Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
I beg to differ. The Warren Commission Report was not credible but served a useful purpose. www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/ Terry On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:39 PM, R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The NIST has prepared their report on the collapse of bldg 7 of the world trade center. NIST was funded 16 million dollars to prepare the report for posterity. It is now on file. Will it serve a useful purpose? Not unless it is credible. Richard
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Thankfully -- A thorough point-by-point scientific response to NIST's video-game inspired computer simulation and fictional culprit (never before seen in a real fire) is being prepared by the group of Architects and Professional Engineers in the construction industry whose site was listed earlier -- and will appear soon. It serves little useful purpose to belabor this thread until we can have a look at their response. Hopefully, this mockery of an 'official' report will be one of the last national shames and disgraces that the Bush Administration can put us through. Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Jones Beene wrote: --- Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Now there is a problem here, which is that large buildings are put together via welding torches which, when they are used to weld beams That is apparently FALSE for that building. Where did you get this exactly? Please give us some cites. I hope it was not from NIST, or maybe they are more ignorant than ever imagined. Oh heavens no, not from NIST, in fact there was no solid source involved at all. The bit about welding was just common knowledge and if WTC 12 weren't put together that way then it was just plain false. My knowledge of the source for Jones's dust sample, OTOH, came from reading a longish paper from Steve Jones on the subject of WTC 12. This was a 40+ year old design building which was erected using precut, predrilled, prefab beams which were riveted onsite. There were few welds. The welds that were there were largely gas arc welds using alloy which was different from the beam alloy. See How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49. OK, I didn't know any of that. Sorry. spray fine droplets of iron into the air. That would only happen if beams were flame cut onsite and not prefab. And even if there were lots more welds than suspected, the welding rod alloy used would not be the same as the unique beam alloy, which was special. AFAIK he made *no* *effort* to rule out that possibility. (And he talks about other people failing to examine alternate hypotheses!) You simply haven't kept up with this very well, or have been reading earlier material. Former. And, consequently, the latter too. Or -- if you do have real citations, please offer them. Steven Jones did seem to go off on tangents early on (he should have avoided building 1 2 altogether), but now that he has the support of over 400 top level architects and engineers, some even employed by NIST who were removed from this report because of their affiliation with him, many of the lose ends are being tied up. In fact the iron microspheres are less important than the other thermate-specific chemicals found. This site has many of the technical articles: http://www.ae911truth.org/#techarts Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Harry Veeder wrote: What does it take to ignite thermite? Hi All, Thermite can be ignited with a short thin strip of magnesium metal, which can be lit with a match. Every high school chemistry laboratory which I spent any time at always had powdered aluminum metal and iron oxide powder on hand, as well as at least one roll of magnesium stripping. These things can be ordered from the ads at the back of Popular Science. In addition to my students, my own kids were fascinated with pyrotechnics. I would make the thermite from the aluminum and iron oxide powders, and a family project would be to use it to burn out ground hornets. First, bags of napalm, made by dissolving polystyrene (McDonald's cups) in gasoline, were placed on the nest. Then a cup of thermite was put on top of the napalm. Finally a strip of Mg would be inserted into the thermite and lit. Destroying large paper bald-faced hornet nests in trees was much more mundane: The kids would aim their shotguns at the nest from several angles and simultaneously fire. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
The NIST has prepared their report on the collapse of bldg 7 of the world trade center. NIST was funded 16 million dollars to prepare the report for posterity. It is now on file. Will it serve a useful purpose? Not unless it is credible. Richard
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
on 24/8/08 1:26 pm, Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Jones does not believe cold fusion is real. He has seen incontrovertible evidence that it is real, and he has met for many days with people such as Miles and Storms, who have told him about their results in detail. But, like Robert Park, Huizenga and Arata, he is convinced that all of the results are wrong. They have turned their backs on rationality and the scientific method. They believe only what they want to believe; only what appeals to them. Jones and Arata cling to the notion that they, and they alone, discovered cold fusion, and all other published results are amateur mistakes as Arata puts it. Park cannot bring himself to admit he is wrong. These people will ignore any amount of evidence, both scientific evidence and common sense proof, such as the fact that thousands of professional scientists do not simultaneously go insane or start telling lies that will destroy their reputations and ruin their field for a generation. which Arata is this? Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Edmund Storms wrote: The whole conspiracy approach is based on a profound distrust of this government. While they could not go so far as to plant explosives, how far would they go to gain an advantage by such an event? Would they make sure the planes were not stopped? That is at least plausible. It would be a small conspiracy with only a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go along. This administration does engage in low-level, incompetent conspiracies which are easily revealed. Most of the evidence for the WMD evaporated before the invasion. After the invasion, the administration planted letter in one of Saddam Hussein's offices. This single letter said that Hussein did have a connection to Al Qaeda and they did buy yellowcake. Needless to say, it was soon revealed as a fake. See R. Suskind, The Way of the World. (Previous U.S. administrations have engaged in similar hanky-panky, although seldom with as much chutzpah. Such questions were not explored by NIST. That would be a job for the FBI, not NIST. NIST investigates fires and catastrophes. When my father was there, I used to go out and visit the labs where they burned down buildings and crushed reinforced concrete. Anyone who thinks he can second-guess them is wrong. It is like Arata's second-guessing Bockris or Fleischmann about electrochemistry. They are leading experts on materials and construction failure. But as I said, there are many other experts worldwide, and if NIST published a flawed analysis of the worst and most famous structural failure in history, these other experts would come down on them like a ton of bricks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Jed Rothwell wrote: Because Steve Jones has turned his back on rationality, he rushes to embrace things like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are every bit as daft as his notions about cold fusion. To paraphrase Lord Chesterfield's remark about God, a man who stops believing in experimental evidence will believe any damn thing. I'm not sure who is turning their back on rationality here; and ignoring this good advice from the Peerage. Apparently you are unaware that the very kind of experimental evidence - that you claim to respect so dearly - was absolutely and totally ignored by NIST in favor of a computer simulation? And that Sunder was the chief author of the previous whitewash? Since when do we let the authors of highly suspicious reports investigate themselves? Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He found evidence of Themate !! -- which the politically-appointed top staff at NIST refused to even consider adequately or request samples of from him. Why? Instead they throw up a diversionary screen with lots of fancy and meaningless computer simulations and a massive coordinated PR campaign which was obviously paid-for, since much of it preceded the announcement and was not normal News reporting.. Apparently you are unaware that the top dozen or more of the staff at NIST are political appointments ? Claim of Steven Jones: The way the building fell, and the chemical analysis of the debris was caused at least in part by thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects and with LITTLE commensurate sound.) At the NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down, he said. COMMENT: Sunder specifically said charge which is not the way thermate is used. It is more of a slow burn than an explosive charge -- but there is some loud sound, which is muffled by the building, but no huge shock wave like a charge of TNT. We have all seen these controlled demolitions televised before. Apparently the Sunder group was considering only a TNT charge and NOT paying enough attention to thermate being the cause when they say: And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away. There were no reports of such a sound; COMMENT: Actually there are many reports from reputable News Agencies AND directly from the NY Fire Department itself, and in one of their reports, of a loud series of muffled explosions preceding the event; and apparently most of these reports were ignored and NOT even investigated with the courtesy of a simple phone call from Sunder's staff. SS: numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet COMMENT: relatively is the key word here. There were explosions. There can be no denial of that fact that there were explosions. The explosions where not of the charge variety like TNT. This is exactly the way themate operates. It is almost always described as a muffled explosion. Why - if anyone can remotely believe that the Bush administration wanted to honestly answer all of the questions - did they assign the very agency to do it - which had not done a good job initially ? and why did they not contact Steven Jones for a sample of the material which his lab says is thermate? Sunder said: To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. [true] For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column... WRONG!! This guy is now exposed as being FAR removed from a demolition expert. The correct answer, at least from the European experts, is that less than 10 pounds per column would be needed at the minimum level, even if more would have been used in a situation where there was a demolition contract to bring it down. SS: ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column ... presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used. That much is true. NIST concluded that it was unlikely that hundreds of lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected IOW they concluded based on what evidence? and without analyzing chemical samples that this was just too hard to do that day. So much for the scientific method. This is NOT science ! And who said that it had to have been moved in that day? Sunder did not address the fact that workmen of all varieties have easy access from the many
