Not new, per se, but I just found this.
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
... despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
... It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that -- “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus” (Gash et al 2002).
Kevin Ryan is the lab director who was allegedly fired from Underwriters Laboratories (the company that certified the WTC steel) for voicing his skepticism of the NIST report on the WTC collapses.
*** NB: as per the discussion in the last thread, and the mods' rulings on that, if you have a personal problem with 9/11 topics please either stay out of the thread or, if you want to engage, please do so with relevance. Thanks.
[url=http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12936]Sen. Schumer lends qualified support to a new 9-11 investigation[/url]
Slip-shod investigators ignored eye witnesses who reported explosions.
Thanks for providing the "debunking" of Kevin Ryan, Heywood. I'm sure too, that he "doesn't even know" what his former employer did.
The link in #3 doesn't lead to any supporting material.
Other facts: WTC 1 and 2 burned for less than two hours.
Anyway, I thought Kevin Ryan's article on sol-gel nano-thermites and that they could be fashioned into shape charges was interesting. But if you don't find that interesting, that's certainly your prerogative.
Heywood, why didn't NIST consider explosives or pyrotechnics?
Whereas slip-shod "truthers" ignore the eye witnesses who reported seeing two huge jumbo jets laden with passengers and fuel slam into the towers.
Do the "truthers" have any theory on who pushed the button? If it really was a series of precisely-placed nano-thermite charges, with two giant planes used only for distraction, then someone needed to hit the big red button at just the right time, yes? And presumably, there wouldn't just be the one red button for all of the nano-thermite... what if the planes hit the 60th floor, but the explosions were seen to start on the 70th?? That wouldn't do. And I guess the real important question is: was it Donald Rumsfeld personally, or did he assign it to someone and then later kill them to ensure their complicity for all eternity? :)
No plane slammed into WTC 7.
There was a fire in WTC7. Apparently superThermite can be triggered to react with a heat source. New investigation needed to answer questions.
I don't know of any big red button theory, Snert. If the nano-thermite could be activated by a regular charge, then perhaps it could also be by, say, a plane crashing into the building. As I quoted above,
My apologies. There's an updated link
Making a small bomb from a few hardware store items, and maybe even a cell phone isnt so hard. They could have "phoned in" the fuse that might have ignited thermite cutter charges, New and transparent investigation needed
A giant rookie mistake in an otherwise flawless coverup. What was(n't) Rumsfeld thinking?? They couldn't have at least engineered it so an engine assembly or a wing would appear to hit the building??? Couldn't they have used that same jet that provided cover for the missile that allegedly was fired at the Pentagon?
Wow. A ticking time bomb. From the time the black-ops in the black catsuits went in under the blackness of night, until 9/11, all it would have taken was a common electrical fire to make any one of the buildings suddenly explode and collapse.
Someone would still have to dial that number and make it happen. Any theories on who? It's getting kind of boring, not to mention needlessly vague, to keep referring to "they" and "them" in such a boogey-man tone.
The 9/11 report didnt mention WTC 7 at all. And yet you and internet debunkers seem to know all about it and are self-appointed gladios attacking anyone trying to discover the facts.
What about [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]Ali Mohamed[/url] or someone he instructed in terrorism? I find non-truthers have about as much imagination as boiled kleenex salesmen. The CIA and Pakistani ISI are far more creative.
NIST did consider explosives in the case of WTC7. See section 3.3 Hypothetical Blast Scenarios
The conclusion of that section states that "Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to teh collapse of WTC7 on September 11, 2001"
This is my favourite kind of logic. Faced with a huge hole in the official theory, it does not make one suspicious, but rather proves that the official theory is correct, because no conspiracy would leave such a huge hole. Brilliant.
What it overlooks is that your attitude that large inconsistencies with official dogma actually prove the dogma rather than call it into question is exactly what allows a conspiracy to be pulled off even with large inconsistencies in the explanations to cover it up. Bravo. As long as there are people like you in the world, conspiracies will always be safe.
