9/11 FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9/11 Commission Lies, page 4

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

Thanks for replies folks. So Lone, is the above poster correct in saying that the FLIR measures skin temperature, and not the fire temperature? That doesn't seem right to me. The camera shots are of the opening where the fire was raging. I just want to clear that up please.

It measures heat. If there are exposures (openings in the structure) it will measure the heat of the fire. The fire is not as hot as the gases that build up above the fire either.

When we enter a structure fire we get this rolling heated gases above our heads, its one of the reasons for the cloth that drapes below the back of our helmets. It protects us from steam burns. What happens is when you are inside fighting the ceiling may look like its on fire but its actually super-heated gas and not the structure. You concentrate you lines on the fire only. You sometimes panic though because its rolling and raging just over your head and you adrenaline may over-ride your training and makes you redirect your stream tot he gases above your head. Then the water turns to steam and rolls down on the back of you and your neck (the reason for the fire proof cloth draped below your lid) when that happens you more than likely just lost the building. It disrupts the thermal layers and what was a few hundred degrees at the floor suddenly goes over a thousand and then you have to get out.

You cant control a fire from the outside, it has to be fought at the source. Its all rather complex and is why we have to train so much.

Originally posted by googolplex

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by bluewaterservant

---

The pics of the angle cut beams have always troubled me. Has there been any attempt by "officialdom" to explain how those angle cuts on these main structural supporting beams came into existence? If so, is it a credible explanation?

I vaguely recall an ATS post in which someone opined that the angle cust were made as part of the after-the-collapse cleanup effort. But I believe that comment was made by a would-be debunker rather than an official source.

It make no sense to cut steel on angle if you were just cutting it up, a angle would be for demo when you want one piece to slide past other

The first thing that should run through your mind when you see the "Beam pics" is : When exactly were these pictures taken?

The second should be: Were there any more pics taken with these?



Is this evidence of demolition to you?

If this picture would have been taken just after the towers fell....Possibly.

BUT

It was a cherry-picked photo out of a set.. which included THIS pic as well.



Iron workers cutting jutting beams at an angle...leaving slag on the cut.

These clean-up operations were being performed from October through December 2001.



Close up.

Now, you might want to ask yourself. Why did the 9/11 dood's not say anything about the other pictures? I mean, why not be up front with all the information, if it is indeed "truth" we are seeking?

The more you research, the more you will realize this pattern of deception is prevailant on just about every 9/11 issue.

Simply put, it is a cheap carney shell game, where the goal is to manipulate your perception for their monitary or political goals.

Some lack the critical thinking skills to properly identify credible sources. Some just haven't the mental capacity to understand the intricacies of rhetoric and propaganda. No matter where that rhetoric and propaganda is comming from. They just latch on to what hits'em first..or hardest.

It is like that Nigerian prince spam e-mail. Just send him some money and you shall be rewarded 10 fold.

It sounds stupid, but the reason those e-mails get sent out is because there are a percentage of people who fall for the scam.

When they go "cyber" anything "seems" believable. Or MORE believable.

If the same guy came-up to you on the street and layed out the Nigerian Prince scam, you would be bolting away faster a East German speed walker.

It's 8 years later, there is no proof of "Inside Jobby Jobs, " Bush is out of office... There is not going to be a new investigation. What is the point, except to waste time, or conduct an intratubes flame warfare.
Really?... Really? that's it?



[edit on 9-5-2009 by Taxi-Driver]

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

---

Thanks for the additonal photos. But they don't lay the issue to rest. And they don 't answer the question whether the angle cut beam shown in the first and similar photos were part of the clean-up or part of a planned demolition of the towers. I agree, it would be helpful to know at which stage after the towers' destruction the photos were taken and by whom.

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

---

Thanks for the additonal photos. But they don't lay the issue to rest. And they don 't answer the question whether the angle cut beam shown in the first and similar photos were part of the clean-up or part of a planned demolition of the towers. I agree, it would be helpful to know at which stage after the towers' destruction the photos were taken and by whom.

