Previous Update: April 22 - 28

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
April 29 - May 5, 2014

9-11 Collapse Models, and Discovery of the Core Structure
Nothing Explains It Like Nano-Thermite

While tis may not be a perfect description of the scenario that we could expect in a faked 9-11 attack, it's more than good enough:
The total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the three largest engineering failures in history (based on the official story). How were they investigated?

FEMA was given the sole authority to investigate the collapses even though it is not an investigative agency.
The investigative team assembled by FEMA consisted of unpaid volunteers.
The investigators were not allowed access to Ground Zero.
The investigators were not provided with the blueprints of the buildings.
FEMA's report states the causes of the collapse "remain unknown at this time". (By the time the report was released the steel had been entirely disposed of.) The fact that Building 7 (supposedly) failed in a way that contradicts 100 years of engineering experience makes it the largest and least understood structural failure in history.
The 9/11 Commission Report failed to even mention the destruction of Building 7.
The 9/11 Commission Report denied the existence of the Twin Towers' core structures.
NIST's report on the collapse of the Twin Towers purports to provide a "probable collapse sequence" for each Tower but truncates its timelines before the collapses even begin.
NIST avoided even mentioning the earlier findings of sulfidated and evaporated steel, then described by the New York Times "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
...NIST proffered disingenuous arguments for failing to test for explosive residues, which it continued to repeat even after responding directly to public comments and correspondence pointing out the fallacies of those arguments.

Everything was set up beforehand, even the aftermath investigations. The government goons didn't get to be like that overnight; they had corrupt players from a long way back, all winking at one another through MANY corrupt plots. And they accepted and understood their own mentalities, evolving together through thick and thin, and they moved forward with anything but a Christ-like manner. Conspiracies require criminal minds in agreement. The Nazis had it; they didn't go away, but were inserted into the upper levels of America's strategic circles. The time came when the military and related leaders, willing to form a Palestinian state, sat around a table or couch to discuss how they could justify a war in the Middle East for x, y and z purposes. It had been an ongoing discussion. For 9-11, they tried to minimize "casualties" (please don't call me a casualty of you're going to kill me), but were guilty of mass murder anyway, and, of course, guilty of obstruction of a way that makes Bill Clinton look like a God-send.

I left one point out in the list above: "NIST's Final Report on the collapse of Building 7 abandons the earlier official claims of severe structural damage and diesel-fueled fires, and blames the swift straight-down collapse on a house-of-cards chain reaction triggered by a single beam breaking loose from its connections due to thermal expansion -- a completely novel failure mechanism with no supporting evidence." This seems to be telling what 9-11 Research says elsewhere, that the buckled-column theory was abandoned for the "truss theory" in which there was a "zipper effect," where the fall of one truss led to the fall of the next, and so on. It speaks to a problem they felt their buckled-column theory had, in there not being sufficient heat to bend the columns. As the temperature in the building is of utmost importance to the goons, let's talk about it.

The only way for the official theory to work is by having the fire soften the steel. Some truthers will tell us that the steel could not have gotten hotter than the jet fuel itself, but this is not the correct way to view it. The correct way: so long as a heat source continually adds heat to an environment in excess of the heat escaping the environment, the temperature will go up. The interior of the building can be viewed as an oven...but with a big "door" left open, not to mention the broken windows wherever they may have been.

I've just read that one plane had 90,000 liters of fuel, or 24,000 U.S. gallons. As there are roughly 7.5 gallons per cubic foot, let's divide 23,900 by 7.5 to get 3,200 cubic feet of fuel. Lets multiply that by 12 to find that the fuel would have been one inch deep over about 38,000 square feet of floor space. Each tower had a square area of about one acre, roughly 43,000 square feet. In other words, after the explosion knocked interior walls down so as to scatter fuel throughout the floor areas (lets play along), there would have been a situation where, generally speaking, less than an inch-depth of fuel was burning upon a floor.

It's the best scenario for the goon squad because, to maximize heat output per unit time, it's best to spread fuel out over as much square area as possible. We must add that the plane broke through several floors (lets play along), and so the fuel would have scattered over multiple floors, though the bulk of it could be expected to fall through holes in the floors to the lowest-possible floor. That tends to locate most of the fuel at the lowest floor having no holes for escape further down. Is that what the pictures showed. No, they did not.

How long would fuel burn if it were about one inch deep in free air? Instead of trying an experiment with that depth (could be dangerous), start with a smaller depth, and then just use math to extrapolate. I don't care to do it because there was no fuel in the towers.

If much of the fuel was spent in the initial explosion (at the towers), how much was left afterward? It would have been a lot less than an inch deep, especially when debris trapped it over multiple floors rather than having it work its way to the lowest. Some debris would have permitted the liquid to flow along with little restriction; other debris could have restricted its flow completely in certain directions.

No matter; the bulk of the fuel would find itself trapped UNDER the heaps of debris, incapable of burning well, if at all, due to low-oxygen levels. The more the debris, the less freely the fuel can burn. The more the debris consisted of small pieces of crumbled concrete, the more the latter will soak up the fuel, resulting in a slower burn by that method too. Gypsum wall board would have acted as a sponge. The slower it all burns, the less the temperature increase of the environment while heat simultaneously escapes through the holes in the walls.

The ability of steel to transfer heat quickly from its hottest spots to its coldest works for the benefit of the truthers. The ability of steel to receive heat quickly works for the benefit of the criminal goons. Ultimately, the temperature of the air beside any steel determines the maximum steel temperature. The internal steel temperatures cannot increase beyond the maximum temperature of the air beside it. If the steel is hotter than the air, it will lose heat to the air.

In that heat tends to rise more than it tends to move in any other direction, the hottest pieces of steel would be the upper trusses, at the concrete floor having no major gash through it (to allow heat to escape one floor higher). If this is correct, and it is, the expected, initial outcome of importance would be the buckling of the upper trusses, especially as they are expected to be much thinner than the columns. The goon side argued that, once the ends of trusses snapped away from their secured positions, and fell, it removed the lateral support to columns, making the columns free-standing...and thus more susceptible to bending themselves, in turn giving way for a neighboring truss to snap away and fall, and so on.

As the south-tower explosion was at 9:03 while the collapse was at 9:50, it had 47 minutes to get to the snapping event. Do you think it's reasonable? It depends on how thick the columns were, but the goon squad didn't reveal steel dimensions, even when asked. And it also depends on how secure the trusses were fixed to their seats.

Lets ask: which way will they buckle, inward or outward? There was no sign that they buckled either way, for the cladding visible to cameras would tell of it. The columns could not bend significantly unless the cladding bent or popped off. Did you ever see that it any picture? No, you did not.

Besides, before the columns could bend significantly due to the loss of their trusses, an entire floor should drop one storey. For, as trusses (= the floor joists) failed one at a time, the floor above them should fall a little at a time. Did you ever see the trusses or concrete floors thorough any of the windows? No, you did not. If it had happened, the goon squad would have shown it to you. It's too late for them to do so now, though they might try...because they don't care how stupid they look, so long as they can keep out of jail.

Before going on, see a picture of the trusses below (if you didn't see it in the last update), and read a little on the truss-collapse theory. Note how close to the tops of the spandrels (flange-like items) the trusses are connected, as that tends to show conspiracy with the goons:

When the truss-failure theory was advanced, the goon squad neglected to inform the world of certain metal connecting the tops of the trusses to one another. This steel included a tub into which the concrete was poured. It seems negligent to simply sit the tub on the trusses without bolting the two together, for architects had the tub as an excellent means to lock the tops of the trusses into position. There is simply no way that joist-like trusses over 30 inches deep would be installed without their tops and bottoms blocked from going off vertical. Every home builder knows that even a 2 x 10 floor joist must, by law, be reinforced so as not to have the ability to go off vertical (more susceptible to bending).

If, therefore, the trusses were connected to the underside of the concrete by being bolted to the steel tub, the trusses could not fall even if heated to a softened, slightly-red-glowing condition. Besides, if the trusses are hot and therefore expanded in size, how could they fall off their seats, as you see them in the "cartoon" above?

It's not necessarily true that the weight of the concrete would force the softened trusses to bend, for the concrete was likely filled with steel rods to keep it from "bending." They may be called "trusses" because they acted primarily to keep the columns vertical, and only secondarily as "joists" to support the hardened concrete. Keep in mind that, if the trusses are not needed so much to act as joists after the concrete is hardened, they DID act as joists when the concrete was poured.

The no-planes truth is as important as denying them the ability to explain the collapse of the towers. No planes, no jet fuel. That's how no-planes advocates can know that columns did not buckle under progressive heat. It's a neat package, capable of jailing the culprits and exposing their highest bosses. You know how pigs squeal, don't you? Goons squeal even louder if they can pin the crime on their upper levels? Sue the low levels first, and listen to them squeal. The more problems that truthers offer the upper levels, so that the latter need to use more and more low-level puppets and accessories, the greater the chances of forming squealing low levelers.

The Guilt-Ridden Submission of Eagar and Musso

The article below (by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso) deals with heat upon columns on behalf of the criminal side, and even shares the width of the columns (14.2 inches), yet fails to tell of their thicknesses. In fact, he deceives: "In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight 'perimeter tube' design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm [14.17 inches] square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3)." If their going to make the point of LIGHTWEIGHT, why doesn't he give the thicknesses? What kind of a writer is this who supposedly knows it all?

[Update: The page below, with many details on the buildings' construction, and contradictions to NIST values, gives the outer columns at 236 in total at the 7th floor, but as the foundation is being discussed at that time, while there were 6 basement floors, I assume the first floor above ground is meant. I'll be quoting from this page in the next update. The total mass of the foundation, steel and concrete combined, is given as 4,753 short tons (2,000 pounds each):]

Why would the author(s) use "lightweight" in the midst of explaining how the towers needed to withstand hurricane winds? How could "lightweight" be justified while the authors are in the midst of pointing out the MANY columns? Because, the goons were compelled to implant that term into your mind one way or another. If the many number of columns makes up for their thinner dimensions, "lightweight" is NOT the term to use.

They go on to use the "more" word: "[The dimensions above] permitted windows MORE than one-half meter wide." That's to say, "Wow, is that ever lightweight" (what does the average reader know, anyway, about window width constituting heavy versus light construction?). Now think about it. As the article goes on, they use the "redundant" word to express the many columns, and yet rather than saying the many columns only allowed windows LESS than a meter wide, they say the windows were MORE than a half-meter, as if to implant the idea of LARGE windows as an effect of the lightweight columns. Every little bit helps, they must have been thinking, to make people believe that planes sliced through these columns.