All of them, or just the particularly outlandish ones like this one?
*I'm* not the reason that 9/11 "truthers" are laughed at, and why "the truth" just can't seem to get any respect. And honestly, the "truthers" actually had an opportunity to do it right, and they blew it. Lots of people had questions right after 9/11, and if the "truthers" had actually set out to answer those questions truthfully and honestly, I believe they would have earned tons of support. Instead they very blatantly went in search of anything they could find to prop up their pet theory, discarded or dismissed anything that contradicted them, and basically revealed their agenda (which, despite their name, was not "the truth").
The "truthers" are the "cry-wolfers" who are discrediting their own laughable and transparent "search for the truth"*.
*(as long as the truth is that Bush and Rumsfeld did it)
Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheneyetc are all war criminals and should be arraigned on charges of war crimes, torture as a prelude to this American inquisition and phony war on terror. Theyre as guilty as the doctor and the madman were with SE Asia and East Timor. And this is the talent non-truthers are attempting to backup? Laughable
"Attempting to backup"?
Right. You're either with the "truthers" or yer agin 'em. If I don't believe that spooks in catsuits planted cutting-edge nano-explosives inside the walls of the WTC to bring it down then I'm "backing" Rumsfeld. See, I think that's exactly the kind of single-minded dishonesty that turned otherwise curious people off the "truth" movement. You either get in line behind whatever "Loose Change" is claiming at the moment, or you're a stooge who supports Bush (and probably a participant in the coverup, too!)
Anyway, keep at it. Lots of quislings and co-conspirators and useful idiots for you to ferret out.
I'm just curious....how many versions are there of Loose Change now, Jas?
"*I'm* not the reason that 9/11 "truthers" are laughed at"
*You're* not the reason for anything. What I said was that because of people like you, who think that major inconsistencies in the government's official explanations of events actually prove the truth of those explanations, whatever conspiracies exist are sure to remain uncovered.
Most of the status quo elite think just like you do: Don't need explanations to add up around certain questions because they have the answers all pre-prepared. If a conspiracy is outlandish then it cannot be true, under any circumstances, so there is no need to even look into the possibility of it. They are so sure they even ridicule and persecute those who would like these questions answered. How convenient for any immoral power-mongers who have a history of manipulating events and little regard for human life, like say, Dick Cheney, just to pull a name off the top of my head.
It's precisely because a guy like him knows that most people in a position to unravel his schemes think just like you do, that he can ensure a conspiracy remains undiscovered just by making it outlandish. The more ridiculous a conspiracy, the more likely he'll get away with it, because all you guardians of the acceptable limits of debate will be not just uninterested in investigating them, but actively fighting against those who would like to. Give yourself a pat on the back.
So how many buildings were demo'd on 9/11? The official coverup only talks about two, but three buildings fell down that same day. Why? The slip-shod 9/11 report is inadequate, and a brand new investigation is required to get to the bottom of the skull duggery. ALL of those involved in plotting and scheming 9/11 need to testify under oath, including dubya and Cheney and not both of them together this time so as to avoid Cheney coaching crazy George de la yayo as to what to say when they do catch him saying something relevant in English.
Hehe. I'm the ineffectual nobody that's responsible for this mess. Schweet. :)
I think I hear your mama calling you
Well, you're responsible for the mess that is your reading comprehension. I'll give you that much.
As in global warming, you don't have to have caused the problem to be part of the problem.
Rather than arguing, why not listen the truth?
Coast to Coast
[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/US_Programmed%20_War.html]Am... Programmed for War[/url] 2005
KILL!@ KILL!! KILL!!
That I don't know, and I've never actually watched the whole thing, but I do credit it for popularizing the issue.
Anyway, thanks for the NIST link. I will take a look.
Yes, 2 pages in their November 2008 report - the final, FINAL Report by NIST. How many NIST reports have there been?
Ryan's article was written in July 2008, so was probably addressing the 2005? 2006? report. Obviously the 2 pages of inclusion in NIST's latest is in response to the growing public controversy.
Yes, the November update. That's the one where NIST throws out constant speed and constant acceleration, and they create the three phases of collapse theory beginning with a single data point, the parapet as a reference to start of collapse. Theyve since had to backtrack and acknowledge the 18 floors in freefall for 5.4 seconds.
The history of all the NIST reports are on the website for you to look at. But the fact is, they addressed the explosives issue and did it within the schedule set for delivering the report.
No, I think the point is you were attempting to discredit Kevin Ryan's article here, including citing some 2004 NIST findings (which had subsequently been discredited), so to answer that question about the absence of testing for explosives by citing a report published four months after that Ryan article I cited, and several years after the first NIST report, as if it's been there all along, is a little disingenuous.
I wouldn't know where to find that projected NIST investigation schedule you speak of, nor any indication of how many reports have already been published by NIST. If they're on the website, or in the report, maybe you could point out where.
I'm not here to do research for you Jas. It is all available on the NIST website.
However, just this once..
The Kevin Ryan report was discredited by the NIST report on WTC I and II, which states in part
It is also discredited by the WTC 7 report:
If you're making claims about the history of NIST reports, and someone asks you where specifically this can be located, then yes, I think it's incumbent on you to provide the specific reference. I certainly wouldn't be spending an hour scouring the NIST report or website based on some potentially spurious claim you've made.
Heywood, that doesn't "discredit" anything. That's a dispute over the facts. The entire 9/11 debate is based on a dispute over the facts. Scientists and engineers and other professionals on both sides of the issue are disputing the facts presented by the media, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. To present your version of events is not to "discredit" someone else's - unless you can show that their version is impossible. Those particular 2004 NIST findings were shown to be impossible, and were revised by NIST themselves.
The theories put forward by the truthers do not form a solid and credible analysis of why the towers collapsed. Heck, the theories and 'facts' put forward by the truthers in these four threads have been largely discredited (people standing in the holes where the planes were, etc).
The NIST reports pose a credible theory on why the towers collapsed. It is based on tens of thousands of documents and footage, over 1000 interviews, lab tests, and was completed in conjunction with 200+ people.
I'm willing to listen to a theory verifiable by the evidence. A complete theory. Not one that is based on thousands of pounds of super explosives installed in secret before the day and which had absolutely no other signs of exploding (windows breaking, an audible "boom", etc).
[quote=al-Qa'bong Coast to Coast [/quote]
Amazing crop circles, and what is with the 2012 hype?
There problem here is that you (or whoever you c/p-ed this from) is trying to mislead people by taking parts of the first WTC1 & WTC2 reports and parts of the later WTC7 report and mixing and matching "facts" to apply in situations that they do not apply.
If it says that the UL test caused the trusses to sag in the WTC7 report (which is what you linked to, and which I could find no such statement, but maybe it's there and I missed it) then that has nothing to do with the WTC1 & WTC2 situation and whose UL testing was unable to make their trusses sag in their testing.
So saying that some possible statement that the trusses in WTC7 sagged under heat applies to WTC1 & WTC2 (whose tests failed to cause the trusses to sag) is pretty well meaninless except to point out the dishonestly is not limited to just the truthers.
Really? I haven't seen that. Can you cite specific posts? I saw a lot of snidery and joking around in an attempt to shut the thread down. I did not see any plausible discreditation of some of the theories put forward in these threads. I would find it quite incredible, actually, since there seem to be very few, if any, scientists here on Babble who would have the credentials to discredit these theories on their own merit, and the super-thermite hypothesis is still fairly recent.
Yes, No Yards, I was just wondering the same thing myself. Kevin Ryan states that no testing for explosives was carried out as required by fire investigation regulations in the first NIST report, which would have dealt with WTC 1 and 2. Heywood cites the NIST report on WTC 7.
I have most certainly not tried to mix and match reports. If I've caused confusion anywhere then I apologize.
The WTC I & II fire resistance tests are detailed in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf These tests all showed sagging of the trusses with fully intact fireproofing materials.
