Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

We are talking about how solids and liquids react to heat.

Are we?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The enthalpy of vaporization, (symbol ∆Hvap) also known as the (latent) heat of vaporization or heat of evaporation, is the amount of energy (enthalpy) that must be added to a liquid substance, to transform a quantity of that substance into a gas. The enthalpy of vaporization is a function of the pressure at which that transformation takes place.

So the steel went right to being evaporated? How?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

5 hours of fires, but not constant. Fires spread and they go out. You can see this in pictures. Fires in one location, and next time you see the same location, just blackness inside the window (floor) where the fire was an hour ago.

I open the fires were set deliberate.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

5 hours of fires, but not constant. Fires spread and they go out. You can see this in pictures. Fires in one location, and next time you see the same location, just blackness inside the window (floor) where the fire was an hour ago.

I open the fires were set deliberate.

I see. So they made WTC1 collapse on to 7, damage it and set it on fire to cover up the demolition of a buiding that hadn't been hit by a hijacked plane. Cunning

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

5 hours of fires, but not constant. Fires spread and they go out. You can see this in pictures. Fires in one location, and next time you see the same location, just blackness inside the window (floor) where the fire was an hour ago.

I open the fires were set deliberate.

I see, so they made WTC1 collapse on to 7, damage it and set it on fire to cover up the demolition of a buiding that hadn't been hit by a hijacked plane. Cunning

A military Psyop doesn't always go to plan.

They need fires to pull this operation off. Bit strange if it just collapsed.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

5 hours of fires, but not constant. Fires spread and they go out. You can see this in pictures. Fires in one location, and next time you see the same location, just blackness inside the window (floor) where the fire was an hour ago.

I open the fires were set deliberate.

I see, so they made WTC1 collapse on to 7, damage it and set it on fire to cover up the demolition of a buiding that hadn't been hit by a hijacked plane. Cunning

A military Psyop doesn't always go to plan.

They need fires to pull this operation off. Bit strange if it just collapsed.

Oh just a happy accident then. That was lucky for them, good job it didn't accidentally damage the explosives and detonators!

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

Complete nonsense. The first reported fire at WTC7 was after 12 am.. not truther logical, NIST put together log of events that today. You find no picture of fires before 12am or before 1pm. Seven hours is a myth.

You find pictures of fires on floors after 1 pm and then later they burned out.

OK, five hours then


Still doesn't answer my question though. Deliberate or happy accident?

5 hours of fires, but not constant. Fires spread and they go out. You can see this in pictures. Fires in one location, and next time you see the same location, just blackness inside the window (floor) where the fire was an hour ago.

I open the fires were set deliberate.

I see, so they made WTC1 collapse on to 7, damage it and set it on fire to cover up the demolition of a buiding that hadn't been hit by a hijacked plane. Cunning

A military Psyop doesn't always go to plan.

They need fires to pull this operation off. Bit strange if it just collapsed.

Oh just a happy accident then. That was lucky for them

It was not a small operation to pull this off, it likely planned out for years in advance. I 'm fairly certain they had planned how far the debris would travel after the tower collapsed. And the plan was off or did not go as expected. It is naive to think they were no operatives in place to correct any issues not foreseen.

Operatives with fire or police, CIA or secret service whoever entered the building -started the fires on the east wing of the building. It very strange fires just started hours later on this side.

Panic

a reply to: Jesushere

Wow! Going into a buiding that has been badly damaged by a skyscraper falling on it must have taken some balls. Plus if the explosives or detonators had been damaged by the impact they could have gone off at any time!!1

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Jesushere

Wow! Going into a buiding that has been badly damaged by a skyscraper falling on it must have taken some balls. Plus if the explosives or detonators had been damaged by the impact they could have gone off at any time!!1

All you have to is flash a badge with credentials and you gain access to the sites around the collapse.

There no evidence of the severe damage. I saw some wall damage southwest side one photograph. A reporter from NBC was inside WTC7 between 3 pm and 4 pm. He captured on film men going in and out of WTC7.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Jesushere

Wow! Going into a buiding that has been badly damaged by a skyscraper falling on it must have taken some balls. Plus if the explosives or detonators had been damaged by the impact they could have gone off at any time!!1

There was nobody in there. All you have to is flash a badge with credentials you gain access to the sites around the collapse.

There no evidence of the severe damage. I saw some wall damage to one photograph. A reporter from NBC was inside WTC7 around 3pm and 4pm. He captured men going in and out of WTC7.

Well I suppose some people might call a deep gash at least ten storeys high in the south face minor damage, but I wouldn't

It's interesting what Donald Trump said about 9/11 in this video clip.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Jesushere

Wow! Going into a buiding that has been badly damaged by a skyscraper falling on it must have taken some balls. Plus if the explosives or detonators had been damaged by the impact they could have gone off at any time!!1

There was nobody in there. All you have to is flash a badge with credentials you gain access to the sites around the collapse.

There no evidence of the severe damage. I saw some wall damage to one photograph. A reporter from NBC was inside WTC7 around 3pm and 4pm. He captured men going in and out of WTC7.

Well I suppose some people might call a deep gash at least ten storeys high in the south face minor damage, but I wouldn't

It not minor, but it not the cause of the collapse. Building seven collapsed over six hours afterwards, a clear sign, something else happened. Truthers and NIST both agree something happened around 5.20pm that started a collapse.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Jesushere

Wow! Going into a buiding that has been badly damaged by a skyscraper falling on it must have taken some balls. Plus if the explosives or detonators had been damaged by the impact they could have gone off at any time!!1

There was nobody in there. All you have to is flash a badge with credentials you gain access to the sites around the collapse.

There no evidence of the severe damage. I saw some wall damage to one photograph. A reporter from NBC was inside WTC7 around 3pm and 4pm. He captured men going in and out of WTC7.

Well I suppose some people might call a deep gash at least ten storeys high in the south face minor damage, but I wouldn't

It not minor

But you wouldn't call it severe?

a reply to: Jesushere

Was it after the owner Larry Silverstein said 'pull it'?

mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

a reply to: neutronflux

So the steel went right to being evaporated? How?

Good question. Could it be evidence of demolition?

a reply to: kwakakev

How does steel skip the liquid phase and go right to evaporation as reported by “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports ”. And the report specifically stated evaporated.

I think junk science is more likely.... It would be on par for the truth movement.

a reply to: neutronflux

I think junk science is more likely

If all you are going to do is look for excuses, that is all you will ever find.

I am looking for a path to reason.