Reply to this topicStart new topic
Exposing Popular Mechanics 9/11 Lies, NIST, the Twin Towers & Their Controlled Demolition

post Mar 29 2014, 07:49 PM
Post #1

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337

"The search for truth is not aided by the dissemination of falsehoods." - James Meig's, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine.

"The collapse of the World Trade Center is the most intensively studied engineering failure in world history... there’s no indication in any of that work to support any of these ideas of demolition or anything like that..." - James Meig's, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine.

“It is easy enough to find a [self-consistent] theory..., provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” - Alfred North Whitehead.

Let me start by saying the following dissertation is not a criticism of all the credentialed experts and scientists who work and produce credible findings at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), nor am I claiming to have proven the World Trade Center Twin Towers were felled by controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.

I'm writing this dissertation because it's high time someone set the records straight on how the NIST WTC investigators twisted the facts therein the NIST NCSTAR final reports on the collapse of the World Trade Centers. The truth is those investigators did not act in the best interests of scientific discovery when determining the root cause for the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. In fact when it comes to the matter of controlled demolition their final reports make it abundantly clear politics and partisanship were the priority and scientific fraud determined the outcome of their investigation into the matter. In other words the NIST WTC investigators were hell-bent on covering up evidence pointing to the controlled demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and where that wasn't possible they snubbed that evidence by refusing to investigate it.

"Scientific Fraud" being defined by the National Science Foundation as, "Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism as major types of fraud, thereby defining 'Fabrication' as, "making up data or results and recording or reporting them" and 'Falsification' as, "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record." [1] [2]

Regardless of what they claim their own final reports reveal the NIST WTC investigators never conducted a credible scientific analysis of the WTC steel for the express purpose of determining whether explosives and controlled demolition had anything to do with both Twin Towers unprecedented destruction. Instead of that the WTC investigators merely decreed for the sake of closure, "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypothesis suggesting that the WTC Towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." [3]

A prime example of NIST having refused to take seriously and/or scientifically investigate the matter of controlled demolition and explosives, et cetera, is the response NIST spokesman, Michael Newman, gave Jennifer Abel when she interviewed him back in July of 2009. Having asked him why NIST didn't look for evidence of explosives (re: controlled demolition) he shot back at her with the following contradictory statements:

"We don't want to get into a debate... Certainly people are entitled to their opinion... We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives." When Abel posed the question, "about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?" Newman responded, "Right, because there was no evidence of that... If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time … and the taxpayers' money." [4]

On that note the following statement detailing how much steel from both Twin Towers the NIST WTC investigators claim to have forensically analyzed for evidence of explosives proves the preceding Red Herring statements were a boldfaced lie.

According to NIST the sum total of Twin Towers steel its WTC investigators had in their possession and claim to have analyzed for evidence of explosives (re: controlled demolition) was "236 structural steel elements from the WTC buildings... Components include full exterior column panels, core columns, portions of the floor truss members, channels used to attach the floor trusses to the interior columns, and other smaller structural components (e.g., bolts, diagonal bracing straps, aluminum facade)." Of those 236 structural steel "elements" 193 of them were steel from the floor and/or columns that supported the floors. With 90 of the 193 pieces being exterior column panels. Which leaves 55 wide flange sections and built-up box sections, 23 pieces of floor truss material from WTC 1 and WTC 2, and 25 pieces of channel sections that connected the floor trusses to the core columns in WTC 1 and WTC 2. [5]

As it turns out, of those 193 structural steel "elements" only three of the lot were portions of core columns, of which the NIST WTC investigators described as, "12 core columns have been positively identified from WTC 1 and WTC 2, including 1 column from the impact zone of WTC 1 and 2 columns from the impact zone of WTC 2."

That makes for a grand total of three portions of core column from both Twin Towers and notice how they weren't touted as having been impacted by the aircraft nor were they described as having been deformed by explosions or excessive heat. They were merely nondescript core columns from "the impact zone." That being the case the hearsay analysis of three meagre pieces of steel with no distinct origin hardly constitutes a thorough and conclusive investigation into whether or not the core columns of the Twin Towers had been compromised by explosives.

