider]

And in other news .......... Aliens have landed at the local mall and driving up the prices at all retail stores ...... Back to you Gaff

[mhgaffney]

I've been following this debate with fascination. Gaffney, you have made a pretty outrageous claim and seem to be oblivious to just how weak your supporting evidence is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is why nobody here is taking the mini-nukes theory seriously.

You're going to have to do a lot better than microparticles.

That was Carl Sagan pontificating -- rather than leading by example.

Extraordinary claims? I would reserve that for the assertion that a bearded and near penniless scion with advanced kidney failure masterminded the greatest terror attack in all of history from a cave on the other side of the planet using a cell phone.

Maybe that's why the US government never did give us a dossier on bin Laden documenting the evidence against him. Do you think? Maybe it's because there was no real evidence, to begin with. Or maybe it was because they really didn't care that much about bin Laden in any event, meaning: he was merely a tool of convenience.

I promise you, before we are done you will be taking the mini nuke theory seriously.

More to come.

[DBruleU]

That was Carl Sagan pontificating -- rather than leading by example.

Extraordinary claims? I would reserve that for the assertion that a bearded and near penniless scion with advanced kidney failure masterminded the greatest terror attack in all of history from a cave on the other side of the planet using a cell phone.

Maybe that's why the US government never did give us a dossier on bin Laden documenting the evidence against him. Do you think? Maybe it's because there was no real evidence, to begin with. Or maybe it was because they really didn't care that much about bin Laden in any event, meaning: he was merely a tool of convenience.

I promise you, before we are done you will be taking the mini nuke theory seriously.

More to come.

LOL

[mhgaffney]

This doesn't directly speak to the nuclear issue -- but details White House interference: how they lied about the health risks faced by responders at ground zero.

http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/wtcfollow

World Trade Center Health Coverup?

Experts frustrated by false reassurances of air safety

By Laurie Udesky

In the weeks preceding the second anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, a federal report charged the Environmental Protection Agency with covering up the dangers to workers and residents near Ground Zero.

Another report, made public in September 2003 by a team of US scientists who studied air contamination in the area after the attacks, confirmed that the debris-laden air was indeed hazardous.

"The debris pile acted like a chemical factory," according to University of California at Davis professor Thomas Cahill, who co-authored the academic study. "It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids, and organics for at least six weeks."

Bowing to political pressure

In late August 2003, the EPA's Inspector General's office released a report that roundly criticized the agency's handling of the World Trade Center disaster. Among other things, the report charges that the agency misrepresented the danger to the public from the toxic debris.

The EPA's initial press releases on air quality near Ground Zero, it said, were first screened by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The agency then bowed to White House pressure to downplay the potential dangers by adding "reassuring comments and deleting cautionary ones" from early press releases, according to the report.

"For the general public, the EPA's overriding message was that there was no significant threat to human health," asserts the Inspector General's report -- although, it adds, the data did not support this message.

The EPA also misled anxious residents in thinking that they could safely clean the hazardous dust from the debris from their homes and buildings, according to the federal report. It points to two press releases in particular, sent out in September and October 2001. The agency assured residents and business owners that "they could clean their own spaces if they used 'appropriate' vacuum filters, and followed 'recommended' and 'proper' procedures" -- without defining what those terms meant.

According to the Inspector General's report, those instructions were wrong: They should have recommended that residents and business owners obtain professional cleaning. Partly as a result of such press releases, the report added, many workers cleaning homes did not wear respirators and use professional cleaning equipment.

The delays in a government-organized cleanup "resulted in unnecessary exposure to asbestos and other contaminants," according to the report.

EPA Acting Administrator Marianne Horinko called the EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley's report "a mystery." She further charged that the report was "divorced from the reality of 9/11, so oblivious to the chaos, fear, and uncertainty that defined those early days at Ground Zero."

'Rudimentary cleaning'

At the same time that the EPA was telling the public that there were no risks to health, a team of academic scientists was collecting thousands of air samples from the thickened black smoke that blanketed lower Manhattan after the World Trade Center collapse.

The condition of the air would have been "brutal" to the lungs of those working without protective respirators at Ground Zero and only "slightly less so" for workers and residents in buildings in the immediate area, according to UC Davis's Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics and an atmospheric scientist. Cahill presented his team's findings at an American Chemical Society Meeting in New York on September 10, 2003.

From air samples, Cahill and his researchers were able to determine how small the particles were, what they were made of and how abundant each particle was at any given time. The very fine particles or aerosols included metals, sulfuric acid, and silicon. Because they're very fine particles, they can more easily be breathed in, especially if someone is not wearing a protective respirator.

The aerosols identified by Cahill's team have specific ways of harming health. Metals, for example, interfere with lung chemistry; sulfuric acid attacks cilia and lung cells; and very fine glass particles travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart. In addition, many components of high-temperature organic matter are known to be carcinogenic, according to Cahill.

Too little, too late?

In May 2002, more than eight months after the World Trade Center disaster, the EPA finally announced to residents and building owners in lower Manhattan that they could apply for testing and professional cleaning of their buildings.

But according to EPA scientist Cate Jenkins, the federal agency is still not going far enough in testing and cleaning buildings so that they're safe. "The cleaning that they're doing now is rudimentary. It's not effective," Jenkins told Consumer Health Interactive in an exclusive interview.

A September 3, 2003 memo that Jenkins sent to U.S. Rep. Gerrold Nadler (D-New York) at his request includes an example of a botched clean-up at 114 Liberty St., just across the street from Ground Zero. The report asserts that the contractor working for the EPA and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection "did not remove all visible dust even after two cleaning events."

Frustrated residents hired their own consultant to analyze the remaining dust. The results, according to Jenkin's report, "demonstrated high levels of asbestos." The EPA, however, maintained that its own test results indicated "all the primary clearance levels were achieved."

Physicians' reaction

Illnesses from exposure to the smoke and debris at Ground Zero have been well-documented. In the first six months following 9/11, for example, 3 to 8 percent of the firefighters who were at Ground Zero within two days after the collapse suffered from coughing so severe that they required a medical leave, according to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In addition, at least a quarter of the 10,800-strong New York City-based rescue force reported "cough and shortness of breath on exertion," and medical leaves had increased two-fold, according to congressional testimony by the Chief Medical Officer of the New York City Fire Department, Dr. Kerry Kelly.

Had the Environmental Protection Agency been more forthcoming about potential health hazards following the attacks on the World Trade Center, an untold number of people who have developed disabling conditions may not have, suggests a physician with Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine in New York City.

"My feeling is that many of my patients might have avoided developing disabling conditions had the EPA been clearer in their description of air quality," says Dr. Robin Herbert, a physician and medical co-director of the Mount Sinai center. "We would have changed what we told people early on. We had patients who should not have been working there, who should have been transferred to another area."

Herbert works as the director of Mt. Sinai's WTC Medical Monitoring Program’s Clinical Center and Treatment Program. Since the twin tower tragedy, her center has screened thousands of people who have worked or lived around Ground Zero. They've suffered a host of illnesses, mostly respiratory, some with such severe symptoms that they are no longer able to work. Among the post 9/11 illnesses was asthma that had been reactivated in people "who haven't suffered any symptoms for years," explains Herbert.

Illnesses that have symptoms are at least recognizable and often treatable. The harder question is, will exposures to the WTC air and dust cause illnesses in people years from now? "We have concerns," says Herbert. "We certainly hope that people won't be at risk for cancers or for long-term diseases, but frankly, we don't know."

-- Laurie Udesky is an award-winning San Francisco-based journalist and a frequent contributor to Consumer Health Interactive.



References


EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas of Improvement, August 21, 2003m Report No. 2003-P-00012, Office of Inspector General, EPA http://www.epa.gov/oig/ereading_room/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

Horinko, Marianne Lamont, "WTC air fit to breathe? Yes." New York Daily News, September 2, 2003. http://www.nydailynews.com/09-02-2003/news/v-pfriendly/story/113871p-102766c.html

Press Release, "EPA and city outline comprehensive plan to address the concerns of lower Manhattan Residents about the Impacts of the WTC Collapse on Indoor Air Quality, May 8, 2002. Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_050802.htm

"EPA/NYCDEP clean-up of WTC dust at 114 Liberty Street," Memo from Cate Jenkins PhD., Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 3, 2003

Cahill, Thomas A. "Very fine particles from the WTC collapse piles; anaerobic incineration?", abstract for the American Chemical Society Meeting Sept.7, 2003. See also Cahill, Thomas et al,"Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse site, New York, Oct 2, to Oct 30, 2001

"Testimony by Dr. Kerry Kelly, Chief Medical Officer, New York City Fire Department Before the Senate Committee on Environment, and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clear Air, Wetlands and Climate Changes, Monday, February 11, 2002

Prezant D. J., et al. Cough and Bronchial Responsiveness in Firefighters at the World Trade Center Site. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:806-815, Sep 12, 2002

World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program. Newsletters. Fall/Winter 2006. http://www.wtcexams.org/pdfs/wtc_2006_fallwinter_newsletter_english.pdf

Centers for Disease Control. First Reports of Health Effects in World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers Find High Rates of Respiratory and Mental Health Problems. September 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/OD/OC/MEDIA/pressrel/r040909.htm

[alkemical]

And in other news .......... Aliens have landed at the local mall and driving up the prices at all retail stores ...... Back to you Gaff

This is one of the best ever spider - it fit so well in the thread - LOL!

Bravo!

[W*GS]

Thanks for the links, W*gs. Your feedback has been very helpful -- even though your ability to think real and/or original thoughts is open to serious doubt.

Thanks for this morning's most amusing comment.

Again allow me to point out that YOUR favored conspiracy theory --which has been force fed to all of America through the power of the media (based on repetition: like a mantra repeated again and again and again) does not hold up to the most superficial scrutiny, which impels us to look deeper. Even a high school kid could figure this out.

Clearly you're not familiar with al-Qaeda. I suggest doing some reading.

What happened on 9/11 fits in perfectly with their agenda.

You (not me) are the one who posted the ridiculous theory that huge steel beams rusted under the effects of steam and somehow melted..... If you believe that nonsense -- then it's no wonder you have swallowed the official conspiracy theory.

I never said the beams "melted" - and, in fact, the evidence for "pools" is rather sparse, as I pointed out before.

You've never shown how the well-known exothermic nature of oxidation is wrong. Merely hand-waving and calling it "ridiculous" doesn't change the fact that iron burns. That's what oxidation is.

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

You again run away from the hard data, e.g., the highest levels of sub micron particles of various metals ever recorded in the US. I looked at the first of the links. In no way did it subvert my thoughts on this board.

There's a long long way to go to get from "highest levels of sub micron particles" to "mini-nukes planted by the government".

I am up to my neck in work at the moment. But don't go away. Coming up soon: my detailed analysis of the NIST report of the WTC collapse.

It was dead on arrival.

I'll take your pronouncements with a grain of salt the size of, oh, Olympus Mons.

[The Lone Bolt]

Extraordinary claims? I would reserve that for the assertion that a bearded and near penniless scion with advanced kidney failure masterminded the greatest terror attack in all of history from a cave on the other side of the planet using a cell phone.


I think you're oversimplifying and making unproven assertions.

1) There is no evidence that Bin Laden is suffering from or ever has suffered from kidney failure.

2) "Near penniless?" The man came from a wealthy Saudi family. How do you know he was "penniless" at the time of the 9/11 attacks? You have proof that he had no funds whatsoever available to him?

3) He orchestrated the 9/11 attacks entirely over a cell phone? Really? How do you know this? You mean you have evidence that he did not carefully plan the attack over years with many high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders and willing "martyrs"? You mean he could not possibly have lead a terrorist organization with enough members and resources to hijack and fly three planes into buildings in the United States? This is an "extraordinary" claim to you? Why?


I would have to say that the "official version" is a WHOLE lot more plausible than "mini-nukes".

[alkemical]

I think you're oversimplifying and making unproven assertions.

1) There is no evidence that Bin Laden is suffering from or ever has suffered from kidney failure.

2) "Near penniless?" The man came from a wealthy Saudi family. How do you know he was "penniless" at the time of the 9/11 attacks? You have proof that he had no funds whatsoever available to him?

3) He orchestrated the 9/11 attacks entirely over a cell phone? Really? How do you know this? You mean you have evidence that he did not carefully plan the attack over years with many high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders and willing "martyrs"? You mean he could not possibly have lead a terrorist organization with enough members and resources to hijack and fly three planes into buildings in the United States? This is an "extraordinary" claim to you? Why?


I would have to say that the "official version" is a WHOLE lot more plausible than "mini-nukes".



There's no proof OBL is alive.

[Bronco Bob]

One other point: pure hydrogen bombs are made of trutium and deuterium - and have no plutonium or uranium, hence do not give the radioactivity of a usual nuclear weapon. The amount of radioactivity released with this kind of weapon is only 1/00 th as much as in a plutonium bomb of the same yield, and of a different type requiring special equipment to detect it. For this reason the tiny amount of radiation was not detected.



That's idiotic. How could you set off the hydrogen without a uranium or
plutonium bomb? A hydrogen bomb works because the hydrogen is
subjected to extreme amounts of heat, so hot it causes the protons
to fuse together faster than their positive electrical fields can repel
them from each other. And the only way you can generate that
kind of heat on earth is with a nuclear bomb. That's why hydrogen
bombs are also called thermo-nuclear bombs.


Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[Stuck In Texas]

After reading through this thread I realize I should have paid more attention in school. Either that or I was absent during "nuclear science" week.:homer:

[Spider]

After reading through this thread I realize I should have paid more attention in school. Either that or I was absent during "nuclear science" week.:homer:
all you need to know is "GO BOOM" the rest realy doesnt matter ;D

[Bronco Bob]

After reading through this thread I realize I should have paid more attention in school. Either that or I was absent during "nuclear science" week.:homer:

Psssst, don't tell anyone I told you, but I have a Bachelor of Science
degree in Engineering Physics from the University of Southern Colorado.
(Now Colorado State University - Pueblo)


:thanku:

[mhgaffney]

I think you're oversimplifying and making unproven assertions.

1) There is no evidence that Bin Laden is suffering from or ever has suffered from kidney failure.

2) "Near penniless?" The man came from a wealthy Saudi family. How do you know he was "penniless" at the time of the 9/11 attacks? You have proof that he had no funds whatsoever available to him?

3) He orchestrated the 9/11 attacks entirely over a cell phone? Really? How do you know this? You mean you have evidence that he did not carefully plan the attack over years with many high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders and willing "martyrs"? You mean he could not possibly have lead a terrorist organization with enough members and resources to hijack and fly three planes into buildings in the United States? This is an "extraordinary" claim to you? Why?

I would have to say that the "official version" is a WHOLE lot more plausible than "mini-nukes".

In October 2001 Le Figaro (a French daily newspaper owned by the Carlyle Group -- a corporation in which the Bush family is heavily invested) reported that in July 2001 Bin Laden underwent treatment in the American Hospital in Dubai. He was admitted to the urology department.

A number of other sources confirmed this report -- and also went further. On this occasion -- notice -- just weeks before 9/11 -- a well known US CIA official -- a member of the US diplomatic mission to Dubai -- visited Osama at the hospital.

Evidently -- at this stage (even after attacking the Cole and blowing up US embassies in Africa) bin Laden was still a valued and protected US intelligence asset.

Figure that one out. For the sources on this check THE WAR ON TRUTH by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed -- probably the best single book about the war on terrorism.

As for penniless -- yeah I thought this would get a rise. I didn't mean to imply that bin Laden was destitute -- surely at the time of 9/11 he retained enough of his wealth to live well.

Nonetheless, much of his fortune was gone by the time he left Kartoum. After he returned to Afghanistan he did not have the means to finance large construction projects, which is how he made his reputation in former years. Probably this is one reason the Taliban was perfectly happy to turn him over to the US, i.e., put bin Laden on triall in Pakistan. An offer Bush refused.

My source here is the fine book Satanic Purses by a McGill scholar RT Naylor -- highly recommended.

As for the cell phone, yeah well, I am simply mocking the absurd. Didn't you consider it odd that within an hour of the WTC attack the Bush administration anounced the villain responsible for the deed? Bin Laden was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced in the US media circus -- a true kangarooo court if there ever was one.

I am not defending bin Laden. He is no hero of mine. I am simply questioning the slick way this was orchestrated -- as if it was all pre arrranged. Soon after 9/11 Sec of State Powell announced that the US would release a dossier of evidence against binny -- but hey --- they never did. And the US press went to sleep and forgot the whole thing.

Indeed, the US media did their duty and made bin Laden the new Satan -- the poster child for Bush's war on terror -- generalized to neo con specifiications..

All of this was a page stolen directly from George Orwell. Even the neo con lingo is Orwellian. Example: Old Europe, as in Old Speak. It's so Orwellian it's creepy.

Did anyone even notice?

[mhgaffney]

That's idiotic. How could you set off the hydrogen without a uranium or
plutonium bomb? A hydrogen bomb works because the hydrogen is
subjected to extreme amounts of heat, so hot it causes the protons
to fuse together faster than their positive electrical fields can repel
them from each other. And the only way you can generate that
kind of heat on earth is with a nuclear bomb. That's why hydrogen
bombs are also called thermo-nuclear bombs.


Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

You missed the posts at the start of this thread. There is good reason to think the South Africans made a major breakthrough in the late 1980s -- developed a pure fusion nuclear weapon --using a substance known a s red mercury instead of a fission trigger.

Apartheid SA was less interested in nuclear deterrence than in developing a tactical nuclear shell to be fired from their G5 howitzers --- developed by Canadian genius military engineer Gerald Bull -- the best artillery in the world capable of accurately firing 155 mm shells about 30 miles.

I just finished reading an amazing report on this -- by Peter Hounam THE MINI NUKE CONSPIRACY. Hounam has solid credentials. He was a former reporter at the London Sunday TImes, where he wrote the expose about Israel's nuke program that appeared in the Times in October 1986 -- based on info provided by nuclear whistlblower Mordechai Vanunu.

The US was moving toward a pure fusion bomb during the Clinton administration. We know this for a fact. Of course, there are still a number of missing pieces of the puzzle.

More to come...

[W*GS]

There is good reason to think the South Africans made a major breakthrough in the late 1980s -- developed a pure fusion nuclear weapon --using a substance known a s red mercury instead of a fission trigger.

That's highly questionable - how was SA able to design and build a "pure fusion" nuke (the "red mercury" is a red herring) by the mid- to late-1980s, given their limited resources (both people and technology) when the US has yet to build such a device? If, as you allege, the Clinton administration started developing one on the order of 10 years later, given our resources, how could SA actually develop and build one much earlier? Remember, the still-unproven SA "nuclear test" (with or without Israeli collaboration) was in 1979. I certainly hope you're not claiming that the "test" was of a "pure fusion" weapon.

I just finished reading an amazing report on this -- by Peter Hounam THE MINI NUKE CONSPIRACY. Hounam has solid credentials. He was a former reporter at the London Sunday TImes, [...]

I'd be more interested in reading information from a credible nuclear weapons designer than a newspaper reporter.

[W*GS]

In October 2001 Le Figaro (a French daily newspaper owned by the Carlyle Group -- a corporation in which the Bush family is heavily invested) reported that in July 2001 Bin Laden underwent treatment in the American Hospital in Dubai. He was admitted to the urology department.

A number of other sources confirmed this report -- and also went further. On this occasion -- notice -- just weeks before 9/11 -- a well known US CIA official -- a member of the US diplomatic mission to Dubai -- visited Osama at the hospital.

All the above is unsubstantiated and highly questionable. The "other sources confirmed" is false.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

[mhgaffney]

That's highly questionable - how was SA able to design and build a "pure fusion" nuke (the "red mercury" is a red herring) by the mid- to late-1980s, given their limited resources (both people and technology) when the US has yet to build such a device? If, as you allege, the Clinton administration started developing one on the order of 10 years later, given our resources, how could SA actually develop and build one much earlier? Remember, the still-unproven SA "nuclear test" (with or without Israeli collaboration) was in 1979. I certainly hope you're not claiming that the "test" was of a "pure fusion" weapon.

I'd be more interested in reading information from a credible nuclear weapons designer than a newspaper reporter.


