FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Who Did 9/11 - And Why?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rustyh wrote:
Stallion4.

Great work mate. Well done with those posts.

I reckon Grumpy just got grumpier.
He will come back at you Stallion, lets just wait and see what with?

Thanks.

And what he came back at me with? Extremely predictable.

Lot's of spin and denial. No Substance.

Stallion4 Cool

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gumpy wrote:
"erronious reports of amateurs"

See what I mean?

Laughing

stallion4 wrote:
Dr. Frank Greening explains why there was melted/molten steel at the WTC:

"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
"Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?" (Greening's questions directed at other forum members who were denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero)

-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007

Frank Greening's Bio:
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html

A few more recent quotes from Dr. Greening...

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!" -Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91

"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92

"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102


More reports of the melted/molten steel at the WTC:

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482

Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
LINK

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
LINK (pdf)

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
LINK

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html

and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html

and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml


Here it is again...

Gumpy wrote:
"erronious reports of amateurs"


Laughing

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallion4

Quote:
So you're calling Frank Greening, the FDNY, and all the experts who said there was molten steel at the WTC all LIARS?


Calling them liars, no. Saying that they were mistaken, sure.

As for NeuFonze

Quote:
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE

- NEU-FONZE


Any questions???

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallion4

Quote:
And what he came back at me with? Extremely predictable.


Well, if you find the truth boring, I can't help you, it's all I have. I'm not free to make it up as I go like some do, It's "Just the facts, ma'am." as Joe Friday would say.

Like...

Fact, there was no cooled pools of once molten steel found anywhere in the WTC complex.

Fact, you have already tried to use dishonest tactics hoping to leave a false impression.

Fact, I have and will continue to say only what is scientifically verifiable or backed by the evidence, none of it is pure speculation.

Fact, I'm still here.

And Fact, this sure is fun!!!

Grumpy Laughing

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greening writes the following: "Iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."


More quotes from Greening...

"Many of the events surrounding 9/11 are questionable, so it’s natural to assume that the “main event” - the collapse of the Twin Towers – is also questionable."
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Feb 9 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 11

"I think the reality is that 99 % of terrorist acts are committed for political or nationalistic reasons - mainly as retaliation for some kind of foreign occupation.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Apr 17 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 154

"I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories". I wonder about the word TOLERATE....Bush says (in the home of the brave and the land of the free) we should not allow, or permit certain theories about 9/11?" From the same Bush speech: We face enemies that hate .... the TOLERANCE OF OPENNESS and CREATIVE CULTURE that define us." Conspiracy theories only come from doubt. Those who believe/accept the official theory shouldn't worry about those that doubt it."
-Dr. Frank Greening as forum member "Apollo20" at JREF, April 2007

Greening on his calculations regarding the "collapse" of the Twin Towers...

"These studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used. And Occam's Razor is merely a dictum, not a universal law... a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible."
-Dr. Frank Greening as forum member "Apollo20" at JREF, April 2007




NIST omitted ALL reports of the molten steel present at the World Trade Center from their 10,000 page report.

This is undeniable proof that NIST participated in covering up crucial evidence that could have helped determine why the towers came down.

But Gumpy thinks that's just peachy.

stallion4 Cool

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FACT, Gumpy is a BS artist?

Laughing

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallion4

Quote:
FACT, Gumpy is a BS artist?


Is character assassination and ad hom attack your only weapon???

Quote:

NIST omitted ALL reports of the molten steel present at the World Trade Center from their 10,000 page report.


NIST failed to mention all kinds of unsubstantiated BS from their report. When no pools of cooled, previously molten metal were found anywhere on the WTC complex, they justifiably classified all such reports as being mistaken, no pools, no molten steel, case closed. I notice they also left out the claims of UFOs, missile firing helicopters, squibs, explosives, thermite/thermate and nuclear weapons(not to mention beams from outer space). They were not writing a piece of science fiction or a Tom Clancy novel, after all. If it was left out, it is because no evidence was found to support it, and THAT is a FACT. These guys are REAL scientists doing REAL science, not some anonymus keyboard pilot fanticising about, "What if...".

Quote:

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject:
Greening writes the following: "Iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."


More quotes from Greening...

"Many of the events surrounding 9/11 are questionable, so it’s natural to assume that the “main event” - the collapse of the Twin Towers – is also questionable."
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Feb 9 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 11


Yeah, I was a part of that discussion, and me and Neu-Fonze disagree on some points, but Dr. Greening does not support your conspiracy theories(there you go with partial, misleading posts again), he just has Quibbles with the "standard model" just as DR. Quinteria does, some of which DR. Grumpy(yes, that is a real title) agrees with, some that I don't.

Quote:
"These studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used.


Nor are they proof that explosives WERE used. The studies Dr. Greening was talking about were studies of the energy of the collapses. Studies(in his latest paper) that indicate that a natural collapse were well within the energy budget of both towers(so much for claims that the towers "could not" fall due to natural forces).

In fact, Dr. Greening is working on a third study based on some ideas generated by the discussions on physorg. Ideas that I am proud to say were suggested by me, among others like adoucette et al. As I do respect Neu-Fonze's work, I look forward to his paper as a huge step forward in understanding the dynamics of the collapses.

Those interested in detailed(and very advanced) mathematical investigations should go to physorg and at least read their work, it is an incredible scientific site for all the sciences.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=0

911 physics discussion.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=idx

Forum index.