Furthermore, when Newman was asked in September of 2011, "Why didn’t NIST consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?" his obfuscated response was, "Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6... NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory, since there is conclusive evidence that the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else." [6]

Needless to say Newman's answer to "Question 6" (What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?) only described the officially recognized initiating events which supposedly lead to the collapse of each of the towers. His answer didn't mention the trace amounts of undetonated military grade incendiary explosives Professor Steven Jones discovered in the ground zero dust, which points to an atypical and stealthy controlled demolition of the Towers. [7] Neither did Newman's answer make mention of the fact that floors immediately above and below the initiating/collapse zone(s) had been accessed by an untold number of interlopers prior to 9/11. In fact I contend that is precisely how the explosive material (nanothermite) which more than likely contributed to the destruction of the Twin Towers made its way into those buildings.

In lieu of conducting a scientific analysis of the actual explosive (nanothermite) which independent 9/11 researchers discovered in dust samples that were collected from onsite and all around ground zero, NIST performed a series of pseudo-scientific computer simulated "Hypothetical Blast Scenarios." Those were nothing more than diversionary stunts wherein the actual explosive (nanothermite) was replaced with the characteristics of an entirely different type of explosive material, which the WTC investigators used to their full advantage by arguing the "blast propagation" from that explosive confirmed the Twin Towers couldn't possibly have been destroyed by controlled demolition (bombs) made of the much louder RDX. Needless to say their ploy was designed to convince the sceptics of the world that the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was utterly impossible and for no other reason than sizeable explosions (bombs) did not register on the Richter scale that day.

However, what the NIST WTC investigators failed to mention is unlike traditional controlled demolition explosives such as RDX, the essence of nanothermite is the fact that its “tuneable,” which means its ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values, including the decibel level that's emitted along with it "blast propagation". In other words in comparison to the explosive RDX which consistently generates a pressure wave (sound level measured in decibels) that's fixed and predictable, the pressure wave of nanothermite can be adjusted louder or relatively quieter than RDX. [8]

Regardless of the preceding facts and in deference to the RDX deception, there in the September of 2005 final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center's, lead WTC investigator, Shyam Sunder, Sc. D. obligingly peddled NIST's alternate "pancaking" floors theory whereby "The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos." [9] That phenomenon, Sunder claimed, was mistaken by eyewitnesses as proof positive controlled demolitions brought the Twin Towers down, although no-one believed his "alternative theory" was the case. As a result of that therein the November of 2008 final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 Sunder and associates changed tack by arguing:

"Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection. While the selected blast scenario considered one column, demolition with explosive charges usually prepares many columns in a building. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around more than one column. It is highly doubtful that such activities would have not been detected." [10]

I consider the preceding statement to be absolutely preposterous and for no less than two indisputable reasons. The first of which being the fact that "unrestricted access" to both Twin Towers by interlopers who were carrying out fireproofing upgrades and renovations was common place prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. [11] That being the case it's common practice to carryout construction work of that magnitude after regular business hours and throughout the night, so as not to disrupt day-to-day operations and staff. For that reason the WTC investigators rationale for why rigging those floors with explosives wouldn't have gone unnoticed by passersby is completely unfounded. In fact, had demolitions experts masquerading as construction workers planted explosives behind the new gypsum wallboard - seen there in the NIST Cumulus dataset video and photographs - the likelihood of it having been discovered prior to 9/11 was virtually nil. That's according to the NIST WTC investigators who stated, "Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection)... Except as noted above, once completed, the core was generally not inspected." [12]