SA had plenty of help -- They were the exploratory world lab and according to Hounam received various kinds of assistance (monetary, technical, procurements etc) from the US, UK, France Italy etc All off the record off course since the apartheid government was under the ban.

At the end of apartheid -- SA was in ferment -- and came very close to a bloodbath. SA under reported its nuclear program to the IAEA and many of the tactical nukes went missing. The nation has a powerful right wing.

It was only through the inspirational leadership of Nelson Mandela -- that SA avoided a very different tragic path.

Hounam found numerous people on the inside willing to talk because of the shifting loyalties -- SA was a nation in transition. You should read his book.

The red mercury initially came from the USSR, which first produced it way back in the 1960s. However, by the mid eighties SA was producing its own.

As for your remark about nuclear weapons experts -- I first learned about red mercury only a few weeks ago -- directly from Frank Barnaby, former nuclear weapons designer from the UK.

It was Barnaby who vetted Vanunu back in 1986 for the London Sunday Times (i.e., Hounam) Barnaby is convinced red mercury is for real -- and did a paper on it for International Defense Review (June 1994). I haven't had a chance yet to get ahold of it. You can do us all a favor W*gs if you find it and post -- though I doubt very much it's in Cyberspace.

I also posted a piece (earlier in this thread) by Sam Cohen, father of the neutron bomb. Cohen is, in other words, a nuclear weapons designer. He also thinks the red mercury "scare" is for real. You didn't read it? How typical. I suggest you check out Cohen's book THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NEUTRON BOMB.

[mhgaffney]

All the above is unsubstantiated and highly questionable. The "other sources confirmed" is false.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

The above site is a disgrace -- and so are you W*gs.

Do you know real research when you see it?

Radio France confirmed the Le Figaro report. The original source was French intelligence. The London Guardian also carried the story and also cited French intelligence.

I (again) suggest you check out Ahmed's boook THE WAR ON TRUTH. As I said its probably the best book about the war on terror.

[W*GS]

A lot of the "information" about "red mercury" is highly contested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cohen

Your entire theory (mini-nukes destroying the WTC) rests on some incredibly shifty ground. It depends almost entirely on a substance many experts and knowledgeable people state is a myth.

You've veered off into fantasy...

[W*GS]

The above site is a disgrace -- and so are you W*gs.

You've made numerous dark insinuations that "911myths" is an NSA-run (or some other evil agency) disinformation site, without the slightest proof or evidence to back up your claims. So stick it.

Do you know real research when you see it?

Obviously, based on your aspersions against "911myths", you haven't a clue as to what "real research" is.

Radio France confirmed the Le Figaro report. The original source was French intelligence. The London Guardian also carried the story and also cited French intelligence.

Breezing over the many problems with the story as noted in the 911myths link doesn't make them go away. BTW, the Guardian was merely repeating what Le Figaro had published - which doesn't make it any more credible.

I (again) suggest you check out Ahmed's boook THE WAR ON TRUTH. As I said its probably the best book about the war on terror.

Ahmed is just another one of the 9/11 whackos - bouncing from Ahmed to Jones (either Steven or Alex) to Griffin and back again doesn't make your argument better or more rational.

You're stuck in a "tautology" of the same "experts" - and going around in circles.

[mhgaffney]

A lot of the "information" about "red mercury" is highly contested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cohen

Your entire theory (mini-nukes destroying the WTC) rests on some incredibly shifty ground. It depends almost entirely on a substance many experts and knowledgeable people state is a myth.

You've veered off into fantasy...


Notice W*gs has no experts -- only Wikipedia -- the source of choice for anonymous arm chair experts.

[mhgaffney]

Ahmed is just another one of the 9/11 whackos - bouncing from Ahmed to Jones (either Steven or Alex) to Griffin and back again doesn't make your argument better or more rational.

You're stuck in a "tautology" of the same "experts" - and going around in circles.

Here are two endorsements of Ahmed's boook THE WAR ON TRUTH, which W*gs -- like the knee jerk he is --- has trashed without even bothering to open the cover -- let alone read.

"On the subject 'How and why America was attacked on 11 September 2001' the best most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafez Mosaddeq Ahmed..."
---Gore Vidal

"Nafeez Ahmed's understanding of the post 911 power game, its lies, illusions and dangers, is no less than brilliant. Everyone should read this wise and powerfully illuminating book."
---John Pilger

[W*GS]

Notice W*gs has no experts -- only Wikipedia -- the source of choice for anonymous arm chair experts.

Pity you haven't read those articles - there are many references in them that you can follow.

I'm certainly not paying $795 to the guy who runs nuclear.com to get the truth (one page's worth!) about "red mercury".

Oh, and it's "armchair experts" - two words, not three.

[W*GS]

Here are two endorsements of Ahmed's boook THE WAR ON TRUTH, which W*gs -- like the knee jerk he is --- has trashed without even bothering to open the cover -- let alone read.

Ooooh. Vidal and Pilger. Wow. Deep.

If my local library has it, I might bother to check out Ahmed's book - but only after I read stuff more worthwhile, like "50 Years of Marmaduke".

[mhgaffney]

Some still sing the praises of Bill Clinton. I am not one of them. This Rhodes scholar who entered the white house with such promise -- went on to disappoint those of us who hoped for great things.

Those who think G W Bush alone is responsible for the present sorry state of the world should carefully ponder Bill Clinton's Nov 1997 Presidential Directive -- detailed below in a fine article by Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, then director of CDI.

This article was posted way back in 2000 -- in hopes it might have some positive effect on the 2000 NPT Review Conference. As we now know, the 2000 conference barely averted a melt down.

The latest NPT Review Conference in 2005 failed even to agree on an agenda after GW Bush announced -- on the eve of the conference -- a budgetary request for nuclear bunker busters. The conference collapsed days later in total disarray.

My point in posting this is to show that Clinton was moving ahead with a first strike nuclear policy even before the Bush era. In fact -- notice -- Clinton's directive came just months after Clinton sent the reassuriing letter to Hans Bethe, who had warned Clinton about the unwise policy of continuing nuclear R&D on new weapons designs, meaning pure fusion.

Obviously Clinton had other ideas. You'll notice his 1997 directive announces that the US will resume production of tritium.


The NPT Review – Last Chance?

by Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.)


Just five years ago the United States led a strong global effort to achieve indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 which was due to expire on its 25th anniversary in April, 1995. U.S. leaders exerted substantial diplomatic pressure on nations less than enthusiastic about extending the NPT regime in order to ensure perpetuation of this critically important element of the global arms control structure, one very much in U.S. security interests.

The primary resistance to extending the Treaty in 1995 came from nations which complained about the failure of the five nuclear powers (China, France, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S.) to satisfy their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty.

Article VI was written into the Treaty originally as a major inducement to non-nuclear states to renounce their right to develop nuclear weapons even though the five nuclear powers were allowed to keep theirs. At the same time, however, Article VI clearly and unequivocally committed the nations with weapons to genuine efforts leading to nuclear disarmament:

Article VI

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The absolute failure of the nuclear weapons states to meet this commitment is evident through a straightforward comparison of nuclear arsenals in 1970 and 1995. In 1970 there were an estimated 39,700 nuclear weapons of all types in the arsenals of the five nuclear states. In 1995, despite the end of the Cold War, the totals stood at 43,200 weapons after 25 years of talking about reductions. Furthermore, the delivery systems for families of newer weapons had all been improved repeatedly to produce greatly increased lethality through greater range, accuracy and reliability. In short, after 25 years nuclear weapons posed an even greater threat of cataclysmic destruction, if not the very survival of the human race on earth.

Talking the Right Talk

This continuing threat produced concerted criticism of the nuclear haves by the have-nots and active resistance to approval of the indefinite extension of the NPT. In an effort to placate the critics, the five nuclear powers joined together to reaffirm their obligation under Article VI to move away from reliance on nuclear weapons for their own security. They did this in a statement entitled, "Principles and Objectives For Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament." Among other promises, this joint commitment pledged the five nations to "the determined pursuit by the nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons...." This, the first unequivocal declaration of the goal of total elimination of all nuclear weapons, will unquestionably be the focus of non-nuclear states during the forthcoming U.N. conference in April and May 2000 to review compliance with the NPT.

What will the conferees "officially" discover at this five year review of the NPT?

Most regrettably, they will learn that the United States, which used powerful leadership in 1995 to obtain indefinite extension of the NPT, has become an active threat to the entire non-proliferation regime.

Walking the Wrong Walk

The most powerful evidence of this threat is in a document titled Presidential Decision Directive 60 (PDD 60) approved by President Clinton in November, 1997. Although highly classified and never formally released for consideration or debate by Congress or American citizens, certain provisions were selectively disclosed to the media. The first and most ominous decision in the directive is to retain nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of American security for the foreseeable future. It is difficult to conceive of a precept more contrary to the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. If the most powerful nation on earth declares nuclear weapons to be the cornerstone of its security, how can the other nuclear weapons nations be induced to cut their existing weapons stocks or those countries with no weapons be convinced not to create and possess them?

As if this U.S. stance were not threat enough, PDD 60 also includes other provocative provisions:

The U.S. will maintain its Cold War nuclear weapons delivery triad of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles ( ICBMs), Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and long range bombers.

The U.S. will maintain a launch-on-warning posture with its strategic nuclear missiles. This will perpetuate the hair-trigger alert regimen maintained throughout the Cold War.

The U.S. asserts the right to make first use of nuclear weapons, including the right ti use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states in retaliation for chemical or biological weapons attacks.

U.S. targeting plans will focus on Russia and China but will also include prospective nuclear states which might threaten U.S. interests in the future. Authoritative sources indicate that the U.S. has actually increased the number of targets in Russia since PDD 60 was issued.

Renewing Nucs

There is ample evidence that PDD 60 is not merely a policy statement. The Clinton administration has taken or reaffirmed a number of decisions that sustain and enhance U.S. nuclear war fighting capabilities and can maintain them indefinitely:

Efforts to enhance the capability to design and test new nuclear weapons in our national laboratories using sub-critical explosive testing and advanced modeling procedures.

Completing construction of the costly National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

Resuming tritium production, using for the first time civilian power generating reactors for this purpose. By this action, the U.S. will breach the barrier between civilian and military use of nuclear power which the NPT is intended to maintain.

Resuming limited production of plutonium pits for new or redesigned nuclear weapons.

Rejecting Russian proposals to consider deeper reductions in the number of strategic warheads than the 2000-2500 range proposed by the U.S. during prospective START III negotiations.

Moreover, in an interview at Offut Air Force Base on March 16, 2000, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre reportedly reaffirmed the U.S. position that "nuclear weapons are still the foundation of a superpower," thereby inviting other nations to develop and retain their weapons. A new U.S. Nuclear Mission Management Plan is expected to call for further modernization of the 550 Peacekeeper and Minuteman land-based missiles and 430 submarine-based Trident missiles.

In summary, five years ago the United States saw, clearly and correctly, that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was an important contribution to efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Responsible leaders of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, backed by the Department of Defense and Department of State, worked forcefully to ensure that it would be extended indefinitely to provide a critical element of nuclear stability. Unfortunately, almost before the ink was dry on the NPT extension agreement, pro-nuclear arms factions in the Pentagon and White House began vigorous efforts to undermine the NPT. To our nation’s shame, the 1997 PDD 60 embodies their success.

Fallout from PDD 60

It is no coincidence that India, long a critic of the NPT because it imposed restrictions on non-nuclear states while granting nuclear weapons license to five nations, decided to resume nuclear testing and weapons development in 1998. Although India claimed that threats from a nuclear armed China were the reason for the tests, the cynical disavowal by the United States of its obligations under the NPT obviously enabled India to assert equal rights to develop nuclear weapons for its national security. Pakistani nuclear tests inevitably followed, using exactly the same justification.

There will be more Indias and Pakistans in the world’s future if the United States fails to satisfy well justified demands by the 182 non-nuclear signatories of the NPT to show genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament. The review conference beginning at the U.N. on April 24, 2000 could well produce significant withdrawals from the NPT regime if the United States continues to sustain and enhance its nuclear warfare capabilities as it is now doing. Furthermore, U.S. preparations to deploy a national missile defense system (even if it means abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) and rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the U.S. Senate are alarming signals to the rest of the world.

[mhgaffney]

Here's the link
http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue3/NPT.html

[W*GS]

Tritium is a well-known component of regular ol' thermonuclear weapons.

That Clinton decided to restart production of it doesn't mean that "mini-nukes" destroyed the WTC.

You're attempting to pull in all sorts of incredibly tangential bits of data to try to make your point. You're not succeeding.

[Spider]

I once placed 3 M-80's under a bucket .......... i didnt know my Dad has so many viens in his forehead ............he was pissed

[elsid13]

I glad to see that this thread has move beyond the "absolute ridicules" to "you're freaking Uni-bomber" category

[Bronco Bob]

You missed the posts at the start of this thread. There is good reason to think the South Africans made a major breakthrough in the late 1980s -- developed a pure fusion nuclear weapon --using a substance known a s red mercury instead of a fission trigger.

Apartheid SA was less interested in nuclear deterrence than in developing a tactical nuclear shell to be fired from their G5 howitzers --- developed by Canadian genius military engineer Gerald Bull -- the best artillery in the world capable of accurately firing 155 mm shells about 30 miles.

I just finished reading an amazing report on this -- by Peter Hounam THE MINI NUKE CONSPIRACY. Hounam has solid credentials. He was a former reporter at the London Sunday TImes, where he wrote the expose about Israel's nuke program that appeared in the Times in October 1986 -- based on info provided by nuclear whistlblower Mordechai Vanunu.

The US was moving toward a pure fusion bomb during the Clinton administration. We know this for a fact. Of course, there are still a number of missing pieces of the puzzle.

More to come...


I know enough about nuclear physics to know that the only way to fuse
hydrogen atoms together is to subject them to high heat and high
pressure. And the only source of that on earth is in a nuclear explosion.
I don't care what color mercury you use, there is nothing in mercury
capable of generating those kinds of heat and pressure. The only
other device capable of generating those kinds of pressures is
the core of a star, like the sun. Even the surface of the sun, as
hot as that is, isn't capable of generating a fusion reaction.
I don't care how many whacko web sites you have read, physics
is physics.

[alkemical]

I have my own questions - but if the fires were "so hot" to weaken and melt steel - why were people able to stand in the impact holes?

[W*GS]

I have my own questions - but if the fires were "so hot" to weaken and melt steel - why were people able to stand in the impact holes?

The fires that weakened the critical steel were more interior - and it's not clear that steel was ever melted. Made red-hot, probably, but mainly in the debris pile. The picture of the woman at the impact hole? She was standing near the edge and could have come from some distance away or from a floor above the impact zone.

I'd have to see the picture again, and know when it was taken, to take a better guess.

[mhgaffney]

I have my own questions - but if the fires were "so hot" to weaken and melt steel - why were people able to stand in the impact holes?

The NIST itself admitted the fires did not melt the steel. As for the jet fuel, the NIST lead investigator admitted the jet fuel was consumed in less than 10 minutes.

The NIST also found that the combustibles in the WTC were less than expected. The fires consumed the available burnables in about 20 minutes in any given part of the buildiing -- not nearly long enough to weaken steel to a critical point.

Once you understand that the fire theory cannot explain the WTC collapse -- then you are back to square one and must ask again: Why did the towers fall?

Stay tuned: My analysis of the NIST report coming soon...

[mhgaffney]

I know enough about nuclear physics to know that the only way to fuse
hydrogen atoms together is to subject them to high heat and high
pressure. And the only source of that on earth is in a nuclear explosion.
I don't care what color mercury you use, there is nothing in mercury
capable of generating those kinds of heat and pressure. The only
other device capable of generating those kinds of pressures is
the core of a star, like the sun. Even the surface of the sun, as
hot as that is, isn't capable of generating a fusion reaction.
I don't care how many whacko web sites you have read, physics
is physics.

You are stating the prevailing view. However, at least two nuclear weapons designers, Frank Barnaby and Sam Cohen, do not agree. They are both on record -- stating the view that another means has been found to achieve the pressures and temperatures necessary to start fusion. So what are your credentials next to theirs?

Red mercury is just a name. The substance may include mercury but it also includes the element antimony. As for its actual properties, this remains the issue...

[W*GS]

The NIST also found that the combustibles in the WTC were less than expected. The fires consumed the available burnables in about 20 minutes in any given part of the buildiing -- not nearly long enough to weaken steel to a critical point.

So why were both towers heavily burning up to the moment of collapse? What was burning, if the "available burnables[sic]" were gone in 20 minutes?

[W*GS]

You are stating the prevailing view. However, at least two nuclear weapons designers, Frank Barnaby and Sam Cohen, do not agree. They are both on record -- stating the view that another means has been found to achieve the pressures and temperatures necessary to start fusion. So what are your credentials next to theirs?

Red mercury is just a name. The substance may include mercury but it also includes the element antimony. As for its actual properties, this remains the issue...

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't believe either Cohen or Barnaby has said, "on the record", that "red mercury" (whatever the heck that is, if it even exists) makes a non-fission fusion weapon possible. You're greatly overstating their claims, even if they've truly made them.

Never mind there's a big jump from a theoretical design to an actual device.

All the handwaving you have to do to support your theory will just about eliminate global warming.

[alkemical]

The fires that weakened the critical steel were more interior - and it's not clear that steel was ever melted. Made red-hot, probably, but mainly in the debris pile. The picture of the woman at the impact hole? She was standing near the edge and could have come from some distance away or from a floor above the impact zone.

I'd have to see the picture again, and know when it was taken, to take a better guess.

Google and yahoo pictures are filtered out (firewall) - so this is what i got for you wags:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

[alkemical]

So why were both towers heavily burning up to the moment of collapse? What was burning, if the "available burnables[sic]" were gone in 20 minutes?



That's sort of his point Wags. That if the NSIT said the fire/consumables were burned in 20min - there should be another catalyst.

[alkemical]

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't believe either Cohen or Barnaby has said, "on the record", that "red mercury" (whatever the heck that is, if it even exists) makes a non-fission fusion weapon possible. You're greatly overstating their claims, even if they've truly made them.

Never mind there's a big jump from a theoretical design to an actual device.

All the handwaving you have to do to support your theory will just about eliminate global warming.

I read a bit and don't have a great answer, but ask.com - had this:

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/chemicalweapons/f/blredmercury.htm

[W*GS]

That's sort of his point Wags. That if the NSIT said the fire/consumables were burned in 20min - there should be another catalyst.

I wouldn't trust what gaffney claims NIST says. He's known for taking scattered factoids out of context.

[alkemical]

I wouldn't trust what gaffney claims NIST says. He's known for taking scattered factoids out of context.



I'm not in disagreement wags - i just understand 'where he's going' on it, or how he got there so to speak.

[ClevelandBronco]

...I just understand 'where he's going' on it, or how he got there so to speak.

Yeah. Me too.

http://www.drugs-forum.co.uk/magic-mushrooms.jpg

[Bronco Bob]

You are stating the prevailing view. However, at least two nuclear weapons designers, Frank Barnaby and Sam Cohen, do not agree. They are both on record -- stating the view that another means has been found to achieve the pressures and temperatures necessary to start fusion. So what are your credentials next to theirs?

Red mercury is just a name. The substance may include mercury but it also includes the element antimony. As for its actual properties, this remains the issue...

I'm not sure what your point about it might also contain antimony is.
All antimony is, is another element, most commonly used in fire retardent paints.
About the only thing is has in common with mercury is
that in pure form it is poisonous, like arsenic. None of the compounds
of antimony are particularly energetic.
It sort of sounds like people are throwing out names of elements that
other people have sort of heard of, but don't really know what they are,
or what their properties are. It sounds good to a person who doesn't
have a chemistry or physics background, but makes no sense to
someone who does.
The reason I doubt a chemical reaction is sufficient to ignite a
thermonuclear reaction is because chemical explosive are the
result of breaking of electrical bonds between individual atoms.
There is a limit to the amount of energy contained in a chemical
bond. And this energy isn't sufficient to overcome the more
powerful electro-repulsive forces of the hydrogen protons.
A uranium or plutonium nuclear explosion can, because it
that case the actual nucleus of the atom is shattered, and
far more energy holds a nucleus together than does the
electrical forces in a chemical bond between atoms.
You need to show me how a chemical reaction can generate the extreme heat
and overpressure to overcome the electro-repulsive forces of the hyrdogen
protons which would bring them close enough together to allow the strong forces to come into play.
What is there about the molecular structure red mercury that makes it
orders of magnitude more powerful than compounds such as RDX, HMX,
Sorguyl, or PETN.