The authors go on to mention the core but fail to mention either the core columns (this was their sin) or their thicknesses, but do mention the trusses as joists: "Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower...Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story." If the core held the weight of the building, isn't a short attempt at describing the core in order? Why do the authors bother writing on this topic at all if they don't describe to thing that holds up most of the weight? Why give such things as window dimensions but fail to give the dimensions of the columns at the center of the building? Why is it that we need to go to truthers to get these dimensions?

Why do the authors suggest that the core held the entire weight when it's obvious that the exterior columns supported much of the weight? Why is "tube" used for the outer columns, a term that could be construed as a weak structural member? "Tube" doesn't exactly convey strength. Others, right to the top of the official report, were deceptive on the topic of the core:

Both the FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study and the NIST's Draft Report on the Twin Towers fail to disclose the dimensions of the core columns, and the NIST Report implies that only the four core columns on each core's corners had larger dimensions [later in this update, you'll see the core columns, prepare for a shock].

Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick.

There you go, it took only one sentence to say it, yet the two authors who feigned concern for the public's understanding of the towers failed to say that simple thing. Then, as even an insult to the architects of the towers, Eagar and Musso conclude: "In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high." Man, how could any chicken take the chance of going up there even once, let alone roosting there every day. The egg crate could fall at any time. It's surprising that "chicken wire" wasn't used to discuss the way in which the tubes were tied to one another.

A pair of men seeking to be viewed as experts bothered to tell that the building was 95 percent air, but it was the very idea of the architects to use thicker / more steel in such a design that could afford the building more open air space, but here the goons are taking advantage by making even the columns seem lightweight. The buildings were nothing but air and toothpicks, and that's why they fell; the architects were irresponsible, the two authors are claiming between the lines.

Note the deception once again as the core columns are left unmentioned: "The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it 'one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient' skyscrapers." I see a contradiction. "Redundant" means more steel than is needed by a far degree, and yet that contradicts "lightweight."

But if the writers needed to admit that the outer columns were redundant, what about the inner columns? Were they or were they not redundant too? We'll never know from these authors, if they can help it. What are kind of experts are those? I say they're criminals, seeking to cover up the realities.

The writers had yet another opportunity to reveal the column thicknesses when they went on to this: "The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam [running along] the bottom of the aircraft fuselage." We are thus informed in a too-subtle, almost-silent way that the outer columns were stronger than the wing spars. Why do they mention the beam under the floor but not the spars that supposedly sliced through the columns? Why not tell us more about the spars versus the "lightweight" columns? What is there to hide? Are they exposing or are they hiding?

It's as though the columns are far stronger than the writers were letting on; otherwise, if the columns were truly thin, the writers would have been VERY SURE to give the dimensions.

"Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft's weight, ignited." After saying this, the writers are interrupted by the web-owner's comments: "This is wildly inaccurate [actually, it's a brazen lie], since it is established that each plane was carrying around 10,000 gallons of fuel, or 37,000 liters. However, the fuel capacity of each jet was around 90,000 liters...Of the 37,000 liters that was on each plane, much to the vast majority must have been used up in the first few seconds in the collision fireball -- particularly in the case of the south tower."

So, that less-than-one-inch depth of fuel I spoke on is now looking more like a quarter inch. Things are looking bleak for the goon squad where they wish for us to believe that the jet fuel softened the columns. The two writers close their eyes to collapse by planned demolition: "The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4)."

They confess: "The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio." The fuel running under the debris would have assured a very slow burn. But the authors confess yet more: "This fuel-rich [i.e. oxygen-lacking] diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range." But, the tricky-dicks were moving toward this: "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000C."

Wait. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the flame temperature is. A flame temperature of even 1,000 C can heat a room to 3,000 C and more, if the insulation in the walls is up to the task. In reverse, a flame temperature of 1,000 C may only bring the room to 100 C if the insulation is poor enough. Flame temperature is only part of the story.

At what point within the towers did the heat leaving equal the heat production? That point marks the maximum air temperature. The fact that the writers did not tackle this question suggests their knowing that the maximum did not go beyond their claims. There were ways to discover the temperature in that place, but these writers claiming to care for the truth did not mention them.

It's not coincidental, and it's not expert work; the following is the very figure they need to explain the collapses by jet fuel: "However, it is highly unlikely that the structural steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750-800C range, given it's ability to rapidly conduct heat away from the fire-exposed areas." They make themselves appear succumbing honestly to 800 C as their maximum figure, but are in reality exaggerating while appearing to succumb. In that way, they look better for resting their case on a 800 C, sufficient to make steel buckle, in their opinion.

As we can tell in that statement, they were not even beginning to suggest that the over-all air temperature was 800 C. That's how we can know that it wasn't, for if the situation allowed it, they would have said so. Instead, they are discussing merely the air beside the reaching 1,000 C, and they create the picture in our minds that the flames were beside the steel columns so as to get them to about 800C. Once a blacksmith sees the size of the core columns, he'll know right away that jet fuel did not bring them to 800 C in such a short time, and that's why the writers don't mention the size of core columns.

What happens to the truss-buckling theory under this scenario in which the hottest temperature of 800 C was achieved at floor level, rather than ceiling level? How hot was the air in that place, anyway? Let's assume the two writers are imposters, and ask someone else:

"The thermographic [photo] image of the South Tower taken by Carol Ciemiengo 15 minutes after it was hit by Flight 175, which shows temperatures of around a mere 90 to 100 degrees Celsius!" That sounds like evidence that a scientific investigation ought to receive and go by. Why don't the two authors -- finks -- mention such things as this?

The writers continue their drawing, holding the reader in suspense while knowing how their picture will end: "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C...But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. " That tells you why they crafted their report to get the temperatures above 650 C.

The use of "soften" at 450 C can put a false idea in your mind; the metal is not soft at that time. The "loses half it's strength" is another ambiguous idea. In which way does it lose that much strength, with forces applied in the vertical or horizontal direction? One needs to apply dozens of times more vertical force to bend a column than horizontal force upon it. If at 650 C the column's half-strength condition is equivalent to the overhead weight doubling, that's nothing.

Here's Frank Legge: "The conclusion of the NIST report was that fire brought down the North and South towers but their own data within the report shows that this was impossible. This report states that little steel was found which had experienced temperatures higher than 250 O C and none that had exceeded 650 O C. Even at 650 O C the steel would be twice as strong as required to hold up the building."

Before ending this section, the authors seek to maximize the potential damage due to heat: "Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures." SLENDER steel? They must be referring to the trusses. In other words, they want us to believe that internal fires could possibly bring down the building by expanding the steel, which leads to STRESS and DISTORTION. Mean words. Let your mind do the breaking, because the heat didn't.

Architects are required to make the building fire safe. "Slender" trusses are not to pop off due to stress in internal fires. Columns are not to bend due to internal fires. Internal fires include those with all walls intact, where temperature can increase fast and compared to tower with a hole much larger than a 767's profile. Both towers had more than one hole for heat loss. The writers don't bring these holes to mind while discussing the fires because it's their Achilles' Hell.

If a truss expands but has no room to do so against the columns on either side, the truss will tend to bend toward the floor, if the bolts allow it. Will there be significant distortion? Debatable. Will it be fatal for the building? No. The architects wouldn't have been able to provide such a situation. If one or two floors falls due to fire ruining the trusses, the building as a whole does not collapse.

As a truss expands in heat, it stabs in both directions toward columns, and so becomes tighter upon its seat or ledge (i.e. more securely fixed to it) rather than creating a situation in which the truss falls off the seats. The goon squad wants to have their cake and eat it too but creating the picture of a "sagging" truss due to expansion. But if it "droops" due to expansion, it's not a true droop or sag at all, but, furthermore, the droop is due to pushing against the columns so that the goon cannot simultaneously claim that drooping trusses are likely to fall off their seats. It's not as though they don't realize this, in which case they are being deliberately misleading.

The two writers then move on to a section, "The Collapse", where they call the seats, "angle clips": "Many structural engineers believe that the weak points -- the limiting factors on design allowables -- were the angle clips that held the floor joists [trusses] between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t [tons, not "times"] beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t." Clearly, the writers were not permitted to say "core columns." They just had another opportunity to reveal those columns, and yet chose "core structure." What's that? It could be anything. Why didn't they want the reader to know that the core was a massive system of columns? What kinds of trusted experts or loyal authorities are these?

What are they trying to say in the quote? They don't say. They leave it to your imagination to see the failure of the seats. The leave you to imagine that the seats gave way and/or the trusses let loose from the seats. What force could have caused this failure? They have only one to appeal to: the heat. Their admission is that "Many structural engineers" do not think the heat compromised the columns, and so it had to be the seats and trusses. But these are the engineers who will not entertain, or publicly admit, a collapse by pre-planned demolition.

The article features a picture of the core columns, but that picture may have been added long after the article was written...after the authors had no choice. I can find no mention, let alone a description, of the core columns in the black-and-white print.

Without any description at all, the authors assume the trusses gave way: "As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell." Well, did, or did not, the trusses expand due to heat? If they expanded, how did they fall off their angle clips? We get nothing. We are to be their zombies and believe them at their word.

Why didn't they offer the rate of expansion of steel per unit temperature increase (it's called "coefficient of thermal expansion," a college-textbook term in any physics class)? Just how bad was the expansion rate? In their minds, there is no need to explain the details because there's only one way for the building to fail by fire: by the failure of the trusses. That's their message.

Just how far do you imagine the columns bowing outward when the writers say so? Don't they leave this to your imagination to decide? Yes, and they do so after telling you that the towers were more or less chicken coops. They had already assaulted the integrity of the outer columns just for this reason of having you believe the bowing to be so extensive as to cause total failure and collapse. They didn't tell you that the columns at the south-tower crash site (play along) were 13/16" thick, or 5/8" thick at the north-tower crash site. How much bowing do you imagine at such thicknesses? The writers didn't tell us that the column joints were staggered, a thing that tends to minimize bowing?