As NIST explained it, in 1999 the Port Authority established "guidelines regarding fireproofing repairs, replacement, and upgrades" for the Towers which meant that each time a floor was vacated its interior was stripped down to bare perimeter and core columns during those upgrades. What's more then and according to NIST, in the years between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded on 18 floors of WTC1, including those on which the major fires occurred on September 11, 2001, and 13 floors of WTC2 that did not include the fire floors. [13] To be more specific then, in WTC 1 floors 92 through 100 and 102 were upgraded; and in WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97 were upgraded." [14] As for the "Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade," evidence of that renovation is located in Release_29 of the NIST Cumulus dataset. [15]

Why NIST didn't list the 85th floor of WTC2 or the 91st floor of WTC1 in the preceding list of affected floors having been fully renovated (upgraded) just prior to the attacks of 9/11 had everything to do with their proximity to the collapse initiation zone and their tenancy status prior to the terrorist attacks. [11]
The second and far more troubling instance of a gaping hole in the security of Tower one (WTC1) being the case where interlopers had residency in that building and "unrestricted access" to it which allowed them to come and go at will and they did for years, months and even the day of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. That shady group of alleged artists went by the name "Gelitin" and according to the 'World Views' website:

"From 1997 to 2001, LMCC's first studio residency program, World Views was housed in Tower One of the World Trade Center primarily on the 91st and 92nd floors. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey generously donated raw, temporarily vacant office spaces, which LMCC converted into artists’ studios, thus inaugurating the innovative real estate model LMCC still uses for its residency programs today. Over four years, more than 130 artists from around the world participated in the World Views program in New York’s iconic Twin Towers, gaining unrestricted access to extraordinary raw and open windowed spaces with exceptional views.

The first group of 18 residents was selected through nomination by Graham Nixon of the New York Studio School... Artists received 24/7 access to the building and studios which were partitioned with no doors; curatorial and technical support from LMCC staff... The open-plan studio space, an organic result of temporary occupation, fostered dialogue and the cross-pollination of ideas and quickly became a core component of the residency program." [16] If four years of deadbeats squatting on the world's most expensive real-estate constitutes "temporary vacancy" then I'd sure hate to be that buildings real-estate broker.
Independent confirmation of the fact that the "artists" occupied the 91st floor therein WTC1 comes from two highly credible sources. The first being the recollections of North Tower (WTC1) employee and survivor Mike McQuaid who attested to the fact that the 91st floor of that Tower "was only 25 percent occupied... There were also a couple of artists on the floor. They have some kind of artists. A big open area." [17] Secondly then is the September 9, 2011, Daily Herald article which listed the names of those killed on 9/11. Including the name of one of the art students, Michael Richards, who allegedly died on the 91st floor of WTC1. [18] What's more, because that list was compiled by the National September 11 Memorial & Museum its accuracy is not in doubt. [19]

As for whether or not some or all of the 130+ freeloading "art students" rigged explosives on those floors, that remains to be seen. In the meantime though I think it's safe to say the photographs posted at "Artists at the World Trade Center, 1997-2001' raise serious questions about the true purpose behind the "open-plan studio space." Which by the way just so happened to be located right below the collapse initiating zone of WTC1. That is to say the photographs clearly show the "open-plan studio space" meant the channels located on the core columns, to which the 92nd floor trusses were bolted and welded to, were exposed at all times and to anyone with 24/7 access to that floor. Had the 91st floor been left in that half finished condition by demolitions experts masquerading as construction workers doing fireproofing upgrades or did demolitions experts masquerading as "art students" make those changes? You be the judge.

Either way and despite what NIST claimed the core of the building was exposed to saboteurs who could have covertly rigged the buildings superstructure with explosives in the manner described by Tom Sullivan. [20] [21] Therefore, and based on the aforementioned facts, is it any wonder the mainstream media made little mention of the occupation of the 91st floor of WTC1 by those art students, nor the other art students making headlines, who were rounded up and deported soon after 9/11 because they'd been exposed by the FBI as Israeli spies (Mossad agents). [22] [23] [24] [25]

As for Newman's claim the two distinct seismic spikes - one for each tower - seen in the seismogram records were indicative of debris from the collapsing Towers impacting the ground and nothing more, well that too is fallacious. [6] The fact is the disputed seismograms were published in the Popular Mechanics article, 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report,' and they clearly show seismic spikes of lesser intensity began to register and grow in size just prior to each buildings initiated (global) collapse. [26] So too the seismograms published therein Appendix B of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 reveal must the same thing. All of which suggests Newman wasn't entirely honest when claiming, "There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers."