Enjoy

By the way, I am enjoying immensely the discussions I am having here, though more respect for others would be nice.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Grumpy, I really appreciate you trying to save us lost souls. I think you will find we are not interested in the truth here, we prefer our mass delusions and conspiracy theories. I wish we could be helped, but, alas, we are too far gone. We are incapable of logic, and aren't too bright....most of us here have trouble with door knobs! So I thought I'd help you out. We bunch are a lost cause, so I think you are wasting a lot of energy. Thanks for stopping by, though!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been "banished"(well it was my idea) to Troll Corner, ask your questions there please and I will do my best to answer them.

I apologize to anyone who thought my posts were Trolling.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2448
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:38 pm    Post subject: If activity is an indicator, skepticism and doubt wins! Reply with quote

I have to wonder why there are lots of truther movement sites and very few people that feel the need to defend and support the PTB version. Perhaps if they remain quiet, the whole thing will blow over (like Pearl Harbor et al)?
_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter

Quote:
I have to wonder why there are lots of truther movement sites and very few people that feel the need to defend and support the PTB version. Perhaps if they remain quiet, the whole thing will blow over (like Pearl Harbor et al)?


The fact is that the NIST theory is supported by the entirety of the available evidence and needs no supporting. In the entire time the reports have been out not one single paper challenging their findings has been published for peer review. Until that occurs and the paper survives the peer review process all legitimate scientists find no reason to question those findings and have no interest in the unscientific speculations of the amateurs on the conspiracy websites, which they simply dismiss as crackpots(with good reason given the idiocy displayed by some of the troothers).

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
Peter

Quote:
I have to wonder why there are lots of truther movement sites and very few people that feel the need to defend and support the PTB version. Perhaps if they remain quiet, the whole thing will blow over (like Pearl Harbor et al)?


The fact is that the NIST theory is supported by the entirety of the available evidence and needs no supporting. In the entire time the reports have been out not one single paper challenging their findings has been published for peer review. Until that occurs and the paper survives the peer review process all legitimate scientists find no reason to question those findings and have no interest in the unscientific speculations of the amateurs on the conspiracy websites, which they simply dismiss as crackpots(with good reason given the idiocy displayed by some of the troothers).

Grumpy Cool


SLOGANS as always. Well, here's one "legitimate" scientist that disagrees".
Shouldn't be too hard to find other "legitimate" scientists that are disagreeing at the moment.



REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF NIST REPORT ON DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FILED

FRAUD AND DECEPTION CITED AS REASONS FOR CORRECTION REQUEST
March 22, 2007

CONTACT: Dr. Judy Wood or Attorney Jerry Leaphart 203-825-6265

For Immediate Release: Basic Facts:

A Request for Correction (RFC) submitted under the Data Quality Act (DQA) was filed with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 16, 2007

NIST acknowledged receipt of RFC in writing on March 19, 2007, via its Acting Chief of Management and Organization Division, Stephen Willett.

RFC challenges the integrity of NIST document NCSTAR 1 (National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee), Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, issued in September 2005

See www.wtc.nist.gov

A full copy of the RFC filed by DR. Wood can be viewed at

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NIST_RFC.html


Dr. Judy Wood (with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science), widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, has filed a Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, MD.

Dr. Wood is represented in this effort by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken and/or other legal action may then follow.

Leaphart further states that Dr. Wood knows that the implications of her theory that DEW were used to destroy the WTC complex shatter certain key beliefs that Americans as a whole cherish and hold dear. Her theory has generated a lot of interest and commentary within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relies primarily upon the Internet as its media source. Mainstream print and broadcast media do not cover the 9/11 Truth Movement, but may need to take heed of this administrative action filed by Dr. Wood, according to Attorney Leaphart.

Leaphart said that to his knowledge, only three RFCs concerning NIST's WTC report have been filed to date. One by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, another by Edward F. Haas and the one filed by Dr. Wood. All three are currently pending.

The 43 page RFC filed by Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.

NCSTAR 1 admits:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13]

E.1 Genesis of this investigation

p. xxxv-xxxvi (pp. 37-3Cool: "The specific objectives were:

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; ..."

E.2 Approach
p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote2 "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards.

In contrast, Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the twin towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of the twin towers.

That fact is assessed on the basis of the two other laws of physics in Wood's RFC, thus confirming its scientific rigor. Wood also points to other compelling evidence that NIST ignored. Wood's RFC shows visual evidence of unusual and unexplained blast effects on vehicles parked blocks away from the complex. Wood also demonstrates unexplained visual damage in the form of perpendicular gouges in WTC 3, and WTC 4,5,6 and the near disappearance of WTC 3, all of which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. Wood goes further and points out that the incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes all point to the use of directed energy weapons. One other element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. Wood asks: Where did it go?

Added to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all.

Dr. Wood's RFC demonstrates all of the above mentioned effects in its 43 pages of text and pictorial proof. The combined effects of gravity, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) and plane damage could not possibly have caused the massive destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, according to Dr. Wood. The wonder of it all is that more engineers and scientists have not come forward to challenge the woeful, scientific inadequacies of the official explanation.

Dr. Wood invites her peers and colleagues to set aside their emotional attachments and to view the evidence objectively. Then and only then can America come to grips with what happened on 9/11/01, according to Dr. Wood.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/070322_PR.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.