I will leave the 9/11 new investigation camp if answers can be provided to the following questions.*
*Be advised, the FEMA blessed NIST investigation run by American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE) has been called a half baked farce by the Fire Engineering Magazine, in this 2002 article.
There is this 25 page response by Tony Szamboti a mechanical engineer. Despite criticism attacking Szamboti, the questions of his white paper response to NISTs non peer reviewed final report have not been answered.
WTC 7
OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114
OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM
WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED
VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL
CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES
CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS
REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS
All Three Buildings
NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL
IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION
FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED
NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.
REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE
FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED
PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED
TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL
INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY
COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE
NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE
WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES
NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED
NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS
COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS
MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED
Here is article with the specific questions to the 25 points the NIST report either omitted or distorted contrary to scientific method.
These are legitimate questions and those issues need to be addressed before anyone can view the NIST final report as scientific opposed to political motivated. There also needs to be transparency on their input data for the collapse models. To this date, the computer model input data and software have not been made available to the actual architects & structural engineers who design and build those structures.
If fires brought them down like the NIST report states, that should have been made available to at least those communities, to eliminate the potential for it to happen again in new buildings, or to determine if existing buildings would need to be retrofitted.
The NIST report has not been peer reviewed to this date. The following report: Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers on 9/11: A Case Study highlights the failures of the NIST investigation to follow the most basic fundamental procedures. They also have not made their data or computer models available to structural engineers or for peer review.
As far as the Popular Mechanics books and articles in relation to 9/11, there are conflicts of interest that question the objective view point they claim to have.
The most serious of which is the original report was penned by Benjamin Chertoff. Related to Dept. of Homeland Security at the time Michael Chertoff.
That report appears to be politically motivated, instead of scientific curiosity.
Their reports have been rebutted by the scientific community, who had nothing to gain, every thing to lose, and based on their conclusions on repeatable scientific method, opposed to attempting to discredit the scientists.
Spokespeople from Popular Mechanics have been caught in out right lies and making false statements in actual radio interviews. Here are reviews on David Ray Griffins response to the Popular Mechanics claims or "investigation". Here is a lecture given by David Ray Griffin that puts the Popular Mechanics "investigation" in the proper light, and has yet to be challenged.
Here is the list of fire codes changed since 9/11.
Here are published articles in mainstream scientific journals. 1 2 3
Here are peer reviewed papers. Peer reviewed articles.
The National Geographic specials on the issue are also lacking any realistic data on the actual events of that day. This scene shows a steel beam failing with jet fuel being the heat source. Their are many issues that are misleading about this footage. The first one is that the show itself admits that the temps. produced during their experiment were not present in the WTC fires. The second issue is the whole length of the beam was heated, with a undetermined amount of weight placed at the weakest part. Here is one of the types of beam used at the WTC.
A beam could fail with no heat if the load was focused on the weakest point if the load was enough. Those types of beams were not used in the WTC. This video is another example of what it takes to cause steel to be weakened and the force required to shape it. I would also add this common sense observation.
This image shows the top of the tower tilted approx. 22 degrees, and should have continued like the building in this clip. The size isn't relevant. The way the building topples over, and does not disintegrate in mid air is how the tower should have behaved. Some force other than gravity was acting on it to have it travel through the path of most resistance. Look at this image. The path the debris is slightly upward and outward, against gravity.
If you also notice most of the debris cloud is outside the footprint of the building. There is not enough material working together to pile drive its way through the path of most resistance. The cloud shows the direction the energy was expended. Up and out. Gravity pulls down.
This image is the bottom of the plane from four different angles. Each angle shows an anomaly on the bottom right side of the air craft. It is not a trick of light and shadows or paint scheme since it is present at four different angles. Here is the flash BEFORE impact on the south tower from four different angles.
These anomalies are present on all footage available that shows the plane from underneath. No mention was ever made of them in the 9/11 official reports. They are direct video evidence.
This is only a small portion of what the official story has working against it. If answers can be provided with LEGITIMATE scientific backing, opposed to finding reasons why they shouldn't be asked, or attacking the ones who asked them, we can move on to the next set of questions.
I want to get this insane notion out of my head that we have been not told truth about the events of that day, and the investigation that followed. And that all these educated scientists, scholars, pilots, architects, engineers, former high ranking military, FDNY, PhD's, and former high level politicians and administration officials are in fact insane, opposed to the official story that has relied on unverifiable theories and evidence.