Making matters worse for Newman's credibility and feeble justification is the fact that he quoted the findings of the credentialed expert seismologist and celebrated 9/11 apologist who claimed, "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers." That "expert" was none other than Arthur L. Lerner-Lam of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the problem with his analysis being - despite having no working knowledge of controlled demolition - he claimed, 'the seismic waves that started small and then escalated as the South Tower and the North Tower rumble to the ground' signified "bombs" didn't topple the Twin Towers. [26]

That being said it was former explosives loader, Tom Sullivan, who pointed out the following fact concerning controlled demolition. “With any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions - not unlike the percussion section in a symphony - as each loaded floor is progressively set off." [21] That being said Arthur L. Lerner-Lam's interpretation of the 9/11 seismogram evidence undoubtedly supports the "Revisionist" argument of controlled demolition vis-à-vis nanothermite and not RDX. So too it means both Michael Newman's and Mark Loizeaux's proclamations that extremely loud thundering BOOMS are synonymous with controlled demolition simply aren't true. By the way, for those who missed it, Mr. Sullivan learned his craft from one of the world's preeminent controlled demolitions experts, Mark Loizeaux, of Loizeaux Group International - formerly Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) - which means he also knows how to bring a building down. [21]

All said and done the NIST strategy of plausible deniability and obfuscation has worked well thus far, as the agency sits back and watches with amusement while those at 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' attempt to win support in the streets with their empirical/historical precedence for controlled demolition. What they fail to realize is the man in the street is unsophisticated and by that I mean people invariably follow along with what authority figures like Michael Newman and Mark Loizeaux tell them; more so than they understand the physics of freefall vs. controlled demolition. Therefore, it's incumbent upon the sceptics to plausibly demonstrate how the Twin Towers were sabotaged with nanothermite, thus proving how the likes of Michael Newman, the recently deceased W. Gene Corley and the smarmy Mark Loizeaux have lied to cover that up.

Having said that I feel one of the few rational explanations given thus far for how nanothermite made its way into the Twin Towers came from Christopher Bollyn, who pointed out in one of his articles on the subject, "Super-thermite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint." [27] In fact that scenario is best explained there in the 2002 study/paper coauthored by the scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who claim:

"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,OdAWiton 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." What's more "The material is energetic and bums very vigorously with gas evolution when thermally ignited." [28] Now then I for one don't believe that scenario would have allowed for sufficient quantities of the explosive nanothermite that necessitated the softening and melting all of the core columns therein both Twin Towers. However, that scenario certainly is food for thought and it certainly fits with the fireproofing upgrades.

In light of everything mentioned so far, is it any wonder the NIST WTC investigators refused to conduct a full and thorough forensic investigation of the steel from the Twin Towers and/or actual physical explosive evidence (nanothermite) which independent 9/11 researchers discovered in the ground zero dust. In fact, if anything the following abridged description of NIST's computer simulated "Hypothetical Blast Scenarios" indicates they went well out of their way to avoid confirming the controlled demolition of all three WTC Towers using nanothermite. In fact no such statement appeared in any of the pre-2008 final reports and only after public awareness of the controlled demolition issue reached the mainstream media did the WTC investigators reveal its methodology in the following November of 2008 statement:

