Keith,
The link on my last post was dodgy. This one works better
<http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentv
iew&comment_id=158
If not, the full article is available below.
As for facts: The discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust was published
in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009.
Regards,
Bob.
CONSPIRACY THEORY OR HIDDEN TRUTH? THE 9/11 ENIGMAS...
Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler
Richard Gage, AIA has been a practicing San Francisco Bay Area architect for
more than 20 years, and is a registered member of the American Institute of
Architects. Most recently he worked on a $400M mixed-use facility in Las
Vegas NV. But he is also the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth, now numbering over 800 A/Es, calling for a new investigation
into the destruction of all 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. Gage has spoken at
over 100 events, reaching 20 U.S. states and 8 countries. He has been
invited to present in 14 cities Australia, New Zealand, and Japan before the
end of this year. As the anniversary of the events approaches, Gage tells
WAN why he thinks there are hidden depths to the destruction of the World
Trade Centre...
In all likelihood, you are unaware of the most important facts involving the
destructions of the World Trade Center buildings. Nearly all the mainstream
information sources and government officials have kept crucial information
hidden from the public. This brief article will provide a clear explanation
as to what actually happened to the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) on
September 11, 2001.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-partisan,
non-profit organization now numbering over 800 technical professionals and
thousands of other supporters dedicated to exposing the facts that point to
the explosive destruction of all three World Trade Center (WTC) high-rises.
We are calling for a new independent investigation empowered to subpoena and
question witnesses under oath. Well-documented facts prove the WTC
high-rises were destroyed by explosives. The implications are grave, but we
ask that you look at the facts. AE911Truth is also concerned that evidence
has been distorted and covered up by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), the federal agency assigned to investigate the building
collapses.
World Trade Center Building 7
47-storey WTC 7 before destruction
WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-framed high-rise 100 yards from the North Tower.
Even though no airplane hit it, it collapsed rapidly and totally on 9/11, in
the manner of a controlled demolition. Despite its suspicious collapse, the
9/11 Commission report does not even mention WTC 7. NIST left its analysis
of the WTC 7 collapse until 2008, seven years after the events, long after
all the rubble was destroyed. NIST claims WTC 7 collapsed due to normal
office fires which created a new phenomenon in high-rise catastrophes:
collapse caused by thermal expansion of beams. NIST claims this caused the
failure of a single column the rest just followed.
Free-fall acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steel?
NIST Forced to Acknowledge Free-Fall of WTC 7
In August 2008, NIST released the draft of its final report on Building 7.
In that draft NIST claims that the building took 40% longer than "free-fall
time" to collapse the first 18 stories. In a technical briefing that
followed the release of the draft report Shyam Sunder, NISTs lead
investigator, denied that free-fall had occurred and stated that free-fall
was incompatible with their analysis. He
said,
a free fall time would be an object that has no
structural
components below it...And that is not at all unusual because there was
[emphasis in original] structural resistance that was provided in this
particular case. And you had
a sequence of structural failures that had to
take place and everything was not instantaneous.
However, one of this articles co-authors, David Chandler, used video
analysis to show conclusively that for 2.5 seconds (about 100 feet) WTC 7
was in complete free-fall. He publicly challenged NISTs claims at the
technical briefing and he, along with others, filed formal requests for
corrections.
NIST were forced to reverse themselves in their Final Report and
acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall. Yet they did not reconsider
how this was compatible with their analysis. A network of heavy steel
girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building
for eight floors. However, a free-falling object cannot exert force on
anything in its path without slowing its own fall, so the structural support
had to be removed by something elseexplosives. The free-fall of Building 7
is a smoking gun.
World Trade Center Commonalities in all Three Building Destructions
Complete Destruction Through the Path of Greatest Resistance
NIST claims that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the plane impacts and
fire, and that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire alone. However, note that the
Twin Towers survived the plane impacts and the jet fuel burned off in the
first 10 minutes. Beyond that, all we have are not very large office fires.
Over 100 steel framed buildings have suffered major fires, many much worse,
yet none have collapsed. All three buildings on 9/11 fell through what
should have been the path of greatest resistance thousands of tons of
steel resulting in total dismemberment. This would require precisely timed
removal of critical columns, which office fires cannot accomplish.
Furthermore, a small falling top section would destroy itself before it
could destroy a larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building.
The impossible collapse is a smoking gun.
Molten Iron
The temperatures of the fires present a problem for NIST's claim that fire
alone was involved. The melting point of steel is about 2800° F. According
to NIST's own documents, hydrocarbon fires (e.g., jet fuel and office
furnishings) generate temperatures only up to about 2,000° F under ideal
conditions. NIST recognizes these fires could not melt steel, so they had to
postulate elaborate mechanisms that might trigger collapse due to weakened
columns and sagging girders.
Yet there is widespread evidence of molten iron in the rubble piles. Photos
and numerous witnesses -- including fire fighters, cleanup crews, and
structural engineers -- confirm the existence of several tons of molten
metal under the debris. Some fire fighters described molten steel flowing
like lava. Photos clearly reveal molten metal dripping as material is being
lifted by excavation equipment.
Office fires are not hot enough to create the molten metal seen by dozens of
witness
A video of the South Tower shows molten metal pouring out, glowing a radiant
orange-yellow. Some have claimed this is molten aluminum, which melts at a
lower temperature, but molten aluminum would be silvery in these conditions.
This is molten iron or steel.
Jet fuel and office fires cant create molten iron
At least three independent laboratory analyses of the dust that blanketed
Lower Manhattan after the destruction of the Twin Towers reveal the presence
of iron-rich microspheres. These spheres are formed when molten iron is
sprayed into the air and forms droplets that cool before hitting the ground.
The iron droplets indicate temperatures during the collapses much higher
than hydrocarbon fires, in an explosive environment that could spray many
tons of these
droplets into the air.
Billions of previously molten iron spheres found in all WTC dust samples
In April 2002, the RJ Lee Company was hired to investigate environmental
contaminants in the Deutsche Bank, across the street from the World Trade
Center. It reports, Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury
and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC
Event. The problem here is that lead vaporizes at 3200° F, some 1200° F
hotter than is possible in hydrocarbon fires. A study of the WTC dust by the
USGS for the EPA observed molybdenum-rich spheres that can form only above
4750° F. The high temperatures are another smoking gun.
Unignited Nano-Thermite in the WTC Dust
NIST did not even look for physical evidence of explosives. In fact NIST did
not look at the physical evidence at all, apart from a few selected samples
of the steel. The rest was destroyed. However, physical evidence did remain:
the dust. NIST did not look at the dust, but independent investigators did.
They discovered, along with the microspheres, tiny red-grey chips. They
examined samples of WTC dust from different parts of Manhattan. All
contained the red-gray chips. They found that the red layer consisted of
unignited nano-thermite. Ordinary thermite is an incendiary: it can burn
through heavy steel in seconds. The tiny particles in nano-thermite (1/1000
the thickness of a human hair) causes a much faster reaction so it can be
used as a high explosive. The discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust was
published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009.
Hundreds of Red/Grey chips of Unignited thermite in every WTC Dust sample
Nano-thermite particle sizes are 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. This
material is not made in a cave in Afghanistan.
These scientists found not just a smoking gun, but a loaded gun.
Independent lines of evidence prove the official government claims are
impossible. We see our role at AE911Truth as exposing the evidence official
agencies and the corporate media are covering up. Following up on the
implications is the responsibility of every citizen. Every citizen must face
his or her own conscience when confronting these difficult facts --
especially when we consider that 9/11 is the foundation for two wars, the
launching of an endless "war on terror," and the loss of our freedoms due to
legislation pushed through amid the fog of war.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kirk McLoren
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 6:16 a.m.
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically States
9/11 was Staged Event
It proves explosives were in the building which isnt easy to do like parking
a vehicle in the street. Federal buildings have security.
The conspirators deny as a matter of policy. Nixon was the mile marker in
that league.
Anyone familiar with explosives can attest to that. It really is simple
Push on something - where does it go? When an explosive turns into a gas it
creates a high pressure area and applies force to whatever obstructs it.
That force is outward from the center. The gvt story would have us believe
rubble flew 180 degrees from the thrust, ie into the thrust. impossible.
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically States
9/11 was Staged Event
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 8:08 AM
> >Got any
>facts rather than just claims and opinions and assertions? I mean,
>got any that someone like me will accept as facts?
>
>Sure. Anyone who has ever seen the results of an explosion knows
>that the official story is fantasy. Photographs show rubble from the
>building thrown across the street, past where the truck was parked.
>There would be no rubble there if the only blast was the truck.
>Blast from the truck would send rubble away from the truck and yet
>we find it on the side away from the building. Explosives are
>required to be in the building to send rubble in the other
>direction. Simple physics.
And the other side? What does the opposite camp say? Or do all agree
that those are simple facts of simple physics? Obviously not, eh, or
it wouldn't be a controversy, if it's really a controversy rather
than just fringe stuff. Anyway, does the opposition agree it's just
simple physics?
Say they do. The following question would be, and so? What does it
prove? What's the favoured conclusion (both sides - or all sides, I
guess there's more than two)?
Keith
>Kirk
>
>The eyes see what the mind knows
>
>
>--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence
>Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 8:52 AM
>
> >No, he is outside the expectation of a military officer. Just too
>>free a spirit perhaps.
>
>More like a deluded one perhaps, or a somewhat deranged one perhaps.
>
>Let's put it this way: it's sheer BS, it shouldn't even have been posted.
>
>>Who else retired would step up to the plate
>
>No need to put it quite so nobly. Step up with what, is the question.
>Stepping up with fact-free conspiracisms and perhaps not being very
>honest about it isn't a contribution to anything other than confusion.
>
>> - well maybe Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) 8908
>>Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652.
>>
>><http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm>http://wh
atreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm
>>oklahoma bombing
>
>My word, Kirk, you will have your conspiracies won't you. Got any
>facts rather than just claims and opinions and assertions? I mean,
>got any that someone like me will accept as facts? The list itself is
>the same, it has a long and honorable tradition of being rigorous, as
>you know. We're quite happy to explore possibilities or we wouldn't
>have achieved what we have, but sheer conjecture dressed up as fact
>isn't included.
>
>>Partin was a research scientist - invented the continuous rod warhead.
>>very qualified guy.
>
>Made bombs, nice. Couldn't we have done without more and better bombs?
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
>
>>Kirk
>>
>>The eyes see what the mind knows
>>
>>
>>--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Keith Addison
>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>From: Keith Addison
>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence
>>Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event
>>To:
</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 3:11 AM
>>
>>>The stargate project was spook remote viewing.
>>
>>Does spook mean spy or ghost, in this context?
>>
>>Stargate was devoted to **psychic** remote viewing, "the purported
>>ability to psychically 'see' events, sites, or information from a
>>great distance". Bit superfluous to say it wasn't exactly successful.
>>Echelon works at least, on the other hand, for instance, as opposed
>>to pixie dust.
>>
>>>CIA put effort into it.
>>
>>I know, but I don't think that gives it much cred. The Soviets tried
>>it too, that's why the US tried it. It achieved nothing.
>>
>>>Not as woo woo as you might think.
>>
>>Totally woo woo, IMHO, just as I thought.
> >
>>Sure, maybe some people are psychic or clairvoyant or even
> >telepathic, maybe everybody is, or could be, maybe that's how the
>>whole biosphere really works, who knows, but trying to use
>>clairvoyance as a reliable technique for intelligence gathering or to
>>support conspiracy theories is ludicrous.
>>
>>Wikipedia will do, very easy, no need to go any further:
>><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project>http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
ki/Stargate_Project>
>>
>>Anyway, is this to suggest that a wacko like long-retired ex-Major
>>General Stubblebine has some credibility with his 9/11 conspiracy
>>theories, or with anything else? Because of Stargate?
>>
>>Stubblebine was forced to retire in 1984 and was replaced because of
>>his obsession with the paranormal.
>><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Major_General_Albert_Stubb
lebine>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Major_General_Albert_St
ubblebine>
>>
>>Not very surprising - "The primary mission of military intelligence
>>in the United States Army is to provide timely, relevant, accurate,
>>and synchronized intelligence and electronic warfare support to
>>tactical, operational and strategic-level commanders." Not a trivial
>>matter. If you were a field commander would you want someone like
>>Stubblebine doing that job for you?
>>
>>How do you explain the deception in the YouTube title?
>>
>>> > The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically
>>> > States 9/11 was Staged Event".
>>>> ...
>>> > Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army
>>>> intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**.. Not quite the same
>>> > thing eh.
>>> > ...
>>> > Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate?
>>
>>Hey, Kirk, do some checking first, will you, please?
>>
>>Best
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>>Kirk
>>>
>>>The eyes see what the mind knows
>>>
>> >
>>>--- On Mon, 9/7/09, Douglas Woodard
>>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>From: Douglas Woodard
>>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence
>>>Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event
>>>To:
>>></mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>sustainablelo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 9:42 AM
>>>
>>>No conspiracy was needed.
>>>
>>>Bin Laden knew what the U.S. wanted: an excuse for U.S. armies in the
>>>Middle East.
>>>
>>>The U.S. knew what Bin Laden wanted first: a major strike at the U.S.,
>>>by preference at the World Trade centre (they had tried before, and it
>>>was highly symbolic).
>>>
>>>They differed on what the result of U.S. armies in the Middle East would
>>>be. Points to Bin Laden.
>>>
>>>Doug Woodard
>>>St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Keith Addison wrote:
>> >>>
>><<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1>http://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1>
>>>>
>>>> Aarghh!! Youtube! Who's got 5 min 16 sec to spare?
>>>>
>>>> This is quicker...
>>>>
>>> > The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically
>>>> States 9/11 was Staged Event".
>>>>
>>> > But is he the Head of US Military Intelligence? No.
>>>>
>>>> It takes only the first 5 sec of Youtube for him to state that his
>>> > name is Major General Albert Stubblebine, and another 10 sec to find
>>>> this at wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding
>>>> general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command
>>>> from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his
>>>> interest in parapsychology and was a supporter of the Stargate
>>>> Project."
>>>> <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine>http://en.wikipedia
...org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army
>>>> intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**. Not quite the same
>>> > thing eh.
>>>>
>>>> (Walked through any walls lately Bert?)
>>>>
>>>> That saved 5 min 1 sec, and gave a much better result.
>>>>
>>>> Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate?
>>> >
>>>> Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive again: "Enough of the 9/11
> >>> Conspiracy Theories, Already"
><<http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/>http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/
>
> >>>
>>>> If it doesn't start off with the preferred conclusion-of-choice and
>>>> then go in search of the "facts" to "prove" it, but instead simply
>>> > goes in search of facts, along with all the patient and careful
>>>> cross-checking that takes, and then emerges with a fact-based
>>>> conclusion that checks out, or even with just some hard facts without
>>>> a conclusion.... well then, that's different. But AFAIK it hasn't
>>>> happened yet, and don't hold yer breath.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
> > > > Keith
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090909/4eed02d2/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