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
What does it take to ignite thermite? Harry on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jed Rothwell wrote: Because Steve Jones has turned his back on rationality, he rushes to embrace things like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are every bit as daft as his notions about cold fusion. To paraphrase Lord Chesterfield's remark about God, a man who stops believing in experimental evidence will believe any damn thing. I'm not sure who is turning their back on rationality here; and ignoring this good advice from the Peerage. Apparently you are unaware that the very kind of experimental evidence - that you claim to respect so dearly - was absolutely and totally ignored by NIST in favor of a computer simulation? And that Sunder was the chief author of the previous whitewash? Since when do we let the authors of highly suspicious reports investigate themselves? Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He found evidence of Themate !! -- which the politically-appointed top staff at NIST refused to even consider adequately or request samples of from him. Why? Instead they throw up a diversionary screen with lots of fancy and meaningless computer simulations and a massive coordinated PR campaign which was obviously paid-for, since much of it preceded the announcement and was not normal News reporting.. Apparently you are unaware that the top dozen or more of the staff at NIST are political appointments ? Claim of Steven Jones: The way the building fell, and the chemical analysis of the debris was caused at least in part by thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects and with LITTLE commensurate sound.) At the NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down, he said. COMMENT: Sunder specifically said charge which is not the way thermate is used. It is more of a slow burn than an explosive charge -- but there is some loud sound, which is muffled by the building, but no huge shock wave like a charge of TNT. We have all seen these controlled demolitions televised before. Apparently the Sunder group was considering only a TNT charge and NOT paying enough attention to thermate being the cause when they say: And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away. There were no reports of such a sound; COMMENT: Actually there are many reports from reputable News Agencies AND directly from the NY Fire Department itself, and in one of their reports, of a loud series of muffled explosions preceding the event; and apparently most of these reports were ignored and NOT even investigated with the courtesy of a simple phone call from Sunder's staff. SS: numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet COMMENT: relatively is the key word here. There were explosions. There can be no denial of that fact that there were explosions. The explosions where not of the charge variety like TNT. This is exactly the way themate operates. It is almost always described as a muffled explosion. Why - if anyone can remotely believe that the Bush administration wanted to honestly answer all of the questions - did they assign the very agency to do it - which had not done a good job initially ? and why did they not contact Steven Jones for a sample of the material which his lab says is thermate? Sunder said: To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. [true] For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column... WRONG!! This guy is now exposed as being FAR removed from a demolition expert. The correct answer, at least from the European experts, is that less than 10 pounds per column would be needed at the minimum level, even if more would have been used in a situation where there was a demolition contract to bring it down. SS: ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column ... presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used. That much is true. NIST concluded that it was unlikely that hundreds of lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected IOW they concluded based on what evidence? and without analyzing chemical samples that this was just too hard
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Since thermite is so effective at cutting through steel is it ever used on construction sites as a fast and dirty substitute for cutting torches? harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He found evidence of Themate !! how did he get his samples? Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Harry: What does it take to ignite thermite? A small charge will do it, about what this officer heard: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
on 24/8/08 3:20 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Harry: What does it take to ignite thermite? A small charge will do it, about what this officer heard: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Could a fire ignite thermite? harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Harry wrote:
how did he {Prof. Jones] get his samples?
If what you are really asking is: is there a chain of
custody which would stand up in court - I doubt it.
The important thing for the NIST to have done,
however, is NOT to have ignored this, but to have
checked his sample in their labs first for accuracy -
and then -to check into the chain of cusody; and
then to say something to the effect that this sample
was thermite but there is no proof that it wasn't
tampered with -- prior to Dr. Jones getting hold of
it. (assuming that they want to discredit the evidence
he presents).
That at least narrows down the issue. And we could
move from for there.
As it stands for now, all we can say for sure is that
the NIST - in not doing this simple and obvious step-
acted like incompetent fools instead of real
scientists looking for the truth.
Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Harry Could a fire ignite thermite? This brings up a curious point. There was indication in a link to the NY Architectural Press some years ago that there is/was a statute on the books in Manhattan -- which was put there in back in the time frame when a WWII bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. Specifically, it was claimed that ALL buildings over a certain height in Manhattan were required by law to have build-in a means of easily bringing the building **straight down** in the event of this kind of tragedy. The intent was to protect neighboring structures. The claim was made that Termite was considered safe enough to preload for this purpose. All that can be said further is that I remember reading this some time ago, and then have seen nothing further in support or in denial of it - as factual. The actual demolition permit for several WTC buildings from the NY authorities was actually posted at on one Website for a time (I definitely saw it as a scanned image), but then disappeared; and it was stated that the City had used legal threats to have it removed. Of course, it could have been forged. If the question you seem to be getting at: Was WTC-7 preloaded with thermite in compliance with NY Law - which was then touched off by the fire? Then that would surely be something that the City would NOT want to be known for liability reasons BUT which NIST would have no reason to back them on in a coverup as it would hurt NIST more than the City if it were exposed.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Even if you do not speak Italian - please watch this video clip from Italian TV to the end - where you can hear and see the explosions at WTC 7 for yourself. There are other vids on the web but they are much longer than this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 Now - Then tell me honestly that you can still believe that NIST was being forthright and honest when they state that we looked into this situation closely and found that there was no evidence of an explosion. If you are having trouble playing the video, ask yourself: Why would an Italian language News Clip be among the most viewed videos on YouTube today?
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
on 24/8/08 4:14 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if you do not speak Italian - please watch this video clip from Italian TV to the end - where you can hear and see the explosions at WTC 7 for yourself. There are other vids on the web but they are much longer than this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 Now - Then tell me honestly that you can still believe that NIST was being forthright and honest when they state that we looked into this situation closely and found that there was no evidence of an explosion. If you are having trouble playing the video, ask yourself: Why would an Italian language News Clip be among the most viewed videos on YouTube today? I can't view or hear the clip on my computer. However, is it possible those explosive sounds are parts of the building failing inside just before total collapse? That would be consistent with how the NIST said the collapse occurred. harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:19:53 -0400: Hi, [snip] That is at least plausible. It would be a small conspiracy with only a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go along. [snip] It isn't necessary for the scientists to lie. Just tell them to find the scientific explanation for the collapse of the building (as if it weren't already known), and they will happily trot off and create lots of lovely models to explain it. IOW they inadvertently work within the framework that they are given. They are scientists, not politicians, and will naturally concentrate on the physical rather than the human aspects. For them, the given facts are that there was a fire, and the building came down, then they are told to explain it. When they have created their lovely little fantasy, it is trotted out by the leadership, as the definitive reason. So this doesn't have to be a massive conspiracy, just a matter of compartmentalizing information. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
[I am going to try posting with Gmail. I am tired of Mindspring's bad habits.] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go along. [snip] It isn't necessary for the scientists to lie. Just tell them to find the scientific explanation for the collapse of the building (as if it weren't already known), and they will happily trot off and create lots of lovely models to explain it. IOW they inadvertently work within the framework that they are given. Robin, I hate to be harsh, but this is nonsense. This is like suggesting you could poison someone and then convince a police department medical examiner that he died from the hiccups. The people at NIST are experts in every aspect of disasters and building collapse. That includes deliberate destruction, which ranges from conventional demolition and demolition with explosives, to arson, damage in war and terrorist attacks. They would INSTANTLY recognize the signature of deliberate, planned destruction. For one thing, they destroy buildings and structures themselves, frequently. They destroy them with every known method. They are expert witnesses for law enforcement and the military. They have been doing that for over a century. Even my dad, who did not work in that department, knew a great deal about fire damage and structural damage. And not only NIST knows this. Any fire department has experts