9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Seven, Conclusion)

We now conclude with WTC 7 and the Epilogue (starting at 4:27:49):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Part Seven: Building 7 (4:30:48)

The Official Explanation (4:32:08)

I must agree with the narrator completely. NIST says WTC 7 collapsed due to office fires (thermal expansion), "for the first time", yet did not think it prudent to examine this new-found phenomenon? I should think anyone who has reason to enter a multi-storied building would be clamoring to find out how it happened and how to prevent this anomaly from being repeated in the future! Instead, a supposed laboratory is content to cross its fingers and pray something like this never happens again? Whatever happened to their mission statement to:

"Promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life"?!

 https://www.nist.gov/about-nist/our-organization/mission-vision-values

The Collapse Computer Model (4:35:05)

Once again we have computer models that directly contradict the official version of events (see my article of March 28th entitled Time to Revisit 9/11, linked below):

http://ladonnarae1961.blogspot.com/2017/03/time-to-revisit-911.html

The Fire Computer Model (4:36:28)

What does NIST want us to believe? Their computer model, or our lying eyes?

"Building 7 weaker than regular skyscrapers" (4:37:53

This time "Popular Mechanics" floated a theory that was discounted by NIST itself (4:38:38):

"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7." NIST NCSTAR 1A xxxvii 

In the words of Larry Silverstein himself:

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity." (4:39:19)

Evidence to the Contrary (4:39:46)

Preknowledge (4:39:55)

Even though, as the narrator emphasizes, the idea that the media were forewarned about WTC 7's collapse is insane, we are left to wonder how it is that so many different sources predicted its collapse up to five hours before the event occurred. 

QUESTION (4:44:06):

Given that the collapse of a steel skyscraper due to fire would have been an unprecedented event, how could so many people have known about it so many hours in advance?

If the police clearing the area expected a structural failure due to fire, why would they use such an expression as "the building is about to blow up"?

Can you explain how an unprecedented, totally unexpected collapse due to fire could be predicted with absolute precision by an actual countdown?

Symmetry (4:44:34)

QUESTION (4:45:23):

Can you explain how the almost simultaneous removal of all of the columns, which was necessary for Building 7 to collapse in the way it did, can be caused by fire alone?

Freefall (4:45:35)

QUESTION (4:47:53):

Can you explain how freefall, which requires the almost simultaneous removal of the supporting structure, can be achieved without a controlled demolition?

Epilogue (4:48:04)

I think the narrator could have stopped at "John McCain said", but on a personal note I find it highly offensive that a man who served in the same Navy as my father, who was responsible for the USS Forrestal fire which killed 134 sailors (he "hot-started" his jet), who points fingers at Israel every chance he gets blaming them for the incident with USS Liberty (never mind the facts of the matter and the rules of maritime law, with which he supposedly is familiar), yet feigns ignorance after writing the foreword for the book "Popular Mechanics" wrote to discredit those people who are demanding truthful answers to legitimate questions.

QUESTION (4:48:04)

If you were aware of solid evidence disproving the official version and suggesting the involvement of some rogue elements of the government in the terrorist attacks, would it be more unpatriotic and anti-American to ask for a new investigation, or to turn a blind eye to it and pretend such evidence doesn't exist?

Given that the people's trust in institutions is of paramount importance for a nation's well-being, would that trust be better served by denying the evidence of a conspiracy, or by bringing those suspected to accountability in a court of law?

The Last Word (4:50:05)

If there is nothing to hide, why is such a concerted effort being made to quash any and all lines of inquiry into an event that murdered 2,997 Americans? Why are investigators being labeled "conspiracy theorists" and/or having their sanity questioned? Why is the scientific community, which prides itself on its ability to draw unbiased conclusions based solely upon the evidence it observes, suddenly allergic to questioning its data? 

What is the fear?

"What's past is prologue." William Shakespeare

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Six)

Continuing with "Part Six: The Twin Towers" at 3:25:47 (remember to open video in a separate window):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

The Hypothesis of Controlled Demolitions 

"Impossible to place explosives under everyone's eyes" (3:26:44)

Readers will recall I suggested an explanation in Part One of this series on 9/11:

http://ladonnarae1961.blogspot.com/2017/04/911-truth-hurts.html

The documentary adds the following, disturbing information:

Interesting Facts (3:27:15):

1) Major elevators' renovations 

2) Heavy equipment moved on empty floors 

3) Bomb-sniffing dogs removed (September 6th)

4) Unprecedented power down (South Tower, September 8th and 9th, for 36 hours)

"Controlled demolitions always begin at the bottom" (3:32:09)

Explosions in the Twin Towers

"Witnesses confused. Not real explosions." (3:33:44)

Preliminary Explosions in Controlled Demolitions (3:35:38)

Pay careful attention to this segment. The evidence here is so compelling I found myself shaking.

Basement Explosion Before Plane Impact (3:37:28)

"Fuel in elevator shafts" theory (3:41:10)

Problems:

1) No regular elevators from top to bottom

2) Personnel not cremated by "fireball"

3) Volumes not considered

The Big Lobby Explosion in the North Tower (3:43:45)

Explosions Just Before the Collapses (3:47:00)

Explosions During the Collapses (3:47:39)

"Explosions not recorded in video" (3:48:59)

Explosions WERE Recorded by Video Cameras (3:50:04)

Explosions Recorded After the Collapses (3:51:23)

Someone DID See Explosions (3:53:44)

QUESTION (3:54:43)

Given that after the initial explosion and the ensuing fires there wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left to pour down the elevator shafts in substantial quantities, can you explain the at least three separate explosions reported by multiple witnesses at the time of the first impact in the North Tower?

In particular, can you explain the huge explosion reported by multiple witnesses in the basement of the North Tower moments before the impact of the plane?

Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that literally devastated the lobby of the North Tower, according to multiple witnesses, about one hour after the impact of the plane, and before the collapse of Tower Two?

Can you explain what caused the big explosion reported by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess on the eighth floor of Building 7, before either tower had collapsed?

Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions recorded by different camera crews, including the BBC and CNN, after the Towers had collapsed and before the collapse of Building 7?

Can you explain how more than one hundred witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions of the Twin Towers on September 11?

Squibs (3:55:55)

"Air pressure caused windows to explode" (3:56:25)

QUESTION (3:58:16)

Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and other debris, can you explain what caused the squibs observed 30 or 40 floors below the level of collapse?

Explosive Force (3:58:27)

Ejecta (4:00:36)

"Just aluminum, not steel structure" (4:01:20)

QUESTION (4:03:10)

Given that the following, upper sections of the Towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below, where did the energy to hurdle these large chunks of structure at such a distance from the Towers come from?

Diagonal Cuts (4:03:38)

QUESTION (4:05:35)

Can you suggest a good reason why iron workers would need to perform "V" cuts and a 45 degree cut on this piece of structure just to remove it from the rubble?

What Happened to the Hat Trusses? (4:05:45)

Extreme Temperatures (4:06:50)

"Gasoline from cars, generator fuel tank" (4:11:03)

Exactly how many automobiles do these people think were parked at the World Trade Center, how large do they think those tanks were, and how hot would such fires be that gasoline and generator fuel burned for over three months?!

Bent and Mangled Beams (4:12:13)

Molten Steel (4:13:10)

"No proof of molten steel" (4:13:33)

QUESTION (4:18:40)

Given that most of the jet fuel was burned after the impacts, given that only office fires were burning at the time of the collapses, and given that no major source of combustible seems to have been available underground, can you offer a comprehensive explanation for the temperatures up to 2,800 degrees reported at Ground Zero, for the long lasting fires underground, for the incandescent beams repeatedly extracted from the rubble, for the massive steel beams "bent like a pretzel", for the molten steel and the molten concrete observed and found at Ground Zero, as caused by the office fires and the gravitational collapses only?

Pulverization (4:19:17)

43,600 windows

600,000 square feet of glass

200,000 tons of structural steel

5 million square feet of gypsum

6 acres of marble (one acre = 43,560 square feet)

425,000 cubic yards of concrete

Victims Vaporized (4:23:09)

2,749 Victims (<300 whole bodies)

20,000 body parts

6,000 body parts <5 inches

200 pieces = one person

1,630 identified (800 by DNA only)

1,119 not identified (41%)

In 2006, over 700 bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building (4:26:35)

QUESTION (4:27:19)

Can you explain how a simple, gravitational collapse, where the bodies remain trapped between pancaking floors, could have produced more than 20,000 body parts out of 2,700 victims, while more than 1,100 bodies left no fragments large enough to extract a DNA sample?

Can you explain how a simple, gravitational collapse could have produced the bone fragments and body parts from civilians and firefighters that were recovered from the roof of the Deutsche Bank building?

Part Seven will cover the conclusion of this video.

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Five)

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: My deepest apologies for the long break between Part Four and this one. Due to a personal emergency I was away from home longer than I expected and did not think to pack my electronics. Here is the long-awaited portion on the Twin Towers.]

Once again, here is the link, along with my suggestion that readers open it in a separate window so they can follow the notes as they go along. We left off at 2:40:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Part Six: The Twin Towers

Beginning at 2:41:00, several calls from the WTC are replayed. Oddly enough, it was going through them in preparation for this article that caused me to catch something that I never realized before. The female who is on the telephone with 911 talks about how hot it is, the floor being "completely engulfed", and seeing nothing but smoke. What (finally!) struck me on this umpteenth time of listening to it is:

SHE NEVER COUGHS. NOT ONE TIME.

I have no idea what it means nor what explanation to propose at this point; I will leave the reader to come up with his or her own conclusion(s).

The Towers' Dirty Little Secret (2:42:55)

Larry Silverstein (2:48:20)

NIST vs. Architects and Engineers (2:51:30)

Robust or Fragile Buildings? (2:53:08)

Peter Jennings interviewed an architect on 9/11 whose firm built the World Trade Center. Jon Magnusson, while believing the initial theories being circulated on that day, explained just how sturdy the Towers were (beginning at 1:40):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_LltI4QMrY

Most Americans are unaware of how the WTC was constructed, but this segment of the video gives a far different picture than what we were led to believe on that day. 244 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting 40% of the Towers' weight; 47 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting the other 60% of the weight, and a structural redundancy of three to five times the weight they were intended to support. This description is a far cry from the paper machet impression we got from the "talking heads" and our government. By the way, how many people knew about the so-called "Hat Trusses"? And the quote from Roth & Son bears no resemblance to that of the pundits trying to push the government's narrative:

"The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of the tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100 mph wind."

Evidently the powers that be have very short memories, since after the first WTC bombing various engineers were interviewed who affirmed the Towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner going up to 600 mph, never mind the statements of the original architects we read in this segment of the film. In addition, how does the official version square with NIST's own report that the initial jet fuel fires burned out "in a few minutes"? 

The Technical Debate (2:59:30)

1) The Initial Failure

2) The Complete Collapse 

Official Explanation #1

"Fire softened and melted steel." (2:59:50)

I still find the PBS model to be hilarious. If the computer cannot replicate what you say happened, it is a safe bet that you are missing something. (3:00:40)

Official Explanation #2

"Fire weakened steel." (3:01:02)

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory (3:02:40)

Problems:

1) No proof of insulation "widely dislodged"

    - Evidence to the contrary:

      Pictures didn't fall

2) No proof of temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius (480 degrees Fahrenheit).

    - Evidence to the contrary (see 3:06:05):

    A) 16 people descended through stairs

    B)  FLIR Thermographic Images

3) Why would trusses "pull inward"?

Amazingly, while arguing that fire brought down the Towers (and Building 7), NIST admits the evidence does not support their claim (3:05:04):

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (NIST NCSTAR1 p. 90)

"Only two core columns specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis and the temperatures did not reach 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (Ibid)

 "No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." (Ibid, 3C, p. 235)

Steel Properties (3:05:45):
Melting: 1,530 C (2,800 F)
Softening: 600 C (1,100 F)
NIST: Max. 250 C (480 F)

QUESTION (3:09:42)

Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire?

Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken the steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred?

Can you explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to, with no external force being applied to it?

NIST's theory on what led to the Towers' collapsing is close to comical (3:10:35):

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence', although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 82)

"Independent studies explain collapses" (3:12:21)

Laws of Physics Violated (3:14:00)

Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Law of Momentum Conservation: Momentum is conserved in isolated systems. (3:16:00)

The Twin Towers and Freefall (3:17:05)

"More than ten seconds" (3:20:20)

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance [...] the building section above came down essentially in freefall." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 146)

How does this even make any sense?!

QUESTION (3:22:30):

Given that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall"; given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of controlled demolition for the removal of the supporting structure, which was necessary for near free fall speed to be achieved?

Debunking 9/11 Myths (foreword by John McCain): "Not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Popular Mechanics 2006, 2011 (3:24:12)

I will continue with the Twin Towers in Part Six, which I promise will not take two months to post. 😸