A webpage offers the expansion rates of various materials, iron having a rate of 6,8 microinches (millionth of an inch) per inch per one degree F. But, for argument's sake, let's use the 9.0 figure that seems to be the average for stainless steel. That is, a piece of steel one inch long will grow 9-millionths of an inch per degree F. Let's say that the trusses were 50 feet long, at a temperature of 500 F (if the other side wants a higher temperature, they'll need to prove it). The math: 50 x 12(inches) x 9.0 x 500 = 2.7 million microinches = 2.7 inches of expansion. How badly do you image a truss will bend if forced to grow two to three inches over 50 feet? Do you imagine it snapping in half? Do you imagine that the architects were permitted by building-code law to use trusses that snap at even at 1,500 F?

There is also the question of whether materials resist heat absorption when they cannot expand. I've never read it, but it seems reasonable. If the power of heat (it must be limited) cannot force expansion, I imagine heat will no longer be permitted into the material. Therefore, expansion rates of restricted / compressed materials may be less.

We have arrived to the crucial issue. Let's spend time on it. Here's a picture of the angle clips (which I'll call "seats" from here on), the small parts upon the faces of the spandrels that are themselves welded to the columns. The trusses upon the seats had the very purpose of not allowing the columns to bow outward or inward. It would take an enormous amount of horizontal force to break the bolts and/or welds between the seats and the trusses. Note that the seats are not welded directly to the columns, but to the faces of large spandrels. The latter prevent the columns from bowing as easily as they otherwise might.

The weight of the building acting downward though the columns has comparatively little horizontal effect, meaning there is nothing much from the overhead direction to snap the seats away from the trusses (because the columns can handle the overhead weight). That's why the goon squad needs to resort to horizontal pressures from heat expansion on the trusses. But if the trusses are built to bend while expanding, as they appear to be, then there seems to be nothing left to explain a truss breaking away from a seat. If we can't figure a way to break the truss from its seats, there is zero collapse mechanism available to the goon squad.

It takes very little horizontal bracing to keep a post / column from bending in the middle due to enormous forces from above. The truss is able to keep the column from bowing outward more effectively than bowing inward because it's easier to bend the truss (on an inward bow) versus pulling a truss apart (on an outward bow). Before the truss' main section can be pulled apart, the seats would gave way, in my opinion. But this is irrelevant because the overhead weight cannot bow the column until SEVERAL truss attachments to seats have been compromised. Don't let the other side convince you that overhead weight has anything to do with breaking the truss-seat connection.

When a truss expands due to heat, rather than being capable of pushing a column outward toward the street, the truss, much thinner, would itself bend over the long length of material between its two ends. True, a truss expanded a few inches longer than normal creates a situation in which columns are now free to bow outward a few inches, but the big question: would a set of columns on one or two floors bow outward visibly (i.e. disregarding microscopic amounts) if a string of trusses were no longer holding them tightly in place? Not necessarily, and not likely. I do not think that, if one entire storey were relieved of all trusses, the outer columns would bend visibly. Over a span of two stories, perhaps, but I do not see a great deal of bowing even then. Certainly not as much as a few inches.

I've pointed these things out because the two authors didn't think it was worthy of your thoughts. It represents the basic tools to ponder as per whether or not the heat could have caused the collapse. Very safe to say, more than two floors would need to have bowed columns in order to threaten the columns with snapping apart at their joints. But if the trusses were merely expanded and not off their seats, it would allow column bowing only to a certain distance and no more. The softer the columns due to heat, the easier they will bow, but, also, the less likely they will snap (softer metal can take bowing more efficiently without snapping).

To this issue, note in the photo above that each spandrel has three seats. Why three, when only two of them are used for truss connections? Online quote: "The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate [every two] columns..." I would venture to suggest that the third seat is insurance against bowing in case of fire. The third may have a short (i.e. less linear expansion) cord or rod installed in such a way as to prevent bowing during fires.

So long as trusses are still fastened to seats, how could the columns bow outward far enough to fail? Even red-hot steel is still very rigid, not at all soft in the ordinary sense of the word.

Let's repeat the statement: "As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell." Is that all that's going to be said of the critical event that caused collapse? Could the authors not afford a few statements to this central issue? No. For they need your imagination to do the rest. HOW did the floors give way? They didn't even say!

They did not explain how the first truss gave way. HOW DID THE TRUSSES DISCONNECT FROM THEIR SEATS? Until they answer that, ignore them. Don't let your imagination do what the laws of physics won't allow.

Furthermore, they are claiming that ALL floors dropped when the trusses on one or two floors failed. They were unable to say that two definitely gave way, and so they said one or two. The only floors expected to drop under their scenario are the ones where the trusses fail to a large degree. The only way to have all floors drop at once is to claim that many columns snapped apart. They did NOT describe that picture in their own words because it's a desperate picture in light of how little heat there could have been. Ask the darkness inside the huge gashes in the walls. Last I heard, bright flames light up the darkness. How can the darkness produce high heat?

Here's their article again, in which you can see a diagram of the trusses connected to the angle-clip seats. Note that one end of the truss is connected to the core while the core is just a square box rather than a column. Clearly, if anything is bent here, it's the will of the authors on hiding the core columns. The truss is drawn with the lower side not connected to any column whatsoever, tending to underscore how little lateral reinforcement is needed to keep columns from bowing. It also underscores how little the trusses are needed to keep the concrete above them from breaking. As pictured, the trusses are hardly joists proper at all.

The artist(s) left out the spandrels. The truss is shown connected directly to a column. This "garbage" would receive an 'f' grade in any teenage classroom. The spandrels minimized bowing, wherefore, don't you think that they should be included in a discussion on possible bowing??? What kind of science is this?

Plus, the seats are shown welded wholly to the outside of the column. In reality, so far as I can make out in all the photos, the vertical part of a seat (it's a 90-degree angle iron by the looks of it) is welded to the inside of every spandrel, and then the horizontal part exits through a slot in the spandrel face. Anything seeking to force the seat downward now needs to force the face of the spandrel too, not merely to break the weld as we see it in their picture. They even have the angled seat with the vertical part upward rather than downward, the weakest way to attach it for resisting downward forces. Nor do they show bolts at the attachment of truss to seat, and so they are allowing your imagination to work for them.

I declare, the two writers are to be deemed deceptive slimes, parasites of the goons, to be locked away into dungeons. Anyone whom has studied the crash situation up close, reporting a deceptive picture, is clearly an accessory to the criminals.

The writers add: "Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel..." Late in the last update, I averaged the columns to two inches thick, and included 300 of them because I didn't know how many the core had. There were 244 on the outer perimeter, while this page suggests 48 core columns. My math suggests that 300,000 tons of steel, per tower, is not a bad figure. In the next update, we'll see various official figures, including the weight of the foundation, that require explanation. The weights of total steel appear to be much too low.

The purpose of the core columns was not only to support weight, but to withstand wind pressures. The core columns are predicted to be thicker and wider so that the outer columns could be made thinner and smaller, allowing a finer visual appearance from the outside, and more window room for workers inside. I get it, but it doesn't make the exterior columns a mesh of chicken wire.

Even if the columns in total weighed 130,000 tons (my new guess-timate for both inner and outer), we are a far cry from 300,000. The same people quoting the latter figure had the nerve to say that the building was "lightweight." If the spandrels, beams and reinforcing rods amount to 170,000 tons, we must be talking a deluxe coop that any rooster could crow about. I used to think that, only in Warner Brothers cartoon should the rooster need to worry about a plane coming through the wall. Suddenly, a new brotherhood is causing our imaginations to work more like in the cartoons than in reality.

The two authors continue to the near-end to dismiss the core columns: "Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building." That gives the impression that the outer columns were the sturdier part as compared to the core. Can you believe that??? Never do the authors simply state, as the reason for not describing the core, that they didn't know what it looked like.

Let's look at the core-column image below as they have it on their page. One can glean trusses extending from an outer column to an inner column. If, as the two authors insist, the outer columns bowed out due to truss failure, then the only parts of the concrete floors expected to drop were located above the failed trusses; the concrete floor above the core is then NOT predicted to fall.

The concrete above the core would have its own separate joists / trusses. How then could the inner parts of the floors fail? We might expect only one side of the building to collapse, if it occurred via truss failure on one or two hot floors. As soon as one side failed, however, all heat would escape and be incapable of causing other trusses to fail. Just look at that picture (above). The floor is not to be viewed as one piece. There is one piece each on the north, south, east and west, and a fifth in the center.

The article claims that the core was 27 x 40 meters large, or 89 x 131 feet. The picture shows six columns across the 81-foot span, and eight columns across the 131-foot span, wherefore the maximum distance between 48 core columns was 16 feet, usually less. This is a compact area not easily damaged by heat. Mere trusses are not expected between these columns if their purpose is to resist wind. You can bet your hurricane-resistant kite that they welded and/or bolted I-beams to every core column in both directions across the core. The wind would then need to push all the columns as one unit.

The core, at the very least, should have remained standing in both buildings. If the truth concerning the cores were to be exposed, there should be no way for the floors within the core to give way as writers suggest who uphold the official story. If all core columns were connected to their neighbors by steel beams, so as to be one unit within a box, a fantastic amount of overhead force would be needed to cause them to bow sufficient to snap. There is no way to explain the tilted top of the south tower, as it started to collapse, but to assume that all core columns had been cut completely apart.

It's About Time for the Core-ection

It's not a wonder they don't want to show you the core columns, which we can see below. When writing all the above, I had forgotten about the photo below. Enlarge the pictures, and just look at how massive the core columns are in comparison to the outer columns (about six times larger at the top image):

If the image disappears, see it here:

I can now understand 300,000 tons of steel. The beams between core columns appear to be about the size of the outer columns. The core-column configuration can be seen to be identical to the drawing shown above. There are indeed 48 core columns, by the looks of it. An image (page above) with a view looking down on the tops of the 24 outer core columns appear to show each one made of six square columns, each about the size of one outer column, bundled together. Below is an image (from page above) showing a clear photo of the beams across the core columns:

You are not going to cut these core columns with a hacksaw. Some heavy-duty energy will be required to slice them apart. But even then, if the columns above the cuts remained saddled on the columns below the cuts, the building might not fall. Or if some remained saddled while others did not, the building might tilt. The tilting south-tower top was barely saved from falling on adjacent buildings by the cutting of columns further now in the nick of time.

The core columns look strong enough to survive the crashing down of mere floor material. No one will convince me that the falling of floors took the core columns down to the ground. It is therefore predictable that the core columns were cut at regular intervals, to a significant distance down, by some thermitic reaction.

One way to keep the core columns from remaining saddled is to slice them on a diagonal; once cut right through, the parts above the cuts would slide down off the lower parts. It is also possible that the perpetrators cut the columns partiallywith torches to reduce the explosives / thermite needed, and to assure the cuts would go the way they wanted. They got what they wanted, and secured for themselves a deep bed in Hell. There will be a debris field in Hell, with souls constituting the debris.