What fire regulations requiring investigation for explosives are you two talking about?
Ahh, but again we are not comparing apples to apples here ... the report you are linking to is not the report where they tested the conditions of the WTC1 & WTC2 and whether the system would fail under the expected heat and loads on 9/11 ... this report is an "after the fact" fire rating test, where the test is designed to push the system to the brink of failure in order to give it a specific fire rating ... in other words, of course there was significant sagging in these tests, that's what they are designed to do ... heat under controllled conditions until significant sagging which will assuredly lead to failure starts to show in order to determine the fire rating.
This is like saying that a test designed to see how much weight you can lift until your back breaks ... broke your back ... yes, of course it did ... that's what the test was meant to do.
In the original WTC1&2 report they put the system under (if I recall correctly) a 200% load of what was expected that day, and heated the structure with the same fuel and materials that were available as a fule source on 9/11 ... the structure did not exhibit any indication of failing (it may have "sagged" a tiny bit, but nothing significant enough to cause failure.)
NIST has quietly backtracked on its conclusions surrounding WTC 7 and have acknowledged 18 floors in freefall collapse for 5.4 seconds as a result of private US citizens' groups lobbying them.
Why do political conservatives find it so difficult to believe that government agencies around the world have a notorious history of incompetence and for doing slip-shod work? Isnt this just another instance and opportunity for neoconservatives to rail against the inefficient "dead hand" of government bureaucracy? Why should we believe anything the crazy George II regime had a dead hand in producing?
And now they have egg on their faces, once again, wrt non-reacted thermite discovered in WTC dust samples by an independent team of scientific investigators. In fact, this is but one example of why there needs to be a transparent investigation of 9/11 with people held accountable and restarted for the sake of proper criminal investigation as well as historical record. The renditions, torture and warfiteering were all terribly illegal and violations of international law since Nuremberg. And so was 9/11 a criminal act and proper investigation obligatory
Ny, could you dig up that NIST test/report please?
Tens of millions of us demand a proper investigation not some hackneyed attempt on a web forum to apologize for the biggest liars in the USSA since the doctor and the madman.
As someone so eloquently put it "I'm not here to do research for you" ... ok, ok, I'll be your slave this one time ...http://www.sustainable-design.com/fire/NIST-NCSTAR-1-Collapse-Of-Towers.pdf (since it's been moved on the NIST site and is hard to find.)
Thanks. I don't want you to do research for me. I just didn't know which doc you were referring to.
I believe you are referring to the tests on Page 142/143 of the report you linked to.
There is a caveat on these tests (page 143) which states that the conditions, exposure, fires in the towers were substantially different from those in the test furnaces. Nonetheless.......this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing, for a substantial period of time.....
I did paraphrase because for some reason I can't copy and paste from the PDF.
There are two important things to note here. One is that NIST acknowledges that the test was substantially different. Also, the report does not state that the floor collapsed. It states that it sagged and drew the exterior columns in.
Finally, this data is very similar (if not identical) to the report that I linked to above (WTC I & II).
That's okay, because while youre fumbling around with cut and paste, bought and paid-for stooges in Ottawa jumped the gun and volunteered Canadian soldiers to a phony war several years ago and never bothered their imperial masters for any real proof whatsoever that 9/11 wasnt a false flag. Everybody knows that both "Al" and "Qa'eda" and vice versa is a creation of the USsSA's deep state political maneuvering. If warmongering plutocrats know who did it, then they need to produce that evidence in a real criminal court and to quit hiding behind "national security" baloney.
Notice the link between 911 and crop circles, with both being discussed in the same show. Is it a coincidence that Ground Zero should be discussed alongside these other unexplained phenomena? I think not. After all, what is Ground Zero but a circle in an urban environment? Those aliens have all the angles covered.
As for 2012, the last year in the Mayan calendar, it's being noticed more and more as the year approaches.
Another eerie connection. If you add 2001 + 9 + 1 + 1 you get 2012.