And perhaps the bigger point: Whouldn't it be helpful to see a more logical and sensible explaination for the "beam picture" when the information was being presented?

Why wasn't that other explaination presented at all?

Is that Ok with you?

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

---

Yea all those cuts look like from the workers cleaning up, you can see all the marks made in the steel by the torch, and run off.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

Ok, thanks man. I appreciate your contributions to the thread, as it really helps to have the input from a real firefighter using the FLIR technology with which these photos were taken.

I will say then to pteridine in this post that I am sorry, I believe you are incorrect with your statement in your post here that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
The IR camera is measuring skin temperature, not fire temperature in the building.

I would think if that was the case the photo would have shown a rough figure of a human being, and not the large image of the fire raging in the hole as it is seen in the video and in the still pictures here:

www.irinfo.org...

reply to post by googolplex

---

From the size of some of the beams left, you most definitely would want to angle the steel for it to fall exactly where you want it to.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

Good post. I also believe that the WTC buildings were designed and constructed to withstand an impact from a 707. They were also designed and constructed to handle hurricane-force winds around 140 mph (more?).

Some interesting information I thought I would add on to your post..

www.prisonplanet.com...

�A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing�[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

�However, O�Sullivan consults �one of the trade center�s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.� He is told there is �little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.��[3]

1993

�[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.� But, he says, �The building structure would still be there.�[4]

�The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: �The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707�DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.� However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.�[5]

2001

�Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, �I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,� though does not elaborate further.�[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] �The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.�[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] �The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.� Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

Sept 3-7, 2001�just before 9/11

�The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.�[9]

After 9/11

�The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. �We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,� said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. �We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.��[10]

�The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access�and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access�to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.�[11]

�[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been �unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.��[12]

�In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.�[13]

�[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report� The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it� Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten�Molten means flowing�I�ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.� Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006

Analysis:

Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

� Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that �A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing�.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this �deliberately misleading information� just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was �little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.�[16]

� Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire�. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

� NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no �evidence to indicate consideration of� thousands of gallons of jet fuel�. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling�s statement: �Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire� The building structure would still be there.�[18]

� In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had �never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.� This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: �Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.�[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

� Robertson is also incorrect when he says that �if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it �irrelevant to [their] investigation.�[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious�but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone�Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.

-ChriS

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

---

You seem to have quite a track record of "debunking" 9/11 threads, for over two years I see. Disinfo agent much? Evidence?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I doubt that any ordinary skeptic would waste 2 years coming here and attempt to prove 9/11 theories false, what do you even gain by it? Do you seriously think anyone listens to your poor logic? Guess what, my logic says that your under the payroll.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

Hey Lonegunman,

One of things that got me was Fireman who said things were blowing up, and you could hear on his radio those things like rounds going off, the squibs the ingniters for the thermit charges.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

I'll second that motion completely my friend. I have never ever thought the FDNY had anything to do with this. On the contrary, I have very strong feelings against the EPA which deceived them and all New Yorkers by claiming that the air was safe to breathe, when clearly it was not. The FDNY were the unfortunate souls who had to deal with the aftermath of this mess. And that exact picture you are talking about did the same to me. I will not dig it up, and please don't any of you either. I do not want to see it ever again. Sickening.

But alas, we digress. Folks, we better get back on topic, lest nasties start populating this thread. Although I suppose with this topic it could be somewhat of a catch all regarding the fires bringing down the buildings (or not) - NOT!

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

This "Conspiracy" has been debunked ...

Popular Mechanics Debunk 9/11 Myth

Enjoy reading

oz1337

reply to post by oz1337

---

I don't what was Debunked they show all the staff of popular mechanic were fired, and replace with people who would print what they want them to.



[edit on 10-5-2009 by googolplex]

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: