This really is essential viewing.

It will help you understand some of the greatest deceptions in history, and offers footage and information which I have never seen before.

Part 1 is concerned with the assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald and the web of deceit and murder which enveloped all those connected to the case.

Part 1: The Assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=666048701355447870

See also:

Part 2: The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ

Part 3: LBJ, Hoover and others. What so few know even today.

Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before

Part 5: The RFK assassination continued, MK ULTRA and the Jonestown massacre.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13368

by Brent Jessop

Global Research, January 13, 2008
URL:- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7789

Information Operation Roadmap Part 4

The Pentagon's plans for psychological operations or PSYOP in the global information environment of the 21st century are wide ranging and aggressive. These desires are outlined in the 2003 Pentagon document signed by Donald Rumsfeld in his capacity as the Secretary of Defense called the Information Operation Roadmap.

More detail about the origins and purpose of this document can be read in the first part of this series here. Also, a description of the Pentagon's desire to dominate the entire electro-magnetic spectrum and their need to "fight the net" as outline in the Information Operation Roadmap were previously described.

What is a PSYOP?

A PSYOP is not specifically defined in this document but it does provide some insight into the wide ranging activities that are considered PSYOP.

"The customary position was that "public affairs informs, while public diplomacy and PSYOP influence." PSYOP also has been perceived as the most aggressive of the three information activities, using diverse means, including psychological manipulation and personal threats." [emphasis mine] - 26

"One result of public affairs and civil military operations is greater support for military endeavors and thus, conversely these activities can help discourage and dissuade enemies, which PSYOP does more directly with its own tactics, techniques and procedures." [emphasis mine] - 10

"PSYOP messages disseminated to any audience except individual decision-makers (and perhaps even then) will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public." [emphasis mine] - 26

"A PSYOP force ready to conduct sophisticated target-audience analysis and modify behaviour with multi-media PSYOP campaigns featuring commercial-quality products that can be rapidly disseminated throughout the Combatant Commanders area of operations." [emphasis mine] - 63

"PSYOP products must be based on in-depth knowledge of the audience's decision-making processes and the factors influencing his decisions, produced rapidly at the highest quality standards, and powerfully disseminated directly to targeted audiences throughout the area of operations." [emphasis mine] - 6

"Better depiction of the attitudes, perceptions and decision-making processes of an adversary. Understanding how and why adversaries make decisions will require improvements in Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and open source exploitation, as well as improved analytic tools and methods." [emphasis mine] - 39

"SOCOM [Special Operations Command] should create a Joint PSYOP Support Element to coordinate Combatant Command programs and products with the Joint Staff and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] to provide rapidly produced, commercial-quality PSYOP product prototypes consistent with overall U.S. Government themes and messages." [emphasis mine] - 15

"SOCOM's ongoing PSYOP Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and modernization efforts should permit the timely, long-range dissemination of products with various PSYOP delivery systems. This includes satellite, radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices, the Internet and upgrades to traditional delivery systems such as leaflets and loudspeakers that are highly responsive to maneuver commanders." [emphasis mine] - 15

"PSYOP equipment capabilities require 21st Century technology. This modernization would permit the long-range dissemination of PSYOP messages via new information venues such as satellites, the Internet, personal digital assistants and cell phones:

- (U) PSYOP ACTD. Commencing in FY04, SOCOM [Special Operations Command] initiates an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) to address dissemination of PSYOP products into denied areas. The ACTD should examine a range of technologies including a network of unmanned aerial vehicles and miniaturized, scatterable public address systems for satellite rebroadcast in denied areas. It should also consider various message delivery systems, to include satellite radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices and the Internet." [emphasis mine] - 65

"Rapid, fully integrated nodal and network analysis providing Combatant Commanders with holistic kinetic and non-kinetic solutions for a full range of electromagnetic, physical and human IO [information operations] targets." [emphasis mine] - 39

"Capabilities such as physical security, information assurance, counter intelligence and physical attack make important contributions to effective IO." [emphasis mine] - 23

Third Party PSYOP

The Pentagon is also willing to use third parties for their PSYOP.

"Identify and disseminate the views of third party advocates that support U.S. positions. These sources may not articulate the U.S. position the way that the USG [US Government] would, but that may nonetheless have a positive influence." [emphasis mine] - 27

Under recommendation number 48 - "Create a Joint PSYOP Support Element" - is the following:

"Contract for commercial sources for enhanced product development." [emphasis mine] - 64

The use of third party advocates or front groups for the dissemination of US government propaganda is well documented. A couple of recent examples include the illegal payment of $1.6 billion for domestic fake news and similar activities in Iraq using the Lincoln Group among others.

Virtual PSYOP

Not only is the Pentagon exploiting new and old technology for aggressive behavior modification, they can also practice and refine their techniques in a virtual simulation of the entire world.

From an article by Mark Baard:

"U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies."

"Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of "learned helplessness" in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)"

"Yank a country's water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next."

"The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet."

How useful do you think your new MySpace or Facebook account is in helping the Pentagon develop a detailed psychological profile of you? Do you think they would be shy in exploiting such a valuable source of personal data?

AIDS Awareness

PSYOP in the past, however, often was used to support U.S. Government public diplomacy and information objectives with non-adversarial audiences. These actions include counter-drug, demining and AIDS awareness programs in friendly countries." [emphasis mine] - 25

It is a minor point in the context of this document, but it is worth reflecting on why US military PSYOP were used for AIDS awareness.

Are There Any Limits to Information Warfare?

An obvious question arises from the description of PSYOP described by the Information Operation Roadmap, are there any limits? Can PSYOP be conducted on the American public or just foreign audiences? On adversaries or non-adversaries? Can they be performed during peacetime? My next article will attempt to show just how few limits there actually are.

Global Research Articles by Brent Jessop 

By Bill Douglas

OpEd News

10 Jan 2008

In the last 48 hours, N.Y. Times best selling novelist, Steve Alten, author of, "The Shell Game," was recently shocked and dumbfounded that he’d become the victim of harassment, when someone not only put a map of his home and his personal private phone number and home address up on the internet, . . . but also either remotely accessed or intercepted personal private email between he and his publicist . . .

. . . and all because of the impending release of his new novel, "The Shell Game." http://theshellgame.net/ (See 9/11 truth links in the “911 Links” section of his site, to learn why this impending block buster novel may be causing such actions).

Having been a patriotic citizen working to expose the deceptions leading us to war, I’d personally become fascinated with Alten’s new novel, “The Shell Game.” I’d contacted him through his website after a high school English teacher told me about “The Shell Game,” because it dealt with oil, war, and deceptions leading us to war.

So, when I learned this novelist had become increasingly a victim of bizarre harassment, I suspected “why” this may have happened, and then decided it might be instructive to explain it to others. So I wrote this oped this morning. For this, in my opinion, represents yet another event in the chronology of a movement for truth that has been attacked and maligned for years now.

For the novelist who wrote, “The Shell Game,” it’s just a bizarre experience, for he’s just trying to write a good novel, and from his perspective, well if it happens to spur discussion of important issues, well that’s about as American as apple pie.

I think most people will think, if this novel has caused him to be targeted for such harassment, even before its release . . . well, it must have something “very interesting” to say. And in my opinion it does. http://theshellgame.net/

However, the bizarre harassment of this best selling author, from my perspective, is part of a long time pattern of harassment that those of us who’ve been working along side the 9/11 families who have demanded a new independent 9/11 investigation, have experienced over and over again. Even the Jersey Girls, the 9/11 widows who fought Washington to get the 9/11 Commission, were victims of it when Anne Coulter said they enjoyed their husband's deaths.

This best selling novelist may have set off to only write a good novel, but it has cast him into a world of intrigue and duplicity that many good people have lived in for years now.

So who does this story involve? The title of this OpEd, “What Do a Renowned 9/11 Physicist and a N.Y. Times Best Selling Novelist Have in Common?” actually would be more appropriately titled, what do a former Los Angeles Police Department detective, a N.Y. Times best selling novelist, a mild mannered respected physicist, an equally mild mannered and equally respected architectural design engineer, and concerned citizens demanding a new 9/11 investigation, all have in common?

This is the story of the 9/11 truth movement, and perhaps the story of how all great movements for truth and justice are deliberately sabotaged by those powers who have an interest in keeping truth from the mass public.

Let’s begin with the LAPD detective’s story, who’d become a research writer after leaving LAPD. Not long after 9/11/2001, researcher Michael C. Ruppert, a former LAPD detective, smelled something not quite right about the events of 9/11.

His nose eventually led him to call on sources he’d developed over the years as a researcher and author, with military and intelligence insiders, and discovered that mysteriously there had been many multiple war games . . . war games which do not happen that often . . . but coincidentally all were ordered by "someone" to be held on 9/11/2001. Yes, the same day as the infamous 9/11 attacks.

I personally became aware of Ruppert’s work when he did what the US media failed to do, he followed up on mainstream media’s initial insight that there had been mysterious “insider stock trades” in the days leading up to 9/11 that signaled that someone with “insider knowledge” of the coming attacks had profited obscenely by betting “against” United and American Airlines “before” 9/11, by placing put options (bets that a stock will fall) on those ill fated airlines in trades that vastly eclipsed activity on other airlines in those days. Ruppert’s research found that $5 million in “winnings” were made at a known CIA-connected financial institution called AB Brown Trust. AB Brown had been headed by the man who was the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, on 9/11. The current head of AB Brown, a friend of Krongard's, mysteriously resigned with no explanation immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and oddly $2.5 million of the winnings made against United and American Airlines by bets made the day before 9/11 . . . were never claimed.

As far as I know the man was never questioned about that, and the 9/11 Commission, led by Bush Admin. confidant Phil Zelikow, refused to look into the insider trades with any enthusiasm.

However, it was Mike Ruppert’s research into the mysteriously timed multiple war games of 9/11 that eventually evolved into his riveting research book entitled, Crossing the Rubicon. His book asks why were war games which had the effect of causing a US Air Force stand down all scheduled for 9/11/2001? Who ordered them? Was it Vice President Cheney, who appeared to have been in charge of a stand down order for our Air Force which allowed an aircraft to hit the Pentagon on 9/11, when there was still time to take it down and save many lives?

Transportation Secretary Norm Minetta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, for any investigator worth his/her salt, would have called for detailed questioning of Cheney, which never happened. Even more oddly the Transportation Secretary’s testimony was left out of the 9/11 Commission report. Left out by a Commission headed by Philip Zelikow a Bush Administration confidant, and co-author of a book with Condaleeza Rice, before his being forced down the throats of 9/11 family members who avidly protested a Bush Admin insider like Zelikow heading the Commission.

As Ruppert’s work dug into the underbelly of a web of intrigue regarding US intelligence connections, insider stock trades, war games, etc., the attacks on him became furious . . . but what is odd, is that many of these attacks came from a small but VERY VOCAL group of people purporting to be “9/11 truth activists.” Although the overwhelming majority of those seeking a new 9/11 were eager to hear what Ruppert’s research revealed, there were a very small , but again very LOUD and very AGGRESSIVE, number who slashed and tore at Ruppert’s reputation.

Which brings us back to the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where undercover FBI agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement that had much valuable information for Americans. They were used to create chaos within the peace movement, but also to spur it on to lunatic actions that would alienate the movement from the mass public. That effort in the 1960's will seem increasingly familiar to the last few years, as you read on.

Now, years after Michael Ruppert’s pioneering work investigating the events of 9/11, a mild mannered physicist, named Professor Steven Jones appears on the scene. Jones was a man dedicated to science and fact, a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, who had not been a political activist in any real sense, although he had voted for President Bush in the election.

However, at the urging of others he began to examine the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, from the perspective of a physicist. The first thing he noticed was that the global collapse of World Trade Center’s 1, 2, and later 7 . . . defied the laws of physics. The buildings should have toppled to the side, rather than falling down through all the tons of solid steel and concrete, following the laws of least resistance. But what then peaked Jones’ interest more was that the buildings all fell at near “free fall speed.”

Jones observed that the tops of Towers 1 and 2 should not have been able to fall through approximately eighty floors each at a speed that would indicate that all those many tons of solid steel and concrete "didn’t exist." Jones’ scientific mind, then led him to look at what could have made all the mass of those eighty some floors disappear from beneath the damaged tops of the buildings during the collapse. The most obvious possibility was that explosives planted within the building were detonated in a controlled demolition, just like Vegas hotels we’ve seen brought down on TV are.

Jones then asked publicly for any WTC debris samples anyone may have collected after 9/11 before the mysteriously hurried clean up that caused the collapse steel to be rushed out of the country to be recycled in India and China before a full forensics examination could be done (the most preeminent fire forensics journal in the country, Fire Engineering Magazine’s, editor cried foul. But, that’s a whole other story, and hopefully investigation).

Two people came forward to send WTC debris from the towers collapse, one a 9/11 family member who’d attended the ceremonies at ground zero and swept some up as a keepsake. What Professor Jones found when he analyzed these two separately obtained samples was indications of “thermate,” thermate being a patented control demolition steel cutting agent used to slice steel beams at an angle so that the building falls in on itself, just as the WTC towers all had on 9/11. Images in videos of WTC debris shows some steel columns cut at an angle, as thermate charges would have cut them.

Since then, Steven Jones has actually found traces of still active (un-ignited) thermite flakes in the WTC debris. Thermite is what thermate is made of, but becomes thermate when sulfur is added as an accelerant. Professor Jones work has proven that the most rational investigation of why those three towers fell on 9/11 would be a “controlled demolition” investigation.

Its worth noting here, that such an investigation would require examining and questioning those in charge of WTC security, because to plant the charges necessary to bring down the WTC buildings in the way they collapsed would take weeks, or at the least many days, to set up. A WTC security firm was Securicom. Securicom is a Kuwaiti based company that had two notable figures on its board. Marvin Bush, President GW Bush’s brother, and also GW’s cousin. Many reports by WTC employees of security anomalies including mass security grid shut downs preceded the 9/11 attacks. In fact New York Newsday reported that the normal bomb sniffing dog routines of 9/11 had been mysteriously “called off” right before the day of 9/11/2001.

So, Professor Jones opened up a serious can of worms by methodically examining the debris from the World Trade Centers and examining the pattern and speed of the collapses that day. As Jones’ work dug into the underbelly of a web of intrigue that appeared to involve WTC security issues, and exposing an increasingly unsatisfactory and even misleading NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, under the Bush Whitehouse) investigation, the attacks on him became furious . . .

In Jones' case, he was attacked by a few but very vocal people, who "claimed" to be for 9/11 truth, yet who bizarrely attacked Jones because he had found evidence of a controlled demolition of the WTC Towers. These "so called truth activists" attacked Jones because they said he was covering up something. These "activists" claimed that the WTCs were never hit by planes on 9/11, and all we saw were only "holograms" and that what actually brought down the towers were "space weapons."

FOR THE RECORD, the mainstream 9/11 truth movement knows this is insane, and that it is meant to distract and dissuade the mass public from looking at the real evidence of the events of 9/11.

Their bizarre assertions, coupled with their vicious attacks of real science based researchers and activists, like Jones, . . . harkens back to the cointelpro efforts of the 1960's. But again, what is odd and suspicious about the attacks on Jones, as it was in Ruppert’s case, is that many of these attacks came from people purporting to be “9/11 truth activists.”

Although the overwhelming majority of those seeking a new 9/11 investigation were eager to hear what Jones’ research revealed, there was this very small, but very LOUD and very AGGRESSIVE, number who slashed and tore at Jones' reputation. Jones eventually helped found "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice stj911.org, which is highly respected by all those truly seeking a real 9/11 investigation

Which brings us back to the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement that had much valuable information for Americans.

It’s worth noting here that the building fire and jet fuel in those buildings did not burn nearly hot enough to melt steel and in fact no steel high rise structures had ever collapsed in a global collapse the way those three WTC buildings had on 9/11 . . . before 9/11. Engineering history was made not once, but three times on 9/11.

This fact, plus Professor Jones’ physics analysis of the World Trade Center debris and collapse narrative, eventually inspired another equally mild mannered man of logic and science to examine 9/11.

Richard Gage, would eventually become the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth involving about 230 professional architects and engineers who believe we’ve been lied to about the events on 9/11, and that in fact NIST is involved in a cover up of facts that point to controlled demolition as the only reasonable reason for the WTC’s global collapses on 9/11/2001. Learn more at http://www.ae911truth.org.

Here is where the story of these three men coincides with experiences I’ve had as an almost full time 9/11 truth activist working in support of the 9/11 family members struggle for a new independent 9/11 investigation, and most of the other good solid activists as well.

When the 9/11 truth movement first began I and many other good citizens eventually started asking questions and demanding answers, and we came to call ourselves “9/11 truth activists.” We became 9/11 truth activists because of early research that indicated elements of our government, if not made the attacks of 9/11 happen, certainly criminally allowed them to, at the least. Now, building evidence and the bizarre lengths government agencies have gone to to covere up facts, point to the government, or at least some in government, having a large hand in actually engineering the events of 9/11.

But what I found as an activist from the beginning was that some odd and strange people I’d never known began to attack my character relentlessly because I wanted to stick to disturbing FACTS around the events of 9/11 and not embrace their crazy “Jews did it!” or "no planes hit the WTC" religions regarding the 9/11 attacks. I and other good solid researchers were harassed, endlessly, again from that small and noisy group "claiming" to want 9/11 truth.

For a while we just thought these were random nuts, but then patterns began to form that harkens back to the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement that had much valuable information for Americans.

I began to suspect something rotten was occurring when a 9/11 truth activist, whom I respect greatly, approached MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at a book signing event, and handed him a packet of information about disturbing questions regarding the events of 9/11. Matthews, according to my friend, looked up and sneered at my friend, “What, are you going to tell me the Jews did it?” My friend was obviously stunned.

His mind was spinning with the same question my mind was spinning with as he told me this story, “Where the hell did that come from?”

The same people, the same small group of people, who’d mercilessly attacked us, the mainstream 9/11 truth movement, for months and years, had also poisoned the media’s mind so that Matthews would not ever LOOK at REAL and DISTURBING 9/11 related facts. This small group of so called 9/11 activists, had poisoned the chances of real 9/11 truth activists exposing the American public and media to real and important research being revealed by good solid people.

What does this have to do with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911Truth.org)? About a month ago, a spokesperson from the famed Simon Wiesenthal Center (which I've always been a supporter of. See below), dedicated to tolerance, testified before Jane Harmon’s Congressional Committee on Homeland Security. Something VERY bizarre happened on that day. Mark Weitzman, of the Wiesenthal Center presented a slideshow to the Congressional Committee, showing them slides of jihadist terrorist websites and organization, and while he spoke of them . . . sandwiched between these violence advocating sites, Mr. Weitzman oddly inserted a slide of the website for “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”?! ae911truth.org, a site involving men of science, who had no political agenda whatsoever, but a burning desire to get to the truth of why the three WTC’s had defied the laws of physics on 9/11, if the official explanation was to be believed . . . were smeared as anti-Semitic violent jihadists!

When I called Mr. Weitzman as a long time supporter of ae911truth.org, he insisted that he wasn’t talking about ae911truth.org when he was talking over the slide show about dangerous organizations. I told him that then he should make a public statement and issue a press release saying so. He hung up on me.

When I called back to the Center and complained, I was apologized to by others and promised an explanation, which never came. I contacted every Wiesenthal Center worldwide explaining that I support ae911truth.org’s work and they are not violent, or anti-Semitic, and that in fact my father was one of the first GIs to enter and liberate the Dachau concentration camp, and my father didn’t have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, nor would he allow such thought in his home. I was apologized to for Weitzman’s actions, and promised return phone calls. None came.

I am still a huge supporter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's work, but as I told them, Weitzman who claimed to be speaking for the center performed a reprehensible disservice, not only to the fine people at ae911truth.org but to all Americans who care about a search for truth. His actions were beneath the dignity of the Center.

A couple of months before this disturbing Congressional hearing, I was watching a documentary on anti-Semitism, called “Protocols of Zion.” I stayed up past my bed time to watch it, because I thought it was an important issue, and was glad such a documentary on intolerance had been made. But as the documentary progressed something very disturbing appeared. A bunch of activists in New York City carrying red and white signs with black letters reading, “Stop the 9/11 Cover Up” were marching at ground zero where the WTC towers had been. Those iconoclastic “Stop the 9/11 Cover Up” signs were designed by myself and Jan another woman who’d joined me in working for a new 9/11 investigation.

Using these particular signs, which had become a symbol for 9/11 truth worldwide, in this documentary on anti-Semitism and racism was to me yet another obvious attempt to put a stake in the heart of the 9/11 truth movement. And by using signs I HAD CREATED. We’d designed them here at my home on my computer, and we’d raised funds to send them to cities across the country to help other good people working for truth about 9/11 to hold up in their cities.

In fact I went to NYC to work with some of those good people, and marched with them at Ground Zero where this documentary clip was shot. Many of the 9/11 truth activist organizers in NYC I had met, worked with, and became friend with WERE JEWISH, themselves. Yet, for some bizarre reason, this documentary shows people carrying our “Stop the 9/11 Cover Up” signs at ground zero while a dark voice over talks of the growing forces of hateful anti-Semitic groups worldwide. I was outraged.

I called the producers of “Protocols of Zion” and explained they’d made a serious mistake and had to take my signs out of the documentary, as they led people to believe that 9/11 truth activists were something that they absolutely were not. They refused.

So from the beginning a lunatic fringe, or worse, blasts the media with anti-semetic messages, and they claim to be “9/11 truth activists” thereby not only turning the media off from looking at 9/11 physics and engineering facts, and disturbing Air Force stand down issues of 9/11 . . . but also spurring defamatory documentary footage aired nationally to discredit good citizens demanding answers to questions we deserve . . . which eventually leads to a Congressional Hearing on Homeland Security that ties 9/11 truth seekers . . . TO TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. Very disturbing chronology.

Which AGAIN brings us back to the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement that had much valuable information for Americans.

So, in nearly seven years of 9/11 truth activism, which I wasn’t recruited for, or hired for or whatever . . . but like “most” 9/11 truth activists, simply got to a point where the official story of 9/11 departed too radically from reality . . . I’ve seen this movement evolve and grow.

I’ve seen patterns where lunatics (or worse), in my opinion pretending to be 9/11 truth activists have systematically attacked 9/11 researchers and also 9/11 activists at EXACTLY the moment they are poised to unveil significant information or achieve some major break through in exposing the mass public to 9/11 facts that may disturb them.

Of course its not only the faux activists who attack, they have allies in corporate media. We saw actor, Charlie Sheen, eviscerated by mainstream corporate media when he publicly questioned the events of 9/11. Rosie O’Donnell who’d made The View a raving success, mysteriously "lost her job" after questioning the events of 9/11.

Anytime any researchers, or activists have threatened to expose the mass American public to the fact that we’ve been lied to about the events of 9/11, there is an increasingly obvious multidimensional attempt to destroy and silence the growing numbers demanding truth . . . one at a time . . . or as a group.

What is odd now, and what spurred me to write this oped, is that now a "novelist," a fiction writer, is being harassed even before his novel has hit the book stores . . .

This should cause the average person out there in America, and any investigative media out there to ask themselves . . .

. . . what in the hell is in this action thriller novel, called “The Shell Game” that is causing a novelist to be harassed? http://theshellgame.net/

Personally, I have read it, and I know exactly what it is that threatens the powers that be. I won't tell you here. You'll have to read it yourself. BUT, you can see why it may be causing turmoil in some dark corners by simly

Personally, I’ve read it, and I know exactly what it is that threatens the powers that be. I won’t tell you. You’ll just have to read it yourself. BUT, you can see why it may be causing turmoil in some corners by simply visiting “The Shell Game” website, and viewing “911 Links. http://theshellgame.net/

Signed,

Bill Douglas, average citizen who got thrown into nearly seven years of what is now called 9/11 truth activism, because the official government story of 9/11, just does not add up.

Authors Bio: By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, 9/11 and Media Crimes" and also "Why the Jewish Community Should Demand 9/11 Truth."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm

A note to the reader: In December 2006 Mark H. Gaffney posted a scathing critique of the US government’s official report about the WTC collapse on 9/11. One year later, the case is stronger than ever. * *

01/04/08 "ICH" -- In August 2002 the US Congress authorized the National Institute for Safety and Transportation (NIST) to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. The official instruction was not limited to conducting a building performance study, as some have claimed.[1] The primary stated objective of the investigation was to determine the cause of the collapse –– no less.[2]

When NIST released its final report in September 2005, critics charged that the agency had ignored evidence of explosions in the towers. The agency responded by asserting its scientific laurels. NIST insisted that its “200 technical experts” had conducted “an extremely thorough investigation.” NIST boasted that its staff “reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations,” yet, found “no corroborating evidence for a controlled demolition.” NIST also claimed that it had considered “a number of hypotheses for the collapse of the towers.”[3]

No doubt, many Americans were persuaded by this snow-job. Sad to say, few of our countrymen (or women) bother to read official reports, especially when they run to 10,000 pages. The persistent individuals who do, however, know that there are sound reasons to question all of the above; because a close reading of the NIST report shows that the agency assumed from the beginning that the Boeing 767 impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. The report gives no consideration whatsoever to alternative hypotheses, including the possible use of explosives, the leading candidate. Far from exploring other scenarios, NIST simply took it for granted that the impacts set in motion a chain of events leading to a catastrophic structural failure. Working backwards, NIST scientists searched for evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. Everything else was ignored or excluded. If it is not already evident to the reader, this is no way to conduct a scientific investigation. NIST then had the audacity to imply that it arrived at its favored collapse model through an exhaustive process of elimination. Most readers who merely browsed NIST’s 2005 Executive Summary probably were not aware that NIST’s stated conclusion was really an assumption. Consider this passage, for example:

“The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact.”[4]

The above comment about building codes is deceptive–––NIST readily concedes in its report that the towers survived the initial impacts. In fact, John Skilling, the structural engineer who designed the WTC, always claimed that they would. The towers survived, despite serious damage, because they were hugely overbuilt, redundant by design. Although the WTC’s soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the twin towers were extremely rugged buildings, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and even a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. Some have argued that the newer Boeing 767s caused much more damage because of their larger size, but in fact, the two Boeings are comparable. Although slightly smaller, the 707 has a greater cruise speed of 600 mph (as compared with 530 mph for a Boeing 767). Assuming both were to crash at this speed, the 707 would actually have greater kinetic energy.[5]

After the Boeing 767 impacts on 9/11 the severed steel columns simply transferred the weight of the building to other undamaged columns. The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6] Construction-grade steel begins to lose strength at 425°C (~800°F) and is only about half as strong at 650°C (1,202°F). NIST argues in its report that the crashed jetliners damaged or dislodged 100% of the protective insulation within the impact zone, while also spilling many thousands of gallons of jet fuel over multiple floors. The resulting 800-1,000°C (1,440-1,800°F ) blaze–––the report claims–––seriously weakened the now-exposed steel, leading to a global structural failure. In order to understand the official story, however, and why it fails to explain the WTC collapse, it is necessary to know more about the World Trade Center and how it was built.

A State-of-the-Art Design

Upon its completion in 1970 the north tower of the Trade Center soared 1,368 feet tall–––100 feet higher than the Empire State Building. In addition to being the world’s tallest skyscraper, it was a state-of-the-art achievement of high-rise construction.[7] Designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, the WTC was one of the first skyscrapers to feature large expanses of unobstructed floor space within a steel-frame building. Although commonplace today, this was a novel idea in the 1960s, as it required doing away with the forest of columns so typical of the skyscrapers of former years. Chief engineer John Skilling achieved the objective of open space with a double support system: the first so-called tubular design, consisting of a dense array of 240 columns around the outer wall or perimeter, and a network of 47 huge columns at the core. The core columns supported about 53% of the weight of each building, and were massive, up to 52 inches wide.[8] The steel in these monster columns was seven inches thick at the base.[9]

The core columns were of two types: box columns at the foot of the buildings, gradually transitioning to rolled wide-flange beams (“I” beams) higher up. The core of each tower, including the elevators and stairwells. was surrounded by expansive office space. The perimeter wall supported 47% of the weight and also resisted the force of the wind. These exterior columns were reinforced with broad steel plates known as “spandrels,” which girdled the building, like ribs, at every floor. Although the core columns gradually increased in size from top to bottom, for aesthetic reasons the external dimensions of the perimeter columns had to be the same all the way down, hence, required the use of heat-treated steel. For this reason Skilling’s new tubular concept only became possible with the introduction of high-strength steels in the 1960s. Prefabrication and a modular design were other innovations that kept costs down and allowed for speedy construction.

Both inner and outer sets of columns were joined together by an innovative system of lightweight steel trusses. Each floor consisted of a truss assembly, over which was laid a corrugated steel deck–––the bed for a poured four-inch slab of concrete. Although lightweight, the floor design was so sound that it easily supported the weight of libraries, file rooms, and heavy safes without the need for additional strengthening.[10] The lightweight truss assemblies were vulnerable to fire damage, however, because they consisted of rather thin steel members. For this reason, at the time of construction the trusses were spray-coated with protective insulation, 0.75 inch thick, and this was later upgraded to an average thickness of more than two inches.[11] (The technical term for this insulation is Spray-applied Fire Resistant Material = SFRM) The core columns had a fire-barrier of gypsum wallboard.

NIST argues that the Boeing impacts jarred loose this protective insulation from the steel trusses and columns. The subsequent fires then weakened the exposed trusses, causing them to sag. This, in turn, pulled the perimeter columns inward. The fires also weakened both sets of columns and at a critical point the perimeter wall buckled. NIST makes the claim that its investigation showed conclusively that the initiation occurred in the perimeter wall, triggering a global collapse.[12] Did the agency prove its case? In a moment I will explore this question. Before I do, however, it is important to understand what NIST did not investigate.

What NIST failed to investigate

Despite its broad charge to investigate the WTC collapse, NIST limited the scope of its investigation to the sequence of events from the first plane impacts to the onset of collapse. This means, of course, that NIST failed to study the collapse itself. This narrow focus–––some would call it sleight-of-hand–––allowed NIST to side-step a number of important issues. No doubt, this was the intent, since investigating them would surely have led NIST scientists to very different conclusions. The first and foremost of these issues was the near free-fall speed of the collapse. Videos filmed on 9/11 confirm that the towers plummeted as if there was no resistance whatsoever. But how can this be, given the enormous inertial mass of the building itself, which should have resisted and slowed the fall considerably? Even if we assume that the columns in the impact zone failed, the rest of the columns in the towers were untouched by the plane impacts and fires, therefor, suffered no loss of strength. These stone-cold columns should have resisted the fall. Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds, only 1-2 seconds slower than the time for a billiard ball to free-fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. But how can this be? By what special dispensation did the collapsing WTC violate the laws of physics? The reader will search the NIST report in vain for any discussion of this important anomaly. Why not? Obviously. because agency officials made a political decision not to go there.

No less puzzling was the fact that the collapses were total and nearly symmetrical. This means, of course, that when the collapses began all of the columns on that floor failed at precisely the same moment. But, again, how could this happen? Even if we assume that the plane impacts severed or damaged a number of columns in the impact zone, and even if we also assume that the fires weakened a number of other nearby columns, the majority of columns in the buildings and even on the affected floors were still at full strength at the moment of collapse. The collapses were also total. The rubble from the buildings fell through the plaza level and piled up in the basements. Photos by Joel Meyerowitz and others show that the piles of wreckage were about six stories high, as evidenced by surviving portions of the perimeter wall. The wreckage reached the level of the column tree–––a convenient reference point–––where the larger exterior columns around the base divided into three smaller columns above. The totality of the collapse is hard to explain because, as noted, the largest and strongest columns were in the lower part of the buildings. The towers encountered increasing mass, i.e., resistance, as they fell. For this reason, at least one engineer has argued that the WTC collapse should at some point have self-arrested.[13] Other experts hotly dispute this, however, and the matter remains controversial.[14] Engineers clearly are fascinated by this question. Although a more detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this article, it is evident that media coverage has often served to confuse the issue rather than clarify. In a recent 9/11 documentary on the History Channel, for example, a debunker glibly described the events at Ground Zero as a “classic progressive collapse,” as if this were a well-known or frequent phenomenon.[15] But this is plainly false. As noted–––and I must emphasize it again–––no steel-frame skyscraper had ever collapsed before 9/11, nor has any since.

By the way, there is an excellent reason why they do not fall down. Structural steel happens to be an extremely tough and forgiving substance–––the reason it is the pre-eminent building material used in high-rise construction. As the 9/11 Commission Report concedes, none of the NYFD chiefs anticipated a catastrophic structural failure on 9/11, despite the fires and impacts.[16] Had they believed a general collapse was possible, the chiefs would not have established their emergency command posts in the lobbies of the stricken towers. Nor would they have ordered hundreds of New York City firemen to begin the long climb up the stairwells to aid the victims and assist with the evacuation. As we know, 343 of them perished. According to the official report, at least one of the fire chiefs did express concern about the danger of a partial collapse on the upper floors.[17] No doubt, this individual was as shocked as everyone else by the totality and near-perfect symmetry of the collapses that ensued–––both standard features of controlled demolitions and virtually unknown in random fire events. After I posted a critique of the NIST report in December 2006, I received a letter from a retired fireman who informed me that over the course of his twenty-odd years of service he had fought many types of fires, involving residential, commercial and industrial structures, including high-rise buildings. He explained that on a number of occasions, when his crew lost the battle to save a structure “some of the times the building would collapse…. in a random, haphazard, piecemeal fashion. Not once,” he wrote, “did I personally witness one of those structures collapsing in the rather controlled...fashion as the WTC towers and Building 7.”[18]

Another anomaly was the pulverization of material. Through history, concrete buildings have been known to collapse during powerful earthquakes, and when this occurs they typically fold up like an accordion, leaving a succession of concrete slabs, one piled on top of another, each plainly discernible in the rubble. But nothing like this occurred on 9/11. Photos of the mountain of wreckage at Ground Zero show very few, if any, large chunks of concrete. The rubble pile consisted almost exclusively of twisted steel. The conspicuous absence of concrete is remarkable, since concrete was the main constituent of the 500,000 ton towers. As noted, each floor of the 110-story building, roughly an acre in size, consisted of a slab of poured concrete, most of which was pulverized during the collapse into small pieces and fine dust. Some have attributed this to the force of gravity, but videos of the collapse dispute this. The buildings were not pulverized as they hit the ground, they disintegrated in midair. As the south tower started to collapse, for example, the entire upper section tipped as a unit, then inexplicably turned to dust before our eyes. Much of this dust settled a foot deep on the sixteen-acre WTC site. The rest was deposited across lower Manhattan. Nor was the pulverization limited to concrete. Other construction materials also disappeared without a trace, including glass, office furniture and tens of thousands of computers, not to mention the many victims. It’s a fact that less than 300 corpses were recovered. Most of the victims were identified solely from body parts. Strangely, when workmen began to dismantle the badly damaged Deutsch Bank on December 8, 2006, they found more than 700 slivers of bone on the roof and within the structure.[19] This bizarre report has never been explained.

And there were other anomalies. The video record plainly shows that during the WTC collapse, perimeter columns weighing twenty tons or more were hurled as far as 500-600 feet from the towers. One remarkable photo of Ground Zero taken from above shows that entire sections of WTC-1’s western perimeter wall were thrown 500+ feet toward the Winter Garden.[20] Could a gravitational collapse do this? Doubtful. The NIST report not only fails to address any of these issues, it doesn’t even try. The report makes reference to the “global collapse” of the towers, but we never learn precisely what this means because NIST never informs us. By limiting the scope of its inquiry NIST rendered the truth unobtainable–––an effective way to neuter an investigation.


With all of this in mind, let us now explore what NIST did investigate.

The Special Projects

The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 43 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included metallurgical studies, an impact analysis, an attempt to reconstruct the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower. Some of the agency’s research was of excellent quality–––some was not. But the main problem is that none of it lends credence to NIST’s official conclusions.

Probably the most serious obstacle NIST investigators faced was a lack of information about the dynamic conditions that existed in the core of the towers on 9/11.[21] To be sure, thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of videotape made it possible to study in detail the damage to the WTC exterior, and to gain a reasonable understanding about conditions in the outer offices. Fires were often visible through the windows, despite dense smoke, and structural damage in the impact zone, such as collapsed floors, was also discernible. However, as the NIST report states, “Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration [sic] and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs.”[22] This is an important admission, and one that NIST repeats a number of times. For example, in one of the supplementary documents NIST scientists qualify their analysis of the effects of the fire upon the steel with the following caveat:

“As conditions within the building core could not be determined from the photographic database, it was unknown what environment the recovered core columns may have experienced.”[23]

As we will see, this candid statement haunts the entire report. In fact, the only physical evidence NIST had about the actual conditions at the core was the data it was able to glean from 236 steel columns, panels, trusses, and other smaller samples recovered from the WTC ruin.[24] Metallurgical testing of these steel samples was probably the most important work NIST carried out, because this was the foundation for the rest of the investigation.

The Metallurgical Studies

Thanks to the original labeling system used during the construction of the WTC, NIST was able to identify many of the samples it had gathered, and to determine with precision their locations in the WTC. As it happened, a number of the columns were from the impact and fire zones.[25] Although the collection represented only 0.25 - 0.5 % of the 180,000 total tons of structural steel used in the two towers, NIST scientists believed their sampling was adequate to determine the quality of the steel and to evaluate its performance on 911.[26]

The metallurgical findings decisively refuted the pancake theory of collapse widely reported in the media after 9/11. The pancake enthusiasts had argued that the weak link in the WTC was the point of attachment where the trusses connected with the inner and outer columns. These junctions, referred to as angle-clips, were made of relatively lightweight steel and were secured by steel bolts. During a 2002 NOVA television special MIT engineer Thomas Eagar explained the pancake model and why in his opinion the trusses had failed:

“...the steel had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100º to 1,300ºF. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor....then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle-clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle-clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.”[27]

According to the pancake theory, when one floor collapsed it set in motion a chain reaction. Although this initially seemed plausible, it turned out that Eager seriously underestimated the robustness of the World Trade Center. The earlier FEMA study found no indication of substandard materials or construction. On the contrary, FEMA found that “many structural and fire protection features of the design and construction were….superior to the minimum code requirements.”[28] The NIST investigation bore this out. For example, NIST confirmed that the truss assemblies were not only bolted to the outer perimeter wall, they were also welded, hence, were considerably stronger than expected–––not prone to pancaking.[29] Nor could the pancake model explain the failure of the core columns.

The WTC steel turned out to be significantly stronger than expected. Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of all steel tested exceeded the original specifications. For instance, the perimeter columns exceeded their specifications by more than 10%. The strength of the steel in the truss assemblies was also much higher than required. In many of the trusses, 50 ksi steel was used, even though the specifications called for only 36 ksi.”[30] (1 ksi = 1,000 lb/per square inch) NIST also tested a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.[31] While all of these findings refuted the pancake theory, notice, they also failed to support NIST’s own preferred collapse model. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that the stronger the steel the less likely it was to fail on 9/11.

The Fire Tests:
Core Weakening?

In another series of tests NIST sought to address the alleged weakening of the WTC support columns. During a first-run, investigators placed an uninsulated steel column in a furnace where temperatures reached 1,100ºC (2,012ºF). During the test the surface temperature of the exposed column reached 600ºC in just 13 minutes–––the temperature range where significant loss of strength occurs. When the test was repeated with a column treated with SFRM insulation, the steel did not reach 600ºC even after ten hours. NIST concluded that “the fires in WTC-1 and WTC-2 would not be able to significantly weaken….insulated.…columns within the 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, after impact and prior to collapse.”[32] NIST interpreted these results as validating its theory that the critical factor on 9/11 leading to the global failure was the damage to and removal of the SFRM fireproofing insulation caused by the Boeing 767 impacts. But was this an unwarranted leap? Let us now explore this question.

NIST scientists developed a novel way to evaluate the impact of the fire on the WTC steel. According to the report, the approach was “easy to implement and robust enough to examine the entire component in the field.”[33] They found that the original primer paint used on the steel beams and columns was altered by high heat. This made it possible to determine the level of exposure by analyzing the paint on the samples.[34] But the results were surprising. NIST found no evidence that any of the steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, had reached temperatures exceeding 1,110ºF (600ºC).[35] Sixteen recovered perimeter columns showed evidence of having been exposed to fire, but even so, out of 170 areas examined on these columns only three locations had reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF).[36] Moreover, NIST found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns had reached even this minimal temperature.[37] The startling fact is that NIST’s own data failed to support its conclusion that the fires of 9/11 heated up the steel columns, causing them to weaken and buckle.

How might we explain this absence of evidence? Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead scientist, probably offered a partial answer when he admitted that “the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes.”[38] Also, the actual amount of combustibles in the WTC turned out to be less than expected–––considerably less. In its 2002 report FEMA had noted that

“fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4-12 psf [pounds per square foot], with the mean slightly less than 8 psf….At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to maintain the fire at full force for an hour...”[39]

Yet, when NIST scientists crunched the numbers they found that a typical floor of the WTC did not even have this minimum level of combustibles. The average was only about 4 psf.[40] The shocking fact is that the twin towers were fuel-poor, compared with other office buildings: a finding, notice, that does not support the frequent depictions in the media of a ferocious inferno raging beyond anything in human experience. More importantly, neither does it support NIST’s favored collapse scenario. The spillage of jet fuel ignited the combustibles, spreading the fires at a faster rate than would otherwise have occurred. Yet, for this same reason the fires also burned out sooner, because the fuel load was so low. Indeed, NIST scientists estimated that on average the WTC fires burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000ºC) in only about 15-20 minutes.[41] After which, the fires began to subside. To make matters worse for the official collapse theory, NIST also found that “the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.”[42] It’s easy to understand why all of these facts are downplayed in the NIST summary report. Taken together, they are fatal to NIST’s collapse model, which requires that high temperatures be sustained. Fires that subside after only 15-20 minutes simply cannot weaken enormous steel columns and cause them to buckle.

I searched the NIST report in vain for any acknowledgment that the fire conditions in the laboratory furnace were substantially different from the actual conditions on 9/11. This fact, which is undeniable, calls into question NIST’s conclusion that damaged SFRM insulation was the critical factor. Although NIST took the position that “temperatures and stresses were high in the core area,”[43] on what basis did they reach this conclusion? As I’ve noted, NIST suffered from a persistent lack of information about the actual conditions in the core of the towers.

Surely, it is safe to conclude that the crashed Boeing 767s damaged and/or stripped away a substantial portion of the protective SFRM insulation from the steel beams and trusses in the impact zone. Exactly how much is not knowable. NIST acknowledges in its report that it had no hard evidence about the amount of protective insulation damaged or dislodged during the impacts.[44] Incredibly, however, the agency then assumes that all structural members in the debris path at the time of impact suffered 100% loss of insulation.[45]

The only physical evidence NIST presents in its report in support of this conclusion is a series of photos of the exterior of the towers. The photos do show that within the impact zone much of the SFRM foam insulation is indeed missing from the perimeter columns.[46] In places the original anti-rust paint is clearly visible on the exposed columns, indicating that the insulation is gone from these areas. NIST is also probably correct that the loss occurred during the impacts. But it does not follow on this basis that all of the insulation in the impact zone was similarly lost. In fact, not only does the photographic evidence in the report not prove this, the photos show decisively that at least some of the insulation remained in place. NIST even acknowledges this in its discussion of the photos. The report states, for example, that one photo “shows the absence of at least some, if not most SFRM from the center region of the outer web of the column.” Here, “the absence of at least some” of the insulation can only mean that some of it also remained in place. The next passage goes on to describe one column in the same area on which the SFRM was “nearly intact.”[47] In another section the report explicitly mentions that some of the insulation had apparently been treated with a special sealant, which “prevented the loss of SFRM in a great many locations where the SFRM was knocked off both above and below this location.”[48] In short, NIST flatly contradicts itself regarding the disposition of the SFRM; and this is crucial because it means NIST’s own data fails to support its conclusions.

For the sake of argument, however, let us for the moment ignore this glaring problem and assume that NIST’s estimated total loss of SFRM was correct. As I will now show, even in this worst case scenario there is virtually no chance that the fires on 9/11 weakened the WTC’s core and perimeter columns within the allotted span of time.

A Vast Heat Sink

The reason is acknowledged nowhere in the NIST report, but ought to be self-evident. The WTC’s support columns did not exist in isolation. The WTC was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed some 90,000 tons; and because steel is known to be at least a fair conductor of heat, on 9/11 this massive steel superstructure functioned as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away much of the fire-generated heat. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the principle. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally draws the solder into the fitting. While it is true that copper is several times more conductive than steel, the fact that only three steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 250ºC indicates that the steel superstructure was indeed behaving as a heat sink. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the relatively brief allotted span of 56/102 minutes, respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening even a few exposed members.

And there are other problems. Since in a global collapse all of the columns by definition must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area. But such was not the case on 9/11. As I’ve already noted, NIST found that the unexpectedly light fuel load in any given area of the WTC was mostly consumed in about 15-20 minutes. At no time on 9/11 did the fires rage through an entire floor of the WTC–––as Thomas Eagar implied in his interview. The fires were not sustained, on the contrary, they were transient.[49] This was especially true in WTC-1. The fires flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity within about 10 minutes, then gradually died down as the fire front moved on to consume combustibles in other areas. But notice what this also means: As the fires moved away from the impact zone into areas with little or no damage to the SFRM fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been inconsequential. The NIST’s own data showed that, overall, the fires on floor 96–––where the collapse supposedly began–––reached a peak 30-45 minutes after the impact and waned thereafter. Temperatures were actually cooling across most of floor 96, including the core, at the moment of the collapse. But if this is correct, the central piers at that point were not losing strength but regaining it.[50] How, then, did they collapse? Moreover, NIST’s assertion that “temperatures and stresses were high in the core area” is not supported by its finding that the fuel load in the core was negligible.[51] On this point NIST again contradicts itself. For all of these reasons, NIST fails to explain in its report how transient fires weakened WTC-1’s enormous core columns and perimeter columns in the allotted span, triggering a global collapse.

The Fires in the South Tower

NIST determined that the fire behavior in the south tower was substantially different: more continuous rather than transient, at least, on the east side of the building where the remains of Flight 175 supposedly came to rest. This, in addition to more extensive impact damage, NIST informs us, explains why WTC-2 collapsed first, even though it was hit after WTC-1. It is now known, however, that NIST ignored important evidence that calls into question its assertion that fires were gravely weakening the core of WTC-2. An audio-tape released in August 2002 by the Port Authority of New York, which apparently was lost or neglected for more than a year, is the only known recording of firefighters inside the towers. When city fire officials belatedly listened to it they were surprised to discover that two NYC firemen actually reached the impact/fire zone of the south tower about fourteen minutes before it collapsed. The long climb up the stairs was so arduous that most of the NYC firemen, heavily burdened with equipment, were exhausted before they reached the 20th floor. However, these two, Battalion Chief Orlo J. Palmer and Fire Marshall Ronald P. Bucca, were in excellent physical condition. Palmer, reportedly, was a marathon runner. On reaching the 78th floor sky lobby they found many dead or seriously injured people; but no raging inferno. Palmer’s radio exchange with another fireman shows no hint of panic or fear, as the following transcript shows:

Battalion Seven Chief (Palmer): "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.


Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"


Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."


Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"


Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."


Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."


Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."


Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."


Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."


Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orlo."[52]

Here, Battalion Chief Palmer calls for more men and water to put out the isolated fires. His expression “10-45 Code Ones” refers to dead bodies, of which apparently there were many. The tape shows that the two firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the fire zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the few isolated fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairway up to the next level, i.e., floor 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.

NIST knew about this testimony. The NIST report briefly mentions that firemen reached the 78th floor of WTC-2.[53] Inexplicably, however, the matter is simply dropped, as if it had no bearing on the status of the fire in the core. The omission is conspicuous, because, as I’ve stressed, NIST suffered from a persistent lack of information about the dynamic conditions in the interior of the buildings.[54] Here was a real-time eyewitness account by trained professionals who were on the scene. Yet, NIST ignored it. Why? Well, obviously, because their testimony does not support the official story. Curiously, the 9/11 Commission Report also briefly mentions this episode, but, likewise, fails to discuss its possible significance, no doubt, for the same reason.[55]

According to NIST, the 78th floor of WTC-2 had fewer combustibles than other floors because it was a sky lobby, and on this basis the report leads us to believe that much more intense fires were raging several floors above the two brave firemen–––fires that did cause fatal weakening of the columns. The problem for NIST, however, is that survivors from these higher floors tell a very different story. As we know, WTC-2 was unlike WTC-1 in that a number of individuals in the south tower did manage to escape the impact zone via stairwell “A,” which luckily remained passable. (In his radio message Orlo Palmer refers to it as “south stairway Adam.”) One of these survivors was Stanley Praimnath, an employee of Fuji Bank who was on the 81st floor when Flight 175 crashed into the south tower. In fact, the wing of the plane reportedly passed within twenty feet from him. Yet, Praimnath escaped without serious burns and in his testimony mentions nothing about a raging inferno.[56] Brian Clark, another survivor, was an executive vice-president of Euro Brokers, based on the 84th floor. As Clark descended the stairs, he heard someone crying out for help. It was Praimnath, who at the time was still trapped on the 81st floor in the rubble. Clark found and freed the man, whereupon, the two escaped together down the stairs. These two survivors are living proof that the official story cannot be right. Both were in the fire zone during and immediately after the impact, when the fires were most intense due to the spilled jet fuel. If the temperatures in the core were 1,000ºC or higher, as NIST would have us believe, the two men would have died within minutes. Yet, both survived, and here is Clark’s description of the fire: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[57] [my emphasis] Quiet flames. No roaring inferno. It is not surprising that NIST chose to ignore the testimony of these survivors.

I’ve shown that the known accounts of eyewitnesses do not support the official story regarding conditions at the core of WTC-2–––testimonials that NIST likely excluded from consideration for this reason. But what about empirical evidence? Among the steel samples that NIST investigators recovered from WTC-2 were two core columns (C-88a and C-88b) from the impact zone. Actually, they were two different members from the same column (801). The NIST pinpointed their location on floors 80 and 81, several floors above the firemen, very near the path of Flight 175. Both samples had been physically damaged, yet, NIST found no evidence of the kinds of distortion, i.e., buckling, bowing, slumping, or sagging, that would be expected in cases of heat-weakened steel. Furthermore, although the samples came from within the fire zone, NIST was unable to show that the steel had been exposed to high temperatures.[58] This finding is so astonishing it bears repeating: The NIST report presents no physical evidence whatsoever that the fires in the core of WTC-2 were raging infernos. On what, then, does the agency base its conclusion that “Dire structural changes were occurring in the building interior”?[59] The answer, apparently, is the following strange hedge:

“Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.”[60]

In other words, we are supposed to accept NIST’s theory about the fire solely on the basis of its opinion that a larger sampling of columns would have enabled NIST to prove its case. But this is hogwash! It simply is not the way science is done. Indeed, the paucity of evidence, if anything, calls into question NIST’s earlier assertion that its sampling was adequate.

What is even more amazing is that NIST’s own computer simulations of the WTC fires tend to bear this out. Any curious reader who invests the time to review the relevant NIST document (i.e., CSTAR 1-5) will find page after page of color-coded graphic diagrams of these simulations, one set for each floor in the fire zone. Nearly all of them show that the core remained cool throughout the fires. The burden of proof was on NIST to demonstrate how the fires weakened the core columns in the allotted time; and the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the agency fails to present even a minimal case. This also means, of course, that NIST likewise fails to explain the global collapse.

For the sake of argument, however, in order to show just how weak the official collapse model is, let us assume that the fires did burn hot enough and were sustained long enough, and caused numerous exposed columns in the impact zone to lose roughly half of their strength. As I will now show, even if this did occur it still fails to account for the global collapse of either tower.

The Issue of Reserve Capacity

As the NIST report states,


“both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC-2, the more severely damaged building, where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure.” [61] [my emphasis]


The above passage informs us that WTC-2 gave no sign of instability after the impact of Flight 175. Unfortunately, although NIST’s summary report provides a wealth of information about how the World Trade Center was constructed it fails to clarify the important matter of the WTC’s “considerable reserve capacity.” At any rate, I scoured the report in vain for a clear discussion of the issue. In frustration, I finally called NIST for assistance and was guided to several of the project reports and supplementary documents. I also consulted with Gary Nichols, an expert at the International Code Council (ICC), and with Ron Hamburger, a leading structural engineer. These conversations were an education. I learned that estimating the overall reserve capacity of a steel structure is by no means a simple matter. Numerous factors are involved. Moreover, there are different ways to approach the problem.

Perhaps the simplest measure of reserve capacity are the standards for the material components of a building. In the late 1960s when the WTC was constructed the applicable standard was the New York City Building Code, which required a builder to execute computations for the various structural members to show that they met the specified requirements. However, the code also allowed for actual testing of members in the event that computations were impractical. The testing standards applicable in 1968 give a reasonable idea of the required level of reserve strength in the steel columns and other materials used in the WTC. For example, in the most stringent test a steel member had to withstand 250% of the design load, plus half again its own weight, for a period of a week, without collapse.[62]

Factor of Safety

Another widely used measure of reserve capacity is the so called “factor of safety.” This varies for different structural elements, but for steel columns and beams typically ranges from 1.75 - 2.0.[63] The NIST report actually breaks down this more general figure into two separate and slightly different measurements for stress: yielding strength (1.67) and buckling (1.92).[64] For our purposes, however, the more general figure is adequate. So, for example, a steel column with a factor of safety of 1.75 must support 1.75 times the anticipated design load before it begins to incur damage. While this value is typical of steel beams in general, the actual reserve strength of the steel columns in the WTC was higher. When NIST crunched the numbers for the 47 core columns of WTC-1 (in the impact zone, between the 93rd and 98th floors) it calculated that the factor of safety ranged from 1.6 to 2.8, the mean value being 2.1.[65] This means that the average core column in the impact zone of WTC-1 could support more than twice its design load before reaching the yield strength, i.e., the point where damage may begin to occur. My grateful thanks to the NIST investigative team for helping me locate these numbers, which were buried in the report.

It is important to realize that the factor of safety is not a threshold for collapse, but a value beyond which permanent damage may begin to occur. As the NIST report admits, even “after reaching the yield strength, structural steel components continue to possess considerable reserve capacity.”[66] This is why steel beams and columns typically do not fail in sudden fashion. The loss of strength is gradual. No doubt, this helps to explain why, although fires have ravaged many steel frame buildings over history, none had ever collapsed–––until 9/11–––nor has any since. What all of this means, of course, is that even in the most improbable worst case, in which many or all WTC core columns lost half of their strength, there was still sufficient reserve capacity to support the building.

The Perimeter Wall

With regard to the WTC’s perimeter columns, the factor of safety fluctuated from day to day and even from hour to hour, because, in addition to supporting 47% of the WTC’s gravity load, the perimeter wall also had to withstand the lateral force of the wind, which is highly variable given the whims of Mother Nature. A single face of the WTC presented an enormous “sail” to the elements, for which reason John Skilling vastly overbuilt this part of the structure. According to the NIST report, the outer wall’s factor of safety against wind shear on 9/11 was extraordinary, i.e., in the 10-11 range.[67] Why so high? The answer is simple: On the day of the attack there was essentially no wind, only a slight breeze.[68] For this same reason nearly all of the perimeter wall’s design capacity was available to help support the gravity load. As the NIST report states, “On September 11, 2001 the wind loads were minimal, thus providing significantly more reserve for the exterior walls.”[69] When NIST crunched the numbers for a representative perimeter column in WTC-1 (column 151, between the 93rd and 98th floors), they arrived at a factor of safety of 5.7.[70] Assuming this average figure is a typical value we arrive at a reasonable estimate of the perimeter wall’s amazing reserve capacity. Even if we subtract those columns severed/damaged by the impact of Flight 175, and the lost capacity due to the alleged (but unproven) buckling along the eastern perimeter wall, there was still a wide margin of safety, more than enough by several times over to support the outer wall’s share of the gravity load, with plenty to spare.[71]

The WTC’s tremendous reserve capacity was no secret. In 1964, four years before the start of construction, an article about the planned WTC appeared in the Engineering News-Record. The article declared that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs.”[72] A careful reading of the piece also gives insight into why the plane impacts were not fatal to the integrity of the outer wall. The reason is simple: the perimeter columns were designed to function together as an enormous truss, specifically, a Vierendeel truss. The wall was inherently stable. After the plane impacts it behaved like an arch, simply transferring the load to the surrounding columns. As the 1964 article states,

“the WTC towers will have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. This capacity stems from its Vierendeel wall system and is enhanced through the use of high-strength steels.”[73]

In short, NIST’s own data fails to support its conclusions about the cause of the WTC collapse. The official theory requires the fatal weakening of both sets of columns, and NIST came up short on both counts due to insufficient evidence. Indeed, I would call it woefully insufficient.

Today, more than two years after NIST released its report, it is increasingly obvious that NIST attempted to overcome the lack of physical evidence by resorting to computer simulations. This was problematic, however, because computer models are no better than the quality of input and the accuracy of the programmer’s assumptions. Architect Eric Douglas identified another issue in his 2006 analysis of the NIST report: “a fundamental problem with....computer simulation is the overwhelming temptation to manipulate the input data until one achieves the desired results.”[74] Did NIST investigators fall prey to this tendency? Or were they somehow able to overcome the absence of physical evidence? I must ask the reader to bear with me a little longer while we explore these important questions.

NIST’s Global Impact/Collapse Analyses

The purpose of NIST’s global impact analysis (NCSTAR 1-2) was to estimate the structural damage to the WTC caused by the Boeing 767s. In this project NIST considered three different scenarios, ranging from less damage to extreme damage, with a moderate alternative (described as “the base”) in the middle. As it happened, all three accurately predicted the impact damage to the WTC exterior at the point of entry; although with regard to WTC-1 the moderate case was a slightly better match.[75] The three differed greatly, however, in predicting the number of severed columns at the WTC core, a datum that was obviously of great importance. In the case of WTC-1 the lesser alternative predicted only one severed core column, the moderate alternative predicted three, while the extreme alternative predicted five to six. In the case of WTC-2 the disparity was even greater: The lesser alternative predicted three severed columns, the moderate five, and the extreme case no less than ten.[76] Although NIST never satisfactorily resolved these differences, it immediately threw out the less severe alternatives, citing two reasons in the summary report: first, because they failed to predict observable damage to the far exterior walls; and second, because they did not lead to a global collapse.[77]

On September 11, 2001 the north tower sustained visible damage to the wall opposite the impact of Flight 11. This was caused by an errant landing gear and by a piece of the fuselage, which passed through the tower and came out the other side. Both parts were later recovered. During the second impact (of Flight 175) the same phenomenon was repeated: A jet engine was seen exiting WTC-2’s opposite wall at high speed and was later found on Murray Street, several blocks northeast of the WTC. In its summary report, NIST leads us to believe that the observable damage to the far walls caused by these ejected Boeing 767 parts validated its simulations. Yet, in one of its supplementary documents NIST admits that “because of [computer] model size constraints, the panels on the south side of WTC-1 were modeled with a coarse resolution...[and for this reason] The model....underestimates the damage to the tower on this face.”[78] But, notice, this means that none of the three alternatives accurately predicted the exit damage.[79]

This admission, deeply buried in the 43-volume report, is fatal to NIST’s first rationale for rejecting the lesser alternative, since it was no less accurate than the moderate and extreme cases. (Or, put differently: It was no more inaccurate.) Which, of course, means that the NIST rejected the lesser alternative for one reason only: because it failed to predict a global collapse. The simulations for WTC-2 suffered from the same modeling defect. Once again, NIST rejected the lesser alternative, even though “none of the three WTC-2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.” [80] [my emphasis]
We can thank researcher Eric Douglas for digging deeper than the summary report. Otherwise, this flaw, tantamount to the devil lurking in the fine print, might never have come to light.

But the NIST was undeterred by its own biased reasoning. Later, it also tossed out the moderate (base) alternatives, and ultimately adopted the most extreme scenarios in its subsequent global collapse analysis, even though, as noted, the moderate alternatives were just as accurate, from a predictive standpoint, as the extreme cases. In fact, with regard to predicting the entry damage to WTC-1, as noted, the moderate alternative was actually a better match. The NIST report offers no scientific rationale for this decision, only the pithy comment that the moderate alternatives “were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared with observed events.”[81] Here, of course, “observed events” refers to the ultimate collapse of the towers. Things get worse.

It would appear that NIST nearly failed to generate a collapse even with the extreme alternatives, which required further tinkering. The report informs us that “Complete sets of simulations were then performed for cases B and D [the extreme alternatives]. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.”[82] [my emphasis] In other words, NIST scientists, working backwards from the collapse, tweaked the extreme alternatives until their computer model spat out the desired result, consistent with their original assumption that the 767 impacts and fires were responsible for the collapses on 9/11. Needless to say, the NIST report fails to give specifics about the “additional inputs.” We are left to use our imagination.

The late Princeton astronomer Carl Sagan used to say that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” By this tough but reasonable standard, the official explanation about the collapse of the WTC on September 11, 2001 was without question an extraordinary claim, because there were no historical precedents. I will say it once again: No steel-frame skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire-weakened columns. By this standard the official account required an extraordinary level of proof. Yet, as I have just shown, NIST failed to muster even a minimal evidentiary case. From the start, NIST’s investigation was biased, hence, unscientific. Indeed, its report is “a triumph” of circular reasoning. The report actually left me slightly agog, in a state of mild shock at the disparity between NIST’s research and its conclusions. NIST never overcame the lack of hard data about actual conditions at the WTC core, certainly not by resorting to computer models. Had its program been robust enough to properly characterize the far walls, investigators might have utilized the known exterior damage to those far walls to discriminate between the three alternatives and, thusly, to select the best choice, validating the model. Failing this, the NIST had no sound basis for rejecting the lesser and moderate alternatives. Both were at least as plausible as the extreme case. Why were they not given equal weight? The answer is obvious: That would have compelled NIST investigators to entertain the unthinkable, i.e., the possibility that some other causative agent was responsible for the WTC collapse.

It is high time that Americans face the shocking reality that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Mark H. Gaffney’s first book was a pioneering 1989 study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, Dimona: the Third Temple? Mark’s latest, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was a finalist for the 2004 Narcissus Book Award. His forthcoming book, The 911 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America, is scheduled for release in September 2008. Visit Mark’s website at www.gnosticsecrets.com Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net

NOTES
1 Ryan Mackey, “Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation, August 31, 2007.

2 NIST NCSTAR 1, Full Summary Report, WTC Investigation, Preface, xxxi.

3 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, see question two, posted at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

4 NIST NCSTAR, Executive Summary, p. xlvii.

5 After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center Skilling was asked if the towers were vulnerable to a terrorist attack. He replied that he designed them to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jet liner of the day. In 1993 Skilling evidently saw no reason to revise his original opinion in light of the more recent Boeing 767s, which are slightly larger: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there." Eric Nalder, “Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision,” Seattle Times, February 27, 1993. Interestingly, one week before the September 11 attack, Skilling’s partner, Leslie Robertson, spoke at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany. When asked what he had done to protect the towers from terrorism, Robertson confirmed Skilling: “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.” “Towers Build to Withstand Jet Impact.” Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.

6 NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. xlviii; also see NCSTAR 1-6, WTC Investigation, p. lxiv.

7 In July 1971 the WTC won a national award when the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) named it “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.” in Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center, New Brunswick, Rutger’s University Press, 1999, p. 117.

8 Curiously, the NIST report gives two different (and conflicting) figures regarding the load distribution. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, WTC Investigation, p. 3, asserts that the WTC core columns supported 60% of the load, and the perimeter columns 40%, while NIST NCSTAR 1-2A, WTC Investigation, p. 87 gives the figures cited in my paper.

9 NIST NCSTAR 1-3, p. 10.

10 “How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings,” Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964.

11 NIST NCSTAR 1-6 p. lxxi.

12 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, see question two, posted at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

13 Gordon Ross, “Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1,” Journal of 911 Studies, June 2006. Posed at http://www.journalof911studies.com/

14 On the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack Cambridge University engineer Dr.Keith Steffen fold BBC that his calculations showed that the WTC’s progressive collapse on 9/11 was a “very ordinary thing.” His paper will appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics in February 2008. “9/11 demolition theory challenged,” BBC News, September 11, 2007.

15 The statement was made by a spokesperson for the official story. “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction,” A & E television networks, cat # AAE 103790, 2007.

16 The 9/11 Commission Report, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2004, p. 302.

17 Ibid.

18 email from Greg Bacon. February 25, 2007.

19 This strange development came to light in July 2006, long after the cleanup of the Deutsche Bank had supposedly been completed. The announcement prompted a sharp letter of protest from the attorney representing the families of the victims. For more details go to http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906
20 The photo is posted at http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/columnd.jpg
21 NIST NCSTAR 1, Full Summary Report, WTC Investigation, p. 118; also see NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
22 NIST NCSTAR 1, Full Summary Report, WTC Investigation, p. 124.
23 NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, WTC Investigation, p. 217.

24 The NIST recovered 12 core columns from the WTC, but only one (in two separate pieces) from WTC 2 turned out to be from the area affected by the impacts/fires. A number of flanges from the core were also recovered. See Table 5-2 in NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 35.
25 NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 39.`
26 NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation p. 39.
27 The NOVA special “Why the Towers Fell” aired in 2002. The text of the NOVA interview with Thomas Eagar is posted at http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar2.html
28 FEMA: Executive Summary: WTC Building Performance Study, p, 2.

29 NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 10; also see p.23.

30 NIST NCSTAR 1, NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p.115.
31 NIST NCSTAR 1, NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p.116.
32 NIST NCSTAR 1, Full Summary Report, WTC Investigation p. 130.
33 NIST NCSTAR 1-3C , WTC Investigation, p. 218.

34 Ibid.

35 NIST NCSTAR 1, Full Summary Report, WTC Investigation p. 88.
36 NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 101.
37 Ibid.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19002.htm

01/04/08 "ICH" -- -- What was the greatest failure of 2007?  President Bush’s “surge” in Iraq?  The decline in the value of the US dollar?  Subprime mortgages?  No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.

The American people’s attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed.  Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference. 

The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans.  On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6.  In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.

Harman’s bill is called the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.” [ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955 ] When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas.  The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs.  The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States.  But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.

We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton under government contract.

Who will be on the “extremist beliefs” list?  The answer is:  civil libertarians, critics of Israel, 9/11 skeptics, critics of the administration’s wars and foreign policies, critics of the administration’s use  of kidnapping, rendition, torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, and critics of the administration’s spying on Americans.  Anyone in the way of a powerful interest group--such as environmentalists opposing politically connected developers--is also a candidate for the list.

The “Extremist Beliefs Commission” is the mechanism for identifying Americans who pose “a threat to domestic security” and a threat of “homegrown terrorism” that “cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts.” 

This bill is a boon for nasty people.  That SOB who stole your girlfriend, that hussy who stole your boyfriend, the gun owner next door--just report them to Homeland Security as holders of extreme beliefs.  Homeland Security needs suspects, so they are not going to check.  Under the new regime, accusation is evidence.  Moreover, “our” elected representatives will never admit that they voted for a bill and created an “Extremist Belief Commission” for which there is neither need nor constitutional basis.

That boss who harasses you for coming late to work--he’s a good candidate to be reported; so is that minority employee that you can’t fire for any normal reason.  So is the husband of that good-looking woman you have been unable to seduce.  Every kind of quarrel and jealousy can now be settled with a phone call to Homeland Security.

Soon Halliburton will be building more detention centers.

Americans are so far removed from the roots of their liberty that they just don’t get it.  Most Americans don’t know what habeas corpus is or why it is important to them.   But they know what they want, and Jane Harman has given them a new way to settle scores and to advance their own interests.

Even educated liberals believe that the US Constitution is a “living document” that can be changed to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to accommodate some new important cause, such as abortion and legal privileges for minorities and the handicapped.  Today it is the “war on terror” that the Constitution must accommodate.  Tomorrow it can be the war on whomever or whatever.

Think about it.  More than six years ago the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked.  The US government blamed it on al Qaeda.  Scant evidence has been presented.  The 9/11 Commission Report has been subjected to devastating criticism by a large number of qualified people--including the commission’s chairman and co-chairman. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the US.  The FBI has tried to orchestrate a few, but the “terrorist plots” never got beyond talk organized and led by FBI agents.  There are no visible extremist groups other than the neoconservatives that control the government in Washington.  But somehow the House of Representatives overwhelmingly sees a need to create a commission to take testimony and search out extremist views (outside of Washington, of course).

This search for extremist views comes after President Bush and the Justice (sic) Department declare that the President can ignore habeas corpus, ignore the Geneva Conventions, seize people without evidence, hold them indefinitely without presenting charges, torture them until they confess to some made up crime, and take over the government by declaring an emergency. Of course, none of these “patriotic” views are extremist. 

The search for extremist views follows also the granting of contracts to Halliburton to build detention centers in the US.  No member of Congress or the executive branch ever explained the need for the detention centers or who the detainees would be.  Of course, there is nothing extremist about building detention centers in the US for undisclosed inmates.

Clearly the detention centers are not meant to just stand there empty.  Thanks to 2007’s greatest failure--the Democratic Congress--there is to be an “Extremist Beliefs Commission” to secure inmates for Bush’s detention centers. 

President Bush promises us that the wars he has launched will cause the “untamed fire of freedom” to “reach the darkest corners of our world.”  Meanwhile in America the fire of freedom has not only been tamed but also is being extinguished. 

The light of liberty has gone out in the United States.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).

Friday, December 14, 2007

NIST has just released a new factsheet in response to pressure from 9/11 activists (especially the petition by family members and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice).

Scientists, engineers and architects will pick apart the factsheet in detail in the coming weeks. However, I'd like to address one particular misleading statement by NIST in the meantime.

The factsheet claims NIST did everything it could to preserve evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Specifically, in response to question # 4, "Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?", NIST responds:

The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment. In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site. FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.

 

Makes NIST sound like they did everything possible to collect and preserve evidence, and then make the evidence available to the public, right?

But it's just not true.

In fact, NIST's former head of fire science and engineering, who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed.*

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and NIST has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

* He also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Since the release of the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in October 2005, NIST has received many questions from interested readers curious about NIST’s findings and the technical basis for them.  The complexity of the investigation and the length of the final report (including all of the supporting volumes) have made understanding of the investigation a challenge for many interested readers.  In response, NIST has prepared simplified answers to the most frequently asked questions. 

1.  Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors?  Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers.  The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case).  Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.  Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above).  Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.  The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C).  The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft², and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft².   Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft²) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft²), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower).  By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.  Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly.  Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors.  Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.  In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation.  Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

2.  Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes.  The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.   

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities.  Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate.  Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations.  The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

3.  How does NIST explain the absence of a timeline for the WTC Towers?

NIST developed and reported detailed timelines for various aspects of the WTC disaster beginning with the impact of the aircraft.  These timelines included the progression of fires through the buildings, the response of the structure to damage and to fire, egress of occupants from the towers, and the emergency response.  The timelines were developed based on extensive analysis of the photographic and video evidence, analysis of computer models, first person interviews, radio transmissions, and other data documenting the events of September 11, 2001.  A general timeline for each of the towers is reported in NIST NCSTAR 1.  Detailed timelines for specific aspects of the WTC disaster are reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8. 

4.  Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?

The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment.  In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site.  FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards.  These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation.  Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002.  NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002.  NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.   

5.  How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC Towers and how valid are they?   

Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses.  The computational model used to simulate the fires was the Fire Dynamics Simulator.  This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the World Trade Center Investigation.  Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the Investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output.  This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).

In a following set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow.  The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.

6.  At least one private sector source has asked (1) Whether the Commerce Department’s legal structure impeded NIST’s ability to obtain information and therefore prevented NIST from finding the facts; and (2) Why NIST did not use its subpoena authority?

No.  The Commerce Department’s legal structure facilitated NIST’s ability to obtain valuable information and evidence for the investigation.

NIST is required to comply with laws regarding the treatment of human subjects, the Paperwork Reduction Act, copyright, and other applicable laws.  NIST is also required to comply with the provisions of the National Construction Safety Team Act.  Therefore, NIST staff followed all the prescribed procedures when seeking to acquire relevant documents, interview building occupants and first responders, and acquire visual evidence.  NIST has stated publicly that although documentary information was lost in the collapse of the WTC Towers, the information obtained from other sources was sufficient to conduct its investigation.

Under the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST was granted subpoena authority.  NIST’s experience during the investigation was that it was able to obtain all essential documentary and visual evidence without the need to invoke subpoena authority.  The existence of subpoena authority was helpful to NIST in getting access to data.

7.  Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

For studying the impact on a 110 story building by an actual Boeing 767 aircraft, a full-scale test was not feasible.  For a test to capture the response of the towers as a system, it would have been necessary to construct a test assembly that included the core columns, exterior columns, floors and hat truss.  Even to replicate experimentally the response of the floors near and above the impact zones would have required test assemblies of about 20 stories for WTC 1 and 30 stories for WTC 2.  No facility exists to conduct such a test, either with fire or in the absence of fire; and, indeed, such tests are not conducted in current engineering practice.

Therefore, NIST relied on high-fidelity finite element modeling of the aircraft impact event and subsequent fires.  The analyses were calibrated against the observed structural response of the towers upon impact (videos, photographs, and physical evidence) and the evolution of the ensuing fires.  

NIST did not conduct reduced scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.

Furthermore, fire test facilities with the capability to apply arbitrary fire exposures (in contrast to the standard time-temperature exposure) and arbitrary loads to structural components did not exist in the U.S. at the time of the investigation.  Even had such a facility been existent, each large-scale structural fire test would have evaluated only a single set of conditions, e.g., structural system, fire exposure, amount of fireproofing, etc.  Even a modest parametric series of such tests would have been prohibitively expensive.

NIST did conduct full-scale fire tests of single and multiple workstations.  These tests were of sufficient size to properly capture the combustion physics.  These tests established burning histories, mass burning rates, and heat release rates.  The results were used to validate the fire dynamics calculations for fire growth and spread.  See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E.  NIST also conducted full-scale fire tests exposing insulated and bare structural elements to real fires to validate the fire and thermal modeling approaches. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5B. 

8.    Why did NIST conduct ASTM E119 testing of floor systems that were not representative of the condition of the fireproofing on September 11, 2001?  Why did NIST ignore the results of these tests, which showed that the floor system did not collapse, in its analysis of the thermal-structural response of the towers?

NIST’s review of available documents related to the design and construction of the WTC Towers indicated that the fire performance of the composite floor system was an issue of concern to the building owners and designers from the original design and throughout the service life of the buildings (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A).  NIST found no evidence to determine the technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material for the WTC floor trusses and of the fireproofing thickness to achieve a 2 hour rating.  Further, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC Towers’ floor system were ever conducted.

Therefore, NIST conducted a series of four Standard Fire Tests (ASTM E 119) for the following purposes, as stated clearly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:

•     to establish the baseline performance of the floor system of the WTC Towers as they were originally built,

•     to differentiate the factors (thermal restraint, fireproofing thickness, and scale of test) that most influenced the collapse of the WTC Towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and

•     to study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative (at the time) structural and fireproofing system.

The thickness of fireproofing material used in this series of four tests ranged from ½ in. to ¾ in.  This range of thickness was, indeed, consistent with the thickness of fireproofing as originally applied to the floor steel in the WTC Towers.

NIST concluded from its aircraft impact analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-2) that the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel traveling, initially, over 500 miles per hour (700 ft/s) (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D).  Since the test assemblies for all four Standard Fire Tests were protected with sprayed fire-resistant material (SFRM), conclusions could not be drawn for the response of the WTC Towers to the fires on September 11, 2001, because the aircraft impact resulted in there having been unprotected steel in the fire-affected region.

The fire-affected floors in WTC 2 had the originally applied fireproofing, which was specified to be ½ in. and averaged approximately ¾ in. in thickness.  The fire-affected floors of WTC 1 had upgraded fireproofing on the order of 2½ in. thickness.  However, the fireproofing thickness did not matter, since much of the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel.

9.  NIST conducted a single workstation burn and a multiple workstation burn as a part of its investigation.  Why did NIST only provide temperature data for one of these tests?  Was the ventilation used in these tests representative of the ventilation that was present in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001?

As documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5C, a series of tests of single workstations was conducted to gain an appreciation for the open burning behavior and the general effect of jet fuel.  The principal quantity measured was the rate of heat release.  This quantity, combined with the ventilation, heat losses to walls, etc., determines the temperatures that would be reached if the workstation were burned in an actual fire.  NIST NCSTAR 1-5C contains the heat release rate curves from all of the single workstation fires.  The series of multiple workstation fire tests, conducted in a replication of part of a WTC floor, is fully documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E.  In these tests, the window openings were close to the same size and layout as in the fire floors in the towers.  There was no glass in the windows, replicating the broken windows seen in the photographs of the vicinity of the tower fires.  The report includes, for all of the tests, plots of the heat release rate and temperature histories in multiple locations. 

10.  Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?

The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1).  Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective.  Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.

11.  Why didn’t NIST consider the “base” and “less severe” cases throughout its analysis of the WTC Towers?  What was the technical basis for selecting only the “more severe” case for its analyses?

All three cases, (the base case, less severe case, and more severe case) are reasonable and realistic representations, each within the range of uncertainty, of the conditions in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001.  Of the three, the more severe case resulted in the closest agreement with the visual and physical evidence. (Refer to NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Section 7.1 and NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Section 9.2.4.)

12.  What was the source of the material properties that were used in NIST’s thermal/structural analyses of the WTC Towers?  Were these properties obtained from physical testing of steel recovered from the WTC Towers?

NIST conducted extensive property measurement tests on the recovered WTC steel, which included all the many grades of structural steel used in the WTC Towers.  To account for natural variation in properties from different batches of manufactured steel, NIST augmented the experimental data with published data for steels of the same construction era.  These data included room temperature, high-strain rate, and high-temperature mechanical properties, along with physical properties.

13.  NIST states that the fires in WTC 1 were generally ventilation limited.  If this was the case, wouldn’t the fires have burned out in about 2 minutes?  Why do NIST’s models show the fires burning longer?

Nearly all fires are limited either by the burning rate of combustible fuel (fuel-limited fires) or by the availability of air (ventilation-limited fires).  Many fires that are ventilation limited do continue to burn, with the burning rate determined by the chemistry of the combustion and the rate at which the oxygen arrives.  This was generally the case for the WTC Tower fires.  Of course, if the rate of air inflow were too slow (e.g., due to very few broken windows), the limited combustion would not have generated sufficient heat to continue pyrolyzing fuel, and the fire would have gone out.  This was not the case on the fire floors in the WTC Towers.

The Fire Dynamics Simulator, used to reconstruct the fires in the WTC towers, included the burning characteristics of the building combustibles and the ventilation through the broken windows and the damaged building façade.  The simulation showed that there were ample perforations in the building facade to maintain the ventilation-limited combustion until the fuel supply was depleted.

14.  The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation.  If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?

Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact.  Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces.  Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.

Naomi is coming closer joining the Truth movement after a recent interview with Alex Jones and the following presentation in which she discusses some of the troubling aspects of the Bush regime's response to the attacks and the atmosphere of intolerance towards any questioning of the official story.

Her position on this is guarded, as she clearly wishes to preserve an air of respectability, but it's clear in all sorts of ways that she is indeed in the 9/11 Truth camp in spirit.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61hXsf8Qu1M