NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Ipso

Why did the Saudis do it? And how did their motives tie in with those who wanted to bring down WTC 7? Was it convergent conspiracies or was someone talking about wanting to do it and someone said "funny you want to do that, I know someone else who wants to".
Why go to the trouble of bringing down buildings (they would probably need to be demolished after having a plane smack into them)?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is some footage - it shows a plane. The majority of witnesses support a plane. The wreckage is of.. that plane. The missing people were on.. that plane. The air traffic control tracked.. that plane. The hijackers were traced to.. that plane.

It's not some mystery

As we have discussed before and you have ignored the accounts of where the plane was differ among the eyewitnesses. This is crucial to understanding the flight path of the plane when it entered Washington airspace and before it crashed. There clear discrepancies in what people saw. Where the place was seen does not match up with the 9/11 commission report findings. Just say they are right and not mistaken the plane was heading NE of the Cisco station then the entire event was staged because it not possible for a plane seen NE to have knocked down 5 lightpoles. That strange blowout hole in C ring makes no sense either.

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

Why did the Saudis do it? And how did their motives tie in with those who wanted to bring down WTC 7? Was it convergent conspiracies or was someone talking about wanting to do it and someone said "funny you want to do that, I know someone else who wants to".
Why go to the trouble of bringing down buildings (they would probably need to be demolished after having a plane smack into them)?

There has to be a reason to blow this building up so whos occupying it on 9/11 and what could they potentially want to be rid off.

The building is full of documents with bank stuff and there even a CIA office. It a place with big hitters in the financial system housed there. I have a hard time believing everything that day was recovered and they have a big excuse to claim something missing forever now because of 9/11

from foor 1 to floor 47. 25 to 41 floor is more Salamon Smith Barney offices.




25 Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency
24 Salomon Smith Barney
23 Salomon Smith Barney, NYC Office of Emergency Management
22 Salomon Smith Barney, Federal Home Loan Bank
21 Salomon Smith Barney, First State Management Group, Hartford Financial Services Group
20 Salomon Smith Barney, Hartford Financial Services Group
19 Salomon Smith Barney, Hartford Financial Services Group, NAIC Securities
18 Salomon Smith Barney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
17 —
13 Salomon Smith Barney, Provident Financial Management, American Express, Securities & Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank
12 Securities & Exchange Commission
11 Securities & Exchange Commission
10 U.S. Secret Service, Standard Chartered Bank
9 U.S. Secret Service
8 American Express
7 American Express, Provident Financial Management
6 Salomon Smith Barney
5 Salomon Smith Barney
4 Salomon Smith Barney
3 Salomon Smith Barney
2 Salomon Smith Barney
1 Salomon Smith Barney
G Salomon Smith Barney

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its a theory based on the eyewitnesses accounts of seeing molten metal flowing out of the buildings on 9/11

Is this molten metal? if so, which metal? does the metal contain impurities that caused it to have this colour? was it a mixture of alloys including those from the plane? did a 20 mph breeze combined with jet fuel and the structure of the building produce temperatures in certain parts in excess of 1200 degrees? or it is a stream of sparks?



And what does it mean? that a powerful "melting" ray was used?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is this molten metal? if so, which metal? does the metal contain impurities that caused it to have this colour? was it a mixture of alloys including those from the plane? did a 20 mph breeze combined with jet fuel and the structure of the building produce temperatures in certain parts in excess of 1200 degrees? or it is a stream of sparks?



And what does it mean? that a powerful "melting" ray was used?

Least you're asking the hard questions on this and good point. Why was a sample not analysed and tested by the authorities they liquid was photographed pouring along the ground in the cleanup? If metal steel was found in the properties of the liquid smoking gun! As far I know this was never done.

Steel melts at 1400c. Office fires are normally at highest peaks 400c I believe NIST said the office fires in WTC7 were 300+ something. Jet fuel+ fire ( 600 to 700c) will burn up after a while and temperature will go down again.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There has to be a reason to blow this building up

You've just made up a story that the building was blown up (with no credible evidence) now you are making up a motive to go with the made-up story. It's incredible

Let me guess, whilst they were busy drilling some of the countless holes required for the explosives (sorry silent explosive), laying kilometers of det cord and cutting metal beams .. all in secret of course.. in a building full of employees.. did it ever cross their minds;

"hey the secret files are uh right there, we can just destroy them now"

"no, it has to be an demolition made like a fire riiight after 2 planes hit the twin towers.. which is all arranged"

"dude, I can destroy the files right n-"

"NO, too simple! we need this to be a proper conspiracy!"

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Least you're asking the hard questions on this and good point.

Have you read the NIST? I strongly suggest you read it sometime instead of going directly to conspiracy sites where they deliberately miscontrue information and definitions to (shock horror) fit a conspiracy theory rather than the truth

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You've just made up a story that the building was blown up (with no credible evidence) now you are making up a motive to go with the made-up story. It's incredible

Let me guess, whilst they were busy drilling some of the countless holes required for the explosives (sorry silent explosive), laying kilometers of det cord and cutting metal beams .. all in secret of course.. in a building full of employees.. did it ever cross their minds;

"hey the secret files are uh right there, we can just destroy them now"

"no, it has to be an demolition made like a fire riiight after 2 planes hit the twin towers.. which is all arranged"

"dude, I can destroy the files right n-"

"NO, too simple! we need this to be a proper conspiracy!"

How do you know there was no construction work ongoing in the building or repair work you're assuming it was impossible based on nothing. What access could people have had to rig the building at night at the weekend their lot of things that could have happened?

This would make sense below if you not trying to cover your tracks and don't care about being discovered. The whole point is to remain undetected not be caught.
"hey the secret files are uh right there, we can just destroy them now"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Have you read the NIST? I strongly suggest you read it sometime instead of going directly to conspiracy sites where they deliberately miscontrue information and definitions to (shock horror) fit a conspiracy theory rather than the truth

I have read both sides arguments. I even read the posts in that link you posted from international sceptics took me a week to read it. I know for a fact NIST lied about stuff I looked up on my own to see if it was accurate.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How do you know there was no construction work ongoing in the building or repair work you're assuming it was impossible based on nothing. What access could people have had to rig the building at night at the weekend their lot of things that could have happened?

What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

You have no evidence, so no one has to address any of this stuff

Moving beyond that I'm simply entertaining the made-up notions - which don't make even make sense either. If they wanted to destroy something in the building why not just destroy whatever it was at night instead of trying to secretly prep an entire 47 story building for demolition?

Dr. Bre

Didn’t some employees say there was a strange number of evacuations leading up to 9/11.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Didn’t some employees say there was a strange number of evacuations leading up to 9/11.

Any reference or source for this notion?

If not, then it's safe to say no they didn't.

Why do you not believe the space laser theory?

Dr. Bre

King Mob wrote: »

Any reference or source for this notion?

If not, then it's safe to say no they didn't.

Why do you not believe the space laser theory?

I don’t believe space laser theory

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

I don’t believe space laser theory

Ok, why not?

It's no more ridiculous than magic exploding nanothermite.
It's no more ridiculous than the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

In fact the space laser would make far more sense as it would require far less people to be involved.

So why do you reject it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

You have no evidence, so no one has to address any of this stuff

Moving beyond that I'm simply entertaining the made-up notions - which don't make even make sense either. If they wanted to destroy something in the building why not just destroy whatever it was at night instead of trying to secretly prep an entire 47 story building for demolition?

Plenty of evidence but people like you have chosen to ignore it. 9/11 commission claims 9/11 was intelligence failure but that's a big lie and people like you have fallen for it. It's established fact the FBI approached the CIA about the hijacker's pre 9/11 for information and were told to get lost. So we know for a fact they knew this event was going to happen ahead of time and was allowed to go ahead. The events are not as straightforward as you think they are and there lot of unknowns that are hidden. The 9/11 commission was another fraud just like the Warren Commission report into Kennedy murder. Anyone who doesn't think the Kennedy killing was not a conspiracy is looking stupid right now. The CIA pulled the national security card on 60-year-old files about a lone assassin. Skeptics and the official media are the problems they should go away because they are not helping anyone find out the truth

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Didn’t some employees say there was a strange number of evacuations leading up to 9/11.

There were two employees who said one of the towers were they worked the power went offline over the weekend. So cameras elevators were offline for 48 to 72 hours a day or so before 9/11 happened.

Barry Jenning and others reported hearing explosions in WTC7 but I have not read these reports in a while.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

In fact the space laser would make far more sense as it would require far less people to be involved.

So why do you reject it?

This is nonsense it took 19 guys to take over planes and cause devastation on 9/11.

Their Saudi government contacts probably number about 5 or 10 people.

To carry out demolitions all you need is a small team of about 5 to 10 guys maybe less to pull it off. You probably have a small number of people running the operation. That hundreds of people had to know about the conspiracy is nonsense.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Plenty of evidence

There is no "evidence" of WTC 7 being blown up

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

To carry out demolitions all you need is a small team of about 5 to 10 guys maybe less to pull it off.

Creating your own made-up facts again.

Go to a demolition forum, ask how many people would be needed to demolish a 47 story building and in what timescale

Then ask if it would be possible to do this in secret, in an occupied building, in the middle of New York, with no one in the building noticing

Then come back to this thread, with that hypothetical answer and we can finally start looking at the evidence for it (hint: there is none)

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Creating your own made-up facts again.

Go to a demolition forum, ask how many people would be needed to demolish a 47 story building and in what timescale

Then ask if it would be possible to do this in secret, in an occupied building, in the middle of New York, with no one in the building noticing

Then come back to this thread, with that hypothetical answer and we can finally start looking at the evidence for it (hint: there is none)

Well it would be possible for a small team like that to rig the building.
IF they only had to rig say one column to fail.

Of course that notion is verboten heresy in the conspiracy world as the dogma requires that such a thing is impossible.

But then again, it would only take one person to target the space laser and press the fire button...

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Well it would be possible for a small team like that to rig the building.
IF they only had to rig say one column to fail.

Yeah but truthers can't support that because it screws their freefall theory and invalidates about 95% of their youtube conspiracy videos

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd just claim they held the FD back on purpose to let the building burn uncontrolled and destroy all the "whatever it was" inside. Far easier to defend.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Creating your own made-up facts again.

Go to a demolition forum, ask how many people would be needed to demolish a 47 story building and in what timescale

Then ask if it would be possible to do this in secret, in an occupied building, in the middle of New York, with no one in the building noticing

Then come back to this thread, with that hypothetical answer and we can finally start looking at the evidence for it (hint: there is none)

Well, you're assuming they packed dynamite charges into the steel core columns and had to wire it all up? What likely happened they applied thermite to the columns to weaken the attached bolts and crack the steel and that with increased heat from fire helped weaken the structure to fall.

The clue it happened this way was the building came down in freefall speed ( NIST denied this at first) The 46 columns had to be weakened across the building and that not likely when a fire in WTC7 was only occurring on two sides of the building. There was no resistance to slow the collapse on each floor ( 1 steel core on each floor) so the steel core columns just gave away as if there was nothing there.

Also NIST also lied about there being no puff outs of smoke or window breakage when it fell. The WTC7 clearly shows a puff of smoke blowing out Windows when it came down. NIST also never fixed their incorrect analysis when they said there were no shear connections to the girders and concrete floor slabs at column 79 and 44 ( collapse initiating event)

NIST has also ignored people with outstanding reputations who said they saw Molten steel in the debris. They have ignored the photographs and video show molten steel. They have also ignored traces of thermate have been independently confirmed to be found on the WTC7 steel.

Cheerful Spring

This is NIST explanation for the collapse.
"The thermal expansion of the floor structure around Column 79, caused by fire, led to the collapse of Floor No. 13, which triggered a chain reaction of collapses of floors. the building expanded enough to push out the beams that connected the Pillars 79 and 44 to the west side of the 13th floor.The
unhinged beams and other damage caused by the fire caused the collapse of Plan No. 13, starting a cascade of collapses. of floors down to the 5th floor (...) This left the Column 79 with an insufficient lateral support in the east-west direction.The column deformed to the east, causing an initial local collapse which then led to collapse total". (NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20.)

What they left out though in this was the thermal expansion occurred as there were no shear stud bolts connected into the girder (beams) and concrete slabs on each floor. We now know this to be false thermal expansion could not have occurred in the way they stated here because WTC7 construction drawings have since been released showing 22 connections (shear studs attachments to floor 13) Removing the shear studs made it easier for NIST to explain why the beam moved ( see where NIST says came unhinged)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The clue it happened this way

Nope, it was a progressive collapse. The outer facade fell pretty fast but it didn't fall at "freefall speed"

Molten steel

Misconception, explained here
https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/

Put a poker into a fire and it will glow red - it's not "molten steel"

They have also ignored traces of thermate have been independently confirmed to be found on the WTC7 steel.

Debunked here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, it was a progressive collapse. The outer facade fell pretty fast but it didn't fall at "freefall speed"



Misconception, explained here
https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/

Put a poker into a fire and it will glow red - it's not "molten steel"



Debunked here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

And again, it should be pointed out that explosives do not produce molten metal, not is molten metal ever found at the site of a controlled demolition, hence the argument that it was a typical controlled demolition is invalid.

Also, it should be pointed out that Thermite does not leave pools of molten metal or anything similar to the claims made by conspiracy theorists.
So it can't be Thermite either...

Space laser is looking more and more viable...

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, it was a progressive collapse. The outer facade fell pretty fast but it didn't fall at "freefall speed"



Misconception, explained here
https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/

Put a poker into a fire and it will glow red - it's not "molten steel"



Debunked here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Progressive collapse has nothing to do with freefall. Freefall is when the top started falling to the end. You clearly see on the WTC7 video the Penthouse has collapsed a few windows break near the top which a clear sign the building hasn't collapsed on that side otherwise you see walls crumbling in and windows breaking at the bottom floors. When the Penthouse collapsed there was resistance to stop it. Then 5 or 7 seconds later the other side of the building goes into freefall with no resistance at all. It just came down no floor crushing on to the next floor and so slowing down the descent. This is hard to explain why the columns just gave away like this and only explanation all resistance was taken out when started to fall and puffs of smoke and breaking windows is a sign the supports were taken out one by one as it fell.

Molten steel is fused and hardened resembling volcanic rock. What you looking at there in those pictures is melted metal. It was not tested to see what the liquid properties were so it lot more difficult to say if it was just contained melted steel. But melted steel gives off a glowing orange colour that's why is strange and what was clearly a glowing orange liquid flowing in the debris. The yellow colour or orangey color is a sign the heat is above 1000c+ if it red is normally about 600c or lower.

I have to read what they say on that link about thermite before discussing their conclusions.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe regarding your last link. Looks like their analysis has no credibility. Went to the end of the thread and looks like debunkers resorted to tactics that usually do.

This is interesting link from that thread and seems to the current stance on the issue was thermite used.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/09/millette-chip-study-debunked-and-buried.html

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

freefall

Freefall didn't happen

What you looking at there in those pictures is melted metal.

People saw glowing metal and described it in various ways including "molten", hence the conspiracy was born

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Looks like their analysis has no credibility.

You can accept or discard anything you want, e.g. you can claim you've studied evidence that the world is round and have rejected it. It's meaningless

You have demonstrated you will accept a theory as the absolute truth, then reject it shortly after for another random theory borrowed off the internet, then reject that and accept another

People who support the actual investigation and science behind don't need to do that, the truth has a habit of being consistent

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Freefall didn't happen



People saw glowing metal and described it in various ways including "molten", hence the conspiracy was born

The evidence says otherwise and you clearly see the building came down at freefall speed with no resistance. The right side of the building just came down with no resistance at all.

They saw a yellow liquid which means whatever that was above 1000c. The only thing that would have given that yellow colour is melted steel. Aluminium is silver when melted.

NIST never tested for thermite or thermate or nano thermite grade gels known to be tested in 1999 by the US military to find out if this was cause.

They even state this.

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

Answer
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. They never even verified the truthers claims were true or not.

3. Why didn't the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

The line I highlighted is shocking jeez are they really this incompetent? The molten state would be a clear sign of thermite or another substance was used to make the fire hotter to melt the steel. The explanation sounds like it was written by a kid of 10.

All this found in their own website
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation