QUOTE(twinstead @ Feb 4 2005, 07:27 AM)
Some of you seem to imply that NO qualified demolitions expert or structural engineer who has studied the WTC collapse can possibly come to any other conclusion than the official story is a hoax.
In fact, thousands of qualified and unbiased engineers (the WTC collapse has become a study point for them world-wide) have no problem with the way the buildings collapsed.
the truth is only a handful of true experts were allowed near ground zero and its funny how "the most" relavent experts on the subject all came to their own conclusions of conspiracy only to recant with rebuttals that were completely opposite of what they had originally theorized-here are two examples
*************************************
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
*********************************************
this was rebutted and the author fired
*******************************
BATTLE: AN EXPERT RECANTS ON WHY WTC TOWERS COLLAPSED
By John Flaherty and Jared Israel
[Originally posted 14 September 2001 under the title, "'Explosives Planted In Towers,' New Mexico Tech Expert Says. Updated 26 December 2001 Revised 26 August 2002]
On September 14th we did post an interesting article from the Albuquerque Journal concerning the WTC towers.
It is based on an interview with Van Romero, the director of research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
According to the article, Mr. Romero:
'studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.'
His Institute:
'assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.'
The Institute is funded, at least in part, by grants from the Pentagon.
Van Romero reported that he had studied the videos of the WTC collapse and concluded that the towers were most likely destroyed by carefully placed demolition charges. He told the 'Journal':
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."
FROM EXPERT OPINION TO 'SUPPORT' STATEMENT
We posted the Journal story with a link to its Web address. But when you go that address, you don't see the original story. You see a rebuttal, entitled, "Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says."
It's a rebuttal to the original story. Unless you read almost to end of the rebuttal, you won't see that the original story is posted below it. Very odd.
Here's the address:
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htmThe original article and the rebuttal have a very different 'feel.'
Reading the original article, it is clear that Romero is motivated by a desire to understand what happened. This is not surprising; after all he studies how buildings collapse. He isn't thinking about political implications; he's thinking about science. He doesn't have an axe to grind. He explains himself clearly and he is quoted frequently.
In the retraction, Romero is only quoted twice. Instead of letting the man speak for himself, the reporter keeps repeating the official explanation of why the WTC buildings collapsed, informing us that Romero accepts it.
And regarding that word, "supports," doesn't it suggest a political rather than a scientific act? Consider:
"Romero [now] *supports* other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.
Why didn't the Journal let this researcher, who "assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks," explain for himself what new information caused him to change his expert opinion?
What did he learn between 9-11 and 9-21, the date of the retraction, from "conversations with structural engineers"?
***********************************
this is an opinion that has never been recanted***********************************************************
Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations
AJ: We are talking to Col. Donn de Grand-Pre and he worked in many of the levels of the U.S. military and has put out some really important information. Two years ago, he put out a report in a meeting in a 72-hour deliberation, a group of military and civilian U.S. pilots under the chairmanship of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this. Colonel, we are going to go to some calls here in a minutes after you cover some other issues with us. But, understand this, my question of what percentage of the officers, period, in the military do you think have finally woken up to the true magnitude of what's going on?
DGP: Well, I'm in personal contact at least on a weekly basis with the Joint Chiefs and other select people. My computation is that 70% of us are with us. That's the higher ranking military, field grade officers, etc. and even the first three grades of the enlisted ' 70% are with us.
AJ: Well, they've had questionnaires, you know, a decade ago, will you fire on U.S. citizens under UN control if the president says so ' and, you know, 74% say no to that. Okay, then how are the globalists getting away with this?
DGP: Sheer [Garbled] bluff and we can thank many of the neocons who are now in power in the Defense Dept. particularly. They get away with it because they try it out and see if anybody will salute the flag and that's the way it goes.
AJ: So basically, they wrap their un-American agenda in a flag and the general public buys it so the military has to sit there and take it.
DGP: They do, yes, and I think those days are coming to an end. The military ain't going to take it any longer.
AJ: How did the military ever get convinced to use depleted uranium in areas where there is going to be troops?
DGP: To put what Alex?
AJ: Well, yeah, the military gets treated like dog meat. You've got the depleted uranium, Colonel, where they spray the depleted uranium everywhere where the troops breathe it at 1900 times safe levels. How can the Pentagon put up with that?
DGP: Well, the DU rounds are over-played, first of all. They aren't that potent and secondarily, we must consider that weapons of mass destruction have already been used by some of the opposition in the period February of 1991. Weapons of mass destruction, including low-yield nuclear weapons.
AJ: All right, 8 minutes, 30 seconds into this third hour. Again I'm Alex Jones, your host. We'll have our guest with us for another twenty-five minutes or so, then I'm going to get into this big stack of news that we have not detailed yet. Believe me it's all very important. Our guest is Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. Honored to have him on the show. He's the author of a three-part series of books, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." And real quick, John in New York, you had a question about 9/11.
John: It's not a question. I want to make a comment. I was in the Air Force. My career field was radar operations and I was assigned to the Air Defense Command. The airliners turned around at Erie, Pennsylvania and were off-course for approximately one-hour, at the wrong altitude, at the wrong speed, without radio contact and it is absolutely insane for anybody to believe that could have happened unless people were told to stand down.
AJ: Well, Payne Stewart, in 18 minutes had five F-16s around him in the middle of no where. In the most sensitive air corridor in the world, the eastern coast there, D.C./ New York, with these four planes all over the map. And they know there's been hijackings and Dick Cheney's in control. Everything's standing down and ....
John: The fighters that were stationed in Virginia, just across the border from Washington, D.C., could have been flying at bust speed, which is max speed, they could have intercepted those planes in 15 minutes and saved all that tragedy. And the second airplane was 15 minutes behind the first airplane. So to think they didn't do anything about the second one makes it even more ludicrous. So, terrific guest; terrific show. Thanks for taking my call.
AJ: All right, and again, we don't even do this justice to focus on one area. I mean we've got all the public officials being told not to go to New York, the insider trading by the CIA, the Bushes protecting the bin Ladens. Colonel, do you want to comment on that?
DGP: Well, what I was trying to get through here, John has done a beautiful job of laying it all out here on 911. What I want to carry away is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself has agreed, there were no hijackers. There were no cell phone calls. Everybody aboard that aircraft, pilots and crew, were unconscious within 8 to 18 minutes after take-off. And you can take it from there. I've got it covered in books 2 and 3, what actually happened.
AJ: So, they're knocked out and then the remote control takes place and the rest is history.
DGP: Yeah, there was remote control and .. yes.
AJ: By the way, people don't believe they have that. Kennedy's oldest son, JFK's big brother, died in a chase plane with remote controlling in a bomber loaded with explosives as a drone in 1944.
DGP: That is correct.
AJ: So this very old technology, folks. And for people that are in total denial, it's ridiculous. Let's go ahead and talk to Wayne in Virginia. Wayne, thanks for holding, go ahead.
Wayne: Yes sir, thank you. I have a two-part question. The first part is Colonel..ah.
AJ: Donn de Grand-Pre
Wayne: de Grand-Pre. I'm sorry sir, I stumbled over your name. Could you play the instructor with us ground-pounders for a little while and tell us why, from an airmanship point of view, the maneuvers the aircraft performed were just inexplicable and bordering on the impossible from a pilot's point of view?
DGP: Yes, let me get that real quick for Wayne from Virginia. These planes were being piloted by remote control, probably an AWACs aircraft taking over that airplane or airplanes or drones, unmanned drones. And flying them at 5 and 8 G-force that no pilot could withstand. So, in short, and if you read books 2 and 3, you will discover how and why this came about.
Wayne: The second part of my question is after 911, our Congressman from down here, Randy Forbes spoke at a Veterans' Foreign Wars Hall about how close he was to the Bush and Rumsfeld cabal and how before 911 he had a briefing at the White House where they were told they were expecting something big from Afghanistan. And he also in his discussion, there were about 200 or 300 people there, it is recorded on film. And my notes are very clear on this. He also said they were following other aircraft out over the ocean. Do you have any knowledge of that? That is something that I have not heard discussed at all about 911.
DGP: No, but this comes under speculation now. And I'm telling you that we are knowledgeably speculating. Those aircraft carrying crew and passengers went over the Atlantic and that was all she wrote.
[Crosstalk]
AJ: Yeah, you remote control the original planes out, then your loaded up drones attack. And the biggest and oldest newspaper in Spain just came out, three weeks ago, and they looked at the bottom of one of those jets and there's some type of giant belly attachment. It's clearly a modified aircraft.
Wayne: Can I ask one final question?
AJ: Yes.
Wayne: That your line of discussion here, the Colonel in the past few minutes, has just opened up. You said earlier that you expected when push comes to shove that this 70% of general and field grade officers are going to say that's it. Well the enterprise that we are discussing here of taking regularly scheduled civilian airlines out and ditching them in the ocean and putting in their places aerial bombs....
AJ: Yeah, that is push coming to shove.
Wayne: That is it. Why aren't these people coming forward now'
AJ: Let me say this. We know because, folks I don't want to give too much detail out. I've talked to lawyers. I've talked to them. We know hundreds of high level officers have leaked everything we are now learning about today. So, I think that this caught a lot of people unawares. Colonel, do you want to comment on that?
DGP: Well, the only thing I can say is that let's consider that second aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. It did have a control device on the belly of the 757. That aircraft was unmanned and went in and blew up as a diversion. And something else happened. This was a sideshow.
AJ: I understand but going back to, we know they had bombs in the buildings, it's now admitted, but going back to what the caller said, your saying these elements in the military when push came to shove are going to stand up. Well, I would say that 911 was the globalists pushing. So, where's the shove? That's his question.
DGP: Well this will come. It's going to be in the form of a counter-coup d'tat. You understand that a coup d'tat was pulled on September 11th by the civilian hierarchy. [crosstalk] Say again?
Wayne: God grant that it would come soon.
DGP: Well, we, we, yes it probably will.
Wayne: They are talking about going into Syria now.
DGP: Don't believe it. There is a new ballgame there and I can't go into it right now. But Syria is going to be something else entirely involving NATO forces. And I can't go into that much right now.