To view the situation rightly, first view the towers without concrete. What do you see? How could you make that skeleton come down? The goon supporters are saying that the core columns started to bow in the heat, in spite of 24 of 28 core columns tied to one another by three or four I-beams from three of four directions, and that the bowing got critical enough to snap all 48 core the same time, causing the upper building to fall straight down.

Having seen, and contemplated upon, the core, I have a new understanding of how this collapse should be described if it happened "naturally." We simply view one floor within the core falling upon an identical floor within the core. We ignore completely the floors outside the core. As the building above the severed area begins to fall, there's a falling floor IDENTICAL and EQUAL to the floor upon which it falls. What will happen as they make contact? Let's play along with their scenario, in which case either the IDENTICAL TOP FLOOR will break the beams away from the columns at the IDENTICAL BOTTOM FLOOR upon which it falls, or the beams in the falling top floor will break away from its columns.

The floors are IDENTICAL, a term I'm emphasizing to make this point: we should not assume that the top floor gets to break the beams in all the floors lower down, all the way to the ground.

If the top-floor beams remain intact after the first contact with a lower floor, the prediction is that, on the next contact, the upper floor will have its beams broken off while the floor fallen upon will retain its beams intact. Again: there's no reason that the falling floor's beams should be indestructible while the floors fallen upon always have their beams broken.

The pile driver theory has been elaborated to include calculations involving momentum and kinetic energy. Greening has provided a paper intended to show that the collapse, once initiated, would be sustained. Ross has provided calculations in refutation of this claim. His paper shows that the impact from the falling block would be absorbed by the structures above and below the impact area and would not be sufficient to result in a progressive collapse. A comprehensive paper showing the falsity of the official explanation has been given by Ryan.

...The core area [of the north tower] was hottest at the 30 and 45 minute readings but collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100 to 600 oC. Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150 oC. Videos show that the core started to collapse before the perimeter.

...Regardless of the final steel temperature, the core could not now collapse as it had already survived a higher temperature without collapsing and must have gained strength as it cooled.

The NIST report states that sagging floors pulled the central portion of one wall inward, causing it to lose strength. Sagging of the core was said to transfer load to the weakened wall which then failed...We have already seen that the core could not have failed due to heat. Initiation of collapse was therefore impossible. In the absence of initiation there could be no progressive collapse. An alternative mechanism for the collapse is therefore required: the use of explosives in a controlled demolition fits all observations.

Mr. Legge is too kind toward NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). I'm amazed that NIST had the liver to suggest SAGGING OF THE CORE. Just look at that core. Is that something that brings sagging to mind? But NIST was writing, probably, before the images of the core came out. Isn't it great to be able to catch the occult fools like this? No matter what they say, they will be fools in my eyes, and in the eyes of a growing number of people worldwide. This case has gone global. They made it a global issue, and so their folly will go global. NIST realized that a detailed explanation on the collapse required drawings exposing the core, and so that's why NIST didn't do it's job (it had been paid to discover the cause of fall, and yet didn't address it satisfactorily).

If you have the time, the following website, which stresses some psychology on 9-11 attitudes, may be interesting for you. The page shares: "Within these various websites [lists nine] there is not a single accurate representation of either the collapse initiations or the collapse progressions of any of the collapsed towers." I'm not sure exactly what the writer's disappointment is. His/her claim includes 9-11 Research, though the claim may be outdated. There are links to many truther pages.

The above claim even includes Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, here:

As you can see, ae911truth takes the position of a collapse by demolition method. But what sharpprintinc seems to be lamenting is the neglect of the truther engineers to describe, in satisfactory detail, the problems with the official line. I think it's true to say that, merely stating that the collapse took place by demolition is not enough. However, in the beginning, the engineers in the truther movement may not have possessed the images of the core columns that we just saw from I would expect architects the world over to write up a treatment, as I started to do above, on the impossibility of the collapse of the core, placing their expert seals on articles for the world to see. I am frankly disappointed by what I see on the ae911truth home page. It sends readers to 9-11 Research at times. 9-11 Research does not possess such an article either. Most 9-11-Research pages are too brief...and yet I appreciate them anyway.

There are many times when Bing, Yahoo or Google simply refuse to load 9-11 pages for various excuses. I get it too often, where on a second or third try, they may load. The following page, "How Did They Do It...", would not load after five tries from the ae911truth page (and the same occurred with another link at the bottom of the ae911truth page). Yet when I entered the title of the article in a Yahoo search, it loaded the first time:

Although the article is featured partially at the page, the article is taken from the Daily Paul (2013). Where in tarnation are the articles from the engineers themselves at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth??? Hello? This is probably a good example of the death threats at work from the goons. If even truthers are afraid to come out with the facts, think on how many others who know the score are afraid.

When clicking the link from the ae911truth page in order to read the full How-Did-They-Do-It page at Daily Paul, the page would not load on the first try. Many getting that problem might assume the page doesn't exist anymore. But on the second try, it loaded.

The article has some technicalities, and tackles the saddling problem I mentioned above: "One standard technique is the use of "cutter' and "kicker" charges, in which the first set of charges, the cutters, cut the steel beam supports at precisely timed intervals, and the kicker charge "kicks" the cut piece outward." Once that's done low enough in the building, the overhead weight comes crashing down and could, with enough force, snap the core beams all the way down to ground level.

So much for my diagonal-cut theory. It's not needed if they used kickers. And this is a good example of why engineers and architects should write the articles, not me. But wait. Could kicker charges really shove columns aside when there are 16 or more floors above? That's a lot of weight countering the kicker action. Bit if the cuts were on a diagonal, the tremendous weight would cause the columns to slide off, and begin to fall.

I have a better idea. Instead of one slice per column at any one storey, let's look at two slices, say, one storey apart. Let's say they sliced all core columns just below an I-beam at the top of the storey, as well as just above an I-beam at the bottom. If the core columns were cut first, the outer ones could conceivably allow the top of the building to hold off (not fall) long enough to allow ALL cut pieces of core columns fall to the floor. When sufficient outer columns were cut immediately after that, it would have resulted in a 12-foot slice through the building, with the entire weight above crashing down over a distance of 12 feet. It's the very same picture drawn by NIST, except that NIST used "buckled" (their word) columns due to jet-fire heat. "Buckled" assures that it's not conveying the idea of controlled demolition.

The engineers of the goons knew how deep the fall of the upper block needed to be in order to continue the fall. If 12 feet was insufficient, perhaps 25 was. They could not afford to fail, or people would go up there and see all the explosives that didn't finish the job, and so they likely spent three of four times more explosive / thermite material, than needed, to assure success. By cutting the core columns in more than one story, several storeys apart, they would likely assure success. It would also explain the near-freefall speed.

With the diagonal-slide method rather than, or in corporation with, the kicker method, columns above the cut could be made to slide off their lower counterparts, in which case column ends would not longer fall upon column ends. Vertical force coming against the top of a column is against the strongest structural implement of the building, exactly what the goons would have sought to avoid. Instead, they would have wanted the falling block to strike the weaker I-beams of floors below. I-beam ripping I-beam (either slicing them or ripping away their weld seams) would disconnect core columns from one another and thereby weaken their integrity. Still, to leave this to chance was risky. Best to spend the time to slice many beams with thermite.

It would be interesting to reveal how they had access to these beams, if only the blueprints would be exposed. There were 99 elevators in the core, I have read, everyone of which was near or beside core columns. It would have been easy to shut one elevator at a time to the public; no one even had to know. I've read that there were floors within columns devoted to maintenance / mechanical rooms, where explosives teams may have worked unhindered and unseen.

The Daily Paul page just disappeared after writing the paragraph above. It just disappeared, some 30 minutes after it had loaded. That is very unusual. After reloading it, I got down to the part where they show charges wrapped around columns, and zowie, they are wrapped diagonally! The article then says:

Once 24/7 access to the towers' interiors and the rest of the WTC complex has been established, the planned destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 becomes a task for which all technology is well-developed and available. Access is established through Marvin Bush, the youngest Bush brother, who was on the board of Securacom, the company which held the security contract for the World Trade Center complex. According to Barry McDaniel, CEO of Securacom, the company held the contract for security "up to the day the buildings fell down."

So why is Marvin and his brother still walking the streets? Because, the media did not serve the people, but served George Bush. Even the liberal media served on the same criminal team that included George Bush, a major player, obviously, in this globalist agenda. Sons of Hell enjoyed themselves that day. It continues:

Dov Zakheim, another member of PNAC, had been awarded the contract for the first WTC bombing investigation in 1993. The investigation was done by a fully-owned subsidiary of Zakheim's company SPC, Tridata. The contract assured that not only access to the towers was secured, but also floor plans, blueprints, and all other intimate technical knowledge of the buildings.

Zakeim, who was appointed Comptroller of the Pentagon by Bush upon taking office, was also in charge of the Pentagon's finances at the time $2.3 trillion was announced missing from the Pentagon, on September 10 the day before 9/11. Needless to say, after 9/11 "the day the world changed," the story was dropped from the media.

The only question is, how blind will the blind be? Or, to what extent will Bush lovers go in believing that truthers are just out to get Bush? Yes, I understand that concept, but you won't find truthers motivated by hatred for Bush now. They understand that it goes well beyond the Bush circle.

The Whitewash at the Debris Field

The PDF paper below (Brent Blanchard, demolition expert) tackles the plausibility of building collapse by planned explosive charges. The author admits that both NIST and FEMA neglected to mention explosives even though firemen and others heard them in the buildings. Under an Arab-attack scenario, such explosions are not comprehensible.

The page does not allow anyone to copy the text for sharing with others, something I find less than honorable.

Blanchard admits that his company was contracted by the demolition teams at the Trade towers, and that alone is reason enough to place this company into the guilty-party category. I simply have no doubts about it. The goons were so extremely guilty that all precautions needed to be taken with the debris. It was stacked with evidence for a controlled demolition.

Blanchard says that his company's (Protec) task, which included himself personally, was to document the debris removal. This is the same debris that was off limits to others, the same debris that was shipped to China as though the United States has nobody capable of melting it, as though the world was in such dire need for steel that melting it down or shipping it away couldn't wait until after certain investigators looked it over. Blanchard's is a whitewash operation, probably pre-planned before the towers fell.

Why do you suppose they sent it to China? Obviously, they didn't want to increase the chances of an American discovering the evidence against them that may have remained in the columns. It wasn't likely sent to just anyone in China.

Blanchard says that his teams took "thousands" of photographs "and personally examined untold amounts of debris." The "untold" term is definitely a Freudian slip. How much have they untold us? I understand Blanchard's game straight off: he's going to come across as the utmost independent authority, "proving" that no explosives / thermite were present in the debris, and in the meantime the goons look like they actually set up an independent review.

The incredible: Blanchard says that his company was not paid for its services, that it volunteered to conduct the examination and recording of the debris field. This may fool the naive, but truthers understand that the goon squad would not permit anyone to waltz in like that, for this purpose. Protec is simply seeking to appear as an independent body concerned for Americans in general.

The first thing he does after the short introduction is to disagree with those who claim that the collapse looked like a planned demolition. The very first argument he makes is staggering along the lines grasping at straws. He argues that typical demolition starts by placing explosives at the bottom of a building, while in the Trade towers this was not the case. This "contradiction," he implies, discredits the truthers. But, please, the stupidity is agonizing, for, of course they had to place explosives up high for to start the demolition, for that's where the planes supposedly started it.

Blanchard, you struck out before you even began. You used your boasting as a professional in an effort to make the naive reader believe you knew what you're talking about, and then you hit them with garbage.

His next argument is another strike-out, for he says that the plane-crash destruction and the jet-fuel fire would have destroyed the electrical wires and/or the components used for detonating the explosives, thus ruining the operation, but, of course, we now know there were no planes. Why doesn't he know that, if he is such an expert? The fact is, he just made an excellent case for the no-planes theory.

His next topic is to disagree with those who say the building fell into its own footprint. But this is a general statement not intended to mean that some of the material should not fall or spread beyond the outer walls. It means more simply that the collapse was straight down. What people saw was a building that fell in one swoop rather than falling with hiccups, stalls, or even a complete cessation to fall eventually on one wing or another. One would expect that only one or two sides of the building should collapse, and not necessarily all the way down to the ground. One does not expect a clean-and-even collapse on all four sides, which of course looks just like a planned demolition.

Blanchard at first argues that the building should not fall over like a tree, and yet the top of the south tower started to do just that, and would have continued to do so had not the building given way below it just in the nick of time. His argument is that there's nothing at all suspicious with a building falling straight down to it's footprint when caused by a fire. He does not, and cannot, cite any other building that fell in that way due to fire. Blanchard and company is therefore unqualified to give this report because he and it ignore the basic facts.

Before leaving this part of his discussion, let's also say that the goons did not, of course, intend to make this collapse look like a typical demolition by explosives. It is pointless to argue that since this collapse did not have ALL the markings of a legal demolition, it was therefore not brought down by explosives. The people who brought this building down had no concern for doing it legally. And you, Mr. Blanchard, are clearly a part of their criminality.

The legal method would have been to cause all outer columns to fall inward, but this would have required access to all parts of the building, and would have cost much more, something that concerned Larry Silverstein, the epitome of greed. But it is utterly brainless to argue that the conspirators should have brought the building down as much as possible to look like a legal demolition. So why does Blanchard go there? Is he desperate, grasping at straws? Yes.

His next topic is to address the explosive plumes caught in videos, exploding horizontally outward from the exterior walls. This is evidence of explosives planted in the walls, say the truthers, but Blanchard claims that plumes were due to air pressure building up on the floors as falling material invaded the floors. That might be a valid argument except that the collapse itself would ruin exterior walls immediately, breaking their windows first of all, and thus open massive holes to the outside for air to escape. How could air be pressurized one floor below the crash location, at any given time, when the way was open to the outside?

The way that Blanchard argues, he draws the picture of a crash event likened to a piston in a closed cylinder. In that case, we should have seen the glass popping off in enormous quantities all around any given storey rather than pin-pointed explosions through the walls. He argues this case even though he knew that the plumes took place a number of floors below the crash zones at any given time. It's a grasping at straws.

To a mind not polluted by the Blanchards of the world, it looks like the wall-piercing explosives were going off just ahead of time, preparing certain floors for weakness for when the crashing weight help insure that collapse wouldn't stop until it reached the ground.

His last paragraph on this topic is: since the floors did not COMPLETELY fail / sever at the levels of the plumes, therefore the plumes were not explosives in the walls. It sounds like he's saying that, since the plumes were of minor effect, it doesn't look like an all-out attempt to demolish the building by explosives. But this assumes that the explosions that managed to become visible on the outside was the totality of the explosions within. That would be very presumptuous, a grasping at straws. Likely, the explosions were not intended to be strong enough to break through the walls, but some did anyway...lucky for those of us with good heads so that we can know what truly brought the building down.

Next, he dismisses those who heard explosions as hearing something else. There were plumes in the walls, and people heard explosions, and while Blanchard knows of both, yet he gives zero possibility to there being explosives, even though the building came down similar to a planned demolition. That's how you can know he's not being honest. An honest person would at least be open to the possibility. But Blanchard's company was hired (yes I believe they were paid one way or another) to deny it all. And that's why he argues as he does. Mr. Blanchard is sinking in quick sand to Hell below, and grasping at straws to save himself, continuing on with his guilt as he sinks.

His last paragraph in this section claims that since seismic instruments did not detect the explosions in the building, they did not occur. Incidentally, his own company was conducting seismic readings in New York that morning ha-ha, clear evidence that his company was paid to give a false seismic-reading report. Seriously, ha-ha, how can a seismic needle possibly "hear" a relatively tiny explosion amid the rumblings and cracking of crashing debris? How would the needle differentiate between single explosive events from the other sounds of collapse? Besides, do we really think that Blanchard's company would interpret any of the "sounds" as explosions in the walls when it was paid to find the very opposite?

The seismic needle doesn't actually hear sounds, but rather feels motion, meaning that it's much harder to determine what an explosion is versus falling debris smacking against falling debris. If the Blanchards of the world wish to argue that the firemen within the building, with their own ears, heard crashing debris that only-coincidentally sounded like explosions, they can't then turn around to argue that their seismic equipment, having no ears, and not planted within the building, knows better than the ears of the firemen.

The plume-causing explosions were not necessarily for cutting columns through, but perhaps for cutting at the seats of trusses...for the purpose of weakening the stand-up ability of the outer columns. Columns would be best cut by thermite.

His next section tackles the quietness of thermite, a very-important part of his program because his company was employed to deny explosive noise, and here we have a chemical that can cut columns with no noise. His first line simply states that WE -- the company in charge of investigating the debris -- has come across no evidence of thermite. And that's why it's important for Blanchard's report to come across respectable, and independently so, that you will believe them at their word.

And so we find him saying that every man they spoke to on-site, from "independent companies," he wishes for us to believe, had nothing to report concerning columns cut by man-made methods, or of explosive residue seen on the steel sections of any type. Is he and his team simply lying, failing to report the word of the men who did see such things? There were some that saw suspicious things. For all we know, all the crane operators were insiders directed to separate any suspicious pieces of metal into a pile of it's own for special treatment.

He admits that the large columns were "treated differently," but that this was normal on such job sites. Still, there is allowance for all suspect metal to be separated to a certain pile(s) for special attention. Blanchard's company may have been employed expressly to deal with the steel showing thermite / explosive markings, ironically enough.

He reveals for us that the steel was transferred by barge on the Hudson river to Yannuzzi Demolition, one of the companies on-site at the debris field. Thus, Yannuzzi is suspect in the crime. He admits that it was shipped off to China after certain investigators looked it over at Staten Island, probably assuring that nothing incriminating went to China, and that anything incriminating went into a separate cargo area (or another ship altogether) for some other destination, perhaps to the bottom of the ocean. It would have been choice to get rid of the pieces FAST that showed man-made cutting, while leaving the rest for other investigators.

After this, Blanchard speaks like one prepared to go to court to defend the goons, if ever needed. He and his company is witness that the columns were inspected and kept within a certain chain of witnesses to assure that nothing hinting of a demolition team was found, and yet they themselves were the foul play. Obviously.

Next, he deals with the suspicious fall of Building 7, and says that long-standing fire within the building caused it to collapse. To further show how the goons prepared witnesses beforehand for court purposes, should it come to that, Blanchard claims that "several demolition teams" showed up at 3 pm, witnessing the fall of Building 7, he claims, and then he quotes one as though we are to be naive to the concept of false witnesses. Of course, the false witness says he heard no explosions in Building 7 before it collapsed.

But why were SEVERAL demolition teams called in at all? Who in their right mind calls in demolition teams on the same day of a disaster like this? People have died, people are choking on the dust, people are reeling, and that's the time to call in demolition do what??? BUT THIS WE KNOW: they did have demolition experts nearby from the early morning, to conduct the demolition of the three buildings, and they were IN FACT part of the criminal insiders who, of course, would say they heard no explosions. Mr. Blanchard can give any jury the names of the demolition teams that were there. Thank you, Mr. Blanchard, for pointing out these "witnesses." You have incriminated them.

Next, he claims, contrary to the repeated claims of truthers, that other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire, but then he fails to mention one. The truther claim is a strong case, and yet Blanchard offers no rebuttal aside from what I said above.

He then begs, "please," if anyone knows of evidence that explosives were used, bring it to his attention. Yes, I understand: the goons would like to know you if you have such damning evidence.

The falling of the buildings is evidence of explosives, as are the plumes, because no other steel buildings have ever fallen due to fire. What is there to misunderstand? Blanchard should itemize the buildings that have fallen due to fire. If he could give three that are comparable to the Trade towers, that would be helpful. For all we know from his words, he could be speaking of one-story steel barns filled with lumber.

The end. Blanchard is finished on that page. His largest contribution is to assure that his company was hired to give false witness to the ground-zero activities. He speaks like a lawyer, but is in fact a criminal. Actually, there needs to be a different word besides "criminal" to describe government mass-murders in collusion. "Criminal" is simply too kind.

The Good Sonnenfeld Betrayal

The video at the page below (I have no sound but can read parts) speaks on a FEMA "traitor, Kurt Sonnenfeld, officially permitted to ground zero...who refused to hand in his videos to the government after finding "very disturbing" things. The world needs more Sonnenfelds, and it's precisely due to this dire threat that he was punished severely for to send out a message to other would-be whistle blowers.

Here is one of the things that Sonnenfeld captured, metal becoming bright-white instantly out of a location where it was not bright at all previously. This is impossible by any known method aside from chemical application to the steel, for it would take a long time to bring that much metal to that color even when using a very large torch. As you can see, there is no torch on the metal. What chemical could there have been within the metal scrap that caused that bright metallic color? It's possible this could be a faked video: I know nothing of this issue at this point, whether or not the government acknowledges it. Doubtful.


Kurt Sonnenfeld (born 1969) is a videographer for FEMA prior to 2002 and was one of four FEMA photographers who were given exclusive access to Ground Zero following the September 11 Attacks in New York in 2001. In addition to the photographs and video he took on behalf of FEMA, he is reputed and claims to have taken additional video footage as well as numerous photographs, some of them since published. He claims that these recorded images will provide evidence that the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. As of August, 2010, he is seeking such experts to review his footage.

Blanchard, the whitewasher, didn't mention Sonnenfeld when he said that, "to a man," no one reported anything suspicious in the debris field. Sonnenfeld's wife was probably murdered in 2002 by authorities, and he had to leave the United States to save his life. At any moment, Sonnenfeld could release his damning videos, but the damage is done already because he saw things that caused him to betray the goons. His betrayal speaks loudly enough already, and Blanchard's company knew of it, of course.

The police have portrayed him in a very bad light to discredit his statements. The murder of his wife is an expected result of his betrayal.

Wikipedia has a lousy effort on the Sonnenfeld mystery, but more can be learned below where you can see, if you understand the deceitfulness of the police, how they tried to frame him: "According to police however, once they were inside [his house], officers were forced to wrestle Sonnenfeld to the floor after he became combative." This could easily be a typical frame-job statement by police. The fact may be, the police may have shot his wife, after forcing her to write a suicide note. It was some 3.5 months after 9-11, and even less after he continued to refuse to give up the videos. Often, murders of this political type involve "suicide."

He's been slow to release the material, and claims that the police took most of it while they had him in jail:

VN: Sticking to the same logic, have you taken any steps to release your material?

KS: In fact, I have released photos, documents and videos to important investigators around the world -- in the US, Argentina, Western Europe, Central Europe, etc. I'm in contact with many analysts, investigators and documentary producers, whose names, of course, I cannot reveal.

VN: Have you heard from any of your former FEMA colleagues who were with you at Ground Zero?

Initially, many of my colleagues rallied in my support and we were in frequent contact -- through telephone, e-mail and even face-to-face. But one by one, they've dropped away. In a way, I expected that....

Kurt goes on to reveal that, apparently, all the while that his bosses thought of him as a trusted fellow, he was anti-globalist. Once he smelled the rat of 9-11, it was time to quit the government.

Last month, Loose Change got hours of Sonnenfeld's tapes. Here you go if you care to sift, shown without comment by Loose Change:

The 3rd of 52 clips shows the debris site while the smoke was still in the air. Hardly anyone was looking at the columns at this early time with the idea of the collapse being an inside job. It looks more like orientation day. It may take time for the serious truthers to sift through it all before coming out with comments of value.

Clip 4 is Sonnenfeld having the "honor" of shooting the arrival of George Bush. A trusted videographer, you see, when he was playing along with the government. As we see Bush shaking hands with people, which of them are fellow insiders? How many insiders arrived with him? What's going on in his diabolical mind as he acts the good president? Why does he walk away, with his back to the camera, after letting out a few words?

Here's Loose Change's explanation for the appearance of the Sonnenfeld video:

According to the Facebook page for the film Loose Change

"We just found this guy's [Kurt Sonnenfeld] footage on an old hard drive. 580 minutes, almost 10 hours. Some say he killed his wife, some say it's an elaborate attempt to frame him because of what's in the footage. Should we put it online and let the public decide?"

And apparently the decision was made to upload it.

The page has a piece of Sonnenfeld video with "an interesting pocket of bright flame that ignites at the 6:00 mark." I'm not able to load it right now to check whether it's the glowing object I showed earlier, but, if it is, then that object was indeed from a Sonnenfeld video, not a fake. It would then be the first piece of highly-damning video shot by Sonnenfeld...with the promise of more to come.

Do we believe Blanchard simply because he takes the government side? Is that an intelligent position? Do we somehow think that government people are our brothers while conspiracy theorists are the wayward aliens? We have evidence as high as the sky that politicians are not to be trusted on any matter. Why would we want to cuddle up to the government position on this highly-suspicious matter? The following website offers ten reasons that argue for thermite:

1. Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal...

2. The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images produced by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.

That last sentence is an interesting point deserving comment. Thermite has it's own oxidant. I didn't know that until now (I've not bothered to read up on thermite before). With it's own oxidant, it can explain how glows amongst the rubble can pop up at any time, as we saw it in the video above. I assume that the thermite needs to reach a certain kindling temperature before igniting. In that way, it won't all burn up everywhere all at once, but only when heat arrives to it sufficiently. It assumes that some thermite installed in the towers did not go off. It also explains the massive, rolling dust cloud that can be seen laden with energy. Let's go on:

3. Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles...

4. Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.

We can be sure that, if the goon side attempts to tackle this part (it won't tackle everything), it will say that the "gravity energy" (the friction from falling, crashing debris) was the cause of such heat. But that is nonsense, for friction produces relatively little heat at any one part of the steel so that all heat is expected to spread out in the heap rather than being concentrated at any one spot. Frictional heat will not cause bright-white flashes of molten steel to pop up at any one location. Frictional heat from a tower collapse is not expected to radiate to any great distance, not expected to melt an automobile windshield. Frictional heat from the collapse is not expected to melt steel. The goon squad and their aftermath supporters have nothing to appeal to but frictional heat in regards to the heat within the rubble over several weeks.

The goon squad has learnt that, should it ever try something like this again, people are watching every detail closely. The Illuminati has failed. It will need to revamp plans.

8. The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.

9. Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.

10. A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.

That's funny. Blanchard, in discussing the possibility of collapse by man-made explosives / thermite, did not mention any of this, let alone tackle it, in an effort to seek the truth. He wasn't seeking the truth, was he? Is Blanchard justified in starting a report, claiming to be independent and honest, when he fails to mention the claims above? I don't know how much merit the claims above possess, but are they not directly down the alley of his report topic? How could Blanchard leave these things out of his report? I should like to know his response. Was he afraid to even let people know about these claims?

We the public would like to know more about this. Don't we want to know whether the towers were brought down by man-made explosives with people still inside?

The truther point is very simple: if the heat in the debris field exceeds, by a noticeable amount, the heat expected by the friction of collapse, another heat source(s) is suspect during the collapse. Then, to identify what that heat source may have been, the particulars in the debris field need to be assessed. That was Blanchard's job, but he obviously failed the public. Metallic glows in the debris field are not supposed to be there if the building collapsed merely due to steel softened by fire. Getting acquainted with the problem is difficult due to the human obstacles, but after some time spent on the problem, the mind trains on it and learns to reach conclusions. If metal starts to glow for a few seconds out of a "dark" spot," it's not hard to understand that something out of the ordinary is taking place well beyond frictional heat. And that's what this is about, yet Blanchard claims that no one he spoke to saw or reported anything like a thermitic reaction.

Blanchard gives us no choice, by his silence, but to listen to what the truthers are saying about it. Do we reject truthers simply because they don't have an air of authority? Every outspoken truther gets kicked off the government team, meaning they are no longer in the authority structures. Is their word no longer important at that time? There are truthers still in government who decided to fake their opposition to truthers in order to retain their jobs. These are the worst enemies of the goons, who, like Sonnenfeld, will come out eventually, as they see opportunity, to squash the goon in his tracks...hopefully on his best day.

Thermite and Iron Microspheres, Not Complicated

The article above, by Kevin Ryan, accuses James Millette of pulling off a campaign of deception in regards to thermite testing, in case you're interested. It has a link to this page mentioning the same:

Three years ago, an international team of scientists published a scientific paper that established the presence of thermitic residues in the dust from the World Trade Center (WTC) catastrophe. Although the paper was only the last in a mutually-supportive evidentiary chain, it gave more hard evidence that energetic materials were used to destroy the WTC buildings. This conclusion was in agreement with the other scientific articles that had been previously published, and was also in agreement with eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence.

The paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in February 2009. Since that time, it has been personally delivered to many members of the U.S. Congress and to scientists at universities around the world. In response, the silence has been deafening...

The few unofficial responses that have been made are interesting, however.

About a year after publication, one of the primary creators of the ever-changing, but always transparently false official WTC explanations began to make deceptive attempts to manipulate the authors of the paper. This was Gene Corley, who apparently gave up after repeated failures to surreptitiously obtain pre-processed samples.

We can only imagine why Corley, who was the first leader of the WTC investigation and had far more access to WTC dust at a far earlier date than any independent researchers, would make such attempts to deceive. But other similar attempts have recently been made by Chris Mohr, a strong supporter of the official conspiracy theory. Mohr has tried to secure samples that he could say were obtained from me personally, and in doing so has also engaged in deception and has made false statements about our communications.

...Mohr stated in one of his many unsolicited emails that -- "It took me months, and contacting over two dozen labs, to find Millette and his lab, who has both the means and the openmindedness to do this right." This message refers to Jim Millette, a long-time government scientist who worked for the EPA...When Mohr wrote to me in a mass email asking for pre-processed samples to use in his new project, he failed to mention anything about Millette's past work on WTC dust [ahh, we get it].

Millette and his colleagues published several government-funded reports on the WTC dust, which represent the official analyses...

...there have also been accusations of fraud against Millette and his colleagues. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase "deliberate misrepresentation" with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing. Millette's name shows up in Jenkins' report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud. Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the government-sponsored studies.

......It will be interesting to see if Millette will now report the abundant iron spheres, which all other scientists have seen in almost every sample. The fact that he has worked for years on federal contracts for NIST and the Bush Department of Justice, since 9/11 [no further explanation needed]...

...In the meantime, we can rest assured that the U.S. government and government-sponsored universities will not respond to the finding of energetic materials at the WTC, or to any of the peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. Three years without a response is response enough.

Silence means plenty. You saw how Blanchard was willing to tackle those points that can be given a semblance of good response, but silence means that they do not wish to publicize the matter any more than it's been because it's one hot potato in the form of a smoking gun. Silence is killing them, make no mistake about it. Truthers can see their vulnerabilities by their silence. The article has a link to a letter from Cate Jenkins to Hillary Clinton:

This is a request for an investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health into the falsification of pH corrosivity data for World Trade Center dust. This corrosivity is attributed to be one of the causative agents in current respiratory disabilities and/or deaths of first responders, recovery workers, laborers, residents, and office workers. Corrosive dusts would also have facilitated the entry into the body via the respiratory system of other toxic substances found in WTC emissions.

