Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
So, if the fires didn’t cause this effect of a one-inch column being reduced to half-inch thickness; its edges--which are<br />
curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness; gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let<br />
light shine through a formerly solid steel flange.; a Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who<br />
expected to see distortion and bending--but not “holes.” - What did and what did NIST say about it?<br />
Nothing- it ignored it all- even though it was in the previous FEMA report and its existence was undeniable.<br />
Such a “vaporizing” style effect can likely only be explained by the use of explosives and the fact the “sulfidation” was also<br />
present could be attributed to the fact that it is a common practice to mix sulfur in with Thermite to obtain an even more<br />
power incendiary reaction. 1<br />
Now, “Nano-Thermite” was developed by the US Military years ago and a basic understanding of it can be found simply<br />
on Wikipedia. 2 However, the central “debunking argument” for this material, is the claim that they are merely “paint chips”<br />
from the building, due to some common chemical properties shared. In the document, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered<br />
in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” this is also addressed. Very simply, these chips most certainly<br />
could not have been paint chips for 3 basic reasons:<br />
(1) They had no Manganese or Zinc which is extremely common in paint.<br />
(2) The chips, having been put into paint solvent for many hours, did not dissolve.<br />
(3) The chips combust when ignited, while paint merely distorts. Again, this and more can be found in the<br />
aforementioned document.<br />
(7) NIST report on WTC7:<br />
World Trade Center 7 was a 47 story skyscraper that collapsed around 5:20 pm Sept. 11th. While this building would be<br />
considered very large in most cities, its collapse was initially little acknowledged in the main stream media, given the dramatic<br />
collapse of the Twin Towers. In fact, a 2006 Zogby poll found that 43% of the American public were still unaware that<br />
WTC 7 had even collapsed on 9/11. 3<br />
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. There was no such impact damage and there was no jet fuel. There were, however, fires<br />
and some physical damage, the damage of which was mostly isolated to the SW corner, occuring from the fall of the Twin<br />
Towers. This building collapsed into its own footprint, at near free-fall speed. Just as with the WTC 1 & 2 there is evidence<br />
of heard and seen explosions, molten metal found and many other characteristics of controlled demolition, or more specifically,<br />
a classic “implosion” style take down. These will be discussed as we proceed, but first a little history.<br />
The first official study of WTC7 was done by FEMA in 2002. They stated, very honestly, that the best explanation they<br />
could come up with for the collapse had “only a low probability of occurrence.” 4 In 2004 the 911 Commission released its<br />
571 page public report on the whole 9/11 event and it didn’t even mention the collapse of WTC 7.<br />
In 2003, NIST, which was now the official government sanctioned group to explain all three towers, initially stated it would<br />
publish the report on WTC7 along with the Twin Towers Report, when done. 5 This didn’t happen. NIST released it report<br />
on the Twin Towers in 2005 and then announced that the WTC 7 report was delayed until 2006... it then said the draft<br />
would be 2007... Finally, in late 2008, NIST released its final WTC 7 report. These delays are evidence as to the complexity<br />
NIST faced with explaining the collapse and, as we will show, NIST’s function in this regard was an a political agency<br />
and not a scientific one.<br />
To show the lack of confidence in creating an explanation, Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator for WTC7, when asked<br />
in 2006 why WTC 7 collpased, he stated,:<br />
“[T]ruthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” 6<br />
1 Dr. Steven E. Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001, p19-27<br />
[ http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf ]<br />
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite<br />
3 “Word about our Poll of American Thinking toward the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks,” Zogby International, May 24th 2006<br />
4 FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 5, Sec 6.2<br />
5 “National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee 2003 Report to Congress”, p 4<br />
6 Mark Jacobenson, “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,” New York Magazine, March 20th, 2006