Theory into NIST investgation of the steel.

[changethetruth27]

I was looking through the DI research archives and found an article detailing witness accounts of steel beams, being pulled out and having molten metal/steel. It would be hard ot ignore something like this by NIST.

There are obvious cover ups in the story and this is no exception. The columns and beams where cut down so they cna be hauled away. If only one part is dripping of molten steel or whatever it can be possible that the few steel columns and beams NIST has preserved can be selective to the Official story.

What i mean is they cut the columns and only investigated the ones that where not impacted by the suspecting explosives or whatever.

As part of the debunking of apperant 9/11 "myths" the molten metal explanation goes something like this.

"the thing dripping out before collapse was molten aluminum from the plane"

This is highly accurate and can be acceptable. What trumps this is the witness accounts of the molten steel and metal dripping off columns and such.

The story being told is the fire softened the steel not melted it. And the obvious question is what is dripping then and why is it in liquid form.

I have studied the debunks and anti inside job theories and they are not very conclusive. Much of the debunking can be questioned and obviously left unexplained.

My crazy theory is that the evidence that is available can support the Official story but the sum of all the evidence sure as hell does not.

Hence a reason for the steel to be sold to China and India. Also reports of hauling away human remains and debris...

Analyzing more into the crazy coincidences of the 9/11 event is just to much to be able to happen.

Individuals and groups who deny the CT simply don't want it to be true. From my knowledge WTC #7 still has no explanation.

What does everyone on the forum think? Is this theory even plausible or just an extreme CT which may never be prooved because the evidence was tampered with.

[stannrodd]

What does everyone on the forum think? Is this theory even plausible or just an extreme CT which may never be prooved because the evidence was tampered with.

Good question .. needs a big answer .. probably unproveable too.. :)

Seriously though .. what sort of direction do you want to take your thread ..?

Stann

[bsmurph83]

hi changethetruth,

from what i can see, the only logical explanation is that all 3 buildings were built to be imploded (explosives built into them)... there's no way they can rig a building for an implosion while the building is still in use (and they were obviously imploded).

obviously this is a pretty unorthodox demo' job and most people will balk at the idea - "why would a building be made to be imploded?"

given that witness accounts have reported the walls literally blowing out, causing severe injuries to those in the vicinity, the 'built to demolish' idea sounds less insane than might first be thought... IMO...

i will be looking at it in much more detail yet but that's sort of where i'm at...

[siatd]

I was looking through the DI research archives and found an article detailing witness accounts of steel beams, being pulled out and having molten metal/steel. It would be hard ot ignore something like this by NIST.

NIST found it extremely easy to ignore, they just denied any knowledge of it.

There are obvious cover ups in the story and this is no exception. The columns and beams where cut down so they cna be hauled away. If only one part is dripping of molten steel or whatever it can be possible that the few steel columns and beams NIST has preserved can be selective to the Official story.

There are dozens of pieces of wreckage.
http://www.papba.org/media-archive/am/am-060907-hangar-03.html
Loads of juicy pictures there.

What i mean is they cut the columns and only investigated the ones that where not impacted by the suspecting explosives or whatever.

They didn't investigate anything to do with explosives, they simply discounted the theory from the off.

As part of the debunking of apperant 9/11 "myths" the molten metal explanation goes something like this.

"the thing dripping out before collapse was molten aluminum from the plane"

This is highly accurate and can be acceptable. What trumps this is the witness accounts of the molten steel and metal dripping off columns and such.

Two things wrong here:
1) Witness accounts NEVER trump empirical evidence.
2) The explanation of the molten metal dripping before the collapse being aluminium from the plane is utter crap - molten aluminium is silver/grey. I know this from first hand experience and I have video of my brother and a mate of his doing aluminium smelting which illustrates this perfectly. The metal dripping from the towers was orange-yellow.

Thus, any scientist telling you the orange-yellow metal dripping from the tower prior to collapse is aluminium is either an idiot or a liar, and either way you shouldn't believe what they say.

The story being told is the fire softened the steel not melted it. And the obvious question is what is dripping then and why is it in liquid form.

The NIST explanation for molten metal in the debris pile is that the fires in the pile got steadily hotter over time, eventually reaching the point where they could melt iron/steel.

They liken this to closing your oven door - a fire in a limited space can get hotter than one in an open space. More lies from scientists, because though the principle is true (closed fires can burn hotter), the comparison ends there because an oven is a near perfect, clean flame fire with constant oxygen/fuel supplies, utterly unlike the WTC debris pile fires in EVERY significant way.

I have studied the debunks and anti inside job theories and they are not very conclusive. Much of the debunking can be questioned and obviously left unexplained.

As I have indicated, not only is the debunking questionnable, it's a complete bastardisation of science.

My crazy theory is that the evidence that is available can support the Official story but the sum of all the evidence sure as hell does not.

I believe the evidence from the pieces in the photos I linked to above could prove conclusively that a force much greater than office fires+gravity caused the disintegration of the WTC towers. You could illustrate this with relatively simple damage/energy equations, before we get into the question of explosive/incendiary traces, sulphidation of steel, evaporation of steel, near free fall collapses etc. etc.

Hence a reason for the steel to be sold to China and India. Also reports of hauling away human remains and debris...

Analyzing more into the crazy coincidences of the 9/11 event is just to much to be able to happen.

On the contrary, there's tons of analysis left to do.

Individuals and groups who deny the CT simply don't want it to be true.

Not always the case, but likewise plenty of people who believe the CT simply want it to be true and have no sound reason to believe what they do.

From my knowledge WTC #7 still has no explanation.

NIST released their report into WTC7 last year, and the BBC broadcast an updated conspiracy files episode explaining it. Basically, they blamed a phenomena called thermal expansion, which makes no sense, has never caused even partial collapse before or since, and which has never been tested.

As such, it is an unscientific explanation based purely on computer models.

What does everyone on the forum think? Is this theory even plausible or just an extreme CT which may never be prooved because the evidence was tampered with.

Which particular theory are you asking about? Your one that NIST deliberately only looked at samples which showed them what they wanted to see?

If that's the theory you are asking about then I can firmly say it is incorrect. Even the brief analysis NIST did of columns from the impact zone indicated fires no hotter at maximum than 250 degrees (C), which is nothing close enough to fatally weaken the steel. So even what they looked at didn't show them what they wanted to see.

[changethetruth27]

NIST found it extremely easy to ignore, they just denied any knowledge of it.



There are dozens of pieces of wreckage.
http://www.papba.org/media-archive/am/am-060907-hangar-03.html
Loads of juicy pictures there.



They didn't investigate anything to do with explosives, they simply discounted the theory from the off.



Two things wrong here:
1) Witness accounts NEVER trump empirical evidence.
2) The explanation of the molten metal dripping before the collapse being aluminium from the plane is utter crap - molten aluminium is silver/grey. I know this from first hand experience and I have video of my brother and a mate of his doing aluminium smelting which illustrates this perfectly. The metal dripping from the towers was orange-yellow.

Thus, any scientist telling you the orange-yellow metal dripping from the tower prior to collapse is aluminium is either an idiot or a liar, and either way you shouldn't believe what they say.



The NIST explanation for molten metal in the debris pile is that the fires in the pile got steadily hotter over time, eventually reaching the point where they could melt iron/steel.

They liken this to closing your oven door - a fire in a limited space can get hotter than one in an open space. More lies from scientists, because though the principle is true (closed fires can burn hotter), the comparison ends there because an oven is a near perfect, clean flame fire with constant oxygen/fuel supplies, utterly unlike the WTC debris pile fires in EVERY significant way.



As I have indicated, not only is the debunking questionnable, it's a complete bastardisation of science.



I believe the evidence from the pieces in the photos I linked to above could prove conclusively that a force much greater than office fires+gravity caused the disintegration of the WTC towers. You could illustrate this with relatively simple damage/energy equations, before we get into the question of explosive/incendiary traces, sulphidation of steel, evaporation of steel, near free fall collapses etc. etc.



On the contrary, there's tons of analysis left to do.



Not always the case, but likewise plenty of people who believe the CT simply want it to be true and have no sound reason to believe what they do.



NIST released their report into WTC7 last year, and the BBC broadcast an updated conspiracy files episode explaining it. Basically, they blamed a phenomena called thermal expansion, which makes no sense, has never caused even partial collapse before or since, and which has never been tested.

As such, it is an unscientific explanation based purely on computer models.



Which particular theory are you asking about? Your one that NIST deliberately only looked at samples which showed them what they wanted to see?

If that's the theory you are asking about then I can firmly say it is incorrect. Even the brief analysis NIST did of columns from the impact zone indicated fires no hotter at maximum than 250 degrees (C), which is nothing close enough to fatally weaken the steel. So even what they looked at didn't show them what they wanted to see.

Great post.. i looked at the pic very interesting. i think with the ignorance of science combined with popularity and the media pushing the theory and showing credible scientists who believe it and the ones who don't all of a sudden get a cold shoulder.

William Rodriguez anyone? hero, until he started telling what happened inside. Explosives in the basement, people skin coming of etc (from memory, would need ot look into this)

With the manipulated evidence and computer models you cna make any thoery sound like the truth.

I kind of gave up on CT, some time in the last week when i realized what a battle it is and it's a choice between CT or Official story. You can't look at the event and say "that's weird, how did this happen?" without being labeled a CT and you can't go on and say "that pure fallacy, your thoery has been debunked" without being called a debunker or whatever.

It's a tough battle, i respect people like Alex Jones, and David Icke who risk their lives, reputation for freedom if nothing else.
:)

[deafbred]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67198

I was looking through the DI research archives and found an article detailing witness accounts of steel beams, being pulled out and having molten metal/steel. It would be hard ot ignore something like this by NIST.

There are obvious cover ups in the story and this is no exception. The columns and beams where cut down so they cna be hauled away. If only one part is dripping of molten steel or whatever it can be possible that the few steel columns and beams NIST has preserved can be selective to the Official story.

What i mean is they cut the columns and only investigated the ones that where not impacted by the suspecting explosives or whatever.

As part of the debunking of apperant 9/11 "myths" the molten metal explanation goes something like this.

"the thing dripping out before collapse was molten aluminum from the plane"

This is highly accurate and can be acceptable. What trumps this is the witness accounts of the molten steel and metal dripping off columns and such.

The story being told is the fire softened the steel not melted it And the obvious question is what is dripping then and why is it in liquid form.

when I took a soft iron bar and melted it down to a molten liquid puddle.... (with a car battery) ... once I got it hot and molten.. and FULL of MAGNETS.. and MAGNETIC CURRENTS trying to escape.. (CHARGED) it STAYED MOLTEN LONGER once I put enough magnets into the puddle.. like.. if i held the positive terminal there for long enough time.. the energy built up and began to become explosive and sparks flew everywhere MORE- as a result.. once I got it to the point of being so built up and containing energetic extremes.... IT STAYED MOLTEN LONGER, for longer periods of time, after I had taken away the current charge from flowing into the puddle.

~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[christophera]

What does everyone on the forum think? Is this theory even plausible or just an extreme CT which may never be prooved because the evidence was tampered with.

Actually there is an investigational technique that only looks at the methods, sequence, features needed to do what has been done, then determines how each one might be done. After that, further elimination is found by determining what actually could be done under the conditions. This actually works fairly well to create guidelines for research and investigation that will end up very close to the truth.

[stannrodd]

Great post.. i looked at the pic very interesting. i think with the ignorance of science combined with popularity and the media pushing the theory and showing credible scientists who believe it and the ones who don't all of a sudden get a cold shoulder.

William Rodriguez anyone? hero, until he started telling what happened inside. Explosives in the basement, people skin coming of etc (from memory, would need ot look into this)

With the manipulated evidence and computer models you cna make any thoery sound like the truth.

I kind of gave up on CT, some time in the last week when i realized what a battle it is and it's a choice between CT or Official story. You can't look at the event and say "that's weird, how did this happen?" without being labeled a CT and you can't go on and say "that pure fallacy, your thoery has been debunked" without being called a debunker or whatever.

It's a tough battle, ...etc
:)

Referring to the bold added by me ..

I and many would totally agree with you.

But there is one thing which will win in the long term and that is the Truth of the event.

To attempt to stifle discussion and debate on this should be an offence under any freedom of information and expression.

You make a very valid point which I applaud.

Stann