Part 1 of this complaint contains new evidence of additional falsifications of pH testing of WTC dust, in addition to the allegations of fraud raised in my 8/22/06 and 10/25/06 complaints to your Congressional delegation 1, 2 as well as to the EPA Inspector General (IG).

Part 2 of this complaint documents the historical falsifications (dating back to 1980) for the pH levels known to cause corrosive human tissue damage. These falsified pH levels were...

In the Sonnenfeld video, clip 3 of 52, you can see some men in the warm debris field with no gas masks, others with the cheap type from building centers, and others outfitted with the carbon-filter type that are certain to protect their lungs. How much should we bet that the insiders came with the carbon-filter masks? That's another way to identify them.

At the page below, iron "microspheres" are discussed that were found RAMPANT within the 9-11 dust. The article makes it apparent that these are droplets of iron formed in the same way that evaporation forms droplets defined as a cluster of molecules. You understand that there will be very few water droplets formed when ice melts to water. In the same way, iron microspheres form proficiently much nearer the boiling point of iron rather than its melting point. This is not an issue that the government "scientists" can wiggle out of because they admit the iron spheres exist. They are trying to argue that such spheres were formed well below the boiling point, and so the author at the page above has done a little math to show how the government argument has no merit. By pointing out the massive tonnage of iron spheres, it's not credible that they were produced near the melting point of iron:

What's behind the thousands of tons of iron microspheres found in the 9/11 concrete dust?

There were 780,000 metric tons of concrete in the 2 WTC towers...

The USGS outdoor samples of concrete dust contained between 0.2 and 1.3% iron microspheres [peanuts, right? Wrong]. The mean of all the RJ Lee samples was 5.87% [humongous figure]. I'm not certain if this was by weight or by volume. I'm assuming by weight. Please correct me if you know differently [the samples I saw of other materials in the dust were by weight].

...The 2 towers contained only 200,000 metric tons of steel beams.

I think that 100,000 tons of steel per tower is very low; I wonder where it comes from. The 780,000 tons of concrete for the two towers is not accurate as regards the concrete floors alone (the figure may include foundations too). Providing that the floors were four inches thick, as everyone seems to be reporting, there were about 120,000 tons of it per tower. Possibly, the government had erroneously spread the 4-inch thick figure as it benefited their cause at some important deception, but even at eight inches thick, the floor total is no more than 240,000 tons per tower. We have no choice at this time but to use the 120,000 figure.

If we assume that the dust comprised 100 percent of the concrete floors, then, the lowest figure for iron-microsphere content -- .2 percent or 1/500th -- represents (120,000 / 500 =) 240 tons of microspheres average per tower. Can you imagine 240 tons of steel all produced from the evaporation of steel? You need a lot of melting to produce that much, but if it was created from thermite reaction, it's not so impossible at all, for at thermitic temperatures, plenty steel droplets are thrown into the air.

I didn't know what thermite was until reading the article above: "[Thermite uses] iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. Aluminum is far hungrier for oxygen than iron, so it steals the oxygen creating intense heat, aluminum oxide and elemental iron (metallic). The heat frequently reaches 4500F degrees, far above the 2800F degree melting point, and only 682F degrees below iron's boiling point." Let me explain for the non-chemists: the aluminum "steals" or "sucks" oxygen atoms from the iron oxide, leaving iron alone behind. As the iron atoms find themselves alone, they are re-filled with heat (the same amount of heat that left when the oxygen atoms first joined them), producing a cooling effect in the surrounding environment. On the other hand, the oxygen atoms merging with aluminum atoms releases heat (to the environment) far more than the heat absorption from the iron atoms. Thus, a NET temperature increase in the environment, but drastically-so in this case, especially in the environment very near the thermite.

The article doesn't clarify whether the spheres were from the iron that made up the thermite, or the steel to which the thermite was applied, but we can assume both. We can assume that much of the iron oxide went up in large part into spheres, but it's not conceivable in my mind that 260 tons (minimum) of thermite were used, per tower, and so it seems that a large part of the spheres were from the steel of the building. No problem.

Let's go back to the dust samples used by the US Geological Survey (see last update), where just two percent of the dust was found to be iron. It didn't say that this figure represented evaporated iron spheres, but suddenly, I get it. The .2 percent figure above was the lowest, and while 5.87 percent was the highest, it could explain the 2-percent as the largest middle-ground figure that the government was willing to go by. And so we see that the iron in the dust was not from iron scrapings so much (i.e. not from literal iron dust) as it was from evaporated iron.

It's not a wonder that the government professionals aren't prone to touching this topic, because to do so would require clarification (in your mind) as to what it all means, and that would not work well for the cover-up. It's one thing for a Mr. Who? blogger to give his rebuttal, not concerned too much about whether it's viable so long as it makes truthers look freakish, and quite another for the government to give an official rebuttal that can be scrutinized by others and held up for backlash if there is any hint of deceptive manipulation. One blogger at the page above ventures to say:

You call the microspheres found in the WTC dust "iron" microspheres even though you know it to be a fact that most of the samples were found to contain "iron-rich" microspheres. Dr. Steven E. Jones [truther] said, "I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust." Your commentary omits this significant fact. "Iron-rich" microspheres suggest the presence of iron compounds, which melt at much lower temperatures than pure iron [no short list given of such materials]. Therefore, the existence of "iron-rich" microspheres can be explained by iron-sulfur eutectic found in corrosion of the steel from WTC7 [note, he didn't include the two towers]. This fact on its own destroys [really?] the entire "controlled demolition" theory.

You see, the object, ultimately, if to make the truthers appear desperate and groundless. The writer seems to be making too much of "iron-rich" verses "iron." No matter how he cuts it, the iron content alone, in the dust, was hundreds or thousands of tons. That's a lot of rust from Building 7 alone. No matter, so long as his argument sounds intelligent enough to create truther doubters, he's happy with it.

I noted that the writer didn't venture to tell what the non-iron parts of the iron-rich sphere's consisted of as per the claims of official investigators. And so he may have put words in the mouths of the investigators when he says, "iron-sulfur eutectic." I've just searched that phrase to find virtually nothing about it as regards 9-11. Let's make it clear that iron-sulfur eutectic is merely a constituent in the rust of Building 7. If we are having a hard time believing that there were hundreds / thousands of tons of rust alone in that building, how less of an argument is it to suggest that the iron microspheres were from merely a constituent of the rust?

The writer was grasping at straws, wasn't he? It's not enough to give other methods of microsphere formation; they must also tell where that material came from in the vast quantities measured within the dust. Never mind speculation; science has the ability to discover what exactly the spheres consisted of. So, the blogger who's accusing the truthers of jumping to conclusions jumps to his own with "iron-sulfur eutectic." A eutectic is by definition a compound with a low melting temperature, and so we can see why it would be a candidate for explaining microsphere formation by way of jet- or diesel-fuel temperatures. But being a candidate is not the same as winning an election. If the goon squad wants to make a splash in this regard, it needs to find enough eutectic material in the two towers, the buildings that formed most of the dust wherein the spheres were found.

There may not necessarily be any grand difference between iron spheres and iron-rich spheres. Iron-rich could mean mostly iron. Therefore, that blogger, fine-sounding blow horn, is not useful for the discussion. He/she is a distraction, a devil wishing to create chaos or terrible music so that rest of us cannot think properly. If you read the blogger's back and forth, you can see why he's like a leader of a gang, and a class dope to boot, intent on distracting but never coming to the issue. He refuses to answer, "Where do you think the iron microspheres came from," a question posed to him repeatedly. I believe his argument is what's called a red ferring.

As flames from jet fuel in open air, burning against the columns, isn't going to evaporate much steel, the goon squad has come up with a deceptive means to make the case. The page below uses a steel-wool argument, and even shows a photo of what the Geological Survey claims to be a typical iron-rich sphere from the dust samples. Don't be fooled by the picture of large spheres on the steel-wool fibers created simply from the melting and clustering of steel, not created from its evaporation. There is also a woeful quote from a Rich Lee (dust-sample expert) speaking on the microspheres; he's tarnished his quote as soon as he speaks on hurricane-force winds at the towers, and that's where he's trying to introduce enormous amounts of oxygen to the jet-fuel fires for to pretend that the fires got hotter than they actually did.

His quote ends with a deceptive line on how spheres can be formed even by petroleum or coal flames. It's not until the next sentence where one may glean that he meant inside of a furnace. There's a big difference between heating steel in open air with a petroleum flame, and heating steel inside of a closed furnace. Mr. Lee seems to be leading the reader to believe that rust on the tower columns was the source of the spheres. As spheres cannot be formed from solid metal, flaking rust is now being appealed to as the next-best thing to steel wool. Pathetic.

The article then has a blogger adding that the spheres could have been from the thousands of computers in the towers, but, aside from there not being the needed iron within them, it begs the question of how the computers got near flames in the roughly ten seconds that the towers fell. The spheres needed to form at some high-heat source, not merely within the frictional heat of the collapse. Furthermore, the spheres counted in the dust had to find there way outside of the collapse, i.e. not fall and be covered by debris (otherwise it wouldn't have been in the dust).

Therefore, the goon squad cannot argue anything aside from the spheres forming on a few floors where jet fuel burned away. In that case, they need to show that the specific minutes and temperatures of burning was sufficient to form the number of spheres that the samplers measured, and it is a relatively easy thing to show whether that could have been accomplished...if they put themselves to the task, which they won't because they know the answer beforehand: IMPOSSIBLE.

The desperation of the argument is such that they might appeal to some form of strong air drafts to increase fire temperatures, but then wind also cools metal. Fanning flames on hot metal is not like fanning flames on burning wood; the latter thrives on additional oxygen.

Shortly, the devil will find himself in the blast furnace of Hell, and his sons in human form will join him, Selah. The world will be happy without pity upon them at that time. I welcome the goons to continue this war, but, alas, they are retreating. Silence for them at this time is better than commotion. Silence from them should not be taken as the issue going away. Let the trumpets sound. Shout from the rooftops. Let their knees quake. Let them trip and fall to Hell. Anyone who pities them is their partner in crime. The magnitude of this one crime alone should make the world furious. The Lord is coming that we might rejoice in their destruction. Do not look back unless you wish to become a pillar of salt. Do not pity mere maggots.

