Tuesday, April 07, 2009

YES WE CAN!: Scientists Report Evidence of Explosive Residues in Dust Samples from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.








World Trade Center photos taken about 4 and 8 seconds after initiation of the collapse of the south tower. (N.B. These photos are used here for educational purposes only. The copyright holder is Steve Kahn).









Physicists: Note that ejecta has been thrown laterally about 0.8 building widths, i.e. ~50 meters, in the first 4 seconds. How could that have happened powered solely to gravity, given that 4 seconds of free fall would displace the upper block only 78 meters downward?




 







The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-4125
pp.7-31 (25)
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007



NO WE CAN’T: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

On April 12, 2007, a 32-page request for corrections was submitted to NIST asserting that NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers violates information quality standards and harms the interests of the petitioners -- scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage, engineer Frank Legge, 9/11 family members Bob Mcllvane and Bill Doyle, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Below, I reproduce a single paragraph from NIST’s September 27, 2007, letter of response to these petitioners, interspersed by my reaction to what they are saying there:
“Your letter also makes three requests for changes to Section 6.14.4 under the objectivity standard to include: (1) supporting data with transparent documentation and identification of error sources, with regards to the potential energy released during the downward movement of the upper stories, the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone, and the increase in falling mass below the collapse zone; (2) to revise the section if NIST finds the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone was greater than the energy of the falling stories; and (3) to include the results of tests for explosive residue. With regard to the first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation. The text of section 6.14.4 is based upon the analysis of photographic and video evidence of the collapses from several vantage points.”
So that’s it? I watch the videos; ergo the reality behind what I see is whatever I think it is?
“With respect to the second request for change, it was most critical for NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.”
It “is clear”? Yes, it is clear the towers fell down... But the whole point of request (2) was to answer the question: Could the collapses have taken place in the absence of explosives to weaken or destroy the steel columns below “the point of collapse initiation”? NIST HAS CLEARLY DUCKED THIS QUESTION! However, they do continue...
“Finally, NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.”
So how hard did they search?
“NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue...”
Huh? Of course, they wouldn’t find any “corroborating evidence” if they didn’t look. So why didn’t they?
“...as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”
Well, any undergraduate college student giving this as an excuse for not bothering to do his assigned physics or engineering lab experiment would have been given a no-recourse F!

At the very least, NIST has convicted itself of incompetence here. But being that NIST was the lead government agency that was paid $30 million to answer the lingering questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks, I think they’ve also convicted themselves of criminal malfeasance and nonfeasance.

B.T.Y. Anyone who thinks that the need for explosives to bring down the WTC towers had long ago been debunked by experts might want to read my debunking of one of the more credentialed "debunkers".
Any reader inspired to get deeper in to the history of the scientific investigations leading to the conclusion that explosives were involved in the WTC collapses would be well advised to start here.
And anyone with frank doubts that the WTC towers could have been rigged with explosives without detection, should check out this highly plausible scenario.

And finally, some of you are bound to have your doubts that any pre-planted explosives could possibly have been synchronized with the arrival of a pair jetliners piloted by a couple Arabs who could barely fly a Piper Cub. But the bigger question is how the alleged hijackings of the four jetliners on the morning of 9/11 – and their choreographed guidance to three of their selected targets – could have been so well synchronized at all. To answer that question, I developed a comprehensive hypothesis capable of accounting for the entire aviation part of the 9/11 equation. To download my work, go here and select the first pdf and the two highly-animated PowerPoints – if you can play them – otherwise select all three pdf’s (the latter two being inferior un-animated versions of the PowerPoints).

2 comments:

Michael Collins said...

Another shot across the bow of conventional wisdom in favor of the truth by my favorite ex-patriot!

Michael Collins

éminence grise said...

Thank you Michael. You're my favorite exposer of the Money Party and its role in stealing our elections!

BTY, I think/hope you meant expatriate...