"As part of assessing alternative hypothesis for initiation for the collapse of WTC7, a hypothetical blast event was considered. Scenarios of a hypothetical blast event that could have occurred in WTC7 on September 11, 2001, were assessed, including blast location, size, and timing. Identification and analysis of hypothetical blast scenarios was conducted in three phases, with the results from each phase being used as input to the next phase... For phase one a controlled demolition expert identified appropriate charge sizes and configurations... Phase I Identified a single minimum plausible scenario for the explosive demolition of a selected column or truss... The hypothetical blast scenarios that were addressed fell into two categories: (1) - Those in which there was sufficient time to prepare the (structures) for an optimum set-up prior to demolition. The objective would have been to use the minimum possible amount of explosives in the demolition process. Preliminary cutting of structural members could have been performed. (2) - Those in which the demolition was to be performed in the shortest possible time. The objective would have been to set-up for a demolition during approximately a 6 h timeframe, i.e., between the time WTC7 had been evacuated and the time at which collapse occurred... For each of the scenarios, the type and quantity of explosive material (e.g., shaped charges, C4 or other non-directional explosive materials) required to fail each of the selected column sections was identified. From all these combinations, a single hypothetical blast scenario was identified for all of the selected column or truss sections. This hypothetical blast scenario included... 4 kg (9 Ib.) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges..." [29] [30]

Suffice to say the aforementioned statement was intended to counter the numerous eyewitness accounts of people in the streets having heard countless loud explosions (bombs) emanating from deep within the WTC towers on 9/11. As such the aforementioned computer simulated hypothetical blast scenarios were rigged in order to discredit those accounts by showing why "bombs" of sufficient size, type, and quantity needed to bring the Towers down simply couldn't have been planted therein - according to NIST that is.

However, according to Mark Loizeaux's protégé, Tom Sullivan, not only is the incendiary Thermite very efficient but its use precludes all the work a demolition team would normally have to do when using RDX. [20] That being said the controlled demolition expert NIST employed to help the WTC investigators program the computer simulated "Hypothetical Blast Scenarios" was none other than Mark Loizeaux. In fact if you look very closely you'll find his name tucked away at the very bottom of page v in the reports 'Abstract' where he's accredited for having coauthored Chapter D of that report. [31] Might I mention Mark Loizeaux is the same unscrupulous U.S. government whom General Partin chastised back in July of 1995 for his companies incalculable destruction of physical evidence related to the Oklahoma City bombing. [32]

Mark Loizeaux's intimate knowledge of and expertise in controlled demolition ultimately persuaded the WTC investigators to go with RDX and not nanothermite, thus he most certainly dictated what parameters they fed into their computer simulated experiments. That is to say they effectively switched the inherent properties and characteristics of one explosive material for the other by factoring into their (SHAMRC) computer simulated hypothetical blast scenarios data which Loizeaux knew full well what the outcome of that bait and switch would be. How ironic is it then that the name of the software program used by NIST for its hypothetical blast event scenarios is SHAMRC! The definition of 'sham' being, "anything that is not what it purports or appears to be. 2 something false, fake, or fictitious that purports to be genuine..." So too and needless to say, by engaging in that unprecedented act of scientific fraud, the NIST WTC investigators avoided the impossible burden of disproving the irrefutable provenance and chain of custody for Prof. Jones nanothermite evidence.

What's more then, due to his political bent and expertise in controlled demolition that made Loizeaux the ideal credentialed expert and 9/11 apologist for Mike Rudin's odious 2008 BBC hit-piece, 'Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower'. [33] Which is precisely why Loizeaux was featured prominently throughout that hit-piece while no other controlled demolition expert could get a word in edgewise.

As previously mentioned that made-for-television docudrama was a deceptive ploy on the part of the toady Rudin to showcase Loizeaux's rationale for why the explosions emanating from deep within all three towers on 9/11 were not evidence of controlled demolition. However, the problem is Loizeaux made an absolute ass of himself therein by repeatedly lying about what constitutes a controlled demolition. By his definition it's a loud noise, or BOOM, but not necessarily so according to Tom Sullivan.

In fact when questioned by Mr. Rudin about the sounds of explosions heard before the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 the cagey Loizeaux carefully chose to reply, “What's an explosion sound like? Most people don’t know because they’ve never heard one. So any sharp, loud bang; that’s probably an explosion.” What Mr. Loizeaux was saying then is the general population are ignoramus and only a trained and qualified "expert" ear can competently distinguish the difference between an EXPLOSION and the explosions of a controlled demolition. [33]

To the contrary then, as Tom Sullivan explained it:

"Well the key word here is controlled demolition and I emphasize the word control. We use careful placement of the charges. They're always focussed and precise and we're just not talking about setting off a bomb here. Plus the amount and type of explosives can pretty well take care of any collateral damage. With any implosion you don't hear one massive boom/sound. What you do hear is smaller explosions going off which leads-up to the implosion of the building. Mr. Sunder of NIST has said that if this had been a controlled demolition you would have heard a large, massive bomb going off - a big boom. What in reality happens with a controlled demolition is you hear is a successive, progressive, waves of smaller explosions going off and that leads to the successful implosion of the building. In the case of Thermite cutting charges you would have heard far less noise since they are worked by thermal heating; melting of the steel, rather than an explosive cutting as with RDX charges." [20]

In contrast to the preceding explanation of a typical controlled demolition Loizeaux stated "there's no way around going in and knocking out all the walls on the floors where you place explosives - gut them." [33] Likewise then, when Loizeaux was asked by Rudin if it was possible to prepare a building like WTC7 for controlled demolition while it was occupied and without anyone seeing a thing, to that question Loizeaux smugly replied, "In a screen play. In a movie. Something with Bruce Willis in it, maybe. In reality, no." [33]

With respect to Loizeaux's comment about a structure that's taken down with explosives leaves behind telltale signs of detonator chord and the upper portion of caps where the delay element is housed, to that Tom Sullivan responded, "You wouldn't need miles and miles of detonator chord; you could have used wireless detonators and they've been available for years. You only need to look at an action movie to see them in use, and of course the military has them as well... In the case of Thermite, well Thermite self-consuming cutting charges have been around since they were first patented in 1984. So there would be nothing left in the debris pile, except for some residue of molten iron." [20]

When asked about what he saw there at ground zero and whether or not there was any evidence found of the huge explosive charges that would be needed at the time of Tower sevens (WTC7) collapse Mr. Loizeaux responded, "There were a lot of broken windows. They are mainly from impact of debris, but I didn’t see windows broken on the backs of buildings. Only where debris falling from the towers struck it, but come around to the backside; no, windows weren’t broken there. They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building were detonated, the windows all the way around would have been shattered; no way around it.” [33]

With respect to that last statement by Loizeaux, words don't exist to describe how incredibly deceptive and truly misleading he intended to be. In fact his rationale can only be described as pure, unadulterated bullshit and for two good reasons. First of all the irrefutable fact of the matter is Architects and Engineers the world over have made it crystal clear from the beginning that the explosive evidence suggests WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 and ONLY those buildings were rigged with (nanothermite) - NOT RDX! Therefore, the fact that Loizeaux was suggesting that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were not destroyed by controlled demolition because windows on the backsides of surrounding buildings were not blown out by pressure waves created by massive amounts of RDX planted in the destroyed Towers, well needless to say that's a Straw Man argument. In fact it's clear from the evidence the man is anything but neutral on the issue and being a hired-for-pay mouthpiece and apologist for his government, need I say more about his motives and contribution to 9/11 truth.

Sources for this article
[1] - What is Research Misconduct: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf

[2] - National Science Foundation New Research Misconduct Policies. http://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf

[3] - NIST NCSTAR 1, 'Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers', September 2005, pages xxxviii. 146 and 176. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

[4] - 'Theories of 9/11', Hartford Advocate, Jennifer Abel , January 29, 2008. http://jenniferabel.typepad.com/jennifer_a...ies-of-911.html

[5] - NIST Special Publication 1000-5, June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, page 84. http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=452099

[6] - Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation, September 19, 2011. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc...s_wtctowers.cfm

[7] - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/a...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

[8] - Design and Development of Nanoenergetic Materials with Tuneable Combustion Characteristics. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/9721

[9] - NIST NCSTAR 1, September 2005, Chapter 6, page 146. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

[10] - NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D, page v, Hypothetical Blast Scenarios, page v and page 693. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

[11] - Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2, Harris Beach & Wilcox, NIST Cumulus dataset, Release - 29, 42A0335 - G29D21, 42A0336 - G29D22, 42A0337 - G29D23 and 42A0338 - G29D24.

NIST FOIA: Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2 (Video 1 of 4)

NIST FOIA: Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2 (Video 2 of 4)

NIST FOIA: Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2 (Video 3 of 4)

NIST FOIA: Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2 (Video 4 of 4)

[12] - NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September, 2005, page 73. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

[13] - NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September, 2005, page 71. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

[14] - NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, 'Passive Fire Protection', Executive Summary, page xxxvii. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101041

[15] - International Center for 9/11 Studies. http://www.ic911studies.org/
- (See also) - http://911datasets.org/index.php/Internati...udies_NIST_FOIA

[16] - World Views, Artists at the World Trade Center, 1997-2001. http://www.lmcc.net/residencies/workspace/...ons/world_views

[17] - 'Accounts From the North Tower', The New York Times, May 26, 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26NTOWER.html

[18] - 'List of 2,977 Sept. 11 Victims', Daily Herald, September 9, 2011. https://www.dailyherald.com/article/2011090...10909868/print/

[19] - The National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 'The Names on the Memorial'. http://www.911memorial.org/names-memorial-0

[20] - Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg.

[21] - Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, June 24, 2010. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles...i-employee.html

[22] - ART STUDENTS in WTC Connected to ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, Investigation by CoreOfCorruption.com, Jonathon Elinoff, October, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1WHs3MMmxI

[23] - Jonathan Elinoff on Truth Jihad Radio, October 10, 2009. http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20091017_ke...thanelinoff.mp3

[24] - Israeli Art Students, April 24, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jihcri3UU9o

[25] - Israel is Spying in and on the U.S.?, Carl Cameron Investigates.
Part 1 of 4 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Part 2 of 4 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7544.htm
Part 3 of 4 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6480.htm
Part 4 of 4 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5133.htm

[26] - Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, Popular Mechanics magazine, February 3, 2005. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ry/news/1227842

[27] - Game Over: Evidence of Super-Thermite in the Rubble, Christopher Bollyn, April 5, 2009. http://www.bollyn.com/game-over-evidence-o...e-in-the-rubble

[28] - 'Energetic Nanocomposites with Sol-gel Chemistry: Synthesis, Safety, and Characterization', Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, June 5, 2002. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

[29] - NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D, page 695. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

[30] - NIST NCSAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, page 26. http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication...m?pub_id=861610

[31] - NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center 7, ABSTRACT (Chapter Authors) page v, November 20, 2008. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

[32] - Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, July 30, 1995. https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLIT.../PARTIN/ok8.htm

[33] - 'Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower', BBC, July 6, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTZ3XXO7wNA
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 29 2014, 08:06 PM
Post #2

Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592

QUOTE (questionitall @ Mar 29 2014, 06:49 PM) *
"The search for truth is not aided by the dissemination of falsehoods." - James Meig's, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine.

"The collapse of the World Trade Center is the most intensively studied engineering failure in world history... there’s no indication in any of that work to support any of these ideas of demolition or anything like that..." - James Meig's, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine.

Needless to say...

Needless to say their ploy was designed to convince the sceptics of the world that the controlled s and in g

Suffice to say the aforementioned statement was intended to counter the numerous eyewitness accounts

Suffice it to say, any child can see the towers did not collapse!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 30 2014, 09:14 AM
Post #3

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331

Good work, Questionitall!

Yes, the NIST process was fraudulent, but one should expect that considering the fraternity brother incestuous relationship between, Bement, head of NIST, and his boss Evans, who was considered to be "like a brother" to Dubya.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2019 - 10:18 PM