[mhgaffney]

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't believe either Cohen or Barnaby has said, "on the record", that "red mercury" (whatever the heck that is, if it even exists) makes a non-fission fusion weapon possible. You're greatly overstating their claims, even if they've truly made them.


You think I dont know how shocking all of this is? I'm still in shock myself. But this doesn't mean I'm going to stick my head in the sand -- like some around here.

As I already said, Barnaby's paper appeared in June 1994 in the journal International Defense Review. The title: "Red mercury: is there a pure fusion bomb for sale?"

I hope to run it down next week -- and be assured when I do I will report back. But I already have a good idea what's in it. A month ago Barnaby told me on the phone about red mercury -- and he was very serious.

As for Cohen, you can read his paper posted on this thread -- one of the early pages. Obviously you didn't bother to read it.

[mhgaffney]

The fires that weakened the critical steel were more interior - and it's not clear that steel was ever melted. Made red-hot, probably, but mainly in the debris pile. The picture of the woman at the impact hole? She was standing near the edge and could have come from some distance away or from a floor above the impact zone.
.


You are partly correct. The weakening of the core columns is critical to the NIST global collapse theory for both towers.

Problem is, by their own admission they had no direct hard evidence about what happened in the core of the buildings. No visuals. No photos.

They base their conclusions on their simulations -- all of course driven by the assumption that the planes caused the fires which led to the collapse. Somehow they had to get from point A to point B -- and since B was already foregone it was only a question of how much you tweak the model.

More to come.

[W*GS]

It's ironic how you deride NIST's efforts because you claim that they have no physical evidence to support their conclusions.

gaffney, your entire whacky idea is based on no evidence - just irrational extrapolations that you've twisted this way and that to make them "fit" your presumptions.

[mhgaffney]

NIST Report of the WTC Collapse
Simply Does Not Add Up

by
Mark H Gaffney

The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 42 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included simulations, an impact analysis, metallurgical studies, a reconstruction of the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading up to collapse of each tower. Much of the agency’s investigative work was of excellent quality. The problem is that very little of it lends credence to the NIST’s final (and official) explanation of the WTC collapse.

One of the persistent problems NIST investigators faced was the admitted lack of information about conditions at the core of the towers.30 To be sure, thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of videotape made it possible to study in detail the damage to the WTC exterior, and to gain a reasonable understanding about conditions in the outer offices. Fires were often visible through the windows, despite dense smoke, and sagging floors and other structural damage was discernible through gaping holes in the damaged exterior. However, as the NIST report states, “Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs.”31 Thus, the NIST had almost no information about conditions at the core of the towers.

The agency sought to overcome this problem with computer simulations. In one project, for example (NCSTAR 1-2), NIST scientists developed a global impact analysis to estimate the structural damage caused by the Boeing 767s. The study involved three alternative scenarios. These ranged from less damage to extreme, with a moderate alternative (also described as the baseline) in the middle. It is of interest that both the moderate and extreme alternatives accurately predicted the visible damage to the exterior of the buildings, though with regard to WTC 1 the moderate alternative was actually a better match than the extreme case.32 The moderate/extreme alternatives differed greatly, however, when it came to predicting the number of severed columns at the core, a datum highly relevant to the matter of the WTC collapse.

With regard to WTC 1 the moderate alternative predicted only three severed core columns, while the extreme alternative predicted 5-6. In the case of WTC 2 the disparity was even greater: The moderate alternative predicted 5 severed columns, and the extreme case no less than 10.33 Although the impact analysis never satisfactorily resolved these different predictive outcomes, NIST scientists threw out the less severe alternative and later also tossed the moderate (baseline) alternative, ultimately adopting the extreme alternative in their subsequent global collapse analysis–––even though, as noted, the moderate alternative was equally accurate in predicting the visible damage to the exterior. Indeed, in the case of WTC 1 the moderate alternative was actually a better match. The NIST report offers no rationale for this decision, but the reason is transparently obvious. Factoring in the conditions predicted by the other alternatives failed to produce the desired outcome, i.e., the global collapse. Only by adopting the most extreme conditions could the NIST scientists make their computer model conform to their unwavering assumption that the 767 impacts had caused the WTC collapse. Here, as throughout the report, the agency’s circular logic ran true to form.

The Metallurgical Studies

The metallurgical and fire studies were among the most important projects. These involved testing 236 samples of steel columns, exterior panels, trusses, and other parts recovered from ground zero. Thanks to the original labeling system used during the construction of the WTC in the late 1960s, the NIST was able in many cases to identify individual steel members and thus to determine their exact locations in the WTC. A number of these locations were in or near the impact and fire-damaged zones.34 The samples represented only 0.25 - 0.5 percent of the total of about 200,000 tons of structural steel used the two towers. But the NIST believed it had enough samples to determine the quality of the steel in the WTC and evaluate its performance on 911.35

The findings failed to support the view widely reported in the media that the WTC truss assemblies failed on 9/11. A number of vocal experts had claimed that the WTC’s weak link was the point of attachment: where the trusses connected with the inner and outer columns. These junctions, often referred to as angle-clips, were made of relatively light steel and were secured by steel bolts. During a 2002 NOVA special–––before the NIST ran its metallurgical/fire tests–––Thomas Eagar, an MIT engineer, summed up the view of many about how and why the trusses failed on 9/11:

"...the steel had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100º to 1,300ºF. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor....then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle-clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle-clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold."36

Eagar’s collapse theory sounded plausible–––but the NIST investigation didn’t bear it out. In fact, none of the 236 steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, showed evidence of exposure to temperatures in excess of 1,110º F (600º C) for longer than 15 minutes.37 And why? Well, perhaps in part because, as Shyam Sundar, the lead NIST investigator, pointed out, “the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes.”38 NIST scientists also made another surprising discovery: The actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than expected, only about 4 lbs/sq foot. The NIST concluded that a fire in any given area of the building would have fully consumed the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000º C) in about 15-20 minutes. Which was neither hot enough nor long enough for exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength.39 In fact, out of more than 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 reached temperatures in excess of 450º F (250º C) during the fires.40

The WTC steel also turned out to be significantly stronger than expected. Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the samples of the floor trusses, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%. “The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when they were specified to be 36 ksi.”41 (1 ksi = 1,000 lb/per square inch) The NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were “much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.”42

WTC Truss Assembly Tests

Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. “The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.”43 The investigative team cautiously noted that the exposure of the floor systems to fire on 9/11 was “substantially different” than the conditions in the test furnaces. Yet, the team was forced to concede that “this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.”44 The UL tests not only laid to rest the theory that the trusses failed on 9/11, if anything, the tests demonstrated the fundamental soundness of the WTC truss design.

Core Weakening?

Another series of tests addressed the alleged weakening of the WTC support columns. In the first run the investigators placed an uninsulated steel column in a 2,012º F (1,100º C) furnace, and measured the rise in its surface temperature. (Notice, this laboratory test was significantly hotter than the fires on 9/11 caused by jet fuel or any other combustible in the WTC.) The column reached 600º C in just 13 minutes–––the temperature range where significant loss of strength occurs. When the test was repeated again with an insulated column, the steel did not reach 600º C even after ten hours. The NIST concluded that “the fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 would not be able to significantly weaken the insulated....columns within the 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, after impact and prior to collapse.45

The NIST interpreted these results as validating its thesis that damage to and/or dislodging of the fireproofing insulation during the Boeing impacts was the critical factor that led to the failure of the WTC’s support columns on 9/11, hence the global collapse. I searched the NIST report in vain, however, for any acknowledgment that, as in the case of the truss assembly test, the conditions in the UL laboratory furnace were substantially different than the live conditions on 9/11. In fact, the differences in this case were even more significant than with respect to the truss assembly test, and call into sharp question the NIST’s conclusion that the damaged insulation was the critical factor. As noted, the NIST investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about conditions at the WTC core, including hard evidence about the amount of protective insulation actually damaged/dislodged during the impacts. The NIST admitted as much,46 even while assuming that all structural members in the debris path at the time of impact suffered 100% loss of protective insulation.47 Surely, it’s safe to suppose that the Boeing 767 impacts did cause damage or strip away a portion of the fireproofing material. How much is unknowable.

But even if the NIST estimate of total loss of fireproofing in the impact zone is correct, nonetheless, the fires on 9/11 could not have weakened the WTC’s core piers within the allotted spans of 56/103 minutes. The reason is never stated in the NIST report, but it ought to be obvious: The WTC’s support columns did not exist in isolation. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of this steel framework was vastly greater than the area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the problem. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally sucks the solder into the fitting. The analogy is apropos. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the allotted span of 56/103 minutes respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening any exposed members. Notice, this also assumes a constant blaze, which was not the case on 9/11. As already noted, the NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, admitted that the jet fuel was consumed within minutes. And–––as I’ve also pointed out–––the unexpectedly light combustibles in a given area of the WTC were consumed in no more than about 15-20 minutes. All of this suggests, and indeed the NIST report readily acknowledges, that the WTC 1 fires were transient.48 The fires flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity, then began to die down, as the fire front , meanwhile, moved on to consume furniture and other combustibles elsewhere. But, notice, as the fires moved through the building away from the impact zone to areas with little or no damage to the fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been nil. Nor does steel typically fail in sudden fashion. The loss of strength is a gradual process, one that is even reversible if temperatures subside. In short, the NIST report fails to explain how transient fires could weaken the building’s central piers enough to trigger a global collapse.

The Fires in WTC 2

The NIST found that in WTC 2 the fire behavior was substantially different: more continuous (rather than transient) on the east side of the building where the impacting 767 allegedly piled up combustibles. This–––we are informed–––also helps to explain why WTC 2 fell first, even though it was impacted after WTC 1. But even if the fires did burn continuously for 56 minutes in one part of the second tower, and even if this local fire did cause several columns to lose half of their strength, as the report states, this still falls short of explaining the global collapse of WTC 2. As the NIST report concedes,

"both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2, the more severely damaged building, where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure."49

In other words, even the more seriously damaged tower gave no hint of instability after the initial impact, as determined by accelerometer measurements taken on the roof of WTC 1.50 Unfortunately, despite providing a vast amount of detail about building codes, the NIST report neglects to inform us about the actual extent of the WTC’s “considerable reserve capacity.” In fact, the NIST report is downright evasive on this important matter. I searched the Executive Summary, as well as the preliminary 2004 report, in vain for any discussion of the industry standard for steel bridges and buildings. Whereupon, I called the NIST for assistance and was guided to several of the project reports. But I never did find any mention of the industry standard, which, as the NIST surely knows, is at least three times the anticipated load, i.e., the largest load expected during the life of the structure. Given the near absence of wind on 9/11, which the NIST concedes, at this minimum standard the towers would easily have survived even if ALL of the columns had lost half of their strength. Yet, the actual reserve probably well exceeded even this minimum standard. In 1964 WTC chief engineer John Skilling put a number on it when he claimed that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."51

In short, my reading of the NIST report left me slightly agog, in a state of mild shock at the obvious disparity between the NIST’s research and its conclusions. The report simply does not add up.

Notes:
30. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 118; also see NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
31. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 124.
32. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Sumary, p. lxxxvii.
33. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. lxxv.
34. NIST NCSTAR 1-3, QRC Investigation, p. 39.
35. NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation p. 39.
36. The NOVA special “Why the Towers Fell” aired in 2002. The text of the NOVA interview with Thomas Eagar is posted at http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar2.html
37. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.
38. Andy Field, “A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004.
39. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
40. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 176.
41. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
42. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
43. NIST NCSTAR 1, Executive Summary, p. xlvi.
44. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 141.
45. NIST NCSTAR 1, WRC Investigation p. 130.
46. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
47. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. xliv.
48. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.
49. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 144.
50. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. cxiv.
51. “How Columnss Will be Designed for 110-Story Buildings,” Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964, p. 48-49.

Stay tuned! More to come...

[mhgaffney]

The reason I doubt a chemical reaction is sufficient to ignite a
thermonuclear reaction is because chemical explosive are the
result of breaking of electrical bonds between individual atoms.
There is a limit to the amount of energy contained in a chemical
bond. And this energy isn't sufficient to overcome the more
powerful electro-repulsive forces of the hydrogen protons.
A uranium or plutonium nuclear explosion can, because it
that case the actual nucleus of the atom is shattered, and
far more energy holds a nucleus together than does the
electrical forces in a chemical bond between atoms.

You need to show me how a chemical reaction can generate the extreme heat and overpressure to overcome the electro-repulsive forces of the hyrdogen protons which would bring them close enough together to allow the strong forces to come into play.

What is there about the molecular structure red mercury that makes it
orders of magnitude more powerful than compounds such as RDX, HMX,
Sorguyl, or PETN.

I know what you are saying. This is why red mercury is so damned frustrating and compelling at the same time.

The reports have been persistent since the early 1990s.

The Finnish military expert who put together the nuclear 911 theory, last year, agrees with Peter Hounam that the breakthrough to pure fusion occurred in the late 1980s.

Did you check out his site?
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

[W*GS]

I know what you are saying. This is why red mercury is so damned frustrating and compelling at the same time.

It's "compelling" only to those who insist that 9/11 was an inside job and thus "red mercury" seemingly provides the deus ex machina that "solves" many of their whacky idea's problems.

You're so dead-set on your agenda you don't understand how far afield from reality your whacky idea makes you go.

Did you check out his site?
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

Particularly this link:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/wtcatom.html

[W*GS]

gaffney, are you truly an admirer of Velikovsky?

If so...

[mhgaffney]

gaffney, are you truly an admirer of Velikovsky?

If so...


I've just posted a detailed analysis of the NIST report (above). I challenge you and everyone on this board to expose the errors in my paper.

None of you can -- because my analysis is correct.

It's time to deal with issues, gang. Put up or shut up.

[W*GS]

I've just posted a detailed analysis of the NIST report (above). I challenge you and everyone on this board to expose the errors in my paper.

For one thing, you're using heavily elided comments from the NIST report. Given your history of extracting the data you want to make your point, and leaving out the context, I'm quite dubious that what you assert NIST says and what it actually says are the same thing. You also use terms like "concede" and "evasive", which are merely your interpretations of the report. NIST is clearly in on the game, in your view.

Seeing as how you've made up your mind that "mini-nukes" caused the WTC collapses, you're just cherry-picking technical details that "fit" your whacky idea, and deride those bits that contradict it. Snore.

None of you can -- because my analysis is correct.

There's one tidbit in which you're completely wrong:

The WTC’s support columns did not exist in isolation. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of this steel framework was vastly greater than the area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the problem. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally sucks the solder into the fitting. The analogy is apropos. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the allotted span of 56/103 minutes respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening any exposed members.

First off, your copper analogy is bogus - copper has about 5X the thermal conductivity of iron. Secondly, iron isn't an "excellent" conductor of heat. Consider placing an iron skillet on the stove to cook eggs. The handle doesn't get immediately as hot as the cooking surface, which is what your theory of "wicking" requires. Lastly, the entire framework need not get to the temperature at which steel weakens significantly for the exposed members to become too weak to support the load. You're certainly not a mechanical or structural engineer, and it shows.

It's time to deal with issues, gang. Put up or shut up.

Indeed. Every piece of evidence you've given to support your "mini-nukes" whackitude has been proven not to be supportive in any way. Why do you insist on clinging to falsehoods?

[mhgaffney]

For one thing, you're using heavily elided comments from the NIST report. Given your history of extracting the data you want to make your point, and leaving out the context, I'm quite dubious that what you assert NIST says and what it actually says are the same thing.

Seeing as how you've made up your mind that "mini-nukes" caused the WTC collapses, you're just cherry-picking technical details that "fit" your whacky idea, and deride those bits that contradict it. Snore.

There's one tidbit in which you're completely wrong:

First off, your copper analogy is bogus - copper has about 5X the thermal conductivity of iron. Secondly, iron isn't an "excellent" conductor of heat.


You need to get off your lazy ass and actually read the NIST report, which you have not done. I did read it -- thousands of pages of stuff, including at least four of the project reports. The key ones -- relevant to the collapse, i.e., the impact analysis, the metallurgical analysis, the fire reconstruction, and the global collapse study.

One big problem with the NIST report, as I show, is that they did not entertain other alternatives, which was not scientific.

You evidently need glasses. I make no mention of iron -- rather steel, which is an excellent conductor or heat. Are you saying that 100,000 tons if interconnected steel was not a heat sink? Are you denying that the total volume of steel framework in each tower was vast compared with the surface area of exposed steel in the impact zone?

I have just shown that the official explanation cannot withstand scrutiny. It fails to explain the WTC collapse. We are now back to square one and the question: what caused the towers to fall?

I am simply following the trail of evidence, connecting the dots. Something the lazy knee jerks and sleepy flag wavers on this board can't manage to do.

Sadly, we are a nation in flight from reality. A nation of sleepwalkers, addicted to oil, the good life, and self-congratulatory thoughts about ourselves. We live in a continual distraction -- a daze of Hollywood movies, foooball, porn, rock stars, celebrities, etc etc etc on and on. A merry go round of distractions.

As such we are seemingly incapable of confronting the ugly truths about ourselves.

But a nation that cannot deal with reality deserves the horrible future that awaits it. Make no mistake, unless we self-correct -- and soon -- the judgement of heaven will be swift and unforgiving.

[mhgaffney]

Here I will comment on the following attempt to debunk the mini nuke theory. Below is a list of common objections, which I will then discuss. Thanks to W*gs for providing the link.

Keep in mind these objections are by someone who does not buy the official theory. This debunker believes the towers were brought down with thermite charges.

Were Mini nukes used on 911?

This claim is preposterous for at least the following reasons:

1) Duration of explosion. At what point in time would these bombs have been set off? After all, each tower was destroyed remarkably evenly over a time span of over 10 seconds. Did the bomb radiate its destructive force all that time? Or were there ten bombs per tower (and maybe a couple in Building 7, too)?

2) Ability to direct the explosion. Or could the force of the explosion perhaps have been directed to focus to a distance of hundred of meters? This has also been suggested, in this case there would be only one bomb, in the basement.

3) Radio activation. These atomic bombs didn't seem to create much of a fallout...

4) Electromagnetic pulse. The EMP would have been a lot stronger than just having an unknown number of cell phones go (temporarily?) dead - which in any case may have occurred during the destruction of the North Tower. You know, the tower on top of which there was a... telecomm mast.

5) Seismic shock. Seismic data directly contradicts claims of a massive explosion at the start of the destruction sequence: the shockwaves rise in amplitude and reach their maximum when the rubble hits the ground.

A bomb described above (points 3 and 4) does, in fact, not belong to the class "thought experiment" but rather to the class "theoretical device". Hydrogen bombs do, however, remain an extremely remote possibility

6) Availability. Where, exactly, would these pure H-bombs have been acquired? How many people would it introduce to the conspiracy? Is it reasonable to think that beyond-cutting-edge technology would be field tested for the first time in an operation this important, especially when there are easier options?

7) Need. If plastic explosives, thermite and maybe thermobarics get the job done, why mess around with the nuclear stuff? (Many do not even consider the claim that potential energy alone could explain the observed destruction to be surprising enough to protest it, so how likely is it that there were devices of even greater destructive power in the towers?)

8) Risk. If the bomb emitted any radiation at all, it might have been detected. Unless the conspirators succeeded in manning these security positions as well, I suppose.

9) Other observations. An atomic bomb is not required to explain the fact that pieces of the towers were thrown into the walls of nearby buildings: Most of the pieces claimed to be heavy steel are in fact aluminium cladding, and during the destruction sequences tensions in the structures of the towers were surely high enough to propel a small number of wall elements all the way to eg. WFC3. I see nothing strange about the alleged brown hue of the dust clouds, and the "afterglow" that is occasionally mentioned (a flare effect?) can be seen only on one or two videos. Persistent heat in the rubble can be explained with the continuing chemical reaction of excess thermite.


My Commentary:

As the Finnish military expert explained -- and I agree -- a single small nuke (the size of a pineapple) placed in the basement of each tower in a freight elevator explains all of the anomalies associated with the WTC collapse. The timing of the explosion would have been of critical importance. A limited number of conventional charges set above would have initiated the collapse -- but notice without a powerful blast from below the towers could not have fallen to 10% of their height. The collapse would have been self arrested -- partial -- leaving the bulk of each building standing, though largely ruined.

Only by taking out the enormous piers in the basement could a total collapse be induced -- as seen.

FOIA'd documents reveal that the US had developed small atomic nukes for demolitions work as early as 1958 -- so the principle is not new. What is unprecedented is the possibility that a pure fusion weapon has been developed, one scalable to any size. Such a weapon would produce only a tiny fraction of the fallout -- and of a diifferent type, not easily detected.

A small directed weapon placed as described would not generate an EMP across a large region. Remember also that with such a weapon design blast is already reduced by as much as 80%.

The objection to the seismic evidence is baloney. A spike is a spike. How easy to to persuade people that the spike was the rubble hitting the ground. This is also what I originally thought. Notice, we are only talking about a difference of a few seconds.

The advantages of mini nukes over sole reliance on thermate/thermite should be obvious. A nuke greatly reduced the numbers of needed charges -- making the preparations manageable. It also solved the huge problem of taking out the large piers in the basement, which would have required large conventional charges -- difficult to hide.

As for availability -- well, there is no doubt that our government has kept many secrets. The unveiling of stealth technology at the time of Desert Storm is an obvious example, but there are many others.

If this nightmarish scenario is correct, these weapons will be used again. Only a matter of time. By then, however, will it already be too late?

[W*GS]

You need to get off your lazy ass and actually read the NIST report, which you have not done.

I've read the portions relevant to your minimal analysis.

One big problem with the NIST report, as I show, is that they did not entertain other alternatives, which was not scientific.

How so? They didn't consider ion rays from Vulcan, true, but that doesn't make their analysis less correct.

You evidently need glasses. I make no mention of iron -- rather steel, which is an excellent conductor or heat.

What is steel made from? Actually, I was cutting you some slack - steel is less of a thermal conductor than pure iron.

Are you saying that 100,000 tons if interconnected steel was not a heat sink?

You're neglecting to include the rate of heat transfer. As I pointed out with my iron skillet example. The entire mass of steel need not be heated to the temperature at which steel weakens for critical sections of the structure to be weakened. How do you suppose bending a piece of iron into a horseshoe works?

Are you denying that the total volume of steel framework in each tower was vast compared with the surface area of exposed steel in the impact zone?

I'm not denying that at all - merely pointing out that your attempt to make the heat transfer time very small isn't physical.

I have just shown that the official explanation cannot withstand scrutiny.

Thousands of pages of material and analysis by qualified engineers is quickly dismissed in a few hundred words by a ignorant New-Agey flake. OK, gotcha.

It fails to explain the WTC collapse. We are now back to square one and the question: what caused the towers to fall?

Structural damage caused by plane impact and subsequent weakening of the structure from fire.

I am simply following the trail of evidence, connecting the dots.

I suspect you'd manage to construct the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel from these dots: * * *.

As such we are seemingly incapable of confronting the ugly truths about ourselves.

But you are. Thanks soooo much!

But a nation that cannot deal with reality deserves the horrible future that awaits it. Make no mistake, unless we self-correct -- and soon -- the judgement of heaven will be swift and unforgiving.

Yeah. Maybe Venus will sideswipe us again. Hopefully this time the carbohydrate manna and the hydrocarbon fuels will be dispersed in more amenable places.

[mhgaffney]

The following diagram plots the final locations of a number of large steel beams -- weighing many tons -- hurled 500 feet or more on 9/11.

Did a gravitational collapse do this? No way.

[W*GS]

As the Finnish military expert explained -- and I agree -- a single small nuke (the size of a pineapple) placed in the basement of each tower in a freight elevator explains all of the anomalies associated with the WTC collapse.

You do realize that the actual size of the fission "trigger" for a thermonuclear weapon is smaller than a pineapple, don't you?

Who is this "Finnish military expert" anyway?

BTW, placing your "mini-nuke" in the "basement" (which level?) in a "freight elevator" makes the ignition of cars some distance away from the EMP (as you've alleged) absolutely impossible. The EMP would be attenuated far too much. Never mind that EMP doesn't make cars explode into flame.

The timing of the explosion would have been of critical importance. A limited number of conventional charges set above would have initiated the collapse -- but notice without a powerful blast from below the towers could not have fallen to 10% of their height.

How come there's no evidence whatsoever of a "powerful blast from below"?

The objection to the seismic evidence is baloney. A spike is a spike. How easy to to persuade people that the spike was the rubble hitting the ground. This is also what I originally thought. Notice, we are only talking about a difference of a few seconds.

There was no pre-collapse "spike". Why you insist on perpetuating this lie just shows how desperate you are to cling to a whacky idea.

The advantages of mini nukes over sole reliance on thermate/thermite should be obvious.

You substitute the myriad of problems of the controlled demolition whackitude with the myriad^2 problems accompanying your "mini-nuke" whackitude.

Never mind neither of these two branches of the 9/11 Falsehood Movement have explained away the planes hitting the buildings - other than as a "false flag" piece-of-crap.

[W*GS]

The following diagram plots the final locations of a number of large steel beams -- weighing many tons -- hurled 500 feet or more on 9/11.

Did a gravitational collapse do this? No way.

Each tower was ~2.7X more than 500 feet in height. A distance of 500 feet from each building for the distance that the uppermost steel members were displaced isn't asking much.

Note also that WTC7 is within the range of these tons of debris falling from over 1300 feet in altitude.

[mhgaffney]

Each tower was ~2.7X more than 500 feet in height. A distance of 500 feet from each building for the distance that the uppermost steel members were displaced isn't asking much.
.

A physicist on one of the physics forum sites crunched the numbers and found that the towers should have thrown out material no more than about 48 meters from the base -- which is what? About 150 feet. That's a gravitatonal collapse.

[mhgaffney]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=60&#entry104260

here's a quote from the above physics forum site:

Eigenvalue and Foxx:

Yes, I apologize, I did have a bit of faulty reasoning at the end of my last post. My pyramid is only 48 meters beyond the original perimeter wall!

Common Sense:

I would therefore still say that the damage to the Winter Garden is strange for a gravity driven collapse.....

NF

[W*GS]

A physicist on one of the physics forum sites crunched the numbers and found that the towers should have thrown out material no more than about 48 meters from the base -- which is what? About 150 feet. That's a gravitatonal collapse.

I didn't see anything relevant to your point in the link you provided.

There were sections greater than 500 feet in height that didn't collapse until later - those portions of the buildings could have easily fallen outward and put steel beams 500 feet from the base of the buildings.

BTW, if steel is such a great thermal conductor, how come fireplace pokers are made of iron?

[mhgaffney]

Here's a photo of ground zero from above that shows dramatic visual evidence of an explosion. Notice how the entire face of WTC 1 has been thrown in a single piece across the street to the NW toward the Winter Garden. This side of the perimeter facade alone must have weighed thousands of tons -- yet was flung hundreds of feet from the base as if it were nothing but pick up stix.

Notice also the facade at the bottom right corner -- a piece from the 7th floor -- where the transition occurred in the outer columns -- probably from WTC 2 -- thrown all the way across the plaza.

A link is provided for a larger image.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/columnd.jpg

[W*GS]

Here's a photo of ground zero from above that shows dramatic visual evidence of an explosion. Notice how the entire face of WTC 1 has been thrown in a single piece across the street to the NW toward the Winter Garden. This side of the perimeter facade alone must have weighed thousands of tons -- yet was flung hundreds of feet from the base as if it were nothing but pick up stix.

Without a scale and an indication of where the original building base was, it's hard to tell how far the distance is, as well as how much (and which one?) of the building's face is depicted.

See

http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html

[mhgaffney]

You can use the diagram-map on the previous page to get oriented. WTC 1 stood just below the center of the above photo. WTC 2 stood near the bottom left corner of the photo.

Some force threw an entire facade -- probably from WTC 2 -- all the way across the plaza -- at bottom right of the picture. The facade appears to be leaning against WTC 4. This is dramatic evidence of a powerful explosion.

[W*GS]

You can use the diagram-map on the previous page to get oriented. WTC 1 stood just below the center of the above photo. WTC 2 stood near the bottom left corner of the photo.

And a scale?

Some force threw an entire facade -- probably from WTC 2 -- all the way across the plaza -- at bottom right of the picture. The facade appears to be leaning against WTC 4. This is dramatic evidence of a powerful explosion.

Is what the photo shows the "entire facade"? You'd have to count the amount of material shown and compare that to the area of a side to support your statement.

And no, it's not "evidence of a powerful explosion" merely by virtue of your breathless and as-yet-unproven assertions.

Besides, NIST rejected your demolition whackitude thusly:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

See point #2.

[mhgaffney]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).

[mhgaffney]

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

[mhgaffney]

And no, it's not "evidence of a powerful explosion" merely by virtue of your breathless and as-yet-unproven assertions.

Besides, NIST rejected your demolition whackitude thusly:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

See point #2.

Sure W*gs the NIST tacked on this little disclaimer at the end of its 3 year investigation -- specifically tailored for chumps like you.

If you had read the NIST report you would know it's a nothing but a dodge, since the report itself -- from start to finish -- is solely about the plane impacts, the fires, and the sequence of events that supposedly led to the "global collapse".

Since you don't know this you obviously didn't read the report. Admit it: You are the true cherry picker.

Now back to the above photo: It's conclusive undeniable hard visual evidence that an entire WTC facade -- weighing hundreds of tons at least, maybe a thousand tons -- was thrown across the WTC plaza like a barbie doll.

[mhgaffney]

The following are transcripts of statements made on 9/11 by New York City firemen -- all acquired through a FOIA request -- and posted on the NY Times web site. These firemen describe what they saw and heard, namely, explosions, just before the WTC collapsed.

You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. (F. CAMPAGNA file #9110224 p8)

Then the south tower—we heard an explosion, looked up, and the building started to collapse. (E. SHEEHEY file #9110226 p3)

...we heard the explosion and the building started to come down...2 World Trade Center started to collapse. (J. RAE file #9110294 p3)

You could hear explosions. We didn’t know what it was. We thought it was just a small collapse. As I looked straight ahead of me, I saw total darkness. Everything was coming our way like a wave. (F. CAMACHO file #9110318 p4)

As we walked through those revolving doors, that’s when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black, and then the collapse came. It just rained down on top of us. There were secondary explosions, I don’t know, aerosol cans or whatever. But we’re in the darkness. We see basically the glow of a flashlight and still things coming down. The noise, the explosions, whatever it was. (J. MALLEY file #9110319 p5,6)

...we were taking a break on 30, and that’s when we heard a rumble, outside explosion, and I think that was the other building coming down... I heard an explosion and turned around and the building was coming down. (J. IPPOLITO file #9110342 p5,8)

...as I was looking at him I heard the explosions, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north. (K. GORMAN file #9110434 p6)

...we heard this huge explosion, and that’s when the tower started coming down. (R. CHELSEN file #9110475 p9)

...there was a tremendous boom, explosion, we both turned around, and the top of the building was coming down at us. (E. KENNEDY 9110502 p7)

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down.
Q. When the north tower was coming down, did you have any indication? Did you hear the explosions again? Did anybody warn you like they heard on the radio of anything like that?
A. You did hear the explosions. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you’re very familiar with it. (C. CARLSEN file #9110505 p6-10)

First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know, secondary device.
Q. (Chief Art Lakiotes) I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices.
A. You know, and I just heard like an explosion and a then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train. (T. JULIAN file #9110386 p10)

I don’t know what time later a loud rumble—it sounded like an explosion. We thought it was a bomb. We ran under the bridge, me, Joe Cassaliggi and two police officers; I think one police officer and one Secret Service. We ran under the bridge. There’s a column there, over here, right on the sidewalk, a big six foot round masonry column. We get behind that, and number two tower comes down and debris comes right around us. (T. SPINARD file #9110445 p9)

Also telling are the many reports of explosions and fires taking place lower in the buildings than the impact zones:

For whatever reason, I just happened to look up and saw the whole thing coming down, pancaking down, and the explosion, blowing out about halfway up. (H. SCOTT file #9110365 p6)

Then the building popped, lower than the fire...it seemed like...there is a secondary device because the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion. (T. BURKE file #9110488 p8)

Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?
A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television afterwards, it doesn’t appear to show the fire. It shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason why I think the cameras didn’t get that image is because they were a far distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the smoke was up above it. (W. REYNOLDS file #9110288 p4)

[W*GS]

Sure W*gs the NIST tacked on this little disclaimer at the end of its 3 year investigation -- specifically tailored for chumps like you.

NIST didn't investigate controlled demolition (or ion rays from Vulcan) because there was no evidence to support such whackitude.

If you had read the NIST report you would know it's a nothing but a dodge, since the report itself -- from start to finish -- is solely about the plane impacts, the fires, and the sequence of events that supposedly led to the "global collapse".

Considering that it was the plane impacts and the fires that caused the WTC to collapse, ergo, the NIST report is about those things.

Now back to the above photo: It's conclusive undeniable hard visual evidence that an entire WTC facade -- weighing hundreds of tons at least, maybe a thousand tons -- was thrown across the WTC plaza like a barbie doll.

You don't understand gravity very well.

[W*GS]

The following are transcripts of statements made on 9/11 by New York City firemen -- all acquired through a FOIA request -- and posted on the NY Times web site. These firemen describe what they saw and heard, namely, explosions, just before the WTC collapsed.

Lots of things other than pre-planted charges for the purpose of controlled demolitions could have caused the sounds the firefighters heard.

http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

[W*GS]

Many, if not most, of Griffin's alleged "lies" in the 9/11 Commission Report are lies themselves.

For example:

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

WTC7 was hit and very heavily damaged by falling debris, and the fires it suffered were not "small, localized".

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

Entirely false.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

False.

There are many others.

[mhgaffney]

There was a simple way to determine if what the firemmen saw and heard on 9/11 were explosions.

The NIST could have investigated. It could have done its job. It could have examined the steel for traces of residues that only explosives can cause.

It could have found out the truth. But it chose instead not to go there.

That was malfeasance - criminal negligence. And every American who supports that policy, all of the knee jerk super patriots, all of the sycophants, the pea nut gallery and shills for the power elite and the flag wavers -- all of them are traitors to what this country once stood for -- but no longer does.

[W*GS]

There was a simple way to determine if what the firemmen saw and heard on 9/11 were explosions.

The "explosions" they heard were not from pre-positioned charges for the purpose of controlled demolition. Ever heard of witnesses to a shooting describing the sound as firecrackers? Does that mean there were firecrackers instead of gunshots? Nope.

The NIST could have investigated. It could have done its job. It could have examined the steel for traces of residues that only explosives can cause.

They did - and found nothing consistent with the residue of explosives.

It could have found out the truth. But it chose instead not to go there.

You've absolutely refused to go where the evidence points. Instead you insist on more and more exotic (and whacky) ideas. Why?

That was malfeasance - criminal negligence.

Nearly all your takes so far in this thread have been incredibly stupid.

It's damnably obvious that you understand precious little of what you see or read. You may think you've done exhaustive analysis and found the true story wanting, but you're wrong - very wrong. You don't even understand enough of the most basic facts - you got tripped up when you claimed steel was an "excellent conductor" of heat - and if you can't get that right, everything else you propose just plain disintegrates. It's very clear you're no scientist or engineer. You're out of your element. Go back to mutating old texts into New Age flakism.

[mhgaffney]

I am reposting this latest updated analysis of the NIST global impact analysis because important new information has come to light. Things are even worse than I had previously indicated. An architect named Eric Douglas has delved even deeper into NIST's supplementary documents -- and has posted a scathing criticism of the NIST report. I have incorporated some of his insights, which augment my own. (For his report go to www.nistreview.org)

A closer look at the NIST's circular logic

One of the persistent problems NIST investigators faced was the admitted lack of information about conditions at the core of the towers.34 To be sure, thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of videotape made it possible to study in detail the damage to the WTC exterior, and to gain a reasonable understanding about conditions in the outer offices. Fires were often visible through the windows, despite dense smoke, and sagging floors and other structural damage was discernible through gaping holes in the damaged exterior. However, as the NIST report states, “Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs.”35 Thus, except for some steel samples the NIST had no information about the dynamic conditions at the core of the towers.36

The agency sought to overcome the shortfall of information with computer simulations. Such a course was problematic from the outset, since computer models are no better than the quality of the input and the accuracy of the programmer’s assumptions. Architect and critic Eric Douglas pointed out still another concern in his 2006 analysis of the NIST report: “a fundamental problem with....computer simulation is the overwhelming temptation to manipulate the input data until one achieves the desired results.”37

Did the NIST fall prey to such insidious tendencies? We shall see.

NIST’s Global Impact Analysis

In one central project (NCSTAR 1-2), NIST scientists developed a global impact analysis: to estimate the structural damage to the WTC caused by the Boeing 767s. The study involved three alternative scenarios, ranging from less damage to an extreme case, with a moderate alternative (also described as the base) in the middle. As it happened, all three alternatives accurately predicted the impact damage to the WTC exterior at the point of entry, though with regard to WTC 1 the moderate case was a slightly better match.38

The three alternatives differed greatly, however, in predicting the number of severed columns at the WTC core, a datum obviously of great importance to the matter of the collapse. With regard to WTC 1 the lesser alternative predicted only one severed core column, the moderate alternative predicted three, while the extreme alternative predicted five to six. In the case of WTC 2 the disparity was even greater: The lesser alternative predicted three severed columns, the moderate alternative five, and the extreme case no less than ten.39

Although the impact analysis never satisfactorily resolved these differences, NIST scientists threw out the less severe alternatives, presumably because they failed to predict observable damage to the far exterior walls.40 On September 11, 2001 a jet engine was seen exiting WTC 2’s opposite wall at high speed and was later found on Murray Street, several blocks north of the WTC. The first tower also sustained visible damage to its south wall caused by an errant landing gear. The NIST’s executive summary report leads us to believe that the NIST used this observable damage to validate its simulations. All well and good. However, here things become murky, for they are not quite as they appear. In a supplementary document the NIST report informs us that “because of model size constraints, the panels on the south side of WTC 1 were modeled with a coarse resolution...The model therefore underestimates the damage to the tower on this face.”41 For which reason, the other two alternatives also failed to predict exit damage to the far wall of WTC 1.42 Notice, this admission fatally undermines the NIST’s rationale for rejecting the lesser alternative, since the moderate and extreme cases also failed to validate observed damage to the first tower.

The simulations for WTC 2 suffered from the same modeling constraints. NIST’s impact analysis goes on to state that “None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.”43 As critic Eric Douglas observed, “Since, in real life, a landing gear and an engine did exit WTC 2, there was absolutely no basis for selecting the base [i.e., moderate] and more severe cases while eliminating the less severe cases for either building simulation. They were all invalid by NIST’s own standard and all of them should have been either rejected or accepted equally.”44

Yet, the NIST was undeterred. Later in its investigation the agency also tossed out the moderate (base) alternatives, and ultimately adopted the most extreme cases in its subsequent global collapse analysis–––even though, as noted, the moderate cases were equally accurate in predicting the visible entry damage to the WTC exterior. In fact, as also noted, the moderate alternative was actually a better match in the case of WTC 1. The NIST report offers no scientific rationale for this decision, only the pithy comment that the moderate alternatives “were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared with observed events.”45 Fortunately, another passage clarifies the phrase “observed events,” explaining that the moderate (base) case was rejected because “structural models....indicated that....the buildings would have continued to stand indefinitely.”46

Clearly, the moderate (base) alternatives were abandoned because they were irreconcileable with the desired outcome. But, as it happened, even the extreme alternatives evidently required further tinkering to be acceptable. The NIST goes on to inform us that “Complete sets of simulations were then performed for cases B and D [the extreme alternatives]. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.”47 [my emphasis] In other words, NIST scientists continued tweaking the extreme alternatives until their computer model eventually spat out the desired result consistent with their assumption, which never wavered, that the 767 impacts ultimately caused the WTC collapse. Since by its own admission the NIST had almost no information about the actual conditions at the WTC core, the agency scientists should, at very least, have regarded the other alternatives as equally plausible. Why did they not? Obviously, because this would have compelled them to entertain the unthinkable, i.e., the dreaded possibility that some other factor was responsible for the WTC collapse.

Still, one has to be impressed, in a curious sort of way, by this breathtaking triumph of circular reasoning.

Notes
34. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 118; also see NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
35. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 124.
36. The NIST recovered 12 core columns from the WTC, but only one (in two separate pieces) from WTC 2 turned out to be from the area affected by the impacts/fires. A number of flanges from the core were also recovered. See Table 5-2 in NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 35.
37. Eric Douglas, R.A., “The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?”, A review of NIST NCSTAR 1, October 2006, p. 8. Posted at www.nistreview.org
38. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Sumary, p. lxxxvii.
39. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. lxxv.
40. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, p. lxxv.
41. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation, p. 344.
42. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B , WTC Investigation, p. 345.
43. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation, p. 353.
44. Eric Douglas, R.A., “The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?”, A review of NIST NCSTAR 1, October 2006, p. 13. Posted at www.nistreview.org
45. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 142.
46. NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, WTC Investigation.
47. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 142

[W*GS]

My 20+ year career has been based on computer simulation. Not burning buildings, but global climate.

It's clear to me that gaffney knows only as much about simulation as he has read from Douglas and others, and doesn't know anything beyond that. His careful excisions from Douglas' critique makes it sound like Douglas is willing to agree with gaffney's assertions about mini-nukes, but that's not at all the case.

Were the NIST simulations perfect? Of course not - but that does not mean that the evidence (from observations and the simulations) points toward some sort of controlled demolition, conventional explosives or the whacky mini-nuke idea.

As always, gaffney extracts out the small technical difficulties with the rigorous work that NIST and others have done and lofts it up as proof against the idea that the WTC collapsed from the damage caused by the plane impacts and the resulting fires. However, he overlooks the severe and basic flaws with his whacky ideas regarding some sort of controlled demolition. It's rather like pointing out a small one-digit error in the 15th place below the decimal point in a calculation, and proferring one's own calculation that has a division by zero error or has "1 + 1 = 3" in it.

[mhgaffney]

The point that Eric Douglas made in his paper is that real physical tests are always better than computer simulations. Simulations are never better than the quality of the input -- garbage in garbage out.

In 1996 the UK completed a series of real fire tests of steel structures at the Cardigan Lab. Beams, columns and floors were tested to extreme temperatures circa 1,000 C to study the effects of intense fires.

The results are highly relevant to 9/11 -- and in fact they overturn the idea that a global collapse occurred on 9/11 due to fire.

In the cardigan tests UNPROTECTED steel beams and columns bowed and buckled and sagged in tests lasting longer than the fires of 9/11 but in no cases did they collapse.

This information was known before 9/11 -- so where is the awareness?

Here are the links. This should be fun.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/SCI.htm

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm

[mhgaffney]

Were the NIST simulations perfect? Of course not - but that does not mean that the evidence (from observations and the simulations) points toward some sort of controlled demolition, conventional explosives or the whacky mini-nuke idea.
.

Once you understand that the fires did not cause a global collapse on 9/11 then if you have an ounce of integrity you must ask the next question.

Which is actually the original question: Why did 3 steel frame towers fall on the same day -- when none had ever fallen before? What brought them down?

But W*gs has demonstrated he has no integrity. We know that sulfides were detected on the WTC steel (see like below). This could be an indicator for explosives -- and the NIST could have run tests and determined the truth.

But W*gs doesn't support that because he doesn't care about the truth. He thinks he already knows the truth. (Don't confuse me with facts is his credo)

Only a fool would dis a book he's never even seen.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

[mhgaffney]

This report confirms my earlier statement thhat very few complete bodies were recovered from ground zero -- only 300 -- and many many body parts.

9/11 victims' relatives protest handling of remains
By DAVID HO
Cox News Service
Monday, September 11, 2006
http://www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com/

NEW YORK — Near Ground Zero where their loved ones died nearly five years ago, families of victims blamed city officials Saturday for allowing human remains to stay entombed at a closed city garbage dump without proper burial.

Of the 2,749 people killed in the terror attacks at the World Trade Center, the remains of about 1,150 were never found or identified.

While some family members have for years pushed for a fuller accounting, their efforts have intensified in the weeks leading up to the fifth anniversary on Monday.

The discovery in recent months of about 760 body parts, mostly small bone fragments, at a nearby damaged skyscraper slated for demolition has fueled their outrage.

"The dead are not here at Ground Zero, though for many of us their spirits are still here," said Diane Horning, whose son, Matthew, was killed in the attacks. "Their corporal bodies are in a garbage dump."

She called it a "national shame."

Horning, a co-founder of WTC Families For Proper Burial, spoke to the scores of family members and supporters who gathered near the site surrounded by news crews and curious tourists. Many family members wore black and purple ribbons, held photos of their dead and hefted signs saying "Rest in Peace NOT in Garbage."

After the attacks, search crews excavated the mountains of debris where the twin towers once stood. Trucks hauled away much of the rubble to a closed Staten Island landfill, where workers sifted one last time, spending months looking for remains, IDs, personal effects and criminal evidence.

Overall, fewer than 300 intact bodies and more than 20,000 parts were recovered. Many of those remains have not been identified.

Horning's group sued New York City in federal court, accusing it of not doing enough to search the debris for remains. The group said the city is expected to respond on Sept. 22 to the lawsuit, which alleges negligence and violations of property and religious rights.

Much of the concern had been over remains turned to ash and mixed with pulverized building materials by the incredible violence of the attacks. But the recently found body parts near Ground Zero has some families asking if larger and identifiable remains are still in other buildings and the landfill.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration has said past searches were adequate and moving all the debris that might contain remains - hundreds of thousands of tons - would cost too much.

While much of the initial search after the attacks focused on the 16-acre World Trade Center site, debris from the towers and the hijacked jetliners also fell on other buildings and the surrounding neighborhood.

Massive falling wreckage from one of the twin towers severely damaged and contaminated the skyscraper known as the Deutsche Bank building. Wrapped in black netting and filled with toxic dust, the vacant building has been an environmental nightmare and a looming reminder of the attacks.

In the past year, crews preparing to tear it down found so many remains that expert searchers were called in.

Some U.S. senators have called for a special military team experienced in finding the remains of soldiers from past wars to search the area.


WTC Families For Proper Burial: www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com

Deutsche Bank building demolition site: www.renewnyc.com/plan—des—dev/130Liberty/

[W*GS]

The point that Eric Douglas made in his paper is that real physical tests are always better than computer simulations.

Well, no.

Simulations are never better than the quality of the input -- garbage in garbage out.

A physical test is subject to the same limitation.

In the cardigan tests UNPROTECTED steel beams and columns bowed and buckled and sagged in tests lasting longer than the fires of 9/11 but in no cases did they collapse.

Since this test didn't exactly replicate the conditions inside the WTC (as best we know them, including damaged structural members, for example) it's apples and oranges.

[W*GS]

Once you understand that the fires did not cause a global collapse on 9/11 then if you have an ounce of integrity you must ask the next question.

It was the combination of fires and the damage caused by the planes' impacts that caused critical structural elements to fail, and that led to the buildings' collapses.

Which is actually the original question: Why did 3 steel frame towers fall on the same day -- when none had ever fallen before?

No three buildings suffered the same kind of structural damage plus huge fires before, either. We've gone over this before - other steel-frame buildings that had had major fires differed in their construction in critical ways. You're comparing apples and oranges. Again.

But W*gs has demonstrated he has no integrity.

Puhleeze. This from the guy who cherry-picks the facts to meet his preordained agenda. You're in no position to criticize.

But W*gs doesn't support that because he doesn't care about the truth. He thinks he already knows the truth. (Don't confuse me with facts is his credo).

Your knowledge of the facts is rudimentary, at best.

I heard that the KGB guy who died from radiation poisoning had all the goods on "red mercury" - why don't you track that down?

[mhgaffney]

After further study I realized I erred in the interpretation of the photo of ground zero -- so am reposting with what I believe is the correct interpretation. I have been hampered since I never visited the world trade center and so am dependent on photos, diagrams and testimony of others.

Fortunately, Joel Meyerowitz's folio sized book Aftermath has many photos of the wreckage and site is very helpful in understanding the layout.

The photo is looking generally west. The facade in the lower right corner of the picture is actually a remnant wall of WTC 1. Just above it is the north bridge over the West St highway. WTC 6 is just out of the photo to the right of this facade wall.

WTC 2 is also out of the picture at roughly the lower left corner. WTC 4 and WRC 5 are also out of the photo -- to the bottom.

The photo does confirm reports that huge pieces of the outer perimeter wall weighing hundreds of tons were thrown 500 feet or more from the base of WTC 1 -- all the way to the winter garden which is the low cyclindrical structure between the two large buildings. This was a greenhouse -- with tropical plants inside.

[mhgaffney]

Some of Joel Meyerowitz's photos of ground zero can be viewed at his web site, which is well worth a visit:

http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/

[W*GS]

The photo does confirm reports that huge pieces of the outer perimeter wall weighing hundreds of tons were thrown 500 feet or more from the base of WTC 1 [...]

Take the image from the FEMA report and overlay a circle corresponding to the height of each tower. A 500 foot distance isn't that large considering the towers were 1350 feet tall.

[The Lone Bolt]

Take the image from the FEMA report and overlay a circle corresponding to the height of each tower. A 500 foot distance isn't that large considering the towers were 1350 feet tall.

I have to agree Gaff. I'm no physics expert but it seems perfectly plausible that sections from such a tall building could fall that far. All it takes is a modest amount of momentum and the further the sections fall the further away from the point of release they will go.

If you have indesputable evidence that this is implausible instead of simply stating that it is, I would like to see it.

Also in the videotapes of the TC tower collapses there is no image of the sections in question being thown a great distance by an explosion. If that was the case it would have been obvious and easily observable.

[mhgaffney]

Here's a debunking piece from NTI about red mercury.

What it doesn't mention is that a series of grisly murders occurred in S Africa in the early 1990s, which many sources, including from within the intelligence community, say were about smuggling of red mercury. In one case a known arms peddler was found chopped up in little pieces -- in the trunk of his car. This is not rumor. It happened.

Nuclear Trafficking Hoaxes: A Short History of Scams Involving Red Mercury

Kenley Butler, Research Associate
Akaki Dvali, Graduate Research Assistant
Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)
Monterey Institute of International Studies
April 2004


Multiple instances of profit-motivated nuclear hoaxes have been reported in the media in the past two decades, in which sellers offer weapons-usable or weapons-grade nuclear material and instead deliver some other bogus radioactive, or in some cases, nonradioactive substance. Such scams increased when economic conditions in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe declined in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The region’s economic decline coupled with weakened security and enforcement mechanisms and a growing interest on the part of both state and non-state actors to illegally obtain nuclear materials all created favorable conditions for nuclear trafficking scams.

(photo)

Osmium is a hard metal of the platinum group
used to produce very hard alloys for fountain
pen tips, instrument pivots, phonograph
needles, and electrical contacts.


Nuclear scams often involve natural uranium, depleted uranium, or low-enriched uranium (LEU) reactor fuel, none of which is suitable for nuclear weapons. Other scams involve highly radioactive sources, such as cesium-237 or cobalt-60, which, though not fissile material, could be lethal components in a radiological dispersal device.

Two non-fissile substances that frequently have been used by con artists as substitutes for nuclear materials are so-called red mercury and osmium-187. Hoaxes involving both substances have become legendary after being the subject of widely reported trafficking attempts throughout the 1990s. A major reason these scams have been so widespread and common is likely related to the fact that there is some truth in the claims made by the con artists. Red mercury is the name given to an alleged nuclear weapon ingredient that does not exist in the form (Hg2Sb207) and with the characteristics described by nuclear scam artists.

Some experts have suggested, however, that red mercury is in fact another name for lithium-6, a substance that can be used in the production of compact and highly efficient thermonuclear devices. Osmium-187 is a bona fide nonradioactive material not used for weapon construction, but because it is indeed an expensive commodity and one that is produced through a process similar to uranium enrichment, nuclear traffickers seized on it as a marketable product. This issue brief provides background on the two substances and summarizes some of the high-profile hoaxes in which they have been used.

Red Mercury

Red mercury has been the subject of dozens, if not hundreds, of cases or attempted cases of illicit trafficking. Some of the more interesting cases involving the transfer of materials under the name of red mercury include the following:

--After his defection, a former deputy unit chief of the North Korean uranium refinery plant Namchon Chemical Complex claimed that North Korea imported beryllium and red mercury from sources in Russia in 1993 through a smuggling organization in Pyongyang that involved the Russian mafia.[1]

--In one attempt that stands out for the quantity offered and price requested, a Romanian woman reportedly offered to sell 138 kg of red mercury purchased in Chelyabinsk and acquired in Moscow to the Swiss firm Mueller Troihand for $340,000 per kg.[2]

--A December 1997 New York Times article reported allegations made by a political rival that former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic attempted to purchase a nuclear weapon in 1995 from sources in the former Soviet Union in order to put an end to the Bosnian War. Karadzic allegedly paid $6 million up front for the device, with an additional $60 million to follow. Told that the device was made from red mercury, Karadzic received a brass container filled with jelly-like material. Surprised at the contents, he reportedly sent aides to Moscow to determine whether the device was in fact a nuclear weapon. To his dismay, the word from Moscow was that he had been swindled.[3]

--A June 1999 issue of Jane’s Intelligence Review cited Western intelligence analysts as saying that al-Qai’da operatives with little technical expertise were being swindled in their attempts to locate and purchase nuclear materials. One of these agents, later arrested in the United States, may have been swindled by con artists selling red mercury.[4]

Red mercury has been the subject of films, books, newspaper articles, and high-level political intrigue, yet, according to much-publicized statements from British, Russian, and U.S. government officials, no material matching the properties of red mercury exists, and no such material is used in the construction of nuclear weapons. How, then, did red mercury become the nuclear commodity of choice for con artists and unwitting buyers?

References to red mercury began to appear in major Russian and Western media sources in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The articles were never specific as to what exactly red mercury was, but the accounts claimed that the substance was a valuable strategic commodity and a necessary component in a nuclear bomb and/or that it was important in the production of boosted nuclear weapons.

Supposedly citing a leaked Russian government memorandum, an April 1993 article in the widely-read Russian daily Pravda reported that red mercury is “a super-conductive material used for producing high-precision conventional and nuclear bomb explosives, ‘stealth’ surfaces and self-guided warheads. Primary end-users are major aerospace and nuclear-industry companies in the United States and France along with nations aspiring to join the nuclear club, such as South Africa, Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Libya.”[5] Red mercury was peddled throughout Europe and the Middle East by Russian businessmen, who made fortunes in the process. In one case, a Saudi Arabian sheikh reportedly paid £2.5 million for several shipments of the substance.[6] Described as a brownish powder or a red liquid,[7] red mercury was said to originate from various locations in the USSR, namely Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan,[8] and Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk,[9] and Sverdlovsk in Russia.[10]

Western media also carried accounts of red mercury and its nuclear applications. According to a July 1993 article in Nucleonics Week, red mercury was a code word used in the USSR nuclear weapons program since the 1950s to describe enriched lithium-6, which, according to the article, can be used to produce tritium, which, when fused with deuterium, can be used in the fusion stage of a thermonuclear weapon. Lithium-6 received its code name because of the red-hued impurities in the mercury used to produce lithium-6. According to the article, the USSR built a large complex in the early days of its nuclear weapon program to produce and stockpile lithium-6.[11]

The Nucleonics Week article was followed by two television programs on red mercury produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation as part of its Dispatches series. Trail of Red Mercury (1993) and Pocket Neutron (1994) presented “startling new evidence” that Russian scientists had designed a simple, cheap, pure fusion weapon or neutron bomb, the size of a tennis ball, using a “mysterious compound” called red mercury.[12] A June 1994 article in the venerable International Defense Review quoted Western and Russian nuclear physicists as confirming the existence and destructive capabilities of red mercury.[13] One of those quoted, U.S. nuclear physicist Sam Cohen, to this day continues to write passionately about the nuclear applications of red mercury, which he describes as a “ballotechnic” explosive that, “when ignited, does not actually explode but stays intact long enough to produce the enormous temperatures and pressures sufficient to enable deuterium-tritium fusion.”[14]

However, beginning in 1992, at the height of the red mercury scams, government and independent experts from Russia, the United States, and elsewhere made repeated attempts to debunk the idea that red mercury was a wonder-weapon. In September 1992, Yuriy Tychkov, deputy minister of the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy and Industry, called rumors about red mercury’s usefulness in weapons a sham. According to Tychkov, many entrepreneurs were using the name of red mercury, an uncontrolled substance, as a cover for smuggling controlled substances—precious metals and fissile material—out of the country. Tychkov reported that dozens of Russian ministries were inundated with requests for export licenses for the non-existent substance.[15]

The head of Interpol’s National Central Bureau in Russia, Militia Lieutenant General Vasiliy Ignatov, made the following statement at an Interpol congress in March 1993: “No red mercury exists in nature, either factually or physically, and such an element is impossible to create. What is being sold, as a rule, are different reagents.”[16] In a July 1993 Pravda article, Major General Aleksandr Gurov, director of the Russian Security Ministry’s Scientific Research Institute of Security was quoted as saying that red mercury is a slang term for “oxide of mercury.”[17] Gurov was later appointed head of a special government commission tasked with investigating red mercury. In his findings, released in 1995, Gurov insisted that red mercury does not exist.[18]

One of the strangest chapters in the story of red mercury scams was the signing of Decree No. 75-RPS On the Promekologiya Concern on February 21, 1992 by then President Boris Yeltsin granting a Yekaterinburg-based company, Promekologiya, exclusive rights to produce, purchase, store, transport, and sell 84 tons of red mercury for $24.2 billion over a three-year period to a Van Nuys, California company called Automated Products International. Promekologiya was to use proceeds from the sales for public works projects throughout Russia, such as defense conversion, power generation, and environmental projects. The head of Promekologiya reported that his company received over $40 billion in orders from foreign companies.[19] The decree was later rescinded on March 20, 1993. Open source material does not indicate what materials, if any, actually changed hands.[20]

By the mid- to late-1990s, open source accounts of trafficking in red mercury in the former Soviet Union dried up as media and government authorities debunked its alleged nuclear applications and denied its very existence. Russian media carried fewer and fewer accounts of red mercury hoaxes as reporters, the public, and prospective buyers became better informed.

Political pundits and social commentators have advanced several theories to explain the 1990s red mercury phenomenon in the former Soviet Union. Some suggest that it was simply a grand deception perpetrated by entrepreneurial criminals meant to bilk money from gullible buyers. A more sinister interpretation, and one shared by Deputy Minister of Atomic Energy Tychkov, is that it was a cover for the successful export of precious metals or fissile material. Still others believe the phenomenon was a carefully crafted scam by the Russian government to make millions. A report by Intelligence Online suggests that Western intelligence agencies used the Russian-produced scam to identify middlemen caught in Russia’s trap. Furthermore, the report claims that the United States has a renewed interest in reviewing the last decade’s red mercury scams and its perpetrators to determine whether real radioactive material actually exchanged hands.[21]

Others, however, continue to believe in red mercury and its purported nuclear properties. U.S. nuclear physicist Sam Cohen continues to claim that the U.S. government is simply turning a blind eye to a technology it knows exists and raises concerns about the consequences of a terrorist attack using a red mercury device.[22] Two Russian academics go so far as to claim that red mercury can be used to resolve the ills of the human race and planet earth by aiding in oil extraction, restoring exhausted mines to production, reviving unproductive agricultural land, recultivating nuclear test sites, cleansing land polluted with radionuclides, producing medicine, and creating environmentally clean fuel for new sources of energy.[23]


Sources:
[1] Yi Tong-uk, Wolgan Choson; in “Defector Testifies On DPRK Nuclear Development,” June 1, 1997, FBIS Document FBIS-EAS-97-113; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1997/19970370.htm.
[2] “Krasnaya rtut” [Red mercury], Yadernyy Kontrol, June 1995, pp. 22-24; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1995/19951220.htm.
[3] Chris Hedges, “An Old Tale Of Swindle Of Nuclear Proportions Resurfaces In Bosnia,” New York Times, December 14, 1997; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1997/19971420.htm.
[4] Yekaterina Kostikova, Andrey Kaloshin, Petr Pryanishnikov, “Bin Laden Already Had Russian Missiles,” Versiya, May 25-31, 1999; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990560.htm.
[5] “Yeltsingate,” Pravda, April 17, 1993, p. 3; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930380.htm.
[6] “Miraculous Mercury is a Russian Red Herring,” The Daily Telegraph, March 19, 1994; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1994/19940220.htm.
[7] “Prague Journalists Track ‘Red Mercury’ Shipments from Russia,” Nezavisimaya gazeta, November 25, 1992; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930040.htm.
[8] “Turkish Forces in Anti-Smuggling Operation,” Milliyet (Turkey), September 1993; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930820.htm.
[9] “Prague Journalists Track ‘Red Mercury’ Shipments from Russia,” Nezavisimaya gazeta, November 25, 1992.
[10] Edward V. Badolato and Dale Andrade, “Red Mercury: Hoax or the Ultimate Terrorist Weapon?” Counterterrorism and Security (Spring 1996), pp. 18-20.
[11] “‘Red Mercury’ is Lithium-6, Russian Weaponsmiths Say,” Nucleonics Week, July 22, 1993, p. 10; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930690.htm. There are two naturally occurring stable isotopes of lithium. Lithium-7 is the most prevalent isotope at 92.5% concentration, and lithium-6 at 7.5% makes up the remainder. Lithium-6 is created through an enrichment process and can indeed be used to produce tritium for thermonuclear weapons. The United States enriched lithium for use in nuclear weapons from 1950 to 1963 at its Oak Ridge plant. China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom are all believed to be capable of making lithium-6. Lithium-6 is more likely to be of interest to state actors with nuclear weapons experience than to non-state actors because of the significant knowledge of nuclear weapons physics and technology needed to use the substance in a thermonuclear weapon.
[12] “Nuclear Warfare,” RW Films Website, http://www.rwfilms.co.uk/nuclfilms.html. PPNN Newsbrief Electronic Version, Second Quarter 1994, p. 7.
[13] Frank Barnaby, “Red Mercury: Is There a Pure-Fusion Bomb for Sale?” International Defense Review, June 1994, v. 27, no. 6, p. 79-81.
[14] Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass, “The Nuclear Threat that Doesn’t Exist—or Does It?” March 11, 2003, Financial Sense Online Website, http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2003/0311.htm.
[15] “Nashestviye krasnoy rtuti,” Nedelya, September 1992, No. 35, p. 10; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1992/19920890.htm.
[16] “Interpol Conference Views Illegal Trade in Strategic Materials,” Rossiiskiye vesti, March 6, 1993; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930190.htm.
[17] “Red Mercury Seen as a ‘Fiction Used in Money Laundering Scam.’ Major General Aleksandr Gurov, director of the Security Ministry’s Scientific Research Institute of Security, said that ‘red mercury’ is a slang term for ‘oxide of mercury’,” Pravda, July 1, 1993; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930620.htm.
[18] Aleksandr Chernyak, “Krasnaya rtut,” Rossiiskaya gazeta, November 21, 1995, pp. 2-8; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1995/19952230.htm. “Krasnaya rtut,” Markelov television program, July 15, 2001, http://www.markelov.tv/lost_7.html.
[19] “Yeltsingate,” Pravda, April 17, 1993, p. 3
[20] “Krasnaya rtut” [Red mercury], Yadernyy Kontrol, June 1995, pp. 22-24; “‘Fools’ Mercury,” The Economist, May 22, 1993, p. 70, NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930490.htm; “Red Mercury is Hot, but the Question is: What Exactly Is It,” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1993, NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930990.htm; “Rtut tsveta partbileta,” Komsomolskaya pravda, April 30, 1993, p. 3; NIS Nuclear Trafficking database, NTI Website, http://nti.org/db/nistraff/1993/19930420.htm.
[21] “Krasnaya rtut,” Markelov television program, July 15, 2001, http://www.markelov.tv/lost_7.html; “Red Mercury is Back in Business,” Intelligence Online, February 28, 2002; Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, http://www.lexis-nexis.com.
[22] Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass, “The Nuclear Threat that Doesn’t Exist—or Does It?” March 11, 2003, Financial Sense Online Website, http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2003/0311.htm.
[23] Aleksey Ilyich Khesin, Vladimir Alekseyevich Vavilov, “Tayna ‘krasnoy rtuti,’” Natsionalnaya bezopasnost i geopolitika Rossii [National Security and Geopolitics of Russia], No. 7-8 (48-49), 2003; Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology Website, http://www.miee.ru/struct/44/Art6.htm.

[mhgaffney]

And the NTI link.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_42a.html

[mhgaffney]

I have to agree Gaff. I'm no physics expert but it seems perfectly plausible that sections from such a tall building could fall that far. All it takes is a modest amount of momentum and the further the sections fall the further away from the point of release they will go.

If you have indesputable evidence that this is implausible instead of simply stating that it is, I would like to see it.

Also in the videotapes of the TC tower collapses there is no image of the sections in question being thown a great distance by an explosion. If that was the case it would have been obvious and easily observable.

Several pages back in this thread I cited a post from a physics forum board -- by a physicist who crunched the numbers. He calculated that a gravitational collapse would throw materials no further than about 48 meters from the base of the towers -- 150 feet.

That's a far cry from 500+ feet.

As for the videos, they show an explosion -- material being ejected at a 45 degree angle. Gravity won't do that.

[mhgaffney]

It was the combination of fires and the damage caused by the planes' impacts that caused critical structural elements to fail, and that led to the buildings' collapses.

three buildings suffered the same kind of structural damage plus huge fires before, either. We've gone over this before - other steel-frame buildings that had had major fires differed in their construction in critical ways. You're comparing apples and oranges. Again.


You need to go back and look at the videos.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell in the same fashion.

WTC 7 was different -- it fell from the bottom up.

So what's the diff here? You have not a clue?

As for the impacts, this is not known -- not is it knowable. The NIST had no hard data about the damage to the core of the buildings. They admit this in their report. They based their conclusions on simulations which I and Eric Douglas have shown to be fatally flawed.

[W*GS]

Several pages back in this thread I cited a post from a physics forum board -- by a physicist who crunched the numbers. He calculated that a gravitational collapse would throw materials no further than about 48 meters from the base of the towers -- 150 feet.

You pointed to a vague section where the calculation was discussed, but not the actual calculation.

That's a far cry from 500+ feet.

Like I said, use the diagram showing the debris areas and overlay a circle that's (to be generous) 1/2 the height of either tower - 675 feet. One need not posit some "explosion" to get some structural steel 500' from the tower base.

As for the videos, they show an explosion -- material being ejected at a 45 degree angle. Gravity won't do that.

What "explosion"? Find a video that shows this well, post its URL here, and give us a timestamp so we can see exactly what you're talking about.

[W*GS]

WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell in the same fashion.

From the impact zone downwards.

WTC 7 was different -- it fell from the bottom up.

Because the damage from the debris impact from the north tower was concentrated on the lower floors. Plus it was an unusual design, being cantilevered over the ConEd substation.

So what's the diff here? You have not a clue?

Thanks for the morning dose of irony.

As for the impacts, this is not known -- not is it knowable. The NIST had no hard data about the damage to the core of the buildings. They admit this in their report. They based their conclusions on simulations which I and Eric Douglas have shown to be fatally flawed.

Eric Douglas did a heck of a lot more work than you did.

The simulations weren't "fatally flawed". You need to read Douglas more carefully.

[W*GS]

What it doesn't mention is that a series of grisly murders occurred in S Africa in the early 1990s, which many sources, including from within the intelligence community, say were about smuggling of red mercury. In one case a known arms peddler was found chopped up in little pieces -- in the trunk of his car. This is not rumor. It happened.

That some smuggler got killed doesn't prove "red mercury" exists. It just means someone decided that the dude be killed for whatever reason.

Some experts have suggested, however, that red mercury is in fact another name for lithium-6, a substance that can be used in the production of compact and highly efficient thermonuclear devices.

If this is the truth of what "red mercury" is, then we're back to a regular ol' thermonuclear device, i.e., with a fission trigger. Your "pure fusion mini-nuke powered by red mercury" whackitude is destroyed.

[...]One of those quoted, U.S. nuclear physicist Sam Cohen, to this day continues to write passionately about the nuclear applications of red mercury, which he describes as a “ballotechnic” explosive that, “when ignited, does not actually explode but stays intact long enough to produce the enormous temperatures and pressures sufficient to enable deuterium-tritium fusion.”[14]

So we're back to Cohen. Snore.

[mhgaffney]

[QUOTE=W*GS;1378765]Like I said, use the diagram showing the debris areas and overlay a circle that's (to be generous) 1/2 the height of either tower - 675 feet. One need not posit some "explosion" to get some structural steel 500' from the tower base.[QUOTE]

I suggest you try dropping a ten ton steel girder from a height of 1368 feet. I promise you it will fall straight down. It won't land 500 feet to the left or right. This was true at the time of Newton -- and it's still true today.

[Bronx33]

Just commenting but you ever run water on top of something? yes it goes to the side now with something as big as the twin towers and them falling straight down. A mushroom is formed as the building decends throwing debris to the side some distance, and with the force of the building yes girders are like tooth picks in the wind plus they were hitting the top of the mushroom as the build collapsed. Newtons theroy is correct IF there is nothing in the way of the girder on it's way down but it this case (there was)

[mhgaffney]

Sam Cohen: "I don't want to sound melodramatic, but..."

It's been stated on this thread that I have misrepresented Sam Cohen's views about red mercury and pure fusion weapons.

Well, here's a verbatim quote from the article that appeared in New Scientist way backon April 29 1995-- titled:

Chery Red and very dangerous

In the piece New Scientist interviews Cohen about red mercury. Here is what Cohen said:

" I don't want to sound melodramatic, but red mercury is real and it is terrifying.I think it is part of a terrorist weapon that potentially spells the end of organized society..."

Bear in mind Cohen is no liberal and no progressive. He's more of a Reaganite republican. He was part of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s.

Cohen goes on to mention his view that the US government Sandia lab was then doing research on red mercury. Remember, this was 1995. If he was correct it means Hans Bethe's warning to Clinton in 1997 may have been too little too late. Clinton's decision to restart production of tritium in November 1997 may have been a signal that the US had already duplicated the South African breakthrough in pure fusion.

As I've mentioned, Frank Barnaby shares Cohen's belief that red mercury is real. In the early 1990s documents about red mercury were leaked to Greenpeace. Barnaby inspected them and made calls to 4 different Russian scientists, all of whom confirmed to him that red mercury was real.

They also explained more about the substance. They told him one important step in producing it is to irradiate the precursor in a nuclear reactor. This changes it on a nuclear level and accounts for its explosive properties.

When I was at UC Berkeley the other day I checked the library. I found 19 books by Barnaby listed in the catalogue -- all on nuclear proliferation related issues. I'd say Frank no lightweight.

New Scientist went on to interview another expert who is a skeptic. Theodore Taylor is a leading nuclear weapons designer, and isn't convinced red mercury is for real (or wasn't in 1995).Here's what Taylor had to say:

"I hope it's all wrong. But maybe I'm slipping into wishful thinking."

Even the skeptic Taylor thinks we should investigate and find out if red mercury is for real. Contrast this open minded view of a skeptic -- like Taylor -- with the ridicule and denial of knee jerks on this thread. How pathetic some of you are.


The article also mentioned Alan Kidger, the SA arms dealer who was found sliced up in pieces in the trunk of his car in Nov 1991. The article cites SA police authorities who believed the murder was related to a red mercury black market. Kidger worked for Thor chemicals, a SA chemical company that produced mercury for various products and industrial uses.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs had this to say about the collapse of WTC 7:



Because the damage from the debris impact from the north tower was concentrated on the lower floors. Plus it was an unusual design, being cantilevered over the ConEd substation.

.

What a bunch of Bull****.

[mhgaffney]

Just commenting but you ever run water on top of something? yes it goes to the side now with something as big as the twin towers and them falling straight down. A mushroom is formed as the building decends throwing debris to the side some distance, and with the force of the building yes girders are like tooth picks in the wind plus they were hitting the top of the mushroom as the build collapsed. Newtons theroy is correct IF there is nothing in the way of the girder on it's way down but it this case (there was)

So now we are back to mushrooms.

I would agree. Only one little problem. What caused the mushroom?

Did it grow out of the Manhattan bedrock?

[W*GS]

I suggest you try dropping a ten ton steel girder from a height of 1368 feet. I promise you it will fall straight down. It won't land 500 feet to the left or right. This was true at the time of Newton -- and it's still true today.

Note that some sections of one of the WTC towers, near the corner IIRC, remained somewhat standing as the remainder of the tower collapsed.

I suggest you try perching a ten-ton girder on top of a very unstable, narrow structure say, 500 feet tall, and let it fall to one side or another as it sees fit.

Or you could just get out your Lincoln Logs and replicate the above on a smaller scale.

Where is that video that shows this explosion you referred to in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1378382&postcount=424

Certainly it's on YouTube or something...

[W*GS]

W*gs had this to say about the collapse of WTC 7:

Yes, I did say those things.

What a bunch of Bull****.

How nice.

Is that all you've got left? I'd say "Yes".

[W*GS]

It's been stated on this thread that I have misrepresented Sam Cohen's views about red mercury and pure fusion weapons.

Got a link?

Well, here's a verbatim quote from the article that appeared in New Scientist way backon April 29 1995-- titled:

Why not supply the entire article, as well as the views of those skeptical about "red mercury"?

You're so typical of 9/11 hucksters - your entire whackitude rests on an inverted pyramid of nutty ideas.

[defenseman]

This thread is old...dman

[Bronx33]

So now we are back to mushrooms.

I would agree. Only one little problem. What caused the mushroom?

Did it grow out of the Manhattan bedrock?


The downward fall of the building falling on itself.

[Bronco Bob]

Which is actually the original question: Why did 3 steel frame towers fall on the same day -- when none had ever fallen before? What brought them down?



http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Because at no other time in history did two airplanes fully loaded with
fuel fly into two building in the same day.
As two what brought them down, the heat from the burning fuel weakened
the steel structure enough that the frame could no longer support
the weight of the floors above. When the top floors collapsed,
the momentum of them falling on the lower floors caused the
lower floors to collapse, and a domino effect occured until
the last, bottom floor collapesed. The third building was damaged
by debris from one of the first two.

[Bronco Bob]

Here's a debunking piece from NTI about red mercury.

Some experts have suggested, however, that red mercury is in fact another name for lithium-6, a substance that can be used in the production of compact and highly efficient thermonuclear devices.

http://www.miee.ru/struct/44/Art6.htm.

Even if you use lithium instead of hydrogen you still need a fission bomb
made of either uranium or plutonium to generate the heat and pressure
to fuse the lithium atoms together into a heavier element.
It's like saying we are going to use naptha instead of gasoline
to burn down a house. You still need a match to light it.
The lithium all by itself isn't going to cause a thermonuclear
explosion anymore than naptha can self combust.
No one has changed the laws of physics, no matter how
many whacky websites claim to the contrary.

[mhgaffney]

Got a link?
Why not supply the entire article, as well as the views of those skeptical about "red mercury"?

.

This is a 1995 article and it does not exist in cyberspace. If I had a scanner I'd be happy to post it.

I am crawling here in the country with no dsl broadband and so am not able to download videos. It's reallly hampering my research.

I already posted the link to the analysis by the Finnish military expert -- showing the stills -- taken from the well known videos of the collapse. We've all seen them. They are available on the web. Here again's the link. You can see for yourself the match between the wtc collapse and photos of underground nuclear tests.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

[mhgaffney]

Because at no other time in history did two airplanes fully loaded with
fuel fly into two building in the same day.
As two what brought them down, the heat from the burning fuel weakened
the steel structure enough that the frame could no longer support
the weight of the floors above. When the top floors collapsed,
the momentum of them falling on the lower floors caused the
lower floors to collapse, and a domino effect occured until
the last, bottom floor collapesed. The third building was damaged
by debris from one of the first two.

Wrong and wrong again.

The planes were not fully loaded. The NIST concluded there was only 10,000 gallons of jet fuel per plane -- max. Furthermore, according to Dr Shyam Sunder the lead NIST investigator the jet fuel was consumed within minutes. Don't believe me? Then read the NIST report.

I also just got a confirmation today from Frank Gayle, another lead NIST scientist, that the factor of safety of the WTC perimeter wall on 9/11 was "well over 5"

That means even if one wall buckled over its full length there was still plenty of support by a wide margin to hold up the outer wall.

So it comes down to the core columns. Did they weaken? No. Not enough to cause a global collapse. Here's why. Consider WTC 1.

The fuel loading in the core part of the building was negligible (admitted by the NIST)

The average fuel load on a typical floor (outside the core) was less than expected, only 4lbs/square foot (admitted by the NIST)

The fires were transient. They reached a peak temperature in 10 minutes, consumed the available fuel, then began to wane. The fire front moved on. At no time were any of the affected floors 100% on fire -- (admitted by the NIST)

Notice -- as the fire moved elsewhere to areas where the fireproofing was still intact, the fire's impact on the protected columns in those areas would have been nil. (admitted by the NIST)

At the time of the collapse -- which started on floor 96 -- the fires on this floor were actually waning. The NIST images actually show the tenperature was descreasing. This means the steel -- if anything -- was regaining its strength. (Steel that has suffered a loss of strength due to heat will regain its strength when it cools.)

All of this is probably why not one of the steel samples collected by the NIST showed evidence of heating as hot as 600 C for as long as 15 minutes. Not enough heat and not long enough to weaken massive steel columns.

As I've stated -- the NIST's own data and studies do not support its conclusion --- which was its initial assumption -- that the planes and subsequent fire caused the WTC collapse.

The best is still to come...

[mhgaffney]

Even if you use lithium instead of hydrogen you still need a fission bomb
made of either uranium or plutonium to generate the heat and pressure
to fuse the lithium atoms together into a heavier element.
It's like saying we are going to use naptha instead of gasoline
to burn down a house. You still need a match to light it.
The lithium all by itself isn't going to cause a thermonuclear
explosion anymore than naptha can self combust.
No one has changed the laws of physics, no matter how
many whacky websites claim to the contrary.

That article from NTI was an attempt to debunk the reports about red mercury. I've been posting both sides of this.

Neither Frank Barnaby nor Sam Cohen buy that argument. The word from the Russian scientists -- as noted above -- is that the production requires placing the precursor material in a reactor and irradiating it for 40 days. The neutron bombardment changes it on the atomic level -- how I do not know. But this supposedly accounts for the unique properties --

They've coined a name for this -- ballo technics. I heard that from Barnaby.

I don't understand it -- not yet -- I'm still searching.

[W*GS]

This is a 1995 article and it does not exist in
cyberspace.

Wrong.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619750.300-cherry-red-and-very-dangerous.html

But you gotta pay.

I already posted the link to the analysis by the Finnish military expert -- showing the stills -- taken from the well known videos of the collapse. We've all seen them. They are available on the web. Here again's the link. You can see for yourself the match between the wtc collapse and photos of underground nuclear tests.

Try again.

The similarity in appearance between the collapse of one of the WTC towers and an shallow underground nuclear test is purely superficial. One need not posit a red mercury-powered pure fusion "mini-nuke".

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

[W*GS]

(Steel that has suffered a loss of strength due to heat will regain its strength when it cools.)

Not in its original configuration while it has been subjected to a load.

Consider a column damaged by the plane's impact and subjected to heating from the fires. It will lose strength and further distort, as it is still subjected to the load of the floors above. Beyond a certain point, even when it's no longer subjected to as much heat, it will fail. Once it fails, its neighboring columns will be subjected to additional load. Once they fail, the process reaches the point of no return.

Why you persist in deception, ignorant or not, would be an interesting study in the mindset of the conspiracist.

[mhgaffney]

RED MERCURY:
Is there a pure fusion bomb for sale?

I found Barnaby's 1994 article with the help of interlibrary loan -- You may download it at the link below. There is a snag -- the pdf file comes through upside down. So if you can't flip it you'll have to print it out.

Here's a glimpse: Barnaby says the US tried in the 1960s to develop a pure fusion weapon. It was called project dove.

Article Title: 'Red Mercury -- Is there a pure fusion bomb for sale?'
by Frank Barnaby
Article Author:
Journal Title: International defense review.
Journal Volume:
Journal Year: June 1994

can now be accessed directly from the web at:


http://ill.lib.pdx.edu/PDF/129246.pdf

[mhgaffney]

Not in its original configuration while it has been subjected to a load.

Consider a column damaged by the plane's impact and subjected to heating from the fires. It will lose strength and further distort, as it is still subjected to the load of the floors above. Beyond a certain point, even when it's no longer subjected to as much heat, it will fail. Once it fails, its neighboring columns will be subjected to additional load. Once they fail, the process reaches the point of no return.

Why you persist in deception, ignorant or not, would be an interesting study in the mindset of the conspiracist.


You got it only partly right. The fire tests of the WTC truss assemblies done by UL for NIST found that the trusses rebounded from the maximum snag WHILE UNDER LOAD -- but not totally.

They rebounded in part. But this has nothing to do with a catastrophic failure. In fact the tests done at Carlington labs in the 1990s found that bowing and sagging is a separate response to heat than loss of strength. The two are not the same. Sagging actually helps the steel beam maintain itself and bear its load -- up to a point.

[loborugger]

Wow... this thread is like a self licking ice cream cone. I have a funny feeling if I came back 10 years from now, Gaffney would still be arguing mercury bombs, or mercury switches, or mercury cougars.

[Bronco Bob]

Wrong and wrong again.

The planes were not fully loaded. The NIST concluded there was only 10,000 gallons of jet fuel per plane -- max. Furthermore, according to Dr Shyam Sunder the lead NIST investigator the jet fuel was consumed within minutes. Don't believe me? Then read the NIST report.

These were planes intended to fly non-stop to Los Angeles. Who ever
in the NIST concluded they weren't fully loaded is an idiot. Non-stop
means they weren't going to land anywhere in between, and
commericial airlines don't have inflight refueling.
As far as being consumed within minutes, anyone watching the
films of the crash can plainly see the building were on fire right
up to the second of their collapse.

[Bronco Bob]

You got it only partly right. The fire tests of the WTC truss assemblies done by UL for NIST found that the trusses rebounded from the maximum snag WHILE UNDER LOAD -- but not totally.

They rebounded in part. But this has nothing to do with a catastrophic failure. In fact the tests done at Carlington labs in the 1990s found that bowing and sagging is a separate response to heat than loss of strength. The two are not the same. Sagging actually helps the steel beam maintain itself and bear its load -- up to a point.

The point being when they could no longer bear the load, and the building collapsed.

[Bronco Bob]

RED MERCURY:
Is there a pure fusion bomb for sale?

I found Barnaby's 1994 article with the help of interlibrary loan -- You may download it at the link below. There is a snag -- the pdf file comes through upside down. So if you can't flip it you'll have to print it out.

Here's a glimpse: Barnaby says the US tried in the 1960s to develop a pure fusion weapon. It was called project dove.

Article Title: 'Red Mercury -- Is there a pure fusion bomb for sale?'
by Frank Barnaby
Article Author:
Journal Title: International defense review.
Journal Volume:
Journal Year: June 1994

can now be accessed directly from the web at:


http://ill.lib.pdx.edu/PDF/129246.pdf

People can write all the articles they want. But if it defies the laws
of phyics then it is just pure fiction along the lines of Star Trek and
Star Wars. I have yet to see any explanation of how any chemical
explosive can generate enough heat and pressure to bring protons
close enough together to fuse. And I never will, because they
can't. Anymore than I could fly from the ground up into the air
if I built myself a big enough set of wings and flapped my arms
hard enough. Simple physical laws.

[mhgaffney]

These were planes intended to fly non-stop to Los Angeles. Who ever
in the NIST concluded they weren't fully loaded is an idiot. Non-stop
means they weren't going to land anywhere in between, and
commericial airlines don't have inflight refueling.
As far as being consumed within minutes, anyone watching the
films of the crash can plainly see the building were on fire right
up to the second of their collapse.

You are the idiot.

It doesn't take a full load of jet fuel to fly coast to coast. The NIST got some things right -- this for example -- even if their conclusions were wrong.

You should read the report. As for the Barnaby piece, did you even read it?

You are one of these guys -- so common on this board -- who talk talk talk but don't put the effort into the research necessary to get it right.

[mhgaffney]

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

WTC cancer cluster 'like Hiroshima'

http://villagevoice.com/news/0648%2Clombardi%2C75156%2C2.html

Plaintiffs suing New York City for cancer spawned by destruction of the World Trade Center towers are subscribing to an "interacting toxins" theory of their illness.

Even so, comparison with the cancer rates after Hiroshima is obvious and compelling. Read on...

From Village Voice November 28th, 2006:

"This is the story of 9-11 and cancer.

To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.

Those 75 cases have come to light in joint-action lawsuits filed against New York City on behalf of at least 8,500 recovery workers who suffer from various forms of lung illnesses and respiratory diseases—and suggest a pattern too distinct to ignore. While some cancers take years, if not decades, to develop, the blood cancers in otherwise healthy and young individuals represent a pattern that experts believe will likely prove to be more than circumstantial. The suits seek to prove that these 8,500 workers—approximately 20 percent of the total estimated recovery force that cleared the rubble from ground zero—all suffer from the debilitating effects of those events.

The basis for the suits stems from the plaintiffs' argument that the government—in a desperate attempt to revive downtown in the wake of the catastrophic events on 9-11—failed to protect workers from cancer-causing benzene, dioxin, and other hazardous chemicals that permeated the air for months. Officials made these failures worse by falsely reassuring New Yorkers that they faced no long-term dangers from exposure to the air lingering over ground zero.

"We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances," Christine Todd Whitman, the then administrator of the EPA, told the citizens of New York City in a press release on September 18—only seven days after the attacks. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York . . . that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink."

Those statements were not only false and misleading, but may even play into the basis for the city's liability for millions of dollars in the recovery workers' lawsuits. Last February, U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts cited Whitman's false statements as the basis for allowing a different class-action lawsuit to proceed—this one, against the EPA and Whitman, is on behalf of residents, office workers, and students from Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, many of whom suffer from respiratory illnesses as a result of 9-11. [...]

Given the fact that some cancers are slower to develop than others, it seems likely to several doctors and epidemiologists that many more reports of cancer and serious lung illnesses will surface in the months and years to come. The fact that 8,500 recovery workers have already banded together to sue, only five years later—with 400 total cancer patients among their number—leads many experts to predict that these figures are likely to grow, meaning a possible death toll in the thousands.

In many ways, these illnesses suggest the slow but deteriorating health issues that faced the atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where thousands died in the years and decades that followed the United States' use of nuclear weapons. [...]

The biggest group by far consists of people like Vallebuona, who have blood cell cancers. Seventy-five clients suffer from lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, and other blood cell cancers; most are men, aged 30 to 60, who appeared in perfect health just five years ago.[...]

The blood cancer cases seem too disproportionate to be random. Two percent of these workers have been diagnosed with what amounts to related diseases, none of which fall into the "high-frequency" category, which includes prostate cancer. One out of 9,000 people nationwide gets lymphoma a year; for myeloma, it's one out of 30,000. By contrast, the 75 blood cancer patients translate into several dozen new cases a year.

[...]

[Boston University's Dr. David] Ozonoff echoes all five of his colleagues when he draws parallels between the aftermath of 9-11 and that of another massive exposure: the atomic-bombs dropped on Japan. Bomb survivors experienced excessive spikes in leukemia rates within the first five years, a surprising discovery for epidemiologists in the mid 20th century. While this outbreak resulted from radiation, both it and 9-11 involved a sudden and intense blast of carcinogens. For bomb survivors, leukemia appeared first, followed by breast and lung cancer. "That could happen with 9-11," says [Jonathan] Samet, the Johns Hopkins epidemiology department chair. "It might be what we're seeing today."

[...]

[mhgaffney]

I just learned about this - and it's a bombshell - because it explodes the official story about how WTC 2 collapsed.

I've almost completed a detailed critique of the NIST report on the WTC collapse. It will be posted on the web soon.

The NIST claimed that continuous fires in WTC 2 weakened the central columns -- and this is key to their collapse theory.

One of the biggest obstacles the NISt faced was the lask of information about conditions at the core of the building -- which is why it's so outrageous they ignored the following testimony.

Two NY firemen actually reached the 78th floor of WTC 2 about 7 minutes before it collapsed. This was in the impact zone. The two men reported only two small fires and told their chief below they needed only 2 hoses to put out the fires.

This contradicts the official story parroted by the NIST a raging inferno destroyed the core of the building. No wonder that the Port Authority sat on the "lost tape" for over a year. Even after it was released they demanded that wives who listened to the final moments of their dead husbands lives must sign a non disclosure agreement nevver to talk about what they heard.

This in Amerika the land of the Free. No surprise again that the Port Authority spokesmen stated he was only acting on orders from the US atttorney's offfice to keep a lid on the tape.

The official story is a lie. Here's part of the actual story -- incredible this has been out for several years -- is anyone listening?


Feds Withhold Crucial WTC Evidence
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
8-8-2

Evidence debunking the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center is being kept secret by the U.S. Dept. of Justice on a flimsy pretext.
 
The U.S. Dept of Justice has ordered secrecy measures to keep the contents of a 'lost tape' of firefighters' voices at the World Trade Center from being made public. The reason for the secrecy surrounding the 78-minute audiotape is because it evidently debunks the accepted explanation that intense jet fuel fires melted the towersí steel beams and caused the collapses.
 
The New York Times recently revealed the existence of the tape of radio transmissions between firefighters of the New York Fire Department (NYFD), which proves that ìat least two menî had reached the 78th floor Sky Lobby of the South Tower.  The firefighters had reported about the fires and casualties they encountered and begun evacuating the survivors.
 
The article said that firefighters ìreached the crash zone on the 78th floor, where they went to the aid of grievously injured people trapped in a sprawl of destruction.î While the Times article raises as many questions as it answers, it points to a reason for the secrecy: "Once they got there," the article says, "they had a coherent plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived."
 
The report names two of the firefighters who were at the crash site: Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organizing the evacuation of injured people, and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. Both men died in the collapse.  343 NYFD firefighters perished on 911.
 
'TWO POCKETS OF FIRE'
 
The voices of the firefighters "showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control," the Times wrote. "At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them."
 
"I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic," Palmer's widow said. "When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly."
 
The fact that veteran firefighters had 'a coherent plan for putting out' the 'two pockets of fire' indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government's unfounded claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower's collapse. As the FEMA 'Building Performance Assessment' report says, "Temperatures may have been as high as 900 - 1,100 C. (1,700 - 2,000 F.) in some areas."
 
"If FEMA's temperature estimates are correct, the interiors of the towers were furnaces capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery," Eric Hufschmid, author of the book 'Time for Painful Questions' writes. Yet the voices on the tape prove that several firefighters were able to work 'without fear' for an extended period at the point of the crash, and that the fires they encountered there were neither intense nor large.
 
Incredibly, the South Tower literally disintegrated in less than an hour after being hit by a plane, which impacted between its 78th and 84th floors. "Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse," Hufschmid writes, "so, how did a 56-minute fire bring down a steel building as strong as the South Tower?"
 
Hufschmid's forthcoming book presents compelling evidence that explosives caused the towers to collapse.
 
Pointing to the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991, Hufschmid writes, "The Meridian Plaza fire was extreme, but it did not cause the building to collapse. The fire in the South Tower seems insignificant by comparison to both the Meridian Plaza fire and the fire in the North Tower. How could the tiny fire in the South Tower cause the entire structure to shatter into dust after 56 minutes while much more extreme fires did not cause the Meridian Plaza building to even crack into two pieces?"
 
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA), the bi-state authority and owner of the World Trade Center, retrieved the 'lost tape'. A spokesman for the authority, Greg Trevor, told AFP that the tape was found in PA police offices at 5 WTC, 'two or three weeks' after 911. The PA police monitored radio transmissions from the WTC.
 
Because of an unexplained delay in producing the tape it was believed ìfor monthsî that firefighters had gone no higher than about the 50th floor in each tower. The delay, Trevor said, was due to the time required to transfer the voice data to 'encrypted CDs'.
 
In January or February, the PA offered a copy of the tape to NYFD officials, who reportedly declined the offer because they did not want to sign the confidentiality agreement as demanded by the PA. The Independent (UK) added that the PA 'held back from sharing it with police and only relinquished it on condition that a confidentiality agreement was signed.'
 
"That's not correct," Trevor told AFP regarding the allegation that the PA had withheld the tape from the police. The PA had only handled the tape "under the instruction of the U.S. Attorney's office," he said.
 
A spokesman for the NYPD expressed surprise when AFP asked if the police had conducted a criminal investigation into the events at the WTC. Spokesman Bernard Gifford said NYPD had not pursued a criminal investigation of 911 having 'turned it over' to the FBI. Gifford wouldnít say when this occurred, although Joe Valiquette of the New York office of the FBI told AFP that the federal bureau had run the investigation 'from the moment it happened.'
 
On August 2, the relatives of the 16 firefighters whose voices were identified on the tape were allowed to hear their last words in a New York City hotel. The families were first required to sign a statement prepared by lawyers they would not disclose what was said on the tape.
 
BECOMING PUBLIC?
 
Despite the fact that the contents of the tape are being kept secret, the Times article says, "Only now, nearly a year after the attacks, are the efforts of Chief Palmer, Mr. Bucca and others becoming public. City fire officials simply delayed listening to a 78-minute tape that is the only known recording of firefighters inside the towers."
 
While Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said he had not known the tape existed until 'very recently', both the Times and CNN err in claiming that the NYFD is the agency behind the extreme secrecy. "The Fire Department has forbidden anyone to discuss the contents publicly on the ground that the tape might be evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man accused of plotting with the hijackers," the Times said.
 
When AFP asked the NYFD why the only conversations between firefighters engaged at the scene of the crash had to be kept secret because of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was in prison in Minnesota at the time, the spokesman replied, "Take it up with the Dept. of Justice."
 
WHAT EXPLOSIONS?
 
Asked about the numerous reports by eyewitnesses, including firefighters, of explosions inside the towers before they collapsed, Mike Logrin, spokesman for the NYFD, said, "We're pretty sure there weren't bombs in the building." Logrin said there was "no evidenceî of explosions, and for ìscientific evidence" about the collapse recommended viewing a television program. "Didn't you see the NOVA [PBS] special on the collapse?" he asked.
 
On September 1,1 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans, who was in the second tower when it was hit. 
 
Evans reported: "I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion - I didn't think it was an explosion - but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake - then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. We can only wonder at the kind of damage -- the kind of human damage -- which was caused by those explosions - those series of explosions," he said.
 
Evans is a professional journalist and although his observations of explosions in the second tower should be taken into account, they are not. Numerous eyewitnesses reported seeing or hearing explosions, but these reports have been avoided by the agencies supposedly leading the investigation.
 
Valiquette of the FBI told AFP that he had not "heard anything" about reports of explosions in the building and that he had "never heard any discussion of it" in the FBI's New York office.

[W*GS]

I see gaffney is searching very far and wide in his efforts to prop up his terminally-ill "mini-nuke" whacktiude.

Even a metaphor about the health problems of rescue workers is pulled in to (somehow) support it.

And no, the firefighter's audio tape doesn't prove much of anything. That it was known 4+ years ago and yet wasn't then, and isn't now, evidence of gaffney's "mini-nukes", is par for his course.

Casting an ever-wider net in the vain hope of finding something, anything (even a mention of Hiroshima) to support his whackitude just shows how desperate gaffney has become.

[mhgaffney]

Must see -- 911 EVEWITNESS video -- proof that huge blasts ripped through the towers

I've just reviewed a video produced by a cable tv producer who lives in Hoboken -- just across the Hudson from NYC.

On 9/11 he captured the twin towers on film -- and the collapse -- from the east shore of the Hudson. He also caught in real time audio the explosions -- just before the towers fell. Nine very powerful blasts preceded the collapse of WTC 2. No mistake.

This audio / video is irrrefutable evidence which FEMA and the NIST ignored. It supports the hundreds of eyewitnesss accounts of explosions.

The video is called 911 EYEWITNESS and can be downloaded for free at
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

If you don't have broadband you can buy it at www.911eyewitness.com

[mhgaffney]

And no, the firefighter's audio tape doesn't prove much of anything. That it was known 4+ years ago and yet wasn't then, and isn't now, evidence of gaffney's "mini-nukes", is par for his course.
.

If the firefighter's tape is so irrelevant -- then why did the NY Port Authority -- at the behest of the US Attorney's Office (i.e., Ashcroft) -- suppress it for almost four years????

It was only released because of a court decision -- The NY Times and the attorney for the families of the victims pressed a FOIA request and the tapes were finally made public in Aug 2005. Notice, this was just before the release of the NIST report, hence too late to be considered in it.

Today, anyone can download them from the Times web site. Reading the transcripts makes it obvious why the government suppressed them. They contradict the official conspiracy theory.

Here are 3 examples:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

[epicSocialism4tw]

This thread is still active?

Y E S !

Mini-nukes rule!

[W*GS]

If the firefighter's tape is so irrelevant -- then why did the NY Port Authority -- at the behest of the US Attorney's Office (i.e., Ashcroft) -- suppress it for almost four years????

They "suppressed" nothing. The tape was known by August of 2002, as your original post notes.

What the firefighters/paramedics heard and what actually happened are two different things. Hearing an "explosion" is hardly proof of controlled demolition. These folks most likely merely misinterpreted what they heard.

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

also

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

[W*GS]

On 9/11 he captured the twin towers on film -- and the collapse -- from the east shore of the Hudson. He also caught in real time audio the explosions -- just before the towers fell. Nine very powerful blasts preceded the collapse of WTC 2. No mistake.

Interestingly, the audio from cameras much closer isn't the same.

Why?

[W*GS]

The final word:

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?c0b5692cf0.jpg

If it's in the WWN, it has to be true!

[alkemical]

We all know the WWN is really a front run by the illuminati.

fnord!

[mhgaffney]

Interestingly, the audio from cameras much closer isn't the same.

Why?

It's well known that loud sounds trave exceptionally well across open expanses of water. Richard Siegel was two miles away from ground zero -- with nothing between him and the WTC but the Hudson river.

If you don't believe it you should download the FREE video and listen to it iin the privacy of your own home and make up your own mind.

Not that you'll do it. Your philosophy is: Don't confuse me with facts -- my mind is made up!

You are so deep in denial that when the truth about 9/11 finally does smack you in the face -- you won't be able to handle it. You'll probably have a nervous breakdown - go off the deep end.

You have this little problem. Your mind is in a strait jacket.

[W*GS]

Your philosophy is: Don't confuse me with facts -- my mind is made up!

You're projecting.

The irony of you lecturing me, or anyone, about facts is just plain incredible.

You are so deep in denial that when the truth about 9/11 finally does smack you in the face -- you won't be able to handle it. You'll probably have a nervous breakdown - go off the deep end.

Is that what happened to you? I believe so.

[baja]

You're projecting.

The irony of you lecturing me, or anyone, about facts is just plain incredible.



Is that what happened to you? I believe so.

Congratulations WAGS I have been here for over 5 years and you are the very first poster I have put on "Ignore"

[alkemical]

The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/opinion/main2242387.shtml)


The Nation) This column was written by Christopher Hayes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories — propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement — seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.

The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.

Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 — the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing — were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.



Continued (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/opinion/main2242387_page2.shtml)

[The Lone Bolt]

Excellent article clav! I agree. Skepticism of our government is healthy, and we should always ask questions.

But when some become obsessed with conspiracy theories to the point that flimsy, circumstantial evidence is accepted as compelling by them and all credible debunking is summarily dismissed as "part of the conspiracy" or "naive", that is going beyond healthy skepticism.

We should be skeptical but keep an open mind to all plausible explanations and not become obsessed with one explanation or another. People on both extremes are putting the cart before the horse. They begin with an absolute belief and then make the facts fit that belief. They also delude themselves into thinking that they are not doing this and accuse anyone who disagrees with them as the real "cart-before-the-horse" crowd.

So what is the litmus test? Anyone who concedes that the alternative to their own favored view is possible is excercising open-mindedness and objectivity. As long as the evidence provides for plausible alternative explanations the alternative theories are still possible.

So for those of you clinging to one theory or another, take a good long look at your reasoning. Don't put the burden of open-mindedness on the other party but ON YOURSELF! Ask yourself if YOU are listening with an open mind. Ask yourself if the alternative explanations for your evidence may indeed be plausible and not just "propaganda" and "lies".

It seems like there's too much of that going on here.

[mhgaffney]

The NATION article actually advances the cause of 911 truth by calling on the US press to hold the Bush administratiion accountable. I agree. That is why I have called for a new 911 investigation. All of the investigations to date have been politically controlled -- hence, a white wash. This is also true of the NIST investigation, which never investigated the collapse itself, and thereby neatly side stepped numerous anomalies. The final draft of my critique of the NIST report will be posted soon.

I am well aware of the shocking dimensions of this thread. I am as much in shock today by the implications as when I first posted it in late October. It is almost incomprehensible to think that our leaders could murder thousands of Americans to further their political agenda. I'm very sorry to have to report that the weight of evidence strongly points in this direction.

There is nothing wrong headed about following the evidence. There is nothing obsessive about demanding the truth.

I have admitted mistakes I've made on this thread and that will continue.

It's good to see that the ridicule factor has dropped half a decibel in recent weeks.

The best is yet to come...

[alkemical]

Excellent article clav! I agree. Skepticism of our government is healthy, and we should always ask questions.

But when some become obsessed with conspiracy theories to the point that flimsy, circumstantial evidence is accepted as compelling by them and all credible debunking is summarily dismissed as "part of the conspiracy" or "naive", that is going beyond healthy skepticism.

We should be skeptical but keep an open mind to all plausible explanations and not become obsessed with one explanation or another. People on both extremes are putting the cart before the horse. They begin with an absolute belief and then make the facts fit that belief. They also delude themselves into thinking that they are not doing this and accuse anyone who disagrees with them as the real "cart-before-the-horse" crowd.

So what is the litmus test? Anyone who concedes that the alternative to their own favored view is possible is excercising open-mindedness and objectivity. As long as the evidence provides for plausible alternative explanations the alternative theories are still possible.

So for those of you clinging to one theory or another, take a good long look at your reasoning. Don't put the burden of open-mindedness on the other party but ON YOURSELF! Ask yourself if YOU are listening with an open mind. Ask yourself if the alternative explanations for your evidence may indeed be plausible and not just "propaganda" and "lies".

It seems like there's too much of that going on here.



That's how i try to operate. I don't belive the 9/11 commish's story to a "T" - and i find several other 'theories' just as 'plausible' - that's why i can't 'accept' a story on merit of authority.

[mhgaffney]

This is taken from my critique of the NIST report. All of the numbers below were confirmed to me by the NIST investigative team, which continues to answer questions on request. The two key numbers are the factors of safety for the core columns (2.1) and the perimeter wall (5.7).

The NIST looked at an earlier draft of this, and signed off on the numbers.
Which is pretty incredible, when you think about it, because it means their own data does not support their conclusion about what caused the WTC collapse. This is exactly what I've been saying on this thread.

The Notes don't come through -- but are available on request.

The Issue of Reserve Capacity

In order to show just how weak the official 9/11 narative is, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that local fires did burn long and hot enough to weaken exposed columns in the impact zone of WTC 2. As I will now show, even if this did occur it still fails to account for the global collapse of the second tower. As the NIST report states,

"both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2, the more severely damaged building, where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure."[my emphasis]72

The data showed that WTC 2, the more seriously damaged tower, gave no hint of instability after the initial impact. Unfortunately, although the NIST summary report provides a wealth of information it fails to shed light on this important matter of the WTC’s “considerable reserve capacity.” I scoured the full summary report, as well as the preliminary 2004 report–––in vain–––for any discussion of this issue. I then called the NIST for assistance and was guided to several of the project reports and supplementary documents. I also consulted with experts at the International Code Council (ICC) and with a leading structural engineer. I learned that estimating the overall reserve capacity of a steel structure is no simple task. Numerous factors are involved, as well as a number of assumptions. Moreover, there are different ways to approach the problem.

Perhaps the simplest measure of reserve capacity are the standards for the material components of a building. In the late 1960s when the WTC was constructed the applicable standard was the New York City Building Code, which required a builder to execute computations for the various structural members to show that they met the specified requirements. However, the code also allowed for actual testing of members, in the event that computations were impractical. The testing standards applicable in 1968 give a good idea of the required level of reserve strength in the steel columns and other materials used in the WTC. For example, in the most stringent test a steel member had to withstand 250% of the design load, plus half again its own weight, for a period of a week, without collapse.73

Factor of Safety

Another widely used measure of reserve capacity is the so called “factor of safety.” This varies for different structural elements, but for steel columns and beams typically ranges from 1.75-2.0.(74) The NIST report actually breaks down this more general figure into two separate and slightly different measurements for stress: yielding strength (1.67) and buckling (1.92).75 For our purposes, however, the more general figure is adequate. So, for example, a steel column with a factor of safety of 1.75 must support 1.75 times the anticipated design load before it begins to incur damage.

While this value is typical of steel beams in general, the actual reserve strength of the steel columns in the WTC was higher. When the NIST crunched the numbers for the 47 core columns of WTC 1 (between the 93rd and 98th floors) they found that the factor of safety ranged from 1.6 to 2.8, the average value being 2.1.(76) This means that the average core column in WTC 1 could support more than twice its design load before reaching the yield strength, i.e., the point where damage may begin to occur.

Notice, the factor of safety is not a threshold for collapse, but a value beyond which permanent damage may occur. As the NIST report states, even “after reaching the yield strength, structural steel components continue to possess considerable reserve capacity.”77 This is why steel beams and columns do not typically fail in sudden fashion. The loss of strength is gradual. No doubt, this helps to explain why, although fires have ravaged many steel frame buildings over history, not a one had ever collapsed–––until 9/11–––nor has any since. So we see–––it should be obvious–––that even in the highly improbable worst case, in which many of the WTC columns lost half of their strength, there was still plenty of reserve capacity to support the building.

The Perimeter Wall

With regard to the WTC’s perimeter columns, the factor of safety varied from day to day and even from hour to hour, because, in addition to supporting about half of the WTC’s gravity load, the perimeter wall had to withstand the force of wind–––which is highly variable given the whims of Mother Nature. A single face of the WTC presented an enormous “sail” to the elements, which is why chief engineer John Shilling vastly overbuilt this part of the structure.

According to the NIST report, the wall’s factor of safety against wind shear on 9/11 was extremely high, i.e., 10-11.(78) Why so high? The reason is simple: On the day of the attack there was almost no wind.79 As a result, nearly all of the perimeter wall’s design capacity was available to help support the gravity load. As the NIST report states, “On September 11, 2001 the wind loads were minimal, thus providing significantly more reserve for the exterior walls.”80

Of course, because wind is mostly a lateral force the additional capacity that was available to help support the gravity load was less than one-to-one. When the NIST crunched the numbers for a representative perimeter column in WTC 1 (column 151 -- between the 93rd and 98th floors), they arrived at a factor of safety of 5.7.(81) If we take this average figure as a typical value we arrive at an accurate estimate of the perimeter wall’s amazing reserve strength. Even if we subtract the columns severed/damaged by the impact of Flight 175, and the lost capacity due to buckling along one perimeter wall, there was still a wide margin of safety–––more than enough by several times over to support half of the structure’s gravity load, which overall did not change. Of course, the wrecked jetliner added substantial mass. On the other hand, due to the successful evacuation of people the live load, i.e., the total body mass of the occupants, was reduced by 75%.82

I have just shown that the NIST’s own data casts grave doubt on its conclusions about the cause of the global collapse of WTC 2. The official theory requires the fatal weakening of both sets of columns: at the core and along the perimeter wall–––and falls short on both counts, due to insufficient evidence. Indeed, I would go further and call the evidence woefully insufficient.

[W*GS]

It is almost incomprehensible to think that our leaders could murder thousands of Americans to further their political agenda. I'm very sorry to have to report that the weight of evidence strongly points in this direction.

You mean the "evidence" you've carefully filtered and extracted to support your original whackitude.

You've gone at it backwards - you believe Bush and his cronies wanted to murder thousands of Americans to further their dark plans, so you've taken scraps of information from the events of 9/11 to make them fit that agenda.

[mhgaffney]

You mean the "evidence" you've carefully filtered and extracted to support your original whackitude.

You've gone at it backwards - you believe Bush and his cronies wanted to murder thousands of Americans to further their dark plans, so you've taken scraps of information from the events of 9/11 to make them fit that agenda.

I've just posted a bullet proof analysis of the reserve capacity of the WTC -- showing that the towers would have stood even if most of the core columns lost half of their strength due to fire weakening. Of course that didn't happen. This was simply for sake of argument -- to show how absurd the official theory is. Even if you assume that core weakening occurred you can't produce a collapse.

This is why the NIST had to tweak and tweak their computer model -- as they even admitted -- to finally arrive at their conclusion. In fact they were the ones who worked backwards. Their conclusion was actually the assumption they started with.

And this lame remark -- above -- is the best you can manage? It shows we are making progress. The burden is on you to show where my analysis above is wrong -- and you can't do it.

The numbers are correct.

[The Lone Bolt]

Just out of curiosity Gaff, what's your background in engineering and/or physics? Are you professionally/academically qualified to analyze the data you presented?

[mhgaffney]

Just out of curiosity Gaff, what's your background in engineering and/or physics? Are you professionally/academically qualified to analyze the data you presented?

Sure. I have a BS degree in physical science. But I'm not a scientist. I'm a researcher, muck raker, and hell raiser. And a writer.

In case you don't know, my first book was a study of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. Here's a link if you are curious.
http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/pages/dimona.htm

It took me three weeks to research the above analysis about the WTC reserve capacity. I started by reading a large part of the NIST report. The Summary report and four of the project reports. However, I did not find an adequate discussion of this important question of the WTC reserve capacity.

So I got on the phone. I called the UC Berkeley school of engineering and talked with several structural engineers. One of them referred me to Ron Hamburger, who I found out later was one of the lead engineers in the FEMA WTC study. Download the FEMA report and you'll see that Ron Hamburger wrote the summary report for that study. I talked with Hamburger on the phone. He's based in San Francisco. He was very helpful and set me straight about the factor of safety.

Then it was only a matter of getting the numbers riight. I contacted NIST and they referred me to two of the supplementtary documents. The key information was buried deep in the report -- you have to know where to look.

The NIST report actually uses a slightly different measure of reserve strength. The so called demand/capacity ratio. It's the same data -- just expressed differently. I prefer the factor of safety because it's easier for people to understand. When they showed me where to look in the report -- and explained one or two things -- the rest fell into place.

I also spoke with a structural engineer at the International Code Council (ICC), who was very helpful. He read over my draft, and suggested I change one or two things. The NIST also read the draft and confirmed I had it right. Which is amazing, since their numbers undermine their own conclusions.

It took me 3 weeks to put that short analysis together.

[W*GS]

I've just posted a bullet proof analysis of the reserve capacity of the WTC -- showing that the towers would have stood even if most of the core columns lost half of their strength due to fire weakening.

Here comes the destructive bullet:

Heat wasn't the only element that weakened the core columns.

Can you guess what the other factor(s) were?

Thanks for playing!

PS - Speaking of "absurd" - your red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes fit that bill perfectly.

[W*GS]

Sure. I have a BS degree in physical science. But I'm not a scientist. I'm a researcher, muck raker, and hell raiser. And a writer.

I'd put writer first, and the rest as mere fantasies.

The NIST also read the draft and confirmed I had it right. Which is amazing, since their numbers undermine their own conclusions.

Who at NIST?

It took me 3 weeks to put that short analysis together.

And it shows.

[baja]

WAGS you are a pompous ass that brings only your own high opinion of yourself to the table here. All I ever see you offer is criticism of others. Almost every post you make is designed to inflate your smug self as you sit back and witness your incredible intellect there in print before you.

[W*GS]

I guess post 465 was a lie, then.

[baja]

I guess post 465 was a lie, then.

See most people would just link the post but not you, no you are so important you expect others to go looking for what ever it is you are referring to.

[baja]

Congratulations WAGS I have been here for over 5 years and you are the very first poster I have put on "Ignore"

Truth is I looked all over for that damn feature and could not find it like I said you were to be the first.

[W*GS]

See most people would just link the post but not you, no you are so important you expect others to go looking for what ever it is you are referring to.

For the scroll-impaired:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1401611&postcount=465

[W*GS]

Truth is I looked all over for that damn feature and could not find it like I said you were to be the first.

Go to the "User CP" link just above, on the far left, and find the "Buddy/Ignore Lists" link, second from the bottom, on the left hand side.

I trust you can take it from there.

[baja]

Go to the "User CP" link just above, on the far left, and find the "Buddy/Ignore Lists" link, second from the bottom, on the left hand side.

I trust you can take it from there.

Read your post, see what a condescending smart ass you are?

[W*GS]

It's not my fault you don't know your way around VBulletin very well.

[mhgaffney]

Who at NIST?




I exchanged emails with Frank Gayle, one of the lead investigators. He led the metallurgical study.

And I also conversed with the Investigative Team.

[W*GS]

This is taken from my critique of the NIST report. All of the numbers below were confirmed to me by the NIST investigative team, which continues to answer questions on request.

Note that their verification of some numbers does not constitute acceptance of your whackitude.

The official theory requires the fatal weakening of both sets of columns: at the core and along the perimeter wall–––and falls short on both counts, due to insufficient evidence.

You don't seem to understand what NIST says rather plainly in NCSTAR 1, page 45. There were seven factors NIST lists that caused WTC to collapse. You've very lightly (and ignorantly) addressed only one small aspect of one of them.

You've hardly presented a devastating critique.

[mhgaffney]

The prison planet site also has a video posted on this

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 14, 2006

A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.

A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.

After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.

"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.

Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.

"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.

Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.

He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.

"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."

Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.

He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.

"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."

"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.

"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."

Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.

"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.

This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.

Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.

"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.

"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.

This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded, because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.

"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.

Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

[W*GS]

Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

Who are these "dozens", and how have they been "silenced or ignored"?

I thought the hijackings were merely a "false flag" operation - now you're saying that they were real, it's just that the government did something evil in its response?

The larger the conspiracy gets, the more unwieldy it becomes. The wider afield you go in your whackitude, gaffney, the more absurd it becomes.

[mhgaffney]

Note: The following remark by W*gs was in response to the firemen's testimony about explosives. The firemen were ordered to remain silent about what they saw on 9/11 and their testimony -- the tapes -- were suppressed by the NY Port Authority, which later claimed it acted only at the behest of the US attorney, i.e. Attorney Gen Ashcroft.

The NY TImes and the attorney of the victims pressed legal action (a FOIA) and a judge finally ordered the Port Authority to release the tapes in August 2005.

W*gs responded as follows:

They "suppressed" nothing. The tape was known by August of 2002, as your original post notes.




As usual W*gs got it wrong. In fact, there are two sets of tapes. The first I've described above - the eyewitness testimony about explosions on 9/11.

W*gs has confused the two. The other tape was not found until 2002. This is the voice recording of the firemen who made it up to the 78th floor -- well within the impact zone -- of WTC 2. They found no fiery inferno -- just a couple of smallist fires. They called for hoses to be sent up -- but before this could happen the building fell on them. The NIST investigation was hampered by lack of information about conditions in the core of the WTC. Here was firsthand testimony about core conditions -- and they ignored it.

Next time, W*gs do some checking before you post.

[W*GS]

Note: The following remark by W*gs was in response to the firemen's testimony about explosives. The firemen were ordered to remain silent about what they saw on 9/11 and their testimony -- the tapes -- were suppressed by the NY Port Authority, which later claimed it acted only at the behest of the US attorney, i.e. Attorney Gen Ashcroft.

The NY TImes and the attorney of the victims pressed legal action (a FOIA) and a judge finally ordered the Port Authority to release the tapes in August 2005.

I've already posted two links about the firefighter's quotes about explosions, that quite adequately show that they are not the absolute proof you think they are. Also, the alleged suppression of these tapes wasn't for the reason you allege, either.

As usual W*gs got it wrong.

You're in no position to call me wrong about anything.

In fact, there are two sets of tapes. The first I've described above - the eyewitness testimony about explosions on 9/11.

W*gs has confused the two. The other tape was not found until 2002.

Now you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest.

Go back to

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1395378&postcount=454

And yes, you mentioned the 78th floor tape. My response, in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1395655&postcount=455

Was to your mention of that specific tape.

Then, in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1399615&postcount=457

You state, and I quote:

"If the firefighter's tape is so irrelevant -- then why did the NY Port Authority -- at the behest of the US Attorney's Office (i.e., Ashcroft) -- suppress it for almost four years?

It was only released because of a court decision -- The NY Times and the attorney for the families of the victims pressed a FOIA request and the tapes were finally made public in Aug 2005. Notice, this was just before the release of the NIST report, hence too late to be considered in it."

So, you mention the 78th floor tapes, known and written about in 2002, in post #454. I responded to those comments, about that tape, in post #455. You responded in post #457, alleging that this tape, known in 2002, was "suppressed" by the US Attorney General for "nearly four years". Last time I checked, 2002 was one year away from 2001, not four.

Next time, W*gs do some checking before you post.

Advice you would do well to follow. If you're going to criticize me for being confused, make sure you're not confused, or deliberately lying in order to attack me, first.

I detest folks who try to lay clumsy intellectual traps.

[W*GS]

A good article:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

[mhgaffney]

The full text of my detailed analysis of the NIST's 9/11 report on the WTC collapse is now posted on the internet.

Here's a link:
http://www.rense.com/general74/nist.htm

Those who don't like Rense can go here:

Part I:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=5697

Part II:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=5695

[W*GS]

Unfortunately, all you've supplied is the uncorrected totality of the snippets you've posted here.

I've shown time and again how your facts are wrong, your data suspect, and your conclusions absurd, yet you neglected to make any changes from what you posted here and what you posted at rense.

That's a shame.

For one small specific example:

The WTC's support columns did not exist in isolation. This was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned on 9/11 as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated.

I showed you were wrong in this here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1371508&postcount=388

It's clear that none of the corrections I made to your beliefs were incorporated in your report.

Your insistence on being factually wrong tells more about your agenda, than your report does about the NIST report's "flaws".

"Dead on Arrival"? Ya sure ya betcha.

[alkemical]

No-one's really proved much of anything other than there is no 'clear' answer.

[W*GS]

No-one's really proved much of anything other than there is no 'clear' answer.

Meaning what?

That gaffney's whackitude of red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes is just as valid as NIST's work?

[alkemical]

Meaning what?

That gaffney's whackitude of red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes is just as valid as NIST's work?



Of course i don't see the mininuke as valid.

But IMO the 9/11 commish's report is just as much a 'conspiracy' as a 'conspriacy'.

that's the crux of it for me.

[W*GS]

But IMO the 9/11 commish's report is just as much a 'conspiracy' as a 'conspriacy'.

You're more of a LIHOP than a MIHOP.

[alkemical]

You're more of a LIHOP than a MIHOP.


Actually Wagsy,

I'm able to see and accept the 9/11 commish's report, and the LIHOP/MIHOP scenarios.

I'm actually able to say comfortably - that i don't know - and i'm fine with that. Just that when anyside tries to present the 'truth' it falls short.

[The Lone Bolt]

?

LIHOP = "Let It Happen On Purpose"

MIHOP = "Made It Happen On Purpose"

Both of course referring to the US Gov't.

Edit: OK I see you got that.:thumbsup:

[The Lone Bolt]

A good article:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

Excellent read. Thanks!