in these things, and the NYFD has the best in the world. The Japanese version of NIST sent teams of experts to pore over the evidence. They went over the work and the report with a fine toothed comb. Experts from dozens of other countries looked closely. As I said, this was the most important case in history. If NIST had missed anything, you can be sure these others would have seen it. Again let me emphasize that it is ridiculous to think that you can learn something from an Italian video advertisement that NIST, the NYFD and thousands of other experts overlooked. This is exactly like Arata's claim that Fleischmann overlooked the cigarette lighter effect which caused heat after death, and Arata confirmed this by observing Fleischmann shifty expression and the fact that he fled from Arata. Arata concluded the Flieschmann obviously realized he made a mistake when Arata pointed it out, and he has been covering up ever since, because he is an incompetent fool and a born liar. This is exactly like the notion that experts in NIST did not bother to listen to audio recordings of the collapse -- because they forgot, y'think? Or because they are incapable of analyzing such recordings, and any amateur could do a better job? Fleischmann knows far more about degassing than Arata does, and the people at NIST know way more about how a building collapse sounds than you do. When I say way more I mean they have written textbooks on the subject, and they probably have extensive sound libraries from thousands of different tests. By the way, I acquainted Arata with the facts from Fleischmann's papers, especially his response to Morrison. It made no impression on Arata. He is certain that he is right, and he pays no attention to physics, facts or numbers that prove he is wrong. Steve Jones and the other self-appointed experts (S.E.P.) in the 9/11 collapse are the same way. You can assemble a panel of the world's most qualified people, and they can write thousands of pages of peer-reviewed engineering physics to prove their point, but it is water off a duck's back. They will not understand it or pay any attention any more than the anti-cold fusion experts pay attention to 10,000 eV atom of heat or tritium at 10E14 above background. Facts mean nothing to S.E.P. Steve Jones is perhaps the only S.E.P. in both cold fusion denial and 9/11 denial, but as I said, the mindset is the same. Ignore experts, ignore facts, invent outlandish physics, preposterous history and impossible motivations. Stir in paranoia, distrust and ignorance and bake well for a few years. Bon appetit! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Robin It isn't necessary for the scientists to lie. Just tell them to find the scientific explanation for the collapse of the building (as if it weren't already known), and they will happily trot off and create lots of lovely models to explain it. IOW they inadvertently work within the framework that they are given. That is so true. Last year, the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, and they solicited proposals for someone with real expertise. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7: Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for **Floors 8 to 46 due** to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center Building Seven. IOW - the NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and ++only++ consider floors 8 to 46. The explosions, of course, were below that. That solicitation says it all, folks. Why do hundreds of working architects and engineers feel that NIST has failed us badly on this ? The answer is on their own website (if they have not yet removed it): http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
Harry Veeder wrote: on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He found evidence of Themate !! how did he get his samples? From what I've read, a woman with an apartment near the WTC had her windows blown out by the blast and ended up with a huge amount of dust blown in, all over everything. She bagged up a few ounces, and that was, as I understand it, Jones's most important sample, and the one which showed most clearly that there was an iron aerosol present: there were large numbers of tiny iron spheres in the dust. I don't know if he had other dust samples, nor how large they might have been if he did. Jones extrapolated from the sample size and the amount of iron in it, using an estimate of how much dust blew out of the WTC, to conclude that something like a ton of iron was blown into fine droplets by the collapse. This looks like a smoking gun (an airplane crash followed by a kerosene fire wouldn't produce a cloud of molten iron droplets of that magnitude), and from this Jones concluded that something like a ton of thermite was set off in the building that day. Now there is a problem here, which is that large buildings are put together via welding torches which, when they are used to weld beams, spray fine droplets of iron into the air. The result is that the dust in the walls (which is sealed in when the buildings are built) contains an enormous amount of frozen iron aerosol and if you blow up a modern steel building -- by *any* means -- one result you'll get is huge quantities of these tiny iron spheres which are left over from the building's construction blowing all over the place. And that could easily be all that Jones found. AFAIK he made *no* *effort* to rule out that possibility. (And he talks about other people failing to examine alternate hypotheses!) There was also some talk of sulfur in some samples, which could indicate the presence of thermate (variant on thermite used to cut beams), but I don't recall where the sulfur evidence came from. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
--- Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Now there is a problem here, which is that large buildings are put together via welding torches which, when they are used to weld beams That is apparently FALSE for that building. Where did you get this exactly? Please give us some cites. I hope it was not from NIST, or maybe they are more ignorant than ever imagined. This was a 40+ year old design building which was erected using precut, predrilled, prefab beams which were riveted onsite. There were few welds. The welds that were there were largely gas arc welds using alloy which was different from the beam alloy. See How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49. spray fine droplets of iron into the air. That would only happen if beams were flame cut onsite and not prefab. And even if there were lots more welds than suspected, the welding rod alloy used would not be the same as the unique beam alloy, which was special. AFAIK he made *no* *effort* to rule out that possibility. (And he talks about other people failing to examine alternate hypotheses!) You simply haven't kept up with this very well, or have been reading earlier material. Or -- if you do have real citations, please offer them. Steven Jones did seem to go off on tangents early on (he should have avoided building 1 2 altogether), but now that he has the support of over 400 top level architects and engineers, some even employed by NIST who were removed from this report because of their affiliation with him, many of the lose ends are being tied up. In fact the iron microspheres are less important than the other thermate-specific chemicals found. This site has many of the technical articles: http://www.ae911truth.org/#techarts Jones
[Vo]:OT: Conspiracy preserving the Status Quo
How important is Faith in Government ? Is it more important that absolute truth ? Apparently so. The release of the recent NIST coverup - oops, make that the *Final Word* from the Neocons (until the next administration reviews it) brings to mind another curious episode - in the context of high-level incompetence, or perhaps even coup d'etat. May observers do not see true conspiracy - per se, in 9/11 so much as should-have-known, stood by, and covered-up the tracks of others. Some of the nuttier conspiracy claims are too bizarre to mention, so much so that it may indicate a devious plan by insiders to cover up the smaller glimmer of truth which lingers in the shadows by discrediting all doubters. BTW the NeoCon mouthpiece yesterday: Shyam Sunder, lead investigator - had the gall to say: Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. In your dreams, Shyam. You probably lost more support with that shoddy piece of BS workmanship than what you gained with the (in)conclusion. Let's hope there was not real 'payola' involved, since it is already filtering out that some 'independent' consultants used by NIST received rather large payments through what might be considered inappropriate channels. Anyway - the only point I want to make here goes back to the Mother of All (modern USA) Conspiracies: the JFK coup d' etat. This is NOT going to be a review of the fine new offering of James Douglass (over a decade in the making): JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550 But rather it more of a remembrance and a bit of synchronicity -- as I have been reading the unrelated pure fiction mystery named The Analyst by John Katzenbach. If that last name sounds vaguely familiar- you may be thinking of Nicholas Katzenbach, who as fate would have it - is the father of John. Flash back to Alabama in 1963. In what became known as the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door, George Wallace was forced to stand aside after being confronted by Katzenbach Sr. (accompanied by a fair number of federal marshals). It was almost too theatrical to believe. [ASIDE} There is evidence that the entire encounter was coordinated behind the scenes with the JFK admin to allow Wallace to save some face with Alabama voters. It ended up as kind of win-win in a weird sort of way. Anyway - Nicholas who is now 86 -- is probably the only remaining chance that there will ever be an accurate and more trustworthy accounting of that sad chapter in history. Will he do the death-bed confessional (ala E. Howard Hunt, which unfortunately some do not see as trustworthy due to Hunt's lack of character). BTW - Hunt, who died last year at 88, and should know the truth of what he disclosed: actually named the other assassin (besides Lee Harvey) - i.e. the one on the grassy knoll - who was a French mafiosi and expert marksman named Lucien Sarti. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_sarti Only 3 days after the assassination in Dallas, Katzenbach, then deputy attorney general, had written a memo to JFK's chief at the White House, Bill Moyers. This memo comes the closest of any official document to discussing the government coverup which followed. No need to go over the detains again, but read Douglass' new book. If it is true that murder outs (it isn't always true) then I suspect that history will be rewritten in the JFK matter, and probably to a lesser extent in 9/11. But probably to show only that in 9/11 the highest level of culpability was the we knew precisely what Mossad was orchestrating, and yet we did not make any adequate effort to stop it, because it seemed to serve everyone's agenda well- at the time. Jones
