by isachar » Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:58 am
From vig's link, this juxtaposes NIST's recent attempt to refute 911 researchers who hav concluded the WTC's collapse was in actuality a facilitated collapse with a considered response to NIST's recent proclamation. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html">gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The material immediately following the numbered points are NIST's proclamations, followed by the response of this site's author.<br><br>13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?<br>. . The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. <br><br> This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.<br><br>NIST’s findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:<br>the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;<br>the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point<br><br> AND???? <br><br> This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.<br><br><br>"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives..."<br> Hardly surprising since their attitude in ignoring the molten metal seems to extend to also ignore the evidence of the many eye witnesses of explosions. If the pancaking is now ruled out how does NIST account for the evidence of regular patterns in the explosive sounds that were previously explained away as the falling floors progressively striking lower floors.<br><br>"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""<br>NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."<br><br> Perhaps this explains why they found no corroborating evidence. The ability to believe and try to explain away the squibs, and their regular pattern, as being caused by overpressures at the collapse front must have helped. <br><br><br>NIST: Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.<br><br><br> NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none. If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Much of interest to be found at the above link. Thanks for posting vig, this link consolidates much of the facilitated collapse evidence and focuses on NIST's phony analysis.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/6/06 11:24 am<br></i>