We learn on the page that Mr. Lee had been the one to count nearly six percent of dust in iron microspheres, which, where the total dust content was 120,000 tons -- or lets make it only half that for arguments sake -- the weight in microspheres was 3,600 tons. If it's true that there was only 100,000 tons of steel per building, 3,600 tons is almost a whopping four percent of all the steel, or a combined nine outer columns and their spandrels and trusses, two core columns and their beams, PER FLOOR over 110 floors, all gone up in melted steel that never reverted to visibility again except in a microscope.

The blogger, Mick West, the one who advanced computer metal as the possible source (now you see why he's a rebellious distraction, a gang member), in a post where he's calling truthers liars, uses the Lee argument that I treated above. Let me quote the Lee statement here: "The formation of iron and other type spheres [requires molten steel] at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces." You see two sentences. The first sentence, taken alone, seemingly suggests that petroleum fires can melt steel. They cannot. Lee seems to be hoping that the reader will take the first sentence without the furnace clarification in the second sentence, and that's exactly what Mick West is doing in this post I speak of.

? If Mick West is a dope, he might not be guilty of passing this untruth, but as he will certainly claim not to be a dope, his guilt remains.

So, what you have is bad science advanced by people who know how to make it sound good to those who know little of science, and their advantage is that you're going to believe them over the "nuts" when it comes to push and shove. But with care and long-suffering, the tables can be turned to expose whom the true nuts are. Another example of their bad science is on the same page: "Friction generates higher temperatures than [2317 C]." With any heat source in an enclosed gas, the gas temperature can be made to increase enormously until the container explodes, but this example using a closed space is not to be used in the Trade tower controversy. While a process of friction might be able to increase the temperature of a room / container to the 2300 C in a closed space, the friction of falling debris over a mere 10 seconds cannot, closed space or otherwise.

It is grasping at straws to evoke frictional heat as the cause of the microspheres. If the writer claims not to be ignorant of basic science, his guilt remains.

I don't mind insulting the boneheads making distractions while they project their dishonesty onto others. I'm being very kind if all I do is call them, dopes. You know, dope is used to alter the mind, to make you unable to think properly. The thermite theory stands much taller than the dopes.

It's getting to the point now that truther arguments, especially if they have teeth, can be rejected simply because their authors are to be viewed as non-conformist or anti-government. That's the final frontier of the goon squad, when they have no alternative. It's the same as rejecting Creation Science just because it happens to be fueled by those who believe in a Creator. People who believe in God are not allowed to develop scientific-based theories if it means teaching / advancing them from a government institution. The same intolerant demon operates against truthers, even if they don't believe in God.

The Illuminati has come to reject their own kind, to be at war with its very own political-power base. There are media fractures slowly traveling across the pane as the truther winds keep coming on. Those who trusted the "Enlightenment" are getting a taste of those who created the Enlightenment, but it smells like the sulfur of Hell, suddenly. New decisions need to be made. Internal division will weaken this beast. Have no fear, but take precautions against its lashing out. It may pounce on a national level.

Just for the record, thermite uses small aluminum bits, while nanothermite uses microscopic-sized aluminum built up to some particle sizes much smaller. Smaller bits burn better, not complicated. Thermite is not a complicated or exotic agent. We may all know that aluminum burns in what's called "slow combustion" (turns to aluminum-oxide rust), but this rapid combustion of aluminum bits to aluminum oxide is perhaps new to us. Thermite is a general term that may be used of any rapid-burning metal, but "Ignition itself requires extremely high temperatures."

Ahh, after writing above on Rich Lee's last two sentences, I came across someone else who noted the same problem:

Read the last sentence of the document. It says that iron spheres are produced in furnaces. Furnaces reach temperatures much above the temperatures that can be reached in open office fires, even with jet fuel added. Thus, it seems to me that the document does not answer the question of why there are iron spheres in the dust. It only gives an appearance of an answer.

Why didn't Mick West see it? He did see it, but he pretended not to. He even shared the Lee quote, as many others must be doing, and then he called truthers liars.

Nanothermite is also "super-thermite." Here's Steve Jones going ballistic on someone conducting a sham:

A special on 9/11 has just been shown on the National Geographic Channel, produced by Robert Erickson...


Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.

Why can't you get a sample of super-thermite? I think you can, if you will actually try. Or are you like NIST which refuses to look?

Robert wrote back with the excuse that he didn't know where he could get super-thermite, but the damage would be done to go ahead trying to cut a large column with simple thermite for a television audience...the results of which are sure to be repeated as a distraction. Apparently, the use of "thermite" by the truther movement has been technically wrong, for effective cutting of steel requires nanothermite.

A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"...allows for high and customizable reaction rates....MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

There is also thermate: "As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires supervision and sometimes persistent effort.

Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices."

Thermate has a lower ignition temperature. What I find useful in the quote above is that it may not ignite in certain situations. Therefore, it can explain thermate-like reactions popping up in the debris field. The problem is: how could it ignite alone in the debris field, without a source hot enough? Wikipedia's thermite article claims that the ignition temperature is more toward the white-hot than red-hot (yet, it doesn't give the temperature, which I find suspicious). A logical solution is an ignition chemical, itself ignited at low temperatures, installed with the thermate / nanothermite in the towers. One could have multiple igniters all in contact, one igniting the other, step by step, so that the first one to start could be at very-low temperatures.

I love the following money-saving method of bringing buildings down for the future. I wonder why nobody thought of it before:

National Geographic CEOs, by producing this attempted cover up, have legally implicated themselves in the conspiracy to cover up the largest mass murder in US history. NGC is now part of FOX and NBC, go figure:

Their arrogance will be their undoing. The only way to believe there was not controlled demolition is to believe one can collapse a building such as No. 7 into its own footprint at free fall speed with diesel only. Even in the special, a demolition unwittingly makes the case that it takes hours to set up the charges to bring down even a small building, then why not just use diesel fuel. (article above with Steve Jones)

Just a barrel of diesel fuel poured in the middle of the ground-floor hallway, then just a match. Go home for the day, and when you get up in the morning, there the building will be lying on the ground. It's going to bankrupt the demolishers-by-explosives now that word has gotten out.

In a Steve Jones paper on the collapse, he shares the chemical formula for a thermitic reaction: "2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron) [with heat output of] - 853.5 kJ/mole." This is the same as saying that roughly two moles (or volumes) of aluminum gas reacting with roughly one equal mole of rust will produce one equal mole of aluminum oxide (in the shape of Al2O3) as well as two equal moles of iron, and, moreover, the aluminum will lose 853.5 kilojoules of heat energy per mole to the air. If you know how to convert a mole of iron to a specific volume of solid iron, you could divide the tonnage of steel in microspheres by the weight of that specific volume of solid iron, and then multiply the resulting figure by 853.5 to discover the kilojoule production (of a thermitic reaction producing that much microspherical material).

I'm not a chemist by any means, yet I think I can see Millette's game here:

Millette's conclusion: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental [i.e. pure] aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite."

If these chips weren't thermite, what were they? Millette performed several tests on them, including Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). This clearly showed that the chips were a mixture of kaolin and epoxy. Kaolin, also called aluminum silicate [i.e. non-pure aluminum] and china clay, is a platy mineral frequently used as a pigment in paints. Epoxy resins have been used in coatings since the 1940's.

First of all, the presence of iron oxide in an epoxy (glue) is not necessarily irrelevant in that thermite is expected to have been pasted to the steel within an epoxy. Moreover, while pure aluminum atoms are required for thermite, isn't it suspicious that, along with the iron oxide (a necessity for thermite), aluminum silicate was found? True, aluminum silicate in itself will not cause the thermitic reaction, but, the question is, did the goons add something to the epoxy so that, after (or simultaneous with) the thermitic reaction, the pure aluminum turned into aluminum silicate? Was this their method of disguising thermite reactions? If I were a chemist, I could answer that. [I continue on this red/grey-chip (see photo of chips) theme in the 3rd update of May, telling why I think Millette was being less than honest.]

A big story here is the guilt of the media, virtually all the big ones, in supporting these criminals. But 9-11 seriously weakened the media. As liberals opposed George Bush, they were the ones most likely, in the beginning, to see the truth behind the 9-11 disaster. That's when they came face-to-face with the realization that the "liberal media" was in support of the disaster. What? The liberal media supporting a Bush agenda into the Middle East??? It twisted the mind of the liberal, and changed his entire outlook of what the media stood for, not his liberal principals, but world domination by the very elite whom the liberal had always despised.

Ultimately, there is no hope for the media to retain the loyal support of liberals. Perhaps convenient support, but not loyal. As the media barons fall, the elite will set up new "trusted" news outlets, and they will deceive the liberals all over again. The Republicans have been well-deceived by Fox, and the Republican voters have been well deceived by the Republican politicians.

Does this mean that liberal and conservative commoners / voters should unite to take America back from the goons? What about Christians? Should we have sympathy on liberals now that they are the victims of those they worshiped? Isn't it true that liberals destroyed the moral fiber of America, the very sin that America wishes to export globally? Yes, the elite are definitely in the liberal camp, morally speaking, and so the liberals are receiving what they deserve when they see criminal killers ruling over them. Will the liberal on the street become a Christian, placing trust in an honest God with true morals? I hope so, so long as he/she is sincere.

In Revelation, there is a prediction of all the buildings in the world collapsing. The elite and the liberal won't have a place to call home anymore. The end of hoping in a false hope will arrive. The visible Revelation of God will start a new thing. There will be plenty of room for rebuilding outside the city rubble. Life will abandon technology, and revert to country life by force. The people will see that it's a good way to live.

The liberal who comes to understand will bond less to the media, and will teach his/her children the truth concerning media participation with the event. The government took down buildings with people still inside, their fellow Americans, most of them liberal New Yorkers.

It was liberals who mocked and ridiculed the war on terror for seven years, until Obama took over, when, suddenly, their clamoring came to an end. Silently, the liberal truthers have been re-thinking their positions. They no longer respect CNN. Fox is not merely a conservative news channel, but an accomplice to 9-11, and servant to the criminals in high places. ABC, NBC, CBS, all of them, rats in the tunnel, conspiring the what-next. The liberal will see the what-next with his own eyes, and it won't be pretty. This monster is not going away soon because a sizeable chunk of liberals, and the bulk of Bush lovers, refuse to gang up on the goons, for failure to see the truth behind 9-11.


On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic