Don't Miss Out!
Get a free weekly digest of FPJ's latest delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe at any time, and FPJ values your privacy. Your email will never be sold or shared with third parties.

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Download this article (PDF)

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a turning point in world history. We have been told that these attacks were planned and implemented by nineteen Arab Muslim hijackers under the direction of the leaders of al Qaeda. According to the official account, this criminal conspiracy received no help or funding from any government.

kean-and-hamiltonUnfortunately, this explanation fails to address a majority of the evidence and leaves most of the critical questions unanswered.[1] In fact, the reports that constitute the official account do so little to explain what happened that it is possible that, to this day, we know very little about who was behind the attacks. That fact is alarming to many people, given that so much war and unprecedented change has been driven by the official account.

On closer inspection, the 9/11 Commission Report provides only 90 pages of discussion about what actually happened on the day of 9/11, found in chapters 1 and 9 of the report. The remainder of the report is devoted to promoting a myth behind the organization called al Qaeda, and suggesting what to do about it.

The 9/11 Commission told us in its report that “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.”

Author David Ray Griffin revealed that the Commission report not only failed to provide the fullest possible account, it omitted or distorted many of the relevant facts.[2] The Commission report also gave us a new explanation for one of the most alarming aspects of the attacks—the complete failure of the U.S. national air defenses.  The new explanation represented the third, distinctly different, version of how the air defenses failed.

A number of excuses were given by Commission members for the shortcomings of its report. In their 2006 book, Without Precedent, the leaders of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, said “we were set up to fail.”[3] When I met with Hamilton, he told me that the Commission faced too many questions, too little funding, and too little time.

But the fact is that, if it had not been for 9/11 victim’s family members working diligently to publicize problems with the emerging official myth, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission investigation. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney actively sought to limit the investigation into the attacks.

As CNN reported in January 2002, President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the congressional investigation. This unusual request came after a “rare call to Daschle from Vice President Cheney.” Daschle stated that Cheney “expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism.”[4]

When the political pressure caused by the victim’s families grew too great, the 9/11 Commission was born. But the Commission was given less than one tenth of the funding that had been allotted to investigate the sexual exploits of President Clinton just three years earlier. Clearly, the U.S. government did not want an in-depth investigation into 9/11.

The Commission

There were several brief inquiries early on. These included the CIA Inspector General (IG) inquiry, the FBI IG inquiry, and the Joint Congressional Inquiry. All three of these were focused on a limited hangout viewpoint of the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence agencies related to the alleged hijackers. The 9/11 Commission, which stated its goal of presenting “the fullest possible account” built its work on the earlier inquiries and used many of the same staff for its investigation.

To lead the Commission, President Bush first appointed Henry Kissinger. As with the 14-month delay in getting started, this appointment was a strong indication that the investigation was not intended to be a fact-finding mission. Kissinger’s refusal to release his client list, which was expected to include the name Bin Laden, forced his resignation and replacement by Kean and Hamilton.[5] Kean’s ties to the oil and gas industry and Hamilton’s history as an intelligence agency insider, along with similar conflicts of interest among the rest of the Commission members, were issues that remained unaddressed.

In November 2003, one of the 9/11 Commission members quit. This was Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who was outraged at the process and had previously said “This is a scam” and “It’s disgusting. America is being cheated.” In October 2003, Cleland told the New York Times that — “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.”[6]

The Commission’s report came out nine months later, in July 2004, and was hailed as a great achievement by the publicists hired to promote it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the report failed to answer 70% of the questions provided by the 9/11 victim’s families who had inspired the Commission’s charter.

Throughout the report, the Commission claimed that “no evidence” existed, or could be found, to explain aspects of the 9/11 events. This was reminiscent of comments made by President Ford to his press secretary, Ron Nessen, about Ford’s work on the Commission that investigated the assassination of President Kennedy. Ford told Nessen that he and his colleagues on the Warren Commission – “were very, very careful when we wrote our final report not to say flatly that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was not part of a conspiracy.” Ford clarified that the Warren Commission was “very careful to say we ‘found’ no evidence of a conspiracy.”[7]

The 9/11 Commission took this “we found no evidence” phrase to an extreme and used some form of it 36 times within its report.[8] Four of those instances highlight the fact that the 9/11 Commission could not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes. Other instances reflected that the Commission put almost no effort into allegations of insider trading, or how the attacks were funded, which the Commission said was “of little practical significance.”[9]  In an honest investigation, the funding would be seen as a strong clue to who was behind the attacks.

The WTC Reports

Although the Commission addressed the World Trade Center (WTC) in a brief, superficial manner, the detailed explanation for what happened to the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 was left to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). At the time, this agency reported through the U.S. Department of Commerce under the direction of Bush’s old friend and oil industry colleague, Donald Evans.

Like the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, which were issued in 2005 and 2008, represented only the last in a series of failed official explanations for the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST avoided much of the evidence for what happened to the buildings by providing only a “collapse initiation sequence” for the towers, and by performing no physical testing to support its unusual explanation for WTC 7.

The timing of NIST’s WTC 7 report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. That is not surprising, as the timing of NIST’s other reports coincided with political events as well. These included the draft report on the towers in October 2004 – just before the election, the final report on the towers – just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST’s first “responses to FAQs” – just before the fifth anniversary. All of them appeared to involve politically motivated release dates.

In each case, the dates allowed time for the mainstream media to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical questioning of the related documents, which were extensive and deceptive. With the WTC 7 report, the public was given just three weeks prior to 9/11/08 to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making.

With time it was discovered that the WTC 7 report was a very poor attempt at a realistic explanation for what happened to that 47-story building, which had not been hit by a plane.[10] It seemed that NIST didn’t even try to present a logical explanation for what happened, but simply relied on the idea that a fawning media would help them close the public discussion quickly. In the future, people will learn a great deal from the NIST collaboration with certain media, in terms of our present culture and the extent of our ability to deceive.


About the Author

Kevin Ryan

Homepage
Kevin R. Ryan began to investigate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 through his work as Site Manager for a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). He was fired by UL in 2004 for writing to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), asking about its World Trade Center investigation and UL’s work to ensure the fire resistance of the buildings. He now serves as co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and is a former board director at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ryan has co-authored several books and peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. 
  • Albury Smith

    Ryan was fired by UL for lying about their steel certification protocols, not for asking NIST questions. He also lied about what Larry Silverstein said, and then libeled him using that lie:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/RyanFraud1.jpg
    He’s now libeling many others with lies and ignorance. Does anyone see a pattern here?

    • aussie

      Albury Smith – you make a mountain out of a molehill in order to try and discredit Ryan.

      Weak contribution.

      A lot of people have discussed that infamous Silverstein statement, probably getting all or part of it wrong. It’s neither here nor there in the bigger scheme of things.

      You write: “[Ryan]‘s now libeling many others with lies and ignorance. ”

      Care to back up that statement with hard evidence – ie. exact statements, dates, names and links?

      • Albury Smith

        Ryan inserted words into someone’s perfectly innocuous statement about abandoning a firefighting effort to prevent more “terrible loss of life,” and then used the deliberately altered statement to accuse him of a serious felony for which no evidence exists, and that’s making a mountain out of a molehill? He discredits himself every time he opens his mouth, and libeled countless people in the article here, including the NIST investigators, SEC, BBC, 9/11 Commission members, Hearst Publications, and every intelligence agency in the US, along with foreign ones they’ve shared information with. He also implicitly libeled two major US airlines and numerous other people and entities. Did you even bother to read it? After going to all of that trouble to libel Silverstein with an outright lie, he doesn’t even mention him in his latest drivel.
        If you think these guys are credible, ask them to show you how secretly blowing up W14 X 730 columns works, and to tell you how they got 6.5 seconds for the entire WTC 7 facade collapse. Ever watched a complete video of it?

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          You should be asking how fire causes W14 X 730 columns to fail instantaneously and simultaneously. Free fall acceleration means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis. This is why NIST first tried to deny free-fall. Then they were forced to acknowledge the fact in their final report, yet they took out to statement that this finding was “consistent with physical principles” and replaced it with language that it was consistent with their model. But their model didn’t achieve free fall. What they mean is it took their model 5.4s to collapse the first 18 stories. So what NIST did was make sure to measure 5.4s for the collapse of WTC 7 from a video, only they did this by choosing a start time for global collapse when the parapet wall was seen to move. However, this movement was pull-in of the north facade and if one measures the collapse time from the initial downward displacement of the building, it takes 4.13s for WTC 7 to collapse 18 stories. The purpose of this fraud by NIST is to try to obfuscate the fact that free fall occurred with sudden onset. And that’s just the beginning of NIST’s fraud in its report.

          • Albury Smith

            No, I shouldn’t ask that because it’s clearly explained in NCSTAR 1A, which is consistent with the facts that we know about the WTC 7 collapse. Divining collapse causes from timing them is pure junk science, but you still haven’t explained how Box Boy and his cohort here got 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire WTC 7 facade collapse, right to the nearest 1/10 second, no less.
            You should ask them that, and then ask them to demonstrate how to cut two dozen W14 X 730 columns with explosives multiple times in seconds in Manhattan without waking up the dead on Long Island.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Applying the law of conservation of energy is “junk science”? LOL!

          • Albury Smith

            MIS-applying it is junk science. If you really believe that a HUNDRED THOUSAND TONS or more would be slowed measurably by buckled columns that are mostly sideways, write a physics paper on it. It would be news to most structural engineers, physicists, and anyone else with any understanding of physical principles, and will make you famous.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            You just employed the fallacy of circular reasoning. Once again, the law of conservation of energy dictates that since the building accelerated at free fall, all of its potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to buckle the columns as you just fallaciously presumed occurred.

          • Albury Smith

            You just employed the fallacy of begging the question, Jeremy, based on not knowing what you’re talking about – a trait you have in common with the author of the article here. From t=0 to t=1.75 seconds, the acceleration of the top of WTC 7′s north parapet wall was considerably less than g and gradually increasing. The floors and the 2 dozen much more widely-spaced and non moment-connected W14 X 730 core columns had already been collapsing for ~8 seconds, and the 57 tightly-spaced W14 X 500 moment-connected exterior columns buckled in a horizontal plane and nearly in unison, a phenomenon requiring at least some knowledge of moment connections and basic structural steel framing to understand. Because of dynamic loading and the condition of the columns during this phase of the collapse, ~33 floors of intact exterior framing and connected interior mass fell ~105′ virtually unimpeded for a ~2.25-second time period, and the acceleration then decreased.
            It appears to have taken ~8.5 seconds from the first downward movement until the top of the north parapet wall stopped falling, but since no videos show when the collapse actually ended, anyone claiming that it fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds is employing the fallacy of outright lying – something that people who embellish someone’s statement and then libel him with the altered results would be prone to do.
            I’ve suggested to you some ways to verify this in previous discussions. If you insist on promoting the junk science of divining collapse causes from how fast a building falls, get the Hallmark Tower framing plan and charge placement markup on it from the demolition contractor, whose contact information is readily available online, and analyze its collapse rate frame-by-frame with the same program Chandler used. As the “truth movement” has already demonstrated by placing videos of it next to WTC 7 facade collapse videos, they dropped with roughly the same overall acceleration, despite the fact that the majority of columns on many floors aren’t typically cut with explosives in real controlled demolitions like the one in Ft. Worth. [So much for your "conservation of energy dictates..."]
            I’ve also suggested that Gage’s “800 engineers” explosively sever a few W14 X 730s, or even some more commonly-used sizes like W8 X 48, since they’re much cheaper and easier to handle. If they demonstrated it on video, especially using the method of painting them on as described in the paper your colleague here signed, it would certainly give many of us a better, or at least a more accurate, appreciation of the research you endorse. Since they’ve been stumped for nearly 4 years by the lack of someone else’s complete input and results files, and are therefore unable even to begin ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling of their own on the col. 79 area framing with the volumes of data readily available, they should have plenty of time on their hands for this modest project.
            If you’re an ae911″truth” donor, I urge you to earmark your next contribution to this important research.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Who do you think you’re fooling, Albury? I defer to my previous comments.

          • Albury Smith

            Correction-
            LANDMARK Tower, not “Hallmark Tower.”
            This is one of many videos of that real controlled demolition:

            break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html

            Be sure to turn the volume on while viewing it. With volume still on, watch this one taken from a block or 2 away from WTC 7 at ~5:20 PM on 9/11/01:

            youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs [c&p each URL into browser]

            Please note that the 9/11 “researcher” who posted that copy of the Ashley Banfield video implies in his title that she was in on the alleged plot too. Many eyewitnesses also thought WTC 7 would eventually collapse, including FDNY in the area of the building, so this was a really HUGE “conspiracy.”

            81 massive steel columns (500# per lineal foot minimum) were explosively cut multiple times in a second or so, and it’s not even mentioned by her or anyone nearby, nor is it heard on the video or reported by the live viewing audience that probably numbered in the millions. Even more astonishingly, there isn’t one photo or report of an explosively-cut column at the site, except Steven Jones’s oxyacetylene torch-cut ones, despite the fact that ~40,000 different people worked on the WTC cleanup there for nearly 8 months. Go figure…

  • a free bird

    Many believe that the terror attack of 9/11 was an inside job to be used as pretext to invade Islamic countries to steal their resources and human capital and impliment US agenda in the region, meaning regime change and to change the map of the region to benefit the west especially ISRAEL.

    General Clark revealed that seven countries that were to be invaded and blessed with regime change are Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and the big prize, Iran with its wealth of resources and potential market of over 70 million persons.

    The war criminals in washington, London, Tel Aviv, France, along with their puppets, Turkey and the Arab head of states, especially Saudis, have killed millions of Muslims including many children and women who have been executed from close range.
    All these activities, according to international laws, are considered war crimes against humanity, but since ICC is nothing but a brothel house, so far no war criminals from US-Britain-Israel-France has been arrested. ICC, a western tool against the weaker state, goes only after the victims of zionism and imperialism like Al Bashir, and ignores the big fish such as Bush, Cheney, Obama, Clinton, Blair, Israelis war criminals and others.

  • Christon Clark

    Well spoken article. I have always known in my gut from the beginning that this was not orchestrated by 19 dudes from Saudi Arania (As if). I saw a picture of Bush standing in front of the reckage and it looked like one of the beams behind him had been sheared with cordite. Of course WTC7 was pulled but all done in a few hours – oh yea. At this point what would disclosure do? While I am totally with you as are many we have so little time to get to the next level as a species.

    This is a very complex issue of humanity and the 911 event really is a manifestation of some serious issues no doubt stemming in our genetics and MEME effects. Education and will power in mass is probably the only way to change this short of an external phenomenon/entity/process changing things quickly for us as the time seems to be compressing quickly into a critical mass point.

    Hard to say what is really going on at the deeper levels as it is hard to believe that these dudes at the highest levels don’t realize that the power of uplifting the masses would not be way more powerful for them which of course it would and they would know this so there must be something else at work in the minds of these people. It would be easy to say they are pschopathic and of course their behavior appears so but that would be too easy. Given the depths of the micro to the macro seems like it could be probable there is external influence on the hunan mind. The wars of course are providing super amounts of money and temporal power but what human in these potitions in their right mind would be into this kind of temporal power.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo umbrarchist

    We don’t need any conspiracy theories.

    We need for the Physics Profession to do its job. We are supposed to listen to them talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs but they can’t resolve an airliner hitting a skyscraper in TEN YEARS?

    • Albury Smith

      The structural engineering profession has already done its job. Read NCSTAR 1, 1A, 1-9, and the other NIST releases if you’d like an explanation of the causes of the WTC collapses.
      Their findings and recommendations prompted 40 revisions in the 2009 and 2012 I-codes. Ryan, Gage, and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” are completely ignored by the ASCE, as well as by the RIBA and AIA. Search them on those sites and see what comes up.
      Claiming that 24 interior WTC 7 columns that looked like this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
      were all somehow secretly cut with planted explosives multiple times in seconds is just one of the reasons they’re not taken seriously. If anyone here knows how to do that to even one W14 X 730, a wide flange shape that weighs 730# per lineal foot and has a 215 square inch cross sectional area, please urge Gage’s “engineers” to demonstrate it on video for us.
      If you know what video they used to get 6.5 seconds for the WTC 7 facade collapse, please post a link to it. Divining causes of building collapses by timing them is stupid enough, but they can’t even do that right. It took ~8.5 seconds after the interior collapsed, and no video shows the bottom floors clearly enough for 1/10 second accuracy.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        The NIST report on WTC 7 is scientific fraud from start to finish.

        • Albury Smith

          If “the NIST report on WTC 7 is scientific fraud from start to finish,” Jeremy, then so are the ICC, ASCE, AIA, RIBA, and a number of other established agencies that represent the building profession. Your completely unqualified and unsupported opinion of NIST’s WTC 7 investigation also does nothing to validate the absurd “theory” that secretly planted explosives caused its ~5:21 PM collapse. Instead of libeling what’s probably the most competent and respected group of forensic SEs in the world, why not get some W14 X730s like the 24 WTC 7 core columns and show everyone how to cut them with thermite, nanothermite, RDX, or some other explosive or incendiary?
          I’ve already posted proof that Ryan’s a liar, but if your 9/11 “truth movement” thinks the NIST experts are, why haven’t Gage’s “800 engineers” even STARTED modeling the steel around column 79? Do real engineers need someone else’s complete input and results files in order to use readily available data and programs, or isn’t nearly 4 years enough time?

          • aussie

            Why don’t you present a paper with all this ‘evidence’ you come up with and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal?

            Alternatively, why don’t you start a group and get the architects and engineers you claim support the official narrative 100% to rally around and SIGN UP to your theory – giving their full names, qualifications and credentials. Amorphous claims don’t count – we need commitment and signatures!

            Report back to us when you get 1 700 of them and then we can talk on an even platform.

          • Albury Smith

            I don’t have to start a group, aussie. The ASCE has ~144,000 members, including the overwhelming majority of structural engineers in the US, and there’s plenty of peer review of the NIST WTC findings at their web site. Can you find even one citing of Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, or any of their so-called “engineers” at all, let alone in connection with whatever research you think they’ve done on the WTC collapses? Why aren’t these luminaries of the 9/11 “truth movement” even mentioned on the ICC, RIBA, and AIA sites? Why hasn’t all of this talent even STARTED to model the framing around col. 79, since it’s been nearly 4 years since NCSTAR 1A was released to the public?

            Here are some of the full names, qualifications, and credentials of the NIST lead investigators:

            http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

            The civilian subcontractors are listed in the reports, and include some of the most respected consulting firms in the commercial construction business.

            Where’s Box Boy published, who’s peer reviewed it, and how many I-code revisions has he prompted? He can’t even do something as simple as timing a collapse accurately, and you believe him over SEs with doctorates and PE certification? What lunacy…

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            There is NO peer review of NIST’s paper on WTC7 because NIST explicitly rejects the scientific method and refuses to release its data.

          • Albury Smith

            NCSTAR 1A contains all of the essential data, but a provision of the NCST Act did not allow public release of complete input and results files for their ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling. How would that stop Box Boy’s “800 engineers” from even STARTING their own modeling? What are they doing with their time? Couldn’t they at least get some W14 X 500 or 730 columns and some explosives and show us how to blow them up so quietly that we need Barry Jennings to report it? I’d love to see it. Wouldn’t you?
            What could be more consistent with scientific method than providing empirical evidence for a theory?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            So, like I said, NIST rejects the scientific method and refuses to release its data for peer review.

          • Albury Smith

            Where do I go to find your data, Jeremy?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
          • Albury Smith

            I was referring to your ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling results, Jeremy, not a reiteration of the junk science and sophistry of divining causes by timing building collapses. If you don’t understand NIST’s methodology for timing the top 242′, i.e. the portion that honest people would time, since it’s actually visible, it’s fully explained in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            My ANSYS and LS-DYNA results? WTF? I do understand NIST’s methodology, Albury. I understand it is fraudulent. See link, previous comment.

          • Albury Smith

            That was a collective “your” referring to Gage’s “800 engineers” and anyone else who’s delusional enough to believe that libeling the NIST investigators provides any evidence at all for the C/D absurdity, Jeremy. If your heroes can’t produce competing ANSYS and LS-DYNA models in the nearly 4 years they’ve had, what would they do with NIST’s input and results packages?
            Since they’re not doing anything else, I’m hoping they’ll take my suggestion and demonstrate how to sever some steel columns with explosives. W14 X 730s would be preferable, but I think most people would get the idea with columns less than 1/10 that size. Let’s see how quiet it is, what the steel looks like afterward, and whether the explosives work immediately, or can go off at ~10 AM, for instance, and not cut the steel until 5:21 PM. If they’re capable of going off in one place and severing columns many floors higher, that should be noted also.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            If you have a problem with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, take it up with them. If you wish to address me, do so on the basis of what I’ve said or done, not on what they have said or done or haven’t said or haven’t done.

            I committed no libel against NIST, Albury. The facts are as I’ve stated them.

  • http://www.pakistantalks.com khabarnak

    WELL EXPLAINED…
    I have downloaded the whole article..very nice points

  • http://digwithin.net/ Kevin Ryan

    Thanks for the positive comments.

    Albury Smith is a good example of what honest truth seekers have faced for the last few years. The defenders of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) begin with ad hominem attacks. In this case, a single misuse of a pronoun, in one of many presentations given over a 7 year period, is offered as proof of intent to deceive. The absurd and revealing thing about this particular example is that the official response to Mr. Silverstein’s public statement was that he simply misused a pronoun in that very same statement, intending for “pull it” to mean “pull them”. Of course, OCT supporters would never accuse Mr. Silverstein of being deceptive (do we see a pattern here?).

    As for WTC 7, the official report is false for the following reasons:
    * No physical tests were done to confirm the NIST explanation
    * The fire hypothesis is contradicted by the known fire resistance plan
    * The fires in WTC 7 lasted only 20 minutes in each area while the steel components were rated for hours of fire resistance
    * NIST’s final theory was based entirely on computer simulations that are not based on evidence
    * NIST’s fire modeling contradicts the photographic evidence
    * The fires in the critical areas (NE corner of floor 12) were out long before collapse
    * NIST did not heat the floor slabs in its model of differential thermal expansion
    * NIST ignored known facts about shear studs on the critical girder
    * The maximum thermal expansion possible could not have caused the girder to “walk-off” its seat
    * The NIST computer result does not accurately model the collapse

    These facts are spelled out carefully in the reference provided. Unless OCT supporters can address these facts without resorting to ad hominem attacks and diversions, we’ll have to assume they agree that the NIST WTC7 report is a fraud.

    • Albury Smith

      Links shortened to avoid “moderation”:

      WHO “made that decision to pull,” Kevin, and WHEN? Is it ad hominem to alter someone’s quote and libel him, and to accuse the NIST investigators of fraud because of your lack of understanding of the topic? What’s Larry Silverstein’s position in the government you’re libeling? Why did 12 different insurance companies, at least 4 of which are foreign-based, all pay him a total of $4.48 BILLION? What video did you and Gage use to get 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire WTC 7 facade collapse, right to the nearest 1/10 second?

      *There is no facility presently available to fire test 45 to 52 foot steel beams.

      *What “known fire resistance plan” are you referring to?

      *Where did you get your fire spread data?

      *What computer modeling have your “800 engineers” done?

      *Whose photographic evidence?

      *What “known facts” are there that contradict the approved Frankel submittals regarding shear studs on the 44/79 girder, and what would your imaginary shear studs have done in those conditions if they were on it?

      *Why would there NOT have been differential thermal expansion sufficient for shear stud failure on the beams with asymmetrical framing, steel heated to even 100C, and a large, continuous slab area restrained by in-plane stiffness?

      Where is your ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling for the col. 79 area, or can’t “800 engineers” even START doing it without seeing someone else’s complete input and results files first?

      Here are some of the eyewitnesses you’re ignoring:

      sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

      sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

      sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

      “Albury Smith is a good example” of why you should seek a new hobby.

  • Albury Smith

    Some questions for Kevin Ryan, since he’s lurking here, and he and other 9/11 “researchers” routinely libel Larry Silverstein with their spin on the “pull it” quote (although most don’t alter it):

    -why would he have publicly admitted to a serious felony in a PBS interview for a documentary?

    -what was Silverstein Properties’ (and the FDNY’s) motive for secretly blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for years, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on the replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
    (note: it was built in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, so it had no “asbestos problem” in its SFRM or elsewhere. There was some asbestos on the first 38 floors of the North Tower, most of which had been safely removed during various tenant fit-outs well before he won the lease by default when Vornado’s deal with the PA fell though, but none in the South Tower, which was built after the code change went into effect.)

    -why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 BILLION total he received, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them), and London? (All 12 of the companies insuring the WTC properties contested his claim of two occurrences based on two separate plane crashes, and he won in court in a few instances based on individual contract wording, but there was never any question relating to the causes of any WTC collapse.)

    -how did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a much taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for this alleged controlled demolition?

    -if the explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken months in a vacant building and have been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one, and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off in lower stories around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about WHETHER to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives allegedly planted a few stories higher?

    -do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

    -do they leave no severed columns with melted ends, copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?

    -do they leave ~12 stories on one corner (the NW) standing?

    -is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?

    -please link me to a demolition contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull a building over, as was done with the very badly damaged WTC 6.

    -how does “such a terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?

    -a number of firefighters had been inside WTC 7 prior to the FDNY’s ~2:30 PM pullback order, presumably at risk from these alleged explosives, and most of the 343 FDNY fatalities resulted from the tower collapses, so why are there only a few FDNY in the 9/11 “truth movement”? You can count the number in this “truth” organization who even claim to be FDNY right here:

    firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469

    Are they simply not as astute as you and your 9/11 “truth movement” are, or don’t they care what killed so many of their colleagues, including close relatives and friends?

    -there was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street site in 1986, and WTC 7 was built over it, requiring some of the very unusually long ~45′ girder and ~52′ beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the collapse of a ~200,000-ton, 47-story building directly on top of it very likely destroyed it completely. Do you know whether ConEd, its insurers, and its shareholders just absorbed the tens of millions of dollars in loss of use, infrastructure damage, and restoration costs and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party, especially if he deliberately caused the damage?

    Thanks in advance.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Here are some questions for Albury, since he’s lurking around here:

      Why did NIST first try to deny free fall?
      Why did NIST, after admitting free fall, delete the statement that this was “consistent with physical principles”? Why did NIST replace with a statement that it was consistent with their model when their model did not achieve free fall?
      Why did NIST fraudulently choose a start time for the onset of global collapse by choosing a brightening pixel from the center roofline in a manner that would have been arbitrary if it were not for the fact it was chosen specifically in order to make it look as though the total collapse time of the building exactly matched their model?
      Why did NIST input massive fires on the 12th floor when its own photographic evidence showed the fires in this area had long since burned out? In other words, why did NIST engage in scientific fraud?
      Why did NIST carry forward only its worst case scenario into its final models?
      Why did NIST claim thermal expansion pushed the girder off its seat when if you input the variables for those beams into their own equation, they would not have expanded enough to do that?
      Why did NIST claim there were no shear studs on the girder?
      Why did NIST claim the girder was pushed off its seat and then model that failure in ANSYS when it failed to do so in their own LS-DYNA model because it bumped up against the flange of column 79?
      Why does NIST reject the scientific method by refusing to release its data for peer review?
      Why did NIST lie and claim no steel was recovered from WTC7? Why does it not account for the eutectic steel sample that was preserved from the debris?
      Why did NIST reject standard investigative protocol not test for thermitic materials on the basis of the logic that since no such materials existed, there was no sense looking for it?
      Etc.
      Etc.
      Etc.

      • Albury Smith

        Please urge those “800 engineers” that Gage claims are so eager to debate NIST to get started on their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling, Jeremy, instead of taking cheap shots at a respected group of NIST SEs and 8 or more civilian consulting firms who’ve studied the collapse and issued a detailed and very professional report on it. They didn’t deny free fall, and aren’t foolish enough to attach any significance to fall times. David Chandler is, and his work should be presented here:

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

        If CBS pays appearance fees for that segment, he could add them to the donations he’s begging for on his web site.

        NIST undoubtedly concluded that there were no shear studs on the 44/79 girder because the sealed Frankel submittals showed that there weren’t any, since that’s what people experienced in the field go by. They may also have had the “as-builts,” a structural set marked up at job completion, and possibly erection photos and even accounts from the steel fabricator and erector, and the FEMA BPAT, SEAoNY, PANYNJ, ASCE, and other engineers working post-9/11 at the WTC site may have documented this basic information as the debris was sorted and removed. If your 9/11 “truth movement” found a preliminary S drawing showing them, or a general note, a generic sketch applying to both beams and girders, or someone altered the approved shop drawings the way Silverstein’s videotaped quote was altered, these are not reliable sources of information. What’s especially stupid about the question is that you claim to be a researcher, and apparently haven’t even bothered to look this up yourself, or sent an RFI to NIST inquiring about it. Whenever those “800 engineers” get around to modeling, perhaps they could add these imaginary shear studs to the girder and see how long they stay attached to it at various temperatures common in office fires. AE “truth” has the necessary documents through an FOIA request, so not modeling on their own is indefensible at this point.

        When did NIST claim that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7,” and why would they do that? One of the 2 small pieces detailed in FEMA’s Appendix C is thought to have come from somewhere in WTC 7, and it’s uncertain how the corrosion occurred, but there’s no evidence to suggest that it happened prior to any collapse. NIST and others have speculated that it occurred during long exposure to the debris fires, but if 2 small, rusty pieces of nondescript steel are C/D evidence to you, duplicate the corrosion with explosives or incendiaries while you’re showing us how easy it is to blow up W14 X 730s.

        Your obsession with timing the collapse is anal, but since you’re falsely accusing the NIST people of dishonesty about something that inconsequential to a forensic engineering study, why haven’t you questioned Ryan on his 6.6 seconds for the entire facade collapse? That’s provably dishonest just from looking at the videos and timing it yourself. It obviously took ~8.5 seconds, and buildings in the foreground and the dust clouds later on make it impossible to determine it to 1/10 second accuracy. Do you want someone like him doing the “new and independent” investigation you seem to think we need? He and Gage are completely ignored by the ASCE, ICC, AIA, and RIBA, so your problem isn’t just with NIST.

        Please cite specifics of the “standard investigative protocol…[to] test for thermitic materials,” and explain why numerous FEMA BPAT, SEAoNY, PANYNJ, ASCE, NSF, and other engineers on the site post-9/11, plus experienced demolition contractors and people who provide documentation for them, would have been unable to rule out an explosives scenario simply by examining the ends of the steel – something that can be done in a few seconds, and by the complete absence of any other telltale evidence during months of working there as the debris was being removed. Explosives leave evidence that a blind man would have seen, and extremely well-qualified investigators simply didn’t see any. Explosives are also heard just prior to a collapse, the sounds are deafening at close range and carry for miles, and there are no eyewitness accounts or videos indicating anything like that prior to any of the 3 WTC hi-rise collapses.

        You seem to have little to no understanding of what a forensic engineering analysis actually entails, and to be infatuated with the idea that you’re on a par with the NIST engineers and well-established consulting engineering firms involved in this investigation. The collapse of WTC 7, unlike both tower collapses, was triggered by events that no one could possibly have seen, and NIST’s job was to formulate a valid hypothesis based on all of the available data, not to satisfy “truth movement” fantasies. There’s a level of uncertainty built in, regardless of which qualified investigators are involved, and multiple scenarios were culled during the investigation to identify the most likely one. A true “worst case scenario” would have been fires fed by ruptures in the pressurized fuel lines in the basement going to UPS generators on higher floors, and their investigation determined that it didn’t occur, despite initial speculation from many experts. Ditto for the debris damage to the SW corner, which was not a factor in their collapse hypothesis.

        Once again, your amateurish, half-assed NIST bashing does not provide a shred of evidence for explosives, and you simply don’t have any. If you’d like to show that the “theory” is even possible, I’ve suggested an excellent way to do it under ideal conditions that don’t even require secret demolition of column enclosures for access to the bare steel, circumventing security, fooling tenants, fireproofing the triggering mechanisms, etc. You’d even have an explainable motive for these explosives, something you currently lack.
        Knock yourself out, and be sure to post the video and audio.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Once again, Albury, if you have complaints about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, take it up with them. If you have a problem with David Chandler, take it up with him. I’m not their representative. Once again, if you wish to address me, address me on the basis of what I’ve said or done, not on the basis of what other people have said or done, or not said or done.

          NIST did deny free fall. Your statement that NIST isn’t “foolish enough to attach any significance to fall times” is ridiculous. The law of conservation of energy dictates that free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy remaining to buckle the columns. Rejecting the applicability of the laws of physics is precisely what NIST does, you are right.

          Perhaps you and NIST are right, there were no shear studs on the girder. Nevertheless, if you plug in the variables in NIST’s own equation for thermal expansion, you will find that beams could not have lengthened enough to push the girder off its seat. As I pointed out before, their own LS-DYNA model showed the girder was not pushed off, but butted up against the flange of column 79. They modeled the girder as failed in ANSYS anyways. Furthermore, the fires in this area had already burned out, as NIST’s own photographic evidence and analysis shows, so whether or not there were shear studs is really a moot point.

          “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ — NCSTAR 1-3, p. 115

          “No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7” – NCSTAR 1-3B, p. xxv

          “No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7” – NCSTAR 1-3B, p. 26

          The obvious reason for NIST to claim that no steel was recovered from WTC 7 would be because they can’t explain the steel that was recovered showing intergranular melting within their fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Neither can you, apparently.

          I am not “falsely accusing” NIST of anything. That they willfully engaged in scientific fraud is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the facts and evidence. If you have a legitimate criticism of my paper on NIST’s fraud, you are welcome to point out any error in fact or logic therein, if you think you can find any.

          “Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable…. Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete.” – National Fire Protection Association 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, Section 19.2.4, “Exotic Accelerants”

          Why didn’t NIST follow this protocol?

          “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.” – Michael Newman, NIST spokesman

          Ah, another example of how NIST applied it’s own special brand of “scientific” method.

          • Albury Smith

            To clarify my comments further for you, Jeremy, no competent SE is foolish enough to attach the same significance to fall times as you, Ryan, Chandler, Gage, and others have, and NIST’s comment regarding steel recovered from WTC 7 did not mean that there wasn’t any, or that they were trying to fool you by not including the small sample written up in FEMA’s Appendix C. It is not considered by anyone except twoofers to be evidence of explosives or incendiaries, but since you’ve expressed an interest in scientific method, please urge Gage and his “800 engineers” to try duplicating that condition with any controlled demolition substance or technique they’d like, and to submit the results for peer review. If you’ve ever bothered to read Appendix C instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, you’d have discovered that extensive metallography was carried out on both samples by 3 very qualified researchers, and that isolated anomaly is still unexplained. It’s your “smoking gun,” so what more would you like them to do? The idea that 81 massive steel columns severed multiple times with explosives would only leave one tiny rusted piece of steel behind as evidence is pathological, and Cantor-approved Frankel Steel submittals certainly provided sufficient modeling input data on sizes and grades of steel used for the columns, beams, girders, connection bolts, etc. You do not speak for the NFPA, and are falsely implying that terms like “may produce,” “may be used to start,” and “indicators include…” are by themselves indicative of a need to investigate for exotic accelerants. If that were the case, the entire FDNY would be in your “truth movement,” not just the few who claim to be on Erik Lawyer’s petition, and so would the whole NYPD, PANYNJ, 2001 WTC tenant list, and many others directly affected by the WTC collapses.

            I’ve taken up my complaints numerous times with the “researchers” I’ve just mentioned, as well as with many of their hopelessly misguided and dishonest brethren, and as you can see from Ryan’s lack of response here, they’d rather run and hide. You’re obviously supportive of them, and it still hasn’t dawned on you that bashing NIST and the civilian consulting engineering firms that aided in the WTC investigations doesn’t provide a shred of evidence for explosives. I’ve spoken on the phone with Michael Newman twice in the last few years, and the NIST position is that they’re glad to answer questions about their methodology and findings, but have more than adequately addressed claims from the 9/11 “truth movement.” I can hardly blame them, having seen how well facts register with you.

            You’re being disingenuous in trying to distance yourself from other 9/11 “truth” seekers, so you might want to consider giving it a rest. Although your NIST red herrings have no probative value at all, they have provided an excuse to avoid my comments here, so please refer to the questions I asked Ryan, since he won’t answer them. I’m sure he’s still bamboozling his sheeple with the fact that building fires don’t melt steel, despite no mention by NIST of any steel melting to cause a WTC collapse, so that’s another one to add to the list. The temperature/yield strength charts and discussions in NCSTAR 1-9 would be a great place to learn more about the reasons for all 3 WTC collapses, but they’re presented by honest and qualified researchers, not someone peddling BS for notoriety and self-aggrandizement.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Why would it be foolish for an engineer to apply the laws of physics to an examination of the question of why a building collapsed?

            LOL! Seriously, dude, who do you think you’re fooling?

            “NIST’s comment regarding steel recovered from WTC 7 did not mean that there wasn’t any”

            Gee, no kidding. LOL! That’s the point, man, they LIED. I don’t see you offering any explanation for the sample of FEMA’s Appendix C that conforms with the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The best hypothesis is the one that explains ALL the evidence, not the one that LIES and says the evidence doesn’t exist.

            “The idea that 81 massive steel columns severed multiple times with explosives would only leave one tiny rusted piece of steel behind as evidence is pathological”

            The reason there were only two steel samples (Dr. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl also recovered a sample similarly showing melting) were recovered is because THEY DESTROYED ALL THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE. It’s easy to say there isn’t any evidence when it’s been destroyed.

            Since there was evidence of melted steel in the form of the eutectic steel samples and iron-rich microspheres, NIST should have looked for evidence of exotic accelerants, including thermite mixtures. Yet they didn’t. The reason they gave for this is that since the evidence isn’t there, there’s no reason to look for it. Just one illustration of NIST’s scientific fraud on display for all to see plainly.

            “You’re being disingenuous in trying to distance yourself from other 9/11 “truth” seekers”

            Dude, I am not a representative of AE911Truth and I don’t speak for them. If you wish to discuss the matter with me, discuss it on the basis of what I say and do, not what some other group with which I have no affiliation says or does. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them.

          • Albury Smith

            Jeremy Hammond states: “Once again, Albury, if you have complaints about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, take it up with them. If you have a problem with David Chandler, take it up with him. I’m not their representative. Once again, if you wish to address me, address me on the basis of what I’ve said or done, not on the basis of what other people have said or done, or not said or done.”

            As I’ve indicated here and elsewhere, Jeremy, both to you personally and to the “other people” you referenced, I have numerous “complaints about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” as well as “a problem [and much more] with David Chandler,” and it appears that you’re a representative of both:
            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/0/
            If your own words on 9/16/11 are any indication, you’re also a representative of Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, Crockett Grabbe, Mark Basile, and by implication, others who share their views.
            Now that I’ve cleared that up with a <1-minute Google search, I'd like to continue to "address [you] on the basis of what [you've] said or done, [as well as] on the basis of what other people have said or done," and I'm hopeful that you haven't come up with another ploy to avoid answering, since I've more than adequately responded to your feckless and misdirected red herrings aimed at the NIST investigators and their WTC findings.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I am not “a representative of Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, Crockett Grabbe, Mark Basile” and how you arrived at the conclusion that I am from anything I’ve said is beyond any rational person’s comprehension.

            By this idiotic logic, you must admit that you are a representative of NIST. So tell, me, are you a representative of NIST?

          • Albury Smith

            You introduced the term “representative” into this discussion, Jeremy, not to indicate that you were or weren’t an official representative of AE911″truth,” or of Chandler and other luminaries of your 9/11 “truth movement,” but very clearly to disclaim any obligation to defend their absurdities, despite consistently REPRESENTING them in prior statements, and at least by implication here. The only logical reason for this chicanery on your part is to avoid the very germane questions and comments from me that you can’t address. Do you or don’t you endorse the junk science and nonsense being peddled by these soi-disant experts, and did you or didn’t you make that clear in your 9/16/11 article?

            I am not a NIST employee, spokesperson, or official representative, but I have “represented” THEIR POSITION here and elsewhere, and have very willingly explained and defended it. Getting you to do the same honestly and without obfuscation is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. To Kevin Ryan’s rather dubious credit, he just runs away from honest discussion, making little to no pretext about it.

            My questions are still here, since (to your legitimate credit) you don’t ban people simply for disagreeing with you, but they still remain unanswered. As I’ve said before, even if the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is not 100% correct – something that no legitimate research has ever established – you’d still have no evidence for explosives, so continually directing the topic back to your opinion of the NIST findings is nothing more than a red herring.

            You’re also begging the question by invoking the “laws of physics” to support the absurd notion that collapse causes can be divined simply by timing them. No laws of physics were ignored by NIST in any of their reports, and the reason for the ~2.25-seconds of acceleration indiscernible from g was very apparent in their modeling, despite the urban legend that they were “forced to admit” anything by Chandler.

            Citing Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl without noting that he doesn’t share your opinions about the WTC collapses is simply dishonest. He’s a serious academician, and I’m sure he would have loved to have had tons of structural steel and an unlimited schedule and budget to recreate the WTC 7 collapse mechanism, but the costs would have been prohibitive as well as being unwarranted, and he’s never expressed any belief that scrapping it for ~$100/ton instead of paying a fortune to move it unnecessarily prevented a finding of explosives. The other PEs listed here haven’t either:

            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi

            Please stop wasting time, and begin making an honest effort to engage in productive discussion.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Dude, it is not an “absurd notion” that the law of conservation of energy says that if an object is falling at the acceleration of gravity, then all its potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Thus, since WTC 7 was in free fall, there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

            And, dude, it is not an “urban legend” that NIST was forced to admit free fall after Chandler (and others) wrote in comments on their draft report.

            And, dude, I cited Dr. Astaneh-Asl merely to point out that the Appendix C steel was not the only sample from WTC 7 that was recovered. I don’t know what his views are on how and why the building collapsed, so I couldn’t possibly therefore have relayed them to you in pointing out the fact that he, too, recovered steel from the building, and it, too, showed signs of having been melted. If it is as you say that he accepts the NIST explanation, then I would be curious how the good Dr. would explain this evidence.

          • Albury Smith

            Using Dr. Astaneh-Asl, the Appendix C anomalies, and whatever other tiny pieces of nondescript steel he may have found as support for your C/D “theory” is just as dishonest as using semantics to claim that you’re not a REPRESENTATIVE of the views of Gage, Chandler, the Bentham “researchers,” etc., just to avoid addressing my comments. It is an extremely absurd notion that the amount of potential energy not converted to kinetic energy during Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds was measurable simply from timing it with that program, and that only the secret explosive [an obvious oxymoron] cutting of W14 X 730 and W14 X 500 columns multiple times could possibly have explained it. Real evidence of explosives would have been found on the ends of many of those huge columns, and Steven Jones wouldn’t have to have scrounged around for a few photos of much smaller torch-cut columns, gray slag and all, that were at grade, i.e. not even in the collapse initiation levels of any of the 3 WTC buildings. This video:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs

            shows Ashley Banfield within a few blocks of WTC 7 at ~5:20 PM, speaking into a live microphone. I know that the video isn’t part of your NIST report red herrings, and therefore you can’t comment on it, but it’s quite amazing that all of these massive explosions and shock waves weren’t recorded or mentioned there, innit?

            Your spin on conservation of energy is junk science at its worst, and is not applying physical principles at all. The portion of WTC 7 in motion during the ~2.25 seconds weighed ~150,000 TONS, and the remaining support from the perimeter columns had just been lost. Imagine putting a 16# bowling ball on top of a pumpkin that’s strong enough to support 6 of them. Drop it from just enough height to ensure a full collapse of the pumpkin except for the mush that would be left at the bottom. What you’re claiming is that you could time it so accurately that you could repeat the experiment multiple times with new pumpkins and different ball heights relative to the pumpkin, and could measure the KE of the ball at every stage.

            My Internet stalker has just fouled this discussion, and you could easily convince him of that, but it won’t work with qualified scientists and engineers, or anyone with even a fundamental understanding of physics.

            Since Ryan’s made a quick exit despite writing the article, and my stalker devotes all of his time to ad hominem and cheerleading, I hope you’ll address my comments instead of making excuses not to.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            What is dishonest, Albury, is NIST falsely claiming no steel was recovered because they couldn’t explain the evidence within their fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

            As for measuring free fall, David Chandler’s program actually produced a free fall period of 2.5 seconds using a different video. NIST did their own calculation giving the 2.25 seconds you mention. There is obviously a margin of error in measuring the acceleration of the building from a video, but the fact that there was no measurable resistance is an astonishing fact that neither NIST nor yourself have yet to explain. What happened to the columns, Albury? How did fire cause all the remaining load-bearing columns following the collapse of the penthouse suddenly and simultaneously go from full strength to offering no measurable resistance?

            If you wish to argue about something Steven Jones said, go argue about it with Steven Jones. If you wish to discuss this with me, stick to what I’ve said. You refuse to do this, because you prefer strawman argumentation. Yet you accuse me of being dishonest, hypocrite!

            Your calling the law of conservation of energy “spin” and “junk science” speaks for itself. The laws of physics applied on 9/11, Albury.

            Your “pumpkin” comparison is irrelevant and invalid. Nobody picked up the top of WTC7 and dropped it on the lower half of the building. One second it was standing, the columns not having lost any significant strength from the fires, and the next it was in free fall. Fire didn’t do that.

          • Albury Smith

            Not that you represent the “research” of Richard Gage or anything, Jeremy, but comparisons using empty cardboard boxes are irrelevant and invalid, not one of my many attempts to convince you that your “conservation of energy” argument is bogus. Somebody did pick up the top of WTC7 and drop it on the lower half of the building – it was picked up piece-by-piece in ~1986, and dropped in 2001 when heat from uncontrolled fires triggered a global collapse. Not that you represent Chandler’s bunk either, but timing a real C/D like Landmark Tower using the same physics program he did is another way to demonstrate it, since no MEASURABLE resistance would be observed in some stages of that collapse either, despite charge placement data showing that intact support is being defeated only by gravity. What happened to the WTC 7 columns is fully explained in the NIST reports, and the real question is what happened to the deafening bangs just prior to 5:21 PM (or at any other time), and what happened to all of the explosively-severed W14 columns in the debris, since not one was ever reported by any of the ~40,000 people who worked there at one time or another during the ~8 months of site cleanup. Please urge Box Boy and his “800 engineers” to blow up one of those W14 X 730s, and let’s see what the ends look like compared to a mechanical break. If explosive cuts match broken factory ends with splice plates, sheared bolts, elongated bolt holes, etc., then maybe all of those people weren’t blind and stupid, or in on the “conspiracy” you’ve cooked up.

            I know you don’t represent Steven Jones either; you just endorse his specious nonsense in articles you write, but using photos of torch-cut columns as evidence of explosives is just as devious and dishonest as glomming onto a very straightforward disclaimer as evidence of something nefarious. NCSTAR 3 is a metallurgical report from 2005, and that wording was only to explain that Frank Gayle and his staff had some identifiable framing components from the towers, but none from WTC 7, and were using contemporary literature and other sources to determine ksi, ASTM grades, and other data for the steel in various parts of WTC 7. Jeezus; you’ve been complaining about lack of full disclosure of their complete input and results files, and now you’re faulting them for providing full disclosure? They are not “falsely claiming” anything; you are.

            Your statement that WTC 7 “suddenly and simultaneously [went] from full strength to offering no measurable resistance” is also grossly dishonest, unless all of these eyewitnesses are lying:

            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

            Fire departments don’t generally set up safety perimeters and withdraw their personnel from burning buildings without having a valid reason. They also might call and tell the owner they made that decision, since he’d most likely be wondering why they were letting his property burn, but they wouldn’t have included him in the decision-making process, regardless of how many words a 9/11 “researcher” adds to the owner’s quote. I don’t know how many do controlled demolitions of burning buildings though, so maybe you could name some.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            You’re begging the question, Albury. You argue the columns wouldn’t offer resitance due to dynamic load and then that there was dynamic load because the columns didn’t offer any resistance due to “heat from uncontrolled fires”.

            What happened to WTC7′s columns is not by any means “fully explained in the NIST reports”. They do not and cannot explain free fall, which is why they tried to deny it in the first place, the same way they deny that any steel was recovered from the building and argue that there was no point looking for thermitic materials because since none existed, looking for it would be waste of time.

            I think I’m done trying to reason with you. It’s become tedious.

          • Albury Smith

            I’ve more than adequately explained to you why there would not have been any MEASURABLE resistance at some stages of the WTC 7 facade collapse, Jeremy. The heat only triggered the collapse sequence; it did not directly account for the dynamic loading that occurred. The upper floors in motion weighed ~150,000 TONS, and weren’t MEASURABLY slowed by columns that had already collapsed inside, or by the perimeter ones which collapsed almost in unison around the weakened level. Moment connections in the exterior caused the nearly simultaneous buckling of those columns.

            What did these alleged “thermitic materials” DO? Leave broken factory ends on the steel columns? Bend them? It’s up to you to explain the complete lack of evidence that would very easily have been heard by millions of people at ~5:21 PM, and seen while the cleanup was being done.

            Try coming up with a plausible motive for this nonsense that doesn’t involve changing someone’s statement, and a game plan for secretly ripping out GWB, masonry, SFRM, etc. in occupied and secure office buildings just to get to the bare steel. Since Ryan’s headed for the hills, maybe you could explain how he got 6.6 seconds for the entire facade collapse too. Ever looked at any WTC 7 collapse video? It took ~8.5 seconds, and his 1/10-second accuracy’s pretty amazing, innit?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            You are begging the question. Petitio Principii fallacy. Your argument assumes the truth of the proposition it presumes to prove. That is to say, it just assumes columns buckled to explain free fall, which is the very thing I’ve asked you to explain, since free fall means the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. That is to say, replying to this observation by arguing that the building was in free fall because the columns had buckled is not logical.

            As for evidence, again, 100% of the steel recovered (2 of 2 samples) showed signs of melting. The best hypothesis is the one that explains all the evidence. You haven’t yet even attempted to explain that in accordance with the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

            When one enters a room to find a body oozing blood with a knife in the chest, one needn’t identify the motive of the murderer in order to determine that someone has been killed.

            As for your question whether I’ve “ever looked at any WTC 7 collapse video”, thanks for proving to readers here your willful ignorance, for I’ve several times now directed you to my video collapse analysis paper. For at least the third time: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/.

          • Albury Smith

            You’ve obviously assumed that explosives must have caused the 2.25 or 2.5 (hardly relevant which) seconds indiscernible from free fall, Jeremy, without the slightest bit of scientific backing, and that’s truly begging the question. The columns either buckled – as was rather obvious from examining the debris field – or they were very quietly sliced and diced with your magical, redundant explosives, something not corroborated by any of the evidence, so sane and rational people listened to what did and didn’t occur immediately prior to or during the collapse, considered what was and wasn’t in the debris, and concluded that they buckled.

            Many thousands of tons of WTC 7 steel were recovered, and NIST did not claim otherwise, so you’re just putting spin on their disclaimer. You haven’t attempted to explain the corrosion on the 2 tiny samples of steel in Appendix C in accordance with your explosives “theory” either, and no one except troofers considers them evidence of C/D. Motive is useful for convicting someone of putting a knife into someone’s chest, and you have none for blowing up any of the WTC buildings on 9/11, so your knife analogy’s another red herring.

            I know you’re not a representative of Gage, Ryan, and others who’ve invented their own collapse times for the WTC hi-rises, and only represent their views in papers and discussions, so I asked you rhetorically whether you’ve ever seen a WTC 7 collapse video, since any honest person who has would not claim that the entire facade collapse took 6.5 or 6.6 seconds, and certainly not to the nearest 1/10 second. If you’re going to employ junk science to arrive at conclusions, at least try to be honest about the indisputable parts.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            You assume the columns buckled due to fire. But free fall means the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Buckling columns would offer measurable resistance, so if columns had buckled, the building wouldn’t have experience a sudden onset of free-fall where one second the building is there and the next it is accelerating towards the Earth at the acceleration of gravity.

            NIST claimed that no steel from WTC 7 was recovered, as I’ve already documented. I gave you the report numbers and pages, so why deny this fact? Who do you think you’re fooling when any reader can go verify that fact for his or herself?

            I never claimed the entire facade collapsed in 6.5 or 6.6. Why do you persist in these strawman arguments? And then you suggest I’m the one being dishonest? Hypocrite!

          • Albury Smith

            You can’t POSSIBLY be this obtuse! NIST did not claim that no steel was recovered from the WTC 7 site, since thousands of tons of it obviously were. They simply explained in the quotes that you deliberately misrepresented that the metallurgists in Frank Gayle’s team did not have steel that was positively and unambiguously IDENTIFIED AS BEING FROM WTC 7. Jeezus; read them in context.

            My comments on the flagrant dishonesty of those you “don’t represent” speak for themselves. I never claimed that the 6.5 or 6.6 seconds lie was yours, so who’s really guilty of straw man arguments and hypocrisy?

            I don’t know what else to say about your appalling “conservation of energy” ignorance, but try it out on some of the PhDs teaching physics at an accredited university close by, and let me know how it works out for you. I know you’re not a representative of Chandler and Box Boy, but they could pee down your leg and tell you it’s raining. :-)

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ — NCSTAR 1-3, p. 115

          • Albury Smith

            I give up. The steel was all vaporized by a space beam, Jeremy, and NIST was sending us a secret message there that only top researchers like you are smart enough to decipher.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Let’s not be silly.

          • Albury Smith

            Yes, Jeremy; the finished column enclosures and walls were secretly ripped out, and “a linear thermite charge apparatus comprising: an elongated casing: an elongated volume within the casing, the elongated volume having a length; one or more separators within the volume, wherein two or more compartments are formed within the volume; a thermite material disposed within the compartments formed within the volume, the thermite material having an elongated length, an initiator positioned along the elongated length of the thermite material, the initiator configured to instantaneously activate the elongated thermite material along the length of the thermite material; and one or more linear nozzles in communication with the volume” was all brought in for multiple levels of each of the 81 columns in WTC 7, and suicide operators cut them all in a few seconds, even in the midst of fires, but no evidence of it was discovered in the debris pile. What’s even more remarkable is that all of this was done in 2001 with 2009 technology. You’re priceless. :-)

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I don’t have all the answers, Albury, but there are two existing hypotheses, and only one offers an explanation for all of the evidence. You haven’t explained free fall, melted steel, the presence of thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres in the dust, NIST’s demonstrable fraud, etc.

          • Albury Smith

            No one ever scientifically established that the anecdotal GZ reports of molten metal were actually of STEEL, Jeremy, and no temperatures that hot were recorded there. Where would molten steel have come from, since no partially-melted framing was found? I’ve never seen an incendiary that keeps anything molten for more than a minute or 2, so I hope that’s one of the answers you do have, since it will make fossil fuels obsolete. I’ve fully explained the collapse times, but it’s just not sinking in.
            “Iron-rich microspheres” came from a nut who also claims that more than A HUNDRED TONS of conventional high explosives augmented something he was “reminded of” by sulfur, rust, silicon, aluminum, etc. The welding of steel produces it, and it was done extensively on the WTC 7 columns when the massive plates were added to them. Although I know you’re not their representative, I’d love to see how your heroes would blow up even one of them, but they disappear like Ryan did whenever it’s suggested. :-)
            btw, “being silly” would describe playing gotcha! with a straightforward disclaimer from NIST that they had positively identified, unambiguous WTC 7steel to analyze. Seriously, how old are you?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Well, if you wish reject all of the credible testimony of molten steel from workers, firefighters, scientists, engineers, etc., go ahead, but I for one choose not to be ignorant, the way you also dismiss the existence of iron-rich microspheres in the dust as coming “from a nut”. The RJ Lee Group did a study for the Deutche Bank that described these as a part of the “signature” of the dust, and the US Geological Survey also documented them. But I guess these sources are “nuts”.

            You argue these were leftover from the construction of the buildings in the early ’70s. I guess the buildings were never cleaned up from the construction. Also, Dr. Jones and a team of other scientists studied the spheres and found they were unlike those produced from welding torches. It would of course have been simple for NIST to examine this question, but they chose to simply ignore it, the same way they initially denied free-fall, claimed a fraudulent “Stage 1″ of collapse, claimed there was no point in looking for thermitic material because none existed, claimed no steel was recovered from WTC 7, modeled raging fires in the NE on the 12th floor when their own photographic analysis showed the fires there had long since burned out and moved on, etc., etc., etc., etc.

            How old am I? I’m not the one who was being silly.

          • Albury Smith

            I don’t wish to reject any eyewitness testimony, Jeremy, and I don’t choose to be ignorant and misrepresent it either. You’ve obviously rejected all of this eyewitness testimony:

            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
            sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
            sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
            sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethetowers:summaryofwitnessaccounts

            and have yet to post any videos, depositions, etc. from firefighters or others near the burning buildings stating that they heard demolition charges related to any of the 3 WTC hi-rise collapses. You’ve also repeatedly misrepresented what NIST said about steel recovered from WTC 7, and have ignored the fact that the FDNY personnel you quote mined for the use of the word “explosion” are not signatories to Erik Lawyer’s petition, or otherwise engaged in 9/11 “truth movement” activities. If RJ Lee thinks they found C/D evidence, please post some of their statements to that effect. The USGS recorded temperatures in the debris pile (which were not hot enough to melt steel), but if they’ve presented evidence of explosives, please share that with us also.

            There is no credible, scientific testimony of molten STEEL in the WTC debris fires, but even if some existed, how would that have been evidence of explosives or incendiaries weeks after 9/11, or are you introducing us to even more new science, to go with your astounding “conservation of energy” revelations? Jones, Harrit, et al. could find nanothermite in a ham sandwich using their exemplar-free “reminds us of” criteria, and Harrit’s “more than a HUNDRED TONS” of conventional high explosives pretty well sums up his credibility. It starts at ~1:30 on this video:
            ct911truth.org/911_movies/niels_harrit_interview_rt_i.html
            although I know that you’re not his representative.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            On what basis do you suggest I’ve chosen to ignore any eyewitness accounts? We haven’t even had that discussion.

            The area around WTC 7 was evacuated for 5 blocks. Nevertheless, there are a number of videos of the kind you refer to. One shows responders walking away, hearing an explosion, saying to get back, that building is about to “blow up”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A. Two distinct explosions can be heard in this video just prior to the onset of collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus. A very loud explosion can be heard in this video coming from the direction of WTC7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw. I’ve personally gone through the videos released by NIST under FOIA and quite a lot of them show explosions going on throughout the morning, like this one, which somebody posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vri8OZ8MG6A. This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYjAyvf_jbA. And this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE. David Chandler has does this video examining a video in which an explosion is heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8. One eyewitness, Barry Jennings, who was trapped in WTC7, reported explosions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc. Jennings was with Michael Hess, who corroborated his testimony of an explosion in the building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE. By no means an exhaustive list.

            I have “misrepresented” NIST in no way. They claimed “no steel was recovered from WTC7″. That is a lie, period.

            I didn’t say RJ Lee thinks they found CD evidence. I said they said that the iron-rich microspheres were a “signature” of the WTC dust. Actually, their report for the bank just assumed, without discussion, that they must have been created in the fires. The problem with that explanation, of course, that office fires don’t burn hot enough to melt steel/iron. The spherical shape also shows the molten iron solidified in mid-air, and they are a natural byproduct of thermitic reactions. The fact is there is no explanation for this according to the official hypothesis. NIST just ignored it completely.

            The temperatures recorded at the site were surface temperatures, implying hotter temps under the debris. And we know pretty conclusively from the great amount of credible eyewitness testimony including from scientists engineers (like Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, for one) that steel melted. Shall I compile a list for you? I know of at least a couple of photographs that were taken of red-hot, molten steel being pulled from the debris. At least two steel samples were recovered that had been melted. This takes us back to NIST’s lie that “no steel was recovered”.

            And, finally, active thermitic materials consistent with what is known about nanothermite has been found in the dust. There is also no explanation for this under the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, and NIST explained that it didn’t look for thermitic materials, even though it should have according to the NFPA 921 guide, on the basis that since no thermitic materials existed, there was no sense looking for them.

            You haven’t explained free fall. You haven’t explained why NIST engaged in numerous counts of fraud, such as claiming there was no recovered steel, inputting massive fires on the 12th floor in the NE into their simulations when their own analysis of the photographic and videographic evidence showed that the fires in that area had long since burned out and moved on., claiming 13th floor beams thermally expanded to push the girder off its seat when inputting the correct numbers into their own equation shows that this wouldn’t have happened and when the girder FAILED to be pushed off its seat in their own LS-DYNA because it butted up against the flange of column 79, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

          • Albury Smith

            Since you’re not ignoring the many FDNY and other live eyewitnesses’ accounts of the fires, structural damage/instability, and the ~2:30 PM decision to set up a ~5-block safety perimeter around WTC 7, Jeremy, please feel free to explain them. Find an explosive or incendiary that keeps steel molten for weeks, and compile a list of known C/Ds that have left molten steel in their debris for even a minute. Get some WFs and duplicate the effects that were observed on the 2 small pieces described in FEMA’s Appendix C. Although it won’t provide any evidence for explosives, urge Box boy and his “800 engineers” to model the WTC 7 framing on their own, since not having someone else’s complete input and results files to look at first would not be a deterrent to any group of legitimate professionals. Most importantly, get them to demonstrate on video how to cut W14 X 730 columns, or even much smaller ones, with secret planted explosives, painted on or not, so we can determine if their “theory” is even POSSIBLE. Your 9/11 “truth movement” came up with this yarn, and has the burden of proof for it, plain and simple.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Why, I’ve already addressed the matter of the fires, Albury. I’ve repeatedly pointed out how NIST input raging fires in the NE on the 12th floor despite the fact that their own analysis showed that the fires in that area had long since burned out.

            NIST also determined that the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was neither an initiating nor determinative factor in the collapse of WTC 7.

          • Albury Smith

            That’s only your spin on the NIST WTC 7 fire spread data, Jeremy, and your spin on their “steel recovered” disclosure was sufficient to establish your credibility. Debris damage from the NT was not found to have been a contributing factor, and the initial speculation that pressurized fuel lines fed the fires was also disproved in their investigation, so they apparently missed two other ways to fool you.
            You’ve addressed very little of what I’ve previously stated, including the very OBVIOUS fact that even finding something wrong with NIST’s hypothesis wouldn’t provide a shred of evidence for explosives. To add to my other suggestions for ways to do that, analyze the Landmark Tower the same way One-Trick Chandler did, and explain why it came down just as fast as WTC 7, when BOTH had entire floors that were completely intact.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            This is becoming tedious.

            It is a fact that NIST input raging fires in the NE on the 12th floor despite the fact that their own analysis showed that the fires in that area had long since burned out. Anyone can look at the NIST report and see that for themselves.

            It is a fact that NIST claimed that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″. Anyone can look up that up, too, and see it for themselves.

          • Albury Smith

            Figs 3-6 and 3-7 in NCSTAR 1A are based on photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts, and I’d suggest taking a better look at them. When office fires spread, they don’t necessarily self-extinguish in areas where they’ve already been burning, except in 9/11 “truth movement” fantasies. If you want to believe that NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC 7, suit yourself, since that really is getting tedious. You’re also avoiding the rest of my comments, and that’s getting tedious too. Explosives are your hypothesis, and I’ve suggested numerous ways to prove your own assertions. NIST has done its research, and now it’s your turn.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            NIST’s analysis of the fires based on photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts shows that the fires in the NE on floor 12 had already burned out, and yet it input raging fires in that area into its simulations. That’s called scientific fraud.

            If you want to believe that NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC 7, suit yourself, since that really is getting tedious.

            I don’t “believe” NIST claimed no steel was recovered from WTC7; it is a fact that NIST claimed no steel was recovered from WTC7, and it’s just downright stupid to deny that fact.

            “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7 — NIST, NCSTAR 1-3, p. 115

            “NIST has done its research”. Ha! What a joke. NIST’s egregious examples of scientific fraud are numerous.

          • Albury Smith

            It’s downright stupid to insert your own meaning into very innocuous statements, Jeremy, whether by altering them and then lying about them, as Ryan did, or just by lying about them. Metallographic investigation requires samples known to have come from a certain location, and NIST very clearly explained that it didn’t have steel known with certainty to have been taken from WTC 7, but was able to do meaningful analysis of WTC 7′s steel using the specs from Cantor, Frankel, and other sources.

            Regardless of what you think NIST has or hasn’t done, it’s also downright stupid to criticize their investigation without doing any of your own and then presenting the results for comparison. “800 engineers” can’t even begin doing their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling without seeing someone else’s complete input and results files first? “Ha! What a joke.” Ditto for not demonstrating on video how to sever W14 X 730 columns with explosives or incendiaries so quietly that people a few blocks away can’t hear it, and leaving cut ends that no one would suspect. Asner, Sheen, O’Donnell, and other luminaries of the 9/11 “truth movement” have loads of money for propaganda films like the farce that was just released, and a simple demonstration video would cost a fraction of that price. Box Boy and your other heroes (whom you don’t represent, I know) commit scientific fraud routinely, and can’t even time building collapses honestly. The ball’s in your court, not NIST’s.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I take NIST to say what they mean and mean what they say on p. 115 of NCSTAR 1-3, where they say “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7“.

          • Albury Smith

            Then it’s downright stupid not to “take NIST to say what they mean and mean what they say” about their fire spread data and collapse sequence too, but you’d rather put your own spin on both of them.
            You also take Box Boy and his “800 engineers” to say what they mean and mean what they say, but don’t expect them to do their own modeling or demonstrate their column cutting hypothesis for us, and you then wonder why the civil/structural engineering profession ignores them.
            http://www.iowaasce.org/2012/04/9-11-truth-communications/

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            On the fires and NIST’s hypothesized collapse sequence, and NIST’s fraud on both counts, I defer to my previous comments.

          • Albury Smith

            I defer to mine on the foolishness of attacking the NIST investigations without doing your own and comparing them. If Box Boy and his “800 engineers” actually did find something wrong with the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis, which they can’t do without their own modeling anyway, it would still not provide a shred of evidence for explosives, and they made the decision to go after NIST. I also defer to my previous comments on demonstrating the secret explosive cutting of some sample steel columns. With all of the backing ae911″truth” has from Asner, Sheen, Sunjata, O’Donnell, Begley, and the other kooks, and all the time they have to make movies, videos, and other high-budget malarkey, there is simply no excuse for not showing us on video that their “theory” is even POSSIBLE.
            Your silence on this “oversight” speaks for itself.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            It doesn’t require any computer modeling to see the problems with NIST’s hypothesis, for which I defer to my previous comments. Your constant attempts to change the subject away from what I have said above speak for themselves.

          • Albury Smith

            YOUR problems with NIST’s hypothesis are irrelevant, Jeremy, since they don’t prove your own hypothesis anyway, and serious structural engineers don’t need to see someone else’s entire work product before modeling something on their own. If you were truly as interested in scientific method as you claim, instead of just in talking about it, you’d also expect Box Boy and his “800 engineers” to demonstrate their column cutting technique on some actual steel columns and post the video for us.
            If the evil US gubmint did it, I’m sure there’d be all those deafening bangs and other evidence needed to fool everyone, so we need your top 9/11 “researchers” to show us their way of doing it. Although I know you’re not their representative, it would be much cheaper than Asner’s latest crap, and a lot more convincing.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Well, Albury, when you come down to arguing that the problems with NIST’s hypothesis, including its numerous counts of scientific fraud, are “irrelevant”, then there’s not really any point to discuss it with you further.

          • Albury Smith

            When you come down to ducking all of my comments, Jeremy, or misrepresenting their meaning, there probably isn’t much point. You’ve claimed that explosives collapsed WTC 7, and even if you actually did find something wrong with the hypothesis in NCSTAR 1A, which you’re not qualified to do anyway, it would not be relevant to proving your own hypothesis. I’ve suggested several ways to back up your own theories, but you’re clearly not interested in scientific method.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Arguing that the problems with NIST’s hypothesis, including its numerous counts of scientific fraud, are “irrelevant” isn’t the scientific method.

          • Albury Smith

            You need to worry about your own hypothesis, Jeremy, not NIST’s, which has been well accepted by the ASCE, RIBA, ICC, and other relevant professional organizations, and has already resulted in numerous revisions to the 2009 and 2012 I-codes. Attacking NIST does not provide any evidence for explosives, but even that’s not being done scientifically. NIST submitted the results of their investigation for public comment nearly 4 years ago, along with their recommendations, and the 9/11 “truth movement” doesn’t even have a competing model yet! What data do “800 engineers” need in order to BEGIN modeling? Do you even understand what goes into ANSYS and LS-DYNA programs? If it isn’t already spoon fed to them in NCSTAR 1A and other NIST releases, they should certainly know how to send RFIs to NIST, Frankel, Cantor, etc. Do these people (for whom you’re not a representative, I know) even have a bare bones minimum level of competence? If you did, you’d be clamoring for a demonstration of that secret cutting method too. Up until now, explosives powerful enough to cut W14 X 500 and W14 X 730 columns would have echoed all over NYC and beyond, but the new method is apparently much less intrusive, so it may have many other commercial applications. A real advocate of scientific method would want to see it in action, not just take someone’s word for it.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            What pointing out the problems with NIST’s hypothesis does, Albury, is to illustrate its falsity. The best hypothesis is the one that best explains all of the available evidence, not the one that requires scientific fraud to support. The fire-induced collapse hypothesis cannot account for free fall, melted steel, the presence of thermitic material in the dust, the iron-rich microspheres, etc. The alternative hypothesis, however, does offer an explanation for this evidence, so unless you can either explain this evidence within the fire-induced collapse hypothesis or offer us some third alternative possibility…

          • Albury Smith

            The alleged problems you think you’re pointing out only illustrate your poor understanding of scientific principles and your inability to apply them. The fall rates, including the segment of acceleration indiscernible from g, are accounted for in NIST’s modeling, and there is no scientific proof that the molten metal found weeks after the collapses was even steel, let alone that any explosive or incendiary keeps metal molten that long. Being “reminded of” thermitic material is not the scientific equivalent to presenting exemplars of it, and the alleged and ambiguous “iron-rich microspheres” have not been scientifically linked to 9/11/01.

            The scientific method of pointing out problems with another hypothesis requires fully developing a competing one, not taking amateurish pot shots that don’t even adhere to the known rules of science. Even if you knew what you were talking about, which you don’t, attacking NIST would still be nothing more than a red herring, but Box Boy’s “800 engineers” apparently aren’t even competent enough to do their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling, despite having had nearly 4 years and all of the data handed to them. If secret demolitions of Manhattan hi-rises are even remotely possible, then the first priority should be to prove it with the simple demonstration I suggested, so why are we still waiting to see it, while your “researchers” can’t even decide whether their imaginary C/Ds were caused by explosives or incendiaries?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            It is nonsense to say that free fall is “accounted for in NIST’s modeling”. NIST’s computer model didn’t achieve free fall. And NIST’s “Stage 1″ of collapse is a fraud, as I’ve already explained.

            “I saw melting of girders in the World Trade Center.” — Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

            “literally molten steel” — Peter Tully of Tully Construction

            “hot spots of molten steel” – Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.

            “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster.” — Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

            “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense…. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” — Alison Geyh, PhD, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

            “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel—molten steel—running down the channelways. Like you’re in a foundry. Like lava.” – Capt. Philip Ruvolo, Brooklyn firehouse Rescue Company 2

            “dripping from the molten steel” — Joe O’Toole, firefighter, describing a steel beam being pulled from the rubble

            “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.” — Greg Fuchek, Linkpoint Inc., which made a Global Positioning System (GPS) used by the New York City Fire Department

            “NYDS played a major role in debris removal— everything from molten steel beams to human remains.” — Waste Age, April 1, 2002

            “He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam—but found no signs of life.” – U.S. News & World Report, telling the story of paramedic Lee Turner

            There are photographs of red hot, dripping steel being pulled from the debris, such as one by photograph Frank Silecchia, and another published in the newsletter of The LiRo Group. Your answer to the great amount of testimony such as the above and to photographs showing exactly what eyewitnesses described, molten steel, is to simply dismiss it. There is nothing scientific about your method. Your method is called “ignorance”.

            NIST also cannot account for the active thermitic materials or the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust. They had to resort to scientific fraud to get their model to collapse, such as by inputting raging fires in the NE on floor 12 when their own analysis of the photographic and videographic evidence showed that the fires in that area had long since burned out and moved on to the west of the building. They lied and claimed “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ because they couldn’t explain the melted steel samples that were recovered.

            Instead of addressing the facts and the evidence, you choose to simply dismiss and ignore it, and then make arguments like saying that pointing out the problems with NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis is “irrelevant” and a “red herring”. We obviously have nothing more to discuss, then.

          • Albury Smith

            Tully, Loizeaux, Astaneh-Asl, and the others you cited did not analyze the molten metal to determine if it was actually steel, at least 2 of them described it running or dripping from recognizable steel shapes, indicating that the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt those pieces that were also presumably exposed to the necessary temperatures, no accounts of molten lead or aluminum were cited, although both were in abundance in all 3 WTC hi-rises, incendiaries don’t burn for more than ~5 minutes, explosives don’t even leave molten steel, and to my knowledge, no one who saw the molten metal in the debris fires is in the 9/11 “truth movement” (of which you’re not a representative), so you did your usual job of quote mining and telling half truths, Jeremy. Here is a much more rational and complete account of what was observed in the WTC debris fires:

            http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

            A great example of scientific fraud is claiming that rust, sulfur, aluminum, etc. “remind” you of something, but providing no exemplars of what that something is. I’ve already given you other instances of egregious fraud from 3 of the 9/11 “researchers” behind the Bentham farce, and they’ve failed to explain what this “thermitic material” DID, since it obviously didn’t cut any steel columns, or they’d have been found throughout the debris with melted or explosively-cut ends on them.

            As I’ve repeatedly explained, it’s essential for you to stop worrying about what you think NIST got wrong, and start providing evidence for your own theory. Blowing up some W14 X 500 or 730 columns and recording it on video would be a good way to show that secret explosive demolitions in Manhattan are even remotely possible, and now that you’ve discovered that collapse causes can be divined by timing them, it would be enormously helpful to look at NIST’s modeling and calculate the times by stages under that scenario, so we can see how fast it “really” should have been. You should also back up your new cause-divining science by analyzing the Landmark Tower implosion frame-by-frame, unless you’re so hopelessly uninformed that you think all of its columns were cut multiple times with explosive charges. Presenting proof of explosives or incendiaries that keep steel molten for months is the only truly scientific way to back up that hypothesis, and as I’ve suggested numerous times, run ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling yourself if you’re unhappy with NIST’s, although it won’t provide any explosives evidence. Major, multi-story hi-rise fires that miraculously self-extinguish behind themselves as they spread through fully-furnished buildings should also be documented with examples, and be sure to use ones with no firefighters or working sprinklers.
            This is what’s involved in applying scientific method and not simply talking about it.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, Albury, when Dr. Astaneh-Asl, for example, said he saw melting of girders, the girders he was referring to were actually made from structural steel, which an engineer like himself would obviously know. This is consistent with the one sample of steel recovered from WTC 7 that had been melted. It is also consistent with the finding of iron-rich microspheres in the dust which show that temperatures hot enough to liquefy iron were reached. NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis can account for none of this evidence.

          • Albury Smith

            Once again, Jeremy, you’re dealing in half truths and pawning them off as facts. The 2 small samples in FEMA’s Appendix C were corroded, not melted, and since you’re a big fan of scientific method, I hope you’re urging your 9/11 “researchers” (even though you’re not their representative) to duplicate those unusual effects using explosives, incendiaries, nukes, space beams, or whatever, since Drs. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson could not find an explanation for them. Dr. Astaneh-Asl has never stated that any melting of steel occurred pre-collapse, and he’s not in the 9/11 “truth movement” you don’t represent. He’s also not a metallurgist, and his scope of work was analyzing collapse mechanisms, not measuring debris fire temperatures or reporting on the condition of the steel months after 9/11. Since you’re perfectly fine with making numerous allegations of dishonesty or incompetence against the NIST researchers, you might also want to consider the possibility that this one man, who was sponsored by the NSF, another gubmint entity, was mistaken about whether he was seeing molten steel or molten lead or aluminum running off a recognizable steel shape like a girder. If you were intellectually curious at all, you’d also wonder where the reports of molten lead and aluminum are.

            NIST also addressed the possibility of molten steel in the debris piles here:

            http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm

            “13. Why did the NIST investigation not 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.

            NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

            Under certain circumstances it is CONCEIVABLE [emphasis mine] for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

            It is essential for you to provide evidence of explosives, and to demonstrate that secret controlled demolitions in NYC are even a possibility. Showing how explosives or incendiaries cut steel columns would be a cheap and effective way to do that, and if whatever you use also keeps steel molten for months, or slowly corrodes it in debris piles, it would be very important to establish those remarkable properties too.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I’m well aware of what NIST has had to say about molten steel, but thanks very much for sharing that. It’s very instructive for anyone who cares to read it carefully.

            I also encourage others to read FEMA’s Appendix C and see that it concluded the steel sample showed “intergranular melting”. Those who studied it described the melted sample as resembling “swiss cheese”.

            Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw melting of girders at the WTC. Whether he believed this to have occurred pre-or post- collapse, the NIST hypothesis cannot account for this evidence.

          • Albury Smith

            It’s obvious that you really don’t care whether Dr. Astaneh-Asl thought it happened pre- or post-collapse, as long as you can get “melted steel” into the discussion. The fact is that it was OBSERVED months after the WTC collapses, so my suggestion is even more important. Please at least list all of the explosives or incendiaries that keep steel molten for months, and all of the known controlled demolitions that have produced it for even a second, even if you’re not too keen on having your “researchers” (whom you don’t represent) demonstrate their new discoveries for us on some sample W14 X 500 or 730 columns. If “nanothermite,” or whatever, can make steel look like Swiss cheese, then we need to see a demonstration of that too. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson have considered pre- and post-collapse scenarios, and do not believe that one or 2 tiny pieces of nondescript steel had anything to do with your imaginary controlled demolitions, regardless of what caused the anomalies, which they thought were the result of exposure to “severe and long-burning fires.” They also explained that inter-granular melting can occur at ~1800F, and that’s not beyond the range of building or debris fires.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Like I said, whether Dr. Astaneh-Asl thought the melting of girders he witnessed observed pre- or post-collapse, NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis cannot account for this evidence. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson were not able to explain the steel sample showing intergranular melting, which the New York Times called “Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”. Sisson and Biederman’s suggestion that the Sulfur came from gypsum wallboard is insufficient since they didn’t explain how the sulfur was freed from the calcium sulfate. In their experiment, they used iron sulfide, not calcium sulfate, and were unable to reproduce the “swiss cheese” appearance of the steel with their experiment. Jonathan Cole, PE, performed an experiment using thermate (thermite with sulfur additive), and was able to reproduce the “swiss cheese” appearance of a steel beam. They also said intergranular melting (nice to see you acknowledge there was melting instead of persisting in your lie to the contrary, BTW) occurred at 1000C (~1800F). First, the fires in WTC 7 did not reach such temperatures, according to NIST. Second, one has to explain the eutectic liquid mixture that was able to melt the steel at a lower temperature, and there remains no explanation for this within the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

          • Albury Smith

            When did NIST even posit debris fire temperatures, Jeremy, let alone say that they couldn’t have reached 1800F? The USGS AVIRIS equipment only recorded surface temperatures, and NIST very clearly stated that melting of steel may have occurred under some conditions in the debris fires. Cole’s blobs of melted and solidified steel looked nothing at all like the slow corrosion on the 2 samples in Appendix C, so who’s really lying?

            There’s no explanation for the condition of those 2 small pieces of steel within your absurd explosives-induced collapse hypothesis either, so that’s one more reason to start blowing up some steel columns. If your 9/11 “truth movement” found an explosive or incendiary that keeps steel molten for months, let’s not keep that a secret any longer either.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            “They also explained that inter-granular melting can occur at ~1800F, and that’s not beyond the range of building or debris fires” — Albury Smith

            Like I said, NIST acknowledges that the fires in the building did not reach such a high temperature. And NIST doesn’t explain under what conditions such temperatures could be reached in the debris fires. The simple fact of the matter is that there remains no explanation for the melting of steel under the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

            Unlike the alternative hypothesis. Again, Mr. Cole was able to reproduce the “swiss cheese” appearance of steel using thermate.

          • Albury Smith

            You obviously need to become better acquainted with what NIST actually stated, Jeremy, instead of just making it up or putting your own spin on it. They did not rule out temperatures in the debris hot enough to melt steel, and clearly explained that debris fire phenomena were not in the scope of their investigation. There were also many locations inside WTC 7 prior to collapse shown in NCSTAR 1A to have reached 1000C or better, as there are in most normal office fires.

            I’d also suggest taking another look at the photos in Appendix C:

            http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

            and then comparing them to the molten, yellowish mess Jonathan Cole finally made on a WF beam, after going to ridiculous extremes to attach a rigged-up contraption to it:

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

            Prior to that, he made a video that showed what DIDN’T cause the Appendix C corrosion:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1zLIqitCqg

            Mr. Cole could probably pee down your leg and tell you it’s raining, but he certainly didn’t duplicate the corrosion on those 2 small pieces of steel, or add anything to a scientific understanding of that anomaly.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I would simply observe that after suggesting I’m not well “acquainted with what NIST actually stated”, you didn’t actually point out any error in anything I’ve said. The facts are precisely as I’ve stated them.

          • Albury Smith

            Your exact words were: “NIST acknowledges that the fires in the building [WTC 7] did not reach such a high temperature [~1800F],” Jeremy, and that’s simply untrue. I’m now suggesting that you not only become better “acquainted with what NIST actually stated,” but also with your own statements. Since you recently accused me of lying about inter-granular melting, please acquaint yourself a little better with mine too.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I’ll clarify. NIST acknowledges that the fires in the building did not cause the steel to be heated to such a high temperature. The maximum temperature NIST estimates steel reached in its report on WTC 7 is about 600 C.

          • Albury Smith

            You seem to be in a permanent state of confusion, Jeremy. I certainly did say that “inter-granular melting can occur at ~1800F, and that’s not beyond the range of building or debris fires,” both of which are entirely correct statements. I did not say that the anomalies on the 2 tiny pieces of steel occurred in the building fires, only that it was not ruled out as a possibility, either by NIST, the WPI professors, or me. It’s considered far more likely by the people you keep citing out of context that the corrosion occurred in the debris fires over an extended period of time, however.

            Since 1) no one knows the exact origin of Sample 1 – it’s only been determined that it APPEARED to have been from WTC 7 and was a corroded A36 WF beam, 2) Fire Structure Interface does not produce exact steel temperatures for every square inch of steel in every part of a building, and 3) gas temperatures near the ceilings in WTC 7 exceeded 1800F, it’s POSSIBLE that inter-granular melting occurred pre-collapse.

            Only the 9/11 “truth movement” is putting the square peg into the round hole here, i.e. desperately and dishonestly claiming that a huge hi-rise was secretly collapsed with explosives and left only a rusty piece of steel as evidence, but you still haven’t duplicated the effects with any of your imaginary explosives, incendiaries, or whatever. Fortunately, the real scientific community doesn’t employ your methodologies to prove hypotheses.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            You said the heat from building fires could account for the intergranular melting of the steel sample from WTC 7, but according to NIST, the maximum temperatures any of the steel reached were about 600C. But let’s just assume for argument’s sake that steel reached 1800F, well below its melting point. Where did the eutectic liquid mixture that melted the steel come from?

          • Albury Smith

            FEMA’s Appendix C described a tiny anomaly out of tens of thousands of TONS of steel that were recovered from the WTC 7 site, Jeremy. Contrary to your assertion, the steel wasn’t melted by the eutectic liquid mixture; a “severe high temperature corrosion attack…including oxidation and sulfidation” CREATED the intergranular melting. Analysis of the sample indicated a eutectic temperature of ~1800F, and the WPI engineering professors were not able to determine how or when it occurred. Eutectic compositions BY DEFINITION solidify well below the melting points of components in the mixture, so if you’re going to add redundancy to your obvious confusion, at least throw in some spooky conspiracy music or something. Barnett, et al. speculated on a wide range of possibilities for the unusual corrosion, including exposure to sea salts, firefighting water that generated sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides in that environment, and even acid rain, all of which seem counterintuitive to me, since these samples would not have been the only ones found with this unusual corrosion in any of those scenarios. Exposure in the debris fires to a small quantity of corrosive material stored in a mechanical room or janitor’s closet, proximity in the debris to leaking gas canisters, and any number of other hypotheses seem more likely to me personally, but no one has yet explained it.

            The maximum pre-collapse steel temperatures posited by NIST were in excess of 675C, not 600C, and FSI results do not account for every steel temperature in every part of the building. You’re also only assuming that the corrosion occurred pre-collapse, and that’s not the leading hypothesis. If it’s yours, then you need to prove it scientifically before even considering it as contributory to a massive structural failure of a hi-rise. I realize that you have a pre-determined conclusion, and will bend the rules of science or invent new ones to fit it, but you haven’t connected these 2 tiny samples to explosives, incendiaries, nukes, space beams, or any other C/D “theory,” and that’s how scientific method actually works. From a larger perspective, considering this unsolved anomaly on one nondescript piece of steel which “appeared to be from WTC 7″ as evidence of controlled demolition is patently absurd.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Ah, but according to NIST, nosteel was recovered from WTC 7, because the only samples that were recovered had (semantics gymnastics aside) been melted by a liquid eutectic mixture including sulfur. As you also point out, this remains unexplained within the framework of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, while the alternative hypothesis does offer a possible explanation for it.

            Okay, I’ll give you 675 C. My point remains the same. And I would remind you that the reason I pointed out that according to NIST steel didn’t reach 1800F is because you said the fires in the building could explain the eutectic steel.

          • Albury Smith

            That’s quite a “gotcha!” you think you discovered in NCSTAR 3, but it’s more of a reading comprehension or lack of maturity problem than a meaningful contribution to this discussion.

            The ~1800F temperatures in WTC 7 COULD explain the corrosion and low-temperature melting observed on Sample 1 under some hypothetical conditions, for reasons I’ve now explained at least twice, but it’s considered more likely to have happened over a much longer period of time in the debris fires. Thanks to a clear hypothesis derived from the work of Harrit, Jones, et al., along with the additional finding by Chandler, Box Boy, and others that all of the WTC 7 columns were cut multiple times with secret explosives, there’s now a very obvious starting point for further research.

            Barnett, Biederman, Sisson, and others are pursuing hypotheses involving sea water, acid rain, acidified firefighting water, etc., and it’s time for your researchers (for whom you’re not a representative) to graduate from dropping empty cardboard boxes on each other to exploring the effects of painting stuff on massive steel columns. The public has a right to see how an “energetic coating,” or “nice adherent film” of explosives painted on in-place steel columns not only cuts through them, but also corrodes them and produces a Swiss cheese effect, and then keeps the steel molten for months, etc., and all of this could be done with a few simple and inexpensive experiments. There are additional hypotheses that nanothermite is eco-friendly, heart-healthy, and makes a great dessert topping, so the “800 engineers” and others working on this project could enjoy some during breaks while verifying those properties for us also.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I’m not sure what part of NIST’s statement that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ you think I don’t understand. I’m not sure what part of “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ you are having trouble understanding.

            If you think office fires can explain the melting of steel, Albury, you’ll have to do better than that. Where did the eutectic mixture come from? How was it formed? Where did the sulfur come from?

            If you think hypotheses can be tested with “a few simple and inexpensive experiments”, go right ahead and do them, and let us know how that works out for you.

          • Albury Smith

            They’re not my hypotheses, Jeremy, and you’re certainly not proving them by taking uninformed and amateurish pot shots at ~230 highly-qualified scientists and engineers who’ve actually studied all of the available evidence and presented conclusions in a scientifically acceptable manner. You’re also not accomplishing anything by playing word games with NIST’s very straightforward “No steel was recovered…” statement, unless you really believe that the NIST investigators presented very detailed structural information in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, but were too stupid to know that it represented tens of thousands of tons of framing steel, or are as clueless as Box Boy and think it was all vaporized or something. For the 3rd or 4th time now, NCSTAR 1-3 is a metallurgical report, and they were simply explaining that they couldn’t test any known samples from WTC 7, because “Unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2, no recovered steel in the NIST inventory can be unambiguously assigned to WTC 7.” There’s something seriously wrong with you if you don’t understand something as simple as that.

            You’re now playing around with my statements too, indicating that you have no genuine interest in this topic at all, and just want to annoy anyone who doesn’t drink your Kool-Aid. To answer your question again, I think office fires with recorded temperatures in excess of the posited eutectic temperature of Sample 1 CAN explain the isolated melting, but I’ve already clearly told you that I don’t believe that the corrosion phenomenon occurred pre-collapse. I’ve also said several times here that NO ONE knows for sure where the sulfur came from, and if you don’t know where eutectic mixtures come from and how they’re formed, read FEMA’s Appendix C and a simple generic explanation of eutectic systems.

            You’re the one claiming to have an explanation for Sample 1, not NIST, the WPI professors, or anyone else, so you’re really confused if you think that asking me is a scientifically acceptable way to produce answers. As I said before, YOUR hypotheses can be tested with a few simple and inexpensive experiments, so it’s up to you to “go right ahead and do them, and let us know how that works out for you.” The fact that I have to explain something that basic to you makes me wonder if you’ve ever even taken a general science course in junior high.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            But you are arguing in support of NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis. And pointing out the facts of the numerous problems, including NIST’s scientific fraud (e.g., falsely claiming that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″) is not “taking uninformed and amateurish pot shots”. It is true that most of the evidence was destroyed; however, NIST lied for the obvious reason that they cannot explain the melting of steel within their hypothesis. That is scientific fraud, period. Since you’ve offered nothing other than such ad hominem arguments, I defer to my previous comments.

          • Albury Smith

            I’m still waiting for you to start arguing in support of your secret explosives-induced collapse hypothesis, Jeremy, instead of playing children’s games with the NIST reports. You clearly have no science/engineering background, or you wouldn’t be so confused over why Dr. Gayle’s team made it clear throughout NCSTAR 1-3 that, unlike WTC 1 & 2, their metallurgical results for WTC 7 steel were not based on known samples from WTC 7, but from specs in the contemporary literature.

            Based on our current understanding of science and reality, the evidence for your secret explosives-induced collapse hypothesis was not destroyed; it never existed in the first place, or it would have been front-page news in 2001. You’re claiming that 81 massive WF columns, each weighing either 500# or 730# per lineal foot, were all secretly cut with explosives multiple times at ~5:21 PM on 9/11, and that the ends produced by these amazing explosives looked so much like factory ends or mechanical breaks that no one noticed them during the nearly EIGHT MONTHS of cleanup, and scientific proof is required for that hypothesis. Your entire anti-NIST tantrum is a red herring, and doesn’t even focus on the right part of their report. Because of all of those people you don’t represent, serious researchers indulged the fantasies of the tin foil hat crowd and explained in NCSTAR 1A why the explosives-induced collapse hypothesis is impossible. You and those people for whom you’re not a representative have the burden of proof for that hypothesis, and you’ve failed miserably for more than a decade.

            If you really had faith in your theory and an understanding of how such concepts are scientifically proven, you’d embrace my suggestion that Box Boy’s “800 engineers” and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” demonstrate it the way I’ve described. Despite the fact that they provided no exemplars, what we do know definitely at this point is that sulfur, rust, aluminum, etc. in the WTC dust “reminded” someone of explosives, and we now need to see what the alleged explosives did. Your silence speaks volumes.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I don’t agree it is “children’s games”, “irrelevant”, a “red herring”, etc., to point out the fact that NIST’s report on WTC 7 is scientific fraud from start to finish. There’s clearly no point in discussing it with you.

            If you persist in insults and ad hominem arguments, your privileges to comment will be revoked. You only get one warning.

          • Albury Smith

            Then please explain how your opinion of the NIST WTC reports furthers the explosives-induced collapse hypothesis, Jeremy, and why the 9/11 “researchers” you’ve cited (but don’t represent) haven’t already demonstrated their column-cutting technique on some steel columns, since it’s pretty obvious that this new technology isn’t understood by most of us, and seeing it work actually would enhance everyone’s understanding of the explosives theory.

            Since I apparently misunderstood some very simple and straightforward wording in various parts of NCSTAR 1-3 which disclaimed any direct metallurgical analysis of samples known with certainty to have come from WTC 7, please elaborate further on your interpretation of them. Was Dr. Gayle’s team citing ASTM specs from contemporary literature on framing steel, connection bolts, etc. that weren’t used in WTC 7? What was the real reason for “7.7 STEELS USED IN WTC 7,” if not to discuss the types of steel in the WTC 7 framing? If they were saying that all of it vaporized or something, they didn’t discuss what caused it, so that’s even more reason for the demonstration I’ve repeatedly suggested. You haven’t explained this adequately, but are threatening to ban someone simply for requesting further clarification, and that hardly sounds very scientific.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I fail to see in what way pointing out how the NIST fire-induced collapse hypothesis cannot explain the evidence and depends upon scientific fraud does not support the alternative.

            I don’t know what part of NIST’s lie that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ you don’t understand.

          • Albury Smith

            If you fail to see why your opinion of the NIST reports, which isn’t shared by the ICC, RIBA, ASCE, or any competent SE who’s read them, is not relevant to proving your own hypothesis, then you really don’t understand scientific method. Your lack of interest in presenting any real evidence that secret controlled demolitions in NYC are even possible supports that conclusion.

            Since you still won’t explain why you think Dr. Gayle’s team would have stated that there was no steel in WTC 7, instead of clearly disclaiming possession and testing of known samples from WTC 7, it’s very difficult to take your spin on it seriously. I don’t understand what you’re implying, and have offered some explanations from which to choose. If I didn’t include the one you have in mind, please feel free to present it. Like top-secret explosive demolitions of hi-rises at 5:21 PM on 9/11, there doesn’t appear to be any plausible motive for your interpretation of the NCSTAR 1-3 disclaimer either.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            The fact that you stand by the NIST report shows that it’s you who really doesn’t understand the scientific method. Your lack of interest in addressing NIST’s fraud or in explaining the evidence within the fire-induced collapse hypothesis speaks for itself.

            I did indeed already explain why NIST claimed that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″. See previous comments. NIST rejected the scientific method and lied because it could not explain the melting of steel within their hypothesis. Just one example of their fraud.

          • Albury Smith

            NIST addressed the possibility of molten steel in item # 13 here:

            http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm

            so your distortion of the “no steel was recovered…” statement is completely nonsensical. If you can explain the corrosion on Sample 1 within your explosives-induced collapse hypothesis, why haven’t you?

            The NCSTAR 1-3 disclaimer that you’ve glommed onto as evidence of who knows what has nothing to do with the question of molten steel; it simply explains that no steel specimens confirmed to have come from WTC 7 were available to Frank Gayle’s team for metallurgical testing. To spin it to mean something else is “just one example of [YOUR] fraud.” Scientific method requires YOU to provide evidence for YOUR hypothesis. Scientific fraud is ducking questions and obfuscating with petty and frivolous attacks on someone else’s.

            What is your objection to proving the possibility of secret explosive demolitions of NYC buildings? The 9/11 “researchers” whom you don’t represent can’t even decide if their imaginary substance was an explosive or an incendiary, but if they ever do, demonstrating what it does to in-place steel columns would be the highest priority of any honest scientist, not one that you and they won’t even discuss.
            Science isn’t faith-based in the real world.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            your distortion of the “no steel was recovered…” statement is completely nonsensical.

            Yes, I “distorted” NIST’s claim that, quote, “no steel was recovered from WTC7″ by saying that NIST claims that “no steel was recovered from WTC7″. Obviously, this is intellectual dishonesty on my part.

            Scientific fraud is ducking questions and obfuscating

            You mean like claiming that “no steel was recovered from WTC7″ because the only steel that was recovered had been melted, which NIST couldn’t explain within their fire-induced collapse hypothesis?

          • Albury Smith

            Fortunately for most of us, Jeremy, real collapse investigators look at actual causes; they don’t obsess over one tiny aberration on a ~5# piece of steel that’s only assumed to have been part of a building’s framing. I still haven’t seen YOUR explanation for the corrosion within your explosives-induced collapse hypothesis, so scientific method apparently doesn’t apply to you and the “researchers” you revere but don’t represent. Since NIST has never ruled out the melting of steel, has released entire WTC 7 building performance reports that don’t mention that no steel was recovered from WTC 7, and it was never reported by anyone who worked on the site cleanup, ascribing a different meaning to their disclaimer is nonsensical, but it does divert from the fact that you have no evidence for explosives, and won’t even demonstrate how they might have worked.

            The 9/11 “truth movement” hypothesis is that sulfur, rust, aluminum, etc. “reminded” someone of a high explosive, that it was somehow secretly painted on the steel, miraculously detonated with precision, even in raging fires, silently cut 81 massive WF columns multiple times in “a small fraction of a second” (Chandler’s exact words, even though you’re not his representative), instantly turned all of the concrete (plus ~300% more that wasn’t even there) into fine dust, created pyroclastic clouds that left a paper trail, produced ends that passed for factory ends with mechanical breaks, and kept steel in the debris molten for months afterward. No wonder you’d rather play word games than demonstrate it.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            NIST’s claim that, quote, “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″ means just what it says. The obvious reason for this lie is that NIST, who you revere but do not represent, cannot explain this evidence of melted steel, this “tiny aberration”, as you put it, within their fire-induced collapse hypothesis, while the alternative hypothesis, as I’ve already noted, contrary to your denial, can.

            How many more times shall we go around in circles? I’ve warned you against insults and ad hominem arguments. Now I’m warning you against your trolling behavior. If you aren’t able to substantively actually address my arguments and yet post about what someone else said with this annoying comment of how I don’t represent them, I will have to conclude you are nothing but a troll and revoke your privileges accordingly.

          • Albury Smith

            If your explosives-induced collapse hypothesis “can” explain what honest, qualified, and informed analysts consider an isolated anomaly unrelated to any WTC collapse, Jeremy, then why aren’t you willing to duplicate the results? I’ve seen Jonathan Cole’s video and the photos in FEMA’s Appendix C, and claiming that they’re even close to comparable is like peeing down my leg and telling me it’s raining. Is science now reduced to attacking another hypothesis with no competing research, and then threatening to silence anyone who points out that you haven’t done any?

            I’ve already very substantively addressed your fumbling and misdirected NIST-bashing rants, which have nothing at all to do with promoting your imaginary and redundant explosives malarkey, and only serve to highlight your poor understanding of logic and basic scientific principles. Making the NIST investigators your scapegoats is a nonstarter, and your twisting of an innocuous disclaimer to mean something it didn’t is absurd and contemptible. They not only did address the possibility of molten steel, but also posited temperatures in the range of the eutectic point for FEMA’s Sample 1, and if you don’t understand the purpose of NCSTAR 1-3, at least read the contents page instead of glomming onto one statement and quoting it out of context:

            http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101016

            You may not be a representative of various 9/11 “truth movement” luminaries, but you employ the same transparently dishonest tactics, so I hope you’re not wondering why the legitimate scientific community continues to ignore you.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            FACT 1: Scientists cannot explain the melting of steel within the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. (You’ve several times acknowledged this fact, including in your most recent comment above.)
            FACT 2: NIST claimed that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″.
            FACT 3: Steel was recovered from WTC 7. It had been melted. Which brings us back to fact #1.

          • Albury Smith

            FACT 1: Scientists cannot explain the corrosion and inter-granular melting found in Sample 1 …PERIOD. Your absurd and impossible explosives “theory” doesn’t explain it, and no one with any sense connects it to the fire-induced collapse of WTC 7.

            FACT 2: NIST’s metallurgists stated in a metallurgical report that they had no steel conclusively linked to WTC 7 to test. Jeezus; this is supposed to be a conversation between grown-ups, not kids playing “NUH UH…YOU SAID!”

            FACT 3: A small piece of rusty junk was pulled out of the debris and assumed to be from somewhere in WTC 7. The inter-granular melting was determined to have occurred at a eutectic temperature within the range of both the pre- and post-collapse fires, and the materials science professors who examined it suggested that “long-term heating in the ground” caused it. This brings us back to fact # 1. If you can explain it in the context of a controlled demolition, get some steel and some explosives and DO IT. See if it stays molten for months too. Dropping empty cardboard cartons on each other doesn’t get it, even if you’re not Box Boy’s representative.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            1) Ah, but NIST didn’t even TRY to explain it, because it rejects any alternative hypothesis to its own. It rejects the scientific method. In fact, it went to such lengths to avoid having to explain it that it denied that any such evidence from WTC 7 exists.

            2) Yes, NIST claimed that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7″. That is a lie. See the FEMA report Appendix C. NIST does not even mention this piece of steel, not even to explain why they think it may not have been from WTC 7. They just ignore it completely. Hmmm…

            3) It was melted. Melted. Let me say that again: melted. As you acknowledge, there is no explanation for this within the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, however, does offer an explanation for this. See previous comments.

            Dropping empty cardboard cartons on each other doesn’t get it, even if you’re not Box Boy’s representative.

            I warned you, Albury. You are banned for trolling.

  • Paul Craig Roberts

    It is difficult to image how anyone could be as uninformed and misinformed as Albury Smith.

    • Albury Smith

      You’re a little short on specifics there, PC. Please feel free to elaborate.

  • albury smith gormless shill

    specifically speaking idiot, no one believes your bull dust.

    youre a demonstrable lying psycho, a pathetic joke.

    there is NO evidence that 911 happened as you tell it, against the thousands of pages of documents that prove irrefutably that 911 could not possibly have happened as per the official conspiracy theory.

    youre a sick joke, a liar and a fool if you think anything you say can convince anyone with an ounce of common sense that 911 was because of people with box cutters who hate your freedoms.

    you need to get another hobby.

  • albury smith gormless shill

    albury has his ass handed to him.. again…

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/comment/reply/28471/38719

    he seems to be under some illusion that anyone who is skeptical of the official versions of events, needs to answer all of alburys insane questions, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the entire scenario of everything to do with 911, from planning to execution – to his complete satisfaction.

    all this in the absence of any proper investigation, or indeed evidence, that shows the govts case to be fact.

    his modus operandi, is to post a plethora of comments on every 911 page, he can find, in the hope that if he throws enough mud, some will stick, and to dissuade any casual observer from looking into the article and other comments simply from the overwhelming number of his posts.

    a good indication of where alburys head is at is his unashamed support of zionism, at a time when support for israels policies is at an all time, world wide low.

    • aussie

      A. Smith – everyone sees through the verbose smoke screen, man. Give it a rest.

      • Albury Smith

        That certainly was fact-filled, aussie.

  • Beverage Bob

    I haven’t read all of the comments or the whole article yet but, I remember reading about all of the Securities that were stored on certain floors of the WTC building and in WTC # 7. These securities were directly tied to Iran/Contra funds from the 80′s and were due to expire. Because they were destroyed on the day before expiration, these Govt. securites were able to be “converted” with no explanation. IOW annonomys money laudering worth trillions. This could be one of the reasons along with the other “benefits” that our Govt and Israeli counterparts “enjoyed” after 9/11 occured.

    • Albury Smith

      Would you please post more information on this “annonomys [sic] money laudering [sic] worth trillions” that you “remember reading about,” Bob? Did Silverstein confess to that too? :-)

  • growup shillboy

    Albury loves to harp on about how evil alqaeda is..

    He might be right about that, but hes dead wrong to blame muslims for 911, there is absolutely no evidence.

    http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/01/british-intelligence-reports/

    As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence to support any part of the official conspiracy theory.

    What sort of building collapse leaves molten metal at the base for weeks afterwards? dont bother answering shillboy…not that you could could put a convincing argument together anyway, but Ive read enough of your lies already.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911.html

    Without a doubt, the USA Govt shamelessly lies about 911, terrorist threats, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc etc.. to promote their agenda, and Alburys shameless support of these lies, speaks volumes about what sort of person(s) he is.

    • Albury Smith

      What sort of controlled demolition “leaves molten metal at the base for weeks afterwards,” little stalker man? How does anyone know that it was steel, and why aren’t there any reports of molten lead or aluminum? Why are there no scientific measurements of temperatures hot enough to melt steel? Can you tell what the metal was from a few anecdotal reports?
      Is your first name now “growup” and your last one “shillboy,” or are you having another id10t malfunction?

      • growup shillboy

        lol- as if your name is albury smith .. what does it matter what i call myself here?

        i like the way you call me a stalker..you must have me confused with yourself.. isnt that what you do? stalk the internet to comment on every page that refers to 9 11?

        you sound like youre getting angry little shillboy, is that because everyones laughing at you and noones taking you seriously?

        you getting the grumps on because poll after poll shows no one cares what you think?

        why wasnt there any reports? maybe the same reason there was never an independent transparent unfettered investigation .. idiot.

        your unqualified opinion is of no consequence, and only an idiot like you thinks otherwise. you cant obscure truth like this forever… http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/01/british-intelligence-reports/

        theres good reasons why israel is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to pariah states.. 9/11 being just one of them.. growup, get a real job.. stop your lies, you pathetic sad failure

  • Albury Smith

    Since you apparently have A.D.D or just missed it the first time, little stalker man, what sort of controlled demolition “leaves molten metal at the base for weeks afterwards”?

    • growup shillboy

      you keep ignoring the fact, despite being told countless times..no one owes you any answers. you are an unqualified anonymous nobody.

      no building collapse can leave pools of molten metal beneath it for weeks afterwards. none. its impossible.. nor can it sulfidate steel like this.

      http://rememberbuilding7.org/sulfidated-steel/

      deal with it loser.

      what sort of obsessive compulsion makes you spend your life trolling any website that mentions 911, just so you can enter into argument after argument with anyone you can, only to be shown repeatedly time after time, that the majority of the worlds population including hundreds of thousands of credible people from all over the world, from all walks of life, from many disciplines, that have trouble ( to put it mildly ) with the official version of events, The NIST report and the 911 commission report, including 911 commissioners themselves, and including many from the USA govt and military, people who are not afraid, like you, who have the courage of their convictions to stake their names and reputations on what they say..

      what a tool you are? lol

      youre not convincing anyone of anything you pathetic lying gormless little shillboy..

      do you even know which direction the sun rises? i dont think you do.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      The kind where thermitic materials are also used.

      • Albury Smith

        Thermitic materials are used in military incendiary grenades, sparklers, and in a system for fusing re-bar together end-to-end inside of a metal sleeve, to name some applications that I’ve personally seen, Jeremy. They produce an amorphous, yellowish mess on steel or cast iron wherever they come into contact with them, and have to be on top of the ferrous metal to melt it. If not, they simply fall off and sizzle for a minute or two. On this planet, they burn very hot for a couple of minutes, and then cool off. On yours, they apparently burn for months and can go sideways. We obviously have some cultural differences.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          There are patented applications for the use of thermitic materials in demolitions. Active thermitic materials consistent with nanothermite has been found in the dust. Perhaps you could offer another explanation for the fires that burned for months, presence of nanothermite in the dust, iron-rich microspheres which show that temperatures were reached hot enough to melt steel/iron (nearly the same melting point) and which are a natural byproduct of thermitic reactions, melted steel samples from WTC 7, free fall, etc. NIST has failed to do so, so good luck with that.

          • Albury Smith

            Really? Are there patented applications that don’t require access to the bare steel, fastening bulky contraptions to columns, and don’t leave a hideous mess on the cut ends? What patented application gives any incendiary the split-second timing needed for building demolitions, and what real C/Ds have used them? Good luck finding one that burns for months too, since the ones on this planet all go out in a minute or 2. Jones, Harrit, et al. are nutty as squirrel poop, but I know that you’re not their representative.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes.

            “This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapping plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning…. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”

            – Richard W. Givens et al, “Thermite Charge,” U.S. Patent No. 7,555,986, July 7, 2009, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7555986.html

  • growup shillboy
  • Albury Smith

    I don’t “enter into argument” with these people, little stalker man:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
    or with the AIA, ASCE, ICC, RIBA, etc.
    Since you won’t answer questions, and continue to ask stupid ones, no controlled demolition leaves pools of molten metal beneath it for weeks afterwards either, but debris fires left pools of molten lead and aluminum after the 9/11 collapses.

  • growup shillboy

    theres plenty of examples of things you wont/cant answer shillboy, in this thread and the other links i posted where youve spread your lies…

    “debris fires” what debris? you show me evidence of anything recognisable that could possibly burn in an oxygen starved environment, with water continually poured onto it.. for months, hot enough to keep anything molten for months, and ill kiss your butt! – there was nothing but steel and dust left!.. no desks, no carpet, no computers.. nothing!

    that doesnt happen in a collapse, but you know all this already, as does everyone else, so why should anyone waste their time on you answering your stupid questions. debris fires.. ha! good one idiot. ask any boy scout what happens when you dump a heap of dust dirt water on a normal fire.. it goes out!.

    its not for me or anyone to answer any of your questions numbnut. youre an anonymous troll. all questions should be aired in the proper forum, an independent transparent unfettered investigation with subpoena power, to get to the truth. where all testimony, evidence, can be presented under oath and cross examination and expert testimony. that is the opinion of the majority of the world.

    youre even too scared to back your arguments with your real name, thats how afraid of the truth you are.

    shutup albury, youre ridiculous, youre not impressing anyone, youve said all you can say, and repeating your garbage for ever will never make it true.

    if you think you have the right to go around posting misinformation/disinformation/obfuscation, i have the right to simply point out what youre doing, if that makes you sad, or mad, too bad..you can call me a stalker little shill boy, i dont care.. im simply showing you up for what you are pretty ugly isnt it.. – deal with it

    • Albury Smith
      • growup shillboy

        lol – on the internet you can be anything you want, and you choose to be stupid.

        • Albury Smith

          You choose to be real smart and claim that there were no debris fires at the WTC site after 9/11.

          • growup shillboy

            “You choose to be real smart ”

            yes.

            but im not sure its much of a choice, im pretty sure dust and steel cant burn for ~100 mins let alone ~100 days.

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

            RE: Jeremy R. Hammond
            June 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm

            lol! SCHOOLED! :D

            *Dont respond to this albury, this is not a solicitation for your unqualified anonymous deceitful opinions. the consensus is in, the world considers you a fool.

  • growup shillboy

    The consensus is in

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31569.htm

    *Dont respond to this albury, this is not a solicitation for your unqualified anonymous deceitful opinions. the consensus is in, the world considers you a fool.

    • aussie

      Albury – what’s your worst fear?

      That people might transparently, freely and democratically discuss science and their scepticism about war-trigger events?

      Is that your fear?

      Does it bother you so much that you feel an overwhelming urge to insert yourself into such conversations and run interference for the official narrative? Even though these conversations are limited, frozen out by the mainstream press and afforded little room in public discourse?

      You’re banging a very loud drum in the corner of the room there, mate. It must be exhausting :o)

      • Albury Smith

        What is your fear of my “insert[ing] [myself]here,” and when are you going to start “transparently, freely and democratically discuss[ing] science and [your] scepticism about war-trigger events,” instead of making me the topic, aussie?

  • aussie

    @ A Smith

    I made you the topic because your name resonates here like a metronome, but what you say doesn’t ring true to me.

    No other particular reason.

    • Albury Smith

      The author of this article has a web site that invites comments, aussie, but won’t post any that are from people who don’t believe his bunk, especially if they explain why using actual facts. He’s already made a hasty retreat from this discussion, so you’ll probably find his “forum” much more to your liking if that’s your concept of “transparently, freely and democratically discuss[ing] science and…scepticism about war-trigger events.”

  • growup shillboy

    as jon faine is to australian radio, albury is to the internet

  • roflcoptersauruslol
  • Stanley Hitchens

    Albury you are clear to me. Your position is NIST and the 9/11 Commission are the nutritious fruits of honest men, truth and infallibility.

    You remind me of the Priest who believe in Biblical infallibility.

    Leave the 9/11 Bible’s and forget the fairytale.

    This isn’t a healthy or easy conversation to have and it must have taken a toll on you too. Don’t suffer the (“I’m right, I’m smarter than you”) complex. Your truth is a hand of cards. Its a game and knowing when to quit is a skill.

    You’re a perfect case of cognitive dissonance. Nothing will open your mind to anything outside the 9/11 Bible as your faith would be destroyed. Keep preaching the Gospel.

    • Albury Smith

      NIST and I are not really the topic here, Stanley, and I never said that anyone’s infallible. If you have an alternative theory about something, it’s reasonable to expect that you provide some evidence for it, and not simply deny someone else’s, especially when you don’t have the scientific grounding to understand it anyway.
      I’ve only recommended that you “open your mind” to something besides provably false 9/11 “truth movement” malarkey, and I’ve pointed out some of the very obvious failings in their argument. If you honestly have faith in your secret demolitions theory, at least demonstrate that they’re even possible, and blowing up some steel columns for us on video would do that very efficiently.

  • scaramouche

    “I warned you, Albury. You are banned for trolling.”
    yay! – now thats what I call some 9-11 JUSTICE! ..

    hes battling common sense.. he hasnt a hope in hades..

    albury smith shill ( aka ass ) is an unqualified, anonymous troll, a demonstrable liar, who spends his life trolling any website that refers to 911 truth, posting his unsolicited absurd misinformation, disinformation and obfuscations on every page possible, tirelessly and repetitively.. all the while pretending to be some sort of final arbiter, on all things 911 who, while remaining anonymous, continually slanders qualified experts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

    the official version of events is nothing more than mere allegations. there has never been any credible evidence offered to support any of it. as a matter of fact, their own *evidence* actually proves 100% the official version of events can not be true, as a little investigation into the murray street engine shows… http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

    It doesnt matter how or what was used to bring building 7 down, or if it took ten seconds or thirty. The fact that building 7 fell at freefall acceleration for ~2.5 seconds, as acknowledged begrudgingly by NIST, IS evidence that explosives were used as it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the structural support necessary for freefall acceleration to be achieved to be removed instantaneously and simultaneously without some form of controlled demolition. http://rememberbuilding7.org/

    as he well knows, and as he is unable to prove otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt, not just because he is an anonymous unqualified troll, but because the laws of physics applied just as much on 9-11 as they do today. any legitimate psychiatrist would therefore regard alburys position as insane. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/psychologists-mental-health-questioning-911-sane.html

    further evidence of his chutzpah can be witnessed via a simple internet search for “albury smith 9 11″ – his pitiful efforts are quite amusing as he stuggles against an overwhelming growing majority of people who after looking into a few facts, find it not unreasonable for family members of the victims to be calling for a proper independent transparent unfettered investigation with subpoena power, as called for, by an overwhelming, continually growing, majority of the worlds population, a fact verifiable by past and recent polls. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-terror-polls-show-what-people-really-believe-10-years-later.html