ST911 rebuts the NIST - FAQ

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth rebut NIST:

Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer

Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier

Responses to NIST's FAQs (Microsoft Word Doc - 45kb)
Kevin Ryan

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice

Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones

go steven

i love steven jones and his jolly santa claus like giggles (which you can even hear on these new videos he made)

Was it a terror sting or entrapment?

Lawyers say FBI informants funded, encouraged alleged Miami terror cell

What a joke!

What a joke! The "liquid aluminum" Jones showed wasn't even hot enough to pour out of the pot. It solidified before it could get out of the pot! That means that it wasn't above 660°C, and it certainly wasn't at 1538°C!

Let's see if Jones can demonstrate that iron flows at that same temperature!

I can already see that iron doesn't glow at that same temperature.

molten aluminum did pour out

molten aluminum did pour out of the pot, therefore it was above the melting point for aluminum. 

Were you really fooled?

Were you really fooled by the few globs that made it out of the pot before the bulk of it solidified? If the material had been at a temperature at which metal would glow, why isn't the steel pot glowing?

Is this real science?

Is it even honest science?

You seem to misunderstand...

... the purpose of this experiment.
It was to show that at the temperature at which aluminium melts (at which it could have poured from WTC) it doesn't glow. It couldn't be be much hotter at WTC as fires rarely reached 625C (maximum 1000C but only for couple of moments, definately not just before collapse).

You see - that is the point - to show that there had to be enormous temperature (>1500C) inside to make metal glow (steel glows at melting point, aluminium doesn't). So there had to be some kind of very egzothermic reaction (thermite is a hypothesis).

Michelle you are a twit

"If the material had been at a temperature at which metal would glow, why isn't the steel pot glowing?"

Stop commenting before you embarass yourself further.

Why isn't the steel pot glowing?

I can only think of one reason; it's not hot enough to glow! :-)

That pretty much debunks those results.

Reply to NIST

It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.

Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking................ Continued on the link given.
Gordon Ross

Credibility is earned

The debate ploy is an old one of those trying to gain credibility instead of earning it.

You have been adequately debunked on your claims. So have other 9/11 Deniers. If and when you can make a plausible, solid scientific case, accepted and reviewed, you will have taken a step to earning the right to debate.

You as an anon have no right to vilify a person

like Gordon Ross who has put quite an effort into process of understanding what happened to the Twin Towers.

You are insolent.

Maybe you could give some references to where Mr. Ross (and others??) has been debunked?

earn the "right" to debate?!

earn the "right" to debate?! that's like saying "i'm not listening!! i'm not listening!! lalalalala" and covering your ears...

the point of debating is to get to the truth.. if it's not even a hard debate, as you suggest, then why don't they do it to appease the 35% who mistrust the official story??

Flowing metal - a damning piece of evidence

Though somewhat an unimpressive claim compared to the "Look there were explosives in those buildings" claim, the molten metal coming out of that building is a clearly visible and acknowledged feature of the south towers collapse. Many attempts by NIST and others have tried to convince us the brightly glowing substance is in fact simply aluminum. Only problem is that it's not. Even at hotter temperatures where aluminum does glow (1000C?) it does not glow yellow hot in sunlight, in sunlight I am almost 100% positive it always appears silvery. If this fact is true then it was not Aluminum period.

In objective reality the answer to "Does aluminum even glow in sunlight?" is a simple yes or no. But people at NIST and other debunkers are not concerned whether it does or doesn't. To them they simply claim that it must be because they are right. The fact that NIST thinks aluminum does glow like that is inductive to the sort of respect for science they have. None.

Can we get the final word on aluminum here? NIST certainly doesn't want to talk truthfully about the proprieties of aluminum...

A damning piece of evidence indeed

What is so important about Jones' bogus aluminum argument?

Strange Coincidence

Michael Zebuhr, the student ST911 member who was killed under suspicious circumstances, was the same guy who did the "glowing aluminum" experiment with Dr. Judy Wood that casted doubt upon Dr. Steven E. Jones (apparently bogus) thermite hypothesis.

Strange, and also creepy.

Actually, looking at it some more-- the timing is suspicious. Zebuhr and Wood did their experiment in late Feb 2006. Zebuhr was killed a few weeks later.


So, who will it be this time for showing that aluminum glows?

The entire subject of

The entire subject of glowing aluminum is a non issue.  It is HIGHLY reflective just like mercury, even while molten.  In daylight conditions it is silvery-gray.


What is your point, here?

Are you trying to convince us that iron doesn't glow? It's not glowing in the picture you show.

At 1000°C, the emissivity of aluminum is greater than the emissivity of iron. That is, at 1,000°C, aluminum (in atmospheric conditions) actually glows brighter than iron does.

What you are doing is essentially showing us a piece of ice to "prove" that water is always a solid.

You don't seem to understand the basic physical properties of materials. If you say the temperature is hot enough for iron to glow, it is certainly hot enough for aluminum to glow. Consider the following:

source: the Life of Michael Zebuhr

source: the International Aluminium Institute

I said nothing about iron.

I said nothing about iron. I am talking about the molten metal seen pouring out of WTC2, in the DAYLIGHT @ approx 9:59AM on 9/11/2001.


The first image is in a darkened lab, showing aluminum being melted by connecting a tungsten boat to a current. Aluminum will reflect the ambient light that surrounds it, like a mirror. To state that it is glowing purely as a function of its temperature is MISLEADING. You can even see specular highlights on the surface of the beaded molten aluminum, reinforcing its high reflectivity.

The second image again is not in daylight, and as it is in reference to industrial casting.


At Room Temperature, aluminum is reflective

At Room Temperature, polished aluminum is reflective. If you polish iron, it too is reflective. So, I ask again, what is your point?

If your hypothesis is that some material might be molten iron, you must apply that same test to aluminum, if you're going to try putting that over on us.

I do not disagree that polished aluminum is shiny at room temperature. But what does that have to do with the forth-order derivative of the price of beans in Tibet?

If you said nothing about iron, why not? If you are trying to sell us on the idea that iron played a role, here, wouldn't it be a good idea to start talking about iron and putting iron to the same test you are asking of other materials? If you illustrate what aluminum looks like at 600°C, why not show us what iron looks like at that temperature?

I will ask one more time: What is your point?

Molten aluminum is

Molten aluminum is silvery-grey when poured in DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS, and as such, it could not have been the molten metal seen POURING out of WTC2 in broad DAYLIGHT.



NIST claims it is aluminum.  They have proven that they are peddling junk science at best. 

You too seem to misunderstood...

... the purpose of this experiment.
It was to show that at the temperature at which aluminium melts (at which it could have poured from WTC) it doesn't glow. It couldn't be be much hotter at WTC as fires rarely reached 625C (maximum 1000C but only for couple of moments, definately not just before collapse).

You see - that is the point - to show that there had to be enormous temperature (>1500C) inside to make metal glow (steel glows at melting point, aluminium doesn't). So there had to be some kind of very egzothermic reaction (thermite is a hypothesis).

So, you are saying...

So, you are saying... that if it can't be aluminum, it certainly can't be iron or steel!

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

ho,ho "winding gardens of logic", rethink,

First of all you have take into consideration that pouring aluminum would cool itself down and stop glowing (especially from the surface - it had been shown in other experiment).

Second, it is very unprobable that it was aluminium because it would pour away way before it started to glow. There is no such problem with molten steel - it starts to glow just when it melts.

Third, even if it was aluminum (which is very unprobable, it just doesn't behave/look like that), it would need to be at a very high temperature, higher than temperatures estimated by NIST, so it would also point at the hypothesis of thermate.

Here you go.

Hell Hath No Flurry Like a Glowman Spawned

Hey, Researcher488 or Professor Jones!

If the NIST pics and your videos of molten WTC metal are possibly or probably faked (NIST says so in part), then why is this molten metal thing so significant? If the images are bogus, then the molten metal thing is also irrelevant. Were there ANY eye witnesses to these multi-faceted or no-faceted but fascinating fleetingly-furious flurry phenomena?

Your whole episode with Dr. Judy Wood (or NIST) on glowing aluminum versus glowing iron reminds me of an essay question on my final exam in chemistry... Bonus Question: “Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?”

Most of the other students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. My answer (for which I received an A+ -- thank you very much) was as follows:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. We can safely assume that, once a soul enters Hell, the soul will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. (Possibly partial proof: We're still here.)

How many souls are entering Hell? Let's look at the religions that exist on Earth today. Most religions state that, if you're not a member of their religion, then you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one religion, and since no one belongs to more than one religion, I therefore logically find that ALL souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates being what they are, I find that the number of souls in Hell must therefore increase geometrically (see, e.g., Thomas Robert Malthus).

When we analyze the necessary rate of change in the volume of Hell (to avoid dire consequences for Hell -- and possibly for Earth too), if the temperature and pressure in Hell are to remain the same, then the volume of Hell must expand in EXACT geometric proportion to the number of new souls that enter Hell in Malthusian progression. This is an exceedingly easy extrapolation of Boyle's Law.

I find that this gives us two (and only two) theoretical possibilities:

1) If the volume of Hell is expanding at a SLOWER rate than the geometrically proportionate rate at which souls are entering Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will INCREASE -- until all Hell breaks loose [yes, it does glow -- trust me]; OR,

2) If the volume of Hell is expanding at a FASTER rate than the geometrically proportionate rate at which souls are entering Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will DECREASE -- until Hell freezes over [no, no glow].

SO WHICH IS IT? If we accept as gospel the theoretical declaration to me by Teresa, during my Freshman year, that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and if we take into account the fact that I slept with Theresa last night, then #2 must be true. Thus, I find that Hell is exothermic -- and has therefore ALREADY frozen over.

The corollary of this now-proven theory is that, since Hell has frozen over, it necessarily follows that Hell is NOT accepting ANY new souls and is therefore virtually nonexistent... with Heaven, I find, being the ONLY option.

The truth of this theoretical corollary also provides “hard evidence” for the existence of a divine being. This may explain why, last night [before the glow], Teresa kept exclaiming, "Oh, my god! Oh, my god!"

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ... ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ... ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ...

Does this qualify me to be a Full Member in ST911 (via the ‘equivalency’ exception)? Or would this be a violation of your First Commandment in ST911? Pray tell, Professor Jones, what’s the answer?

(Hell May Have No Flurry Like a Glowman Spawned.)

Hell hath no fury . . .

This "exothermic/endothetmic" joke has been around a long time, so the author of this post, "Albert E. Glowfinger, Professedly Emeritus". whom I infer to be Morgan Reynolds, should not present it as though it originated with him! There are telling signs that this emanated from Morgan, but I will be glad to stand corrected if "Glowfinger" wishes to declare his proper identity and can prove the author is not the one whom I have named.

A Glowman Respawns . . .

Dear Professor Fetzer,

Are you saying that you originated this semi-humorous, semi-purposeful prose? Based on personal experience? If so, then you may want to sue Albert E. Glowfinger for plagiarism (or for trademark insingement)!

Morgan Reynolds? Nah… He’s good, but not THAT good! And this was too subtle for Morgan. Semi-blatant ad hominem, maybe... Gritty and corny b-ad hominy, never! (Can anyone say "add harmony"?)

In addition, Dr. Fetzer, are you too familiar with that faintly glowing golden hue as all Hell begins to break loose? If so, then we may have sum thing in common...

(BTW, are the WTC pics & videos of the furious flurries of glowing molten metal faked or real? Do you have ANY eyewitnesses [e.g., who shot the pics & videos])?

There are two points that I

There are two points that I find interesting that I have never seen discussed.

1. The design of the WTC towers, as explained above, comprised a strong steel core, made up of 47 steel columns tied together into a very strong structure. This is evident from the plans of the building, and the construction photograhps, and must surely be accepted as a reality. Also, as explained above, it is highly unlikely that the relatively small fires on 911 could have generated enough heat to pose a problem. a) the fires were not that hot, nor that large, b) the steel structure itself is highly conductive, and it would have conducted the heat away.

My point is that even if we were to accept the pancake theory of collapse, that MIGHT have applied to the floor areas outside the 47 column core structure, but could not have applied to the column itself. What would have happened under that scenario is that the floor structures might have collapsed, but the extremely strong 47 column core structure would have been left standing, as it was during construction.

2. Note the second photo in the Robert Rice piece above, and especially note the many steel beams to the right of the photo. Note that these are remarkably similar in length, and apparently unconnected to any other steel beams. Very strange. Surely, if the controlled demolition hypothesis were not worthy of consideration, these steel beams would have remained connected together, and the whole structure would have collapsed in a very different fashion.

Add to that the point that has been made by many 911 researchers about how come the steel beams are being ejected from the building with a strongly horizontal component of movement. Where did that energy come from??

Did any of the researchers

Did any of the researchers at NIST put their names on the document?

If not, that would indicate that they could not get senior engineers to sign it.

And that indicates that the engineers--even those at NIST--know that their case is awful.

Indeed, this NIST doc might be a signal from honest engineers within NIST that they know they ain't got nothin'.

A new investigation is mandatory. It should be opened immediately.

Of course they did

Every person that did the NIST investigation signed it. If you had read the document, you would have known that.

ST911 Refutation of NIST FAQ {"False Answers to Questions")

The four-way response from the four ST911 responders is so devastating to the NIST FAQ it is almost embarassing. Even for prevaricators of the highest degree, the weak, contradictory, unscientific, and childish FAQ from the NIST is hard to explain. A truly intelligent cover-up would NEVER expose itself to such a strategy.

In order to understand what the heck the NIST is trying to do, here are a few theories:

- The NIST has some individuals who have some vestiges of professional standards and decency, and resents being put in the position of what is equivalent to "holocaust denial". Since they are afraid to acknowledge that the official conspiracy theory is absurd, they have mounted an absurd defense of this theory, which can only hasten it's demise.

- The only people in the NIST that have the stomach to peddle these disgraceful lies are the lowest level of the organization - they have no particular scientific credentials, and like the makers of sausage from filthy by-products of slaughter, have concocted a Frankenstein defense that is also doomed to an early demise.

Either way, the 9/11 conspirators in the US government clearly sense that their exposure is imminent, and are scrambling for cover, like rats on a sinking ship.


That was a childish response.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth are in a defensive posture realizing that Jones' so-called "theories" have been completly debunked.

Here are just a few of those debunkings:

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

The End of The "Controlled Demolition" Theory

You're going to have to believing those like Jones who have no qualifications to discuss the subject intelliegently without making the most fundamental mistakes. Remember also, that Jones and Fetzer have declared that theirs is a political movement, not a scientific one.


Instead of this childish back and forth, why don't you encourage the NIST and the Bushitler government to FINALLY RELEASE the videos they grabbed within minutes of the Pentagon impacts, which in theory could completely demolish the alternate theories ? You may be aware that videos from a local site were being reviewed with complete horror by civilians just before the Feds grabbed them.



I always answer questions posed of me.

Too bad that no one here is willing to do the same.

Let's speak CANDIDLY about videos.

First, let's remember one basic fact: the evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon is not dependent on whether or not there is video of the crash. It has absolutlely NO bearing as evidence. The irrefutable fact that AA 77 hit the Pentagon is a result of the evidence from multiple sources converging on the inescapable conclusion that AA 77 and ONLY AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Now let's take what happens when 9/11 conspiracists know there IS video of a crash. Let's take the first crash, AA 11, into the North WTC Tower, which was fimed by the French Naudet brothers who were doing a documentary on a NYC fireman on 9/11:

"After the first attack, the second one was easy to film — but how else could the first one have been captured than by luck?

"There is an answer to that question, but an extremely disturbing one. I believe the Naudet film of Flight 11 is a charade, staged to appear accidental. However bizarre that claim may appear to be, the evidence that justifies it is there in the film (the DVD version, issued in September 2002, titled "9/11 — The Filmmaker's Commemorative Edition"), and I challenge anyone watching it and following my arguments to reach any other conclusion."

Now, if a video of AA 77 surfaces, what will YOU say?

Should Government Withold Evidence because it may be doubted ?

You believe that there is absolute proof that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and therefore a video thereof is irrelevant. This is conistent with NIST's position that the existence of molten metal at the base of 3 buildings post-9/11 is not material.
As others have pointed out, in a scientific examination, ALL available evidence must be presented and evaluated to come to the most probable cause.
You appear to be taking the absurd position that it makes sense for our government to withold information for fear that some might doubt it. You will note that this shyness does not extend to information that they would have us belive ON FAITH, such as their assertion that they checked remains at the Pentagon site using DNA to match the presumed passengers.
Furthermore, you should note that unless there is a legitimate reason to withold such a video, the Government IS OBLIGATED to divulge it to the public, in part because it is in fact PUBLIC PROPERTY and is furthermore EVIDENCE of a crime scene (regardless of who planned the Pentagon attack).
Instead of worrying that some will doubt the last minute "discovery" of such a video, and will analyze the heck out of it, why don't you provide a LEGITIMATE LEGAL REASON why the government REFUSES to relase this video ?

exactly, this was suppossed

exactly, this was suppossed to be a fucking crime scene. asking why Giuliani didnt treat it as such is a legitimate question despite what the "Anonymous" coward says. that goes along with literally hundreds of other legitimate questions that have yet to be answered or even addressed. people are waking up, it just so happens most of us here happened to wake up a bit sooner than most others in society, like "Anonymous" for instance.


Every questioned has been answered and you just don't like the answers. Neither do you like to answer questions. Eventually you will need to wake up.

Read what I wrote

You are not addressing the subject of my post.

We know without the need for video that ALL the other evidence conclusively demonstrates that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. That says NOTHING about why the Government is not releasing any other video, if such video exists. The video is irrelevant to the evidence we already know from all of the other sources. Just as if no video existed of AA 11 and UA 175: we know from ALL the other evidence that 767s hit the WTC towers.

To claim that because they are not releasing any video means we cannot draw any conclusion about AA 77 is, of course, absurd.

Furthermore the Governemnt is NOT obligated to release the video while an ongoing criminal investigation is taking place.

You should already know that.

Pentagon Video: Decrepit Rationale Finally Provided ?

You State:
"Furthermore the Governemnt is NOT obligated to release the video while an ongoing criminal investigation is taking place"

Can you explain why 5 years after 9/11 a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon cannot be released due to an ongoing criminal investigation ? There was some absurd talk wrt Hamji's trial that these videos had to be witheld, and after the trial they came out with the doctored stills from the Pentagon security cameras, so why can't they release the videos from other vantage points ? You don't have to be a rocket (or a missile) scientist to understand that the only thing such videos could show would be the object piloted with amazing skill by an incompetent, that hit the Pentagon flying several feet off the ground, and disappeared into a wormhole, leaving only a tiny bit of wreckage behind, incinerated itself (but not the DNA of the passengers.

Of course, since YOU believe all these lies, I guess we citizens who have questions dare not ask Bushitler for proof of this fairy tale, since it transformed him from an AWOL cokehead into the most powerful person in the history of the planet.

Anonymous blows it again . . .

Our best estimate is that there are as many as 84 videos that would show what actually happened at the Pentagon. After having released the latest two under legal duress, neither of which show anything resembling a Boeing 757, it would completely discredit the government to now come up with new videos that show such a plane at the Pentagon. Here are the three principal reasons Anonymous has missed the boat again:


The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!


The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!


The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!


Actually those "good" science arguments are garbage. They do nothing to refute Dr. Steven E. Jones' doctoral-level and peer reviewed assertion.

All one has to do is read them to see the garbage in them. In the last article, the first argument made was that all the charges would have had to be set up within 55 minutes of the collapse and therefore controlled demolition was impossible.

It is completely illogical to think that the charges had to be set up within 55 minutes of the collapse given good planning. Obviously the load bearing columns were in the middle of the building, and most of the initial heat and destruction was away from the core columns. Given careful planning, those core columns would have had the charges on them, and not necessarily the outer columns in the area of the plane collision. On other floors, other things could have been done.

This is the type of garbage debunking that is made by "experts" who were paid to say what they have said.

After reading them, most of their arguments are completely baseless and the rest have nothing to do with the arguments put forth by

Thank you for proving to us how rediculous your arguments really are!

You need to actually read the articles before commenting.

Jones and his crew of other non-scholars in anything pertient have been completely refuted on his theory of Thermate/Thermite and has admitted he does NOT KNOW how explosives could have been planted. Coupled with the fact that absolutely NO physical evidence of any type of explosive has EVER been found AND the world's structural engineers have never disagrred with the open findings of NIST and all the other independent investigations of the dust, we are just going to have to WAIT until and UNLESS you can provide any evidence at all for making claims of explosives.

Nothing hard about accepting that reality for you, is there?

"You have been adequately

"You have been adequately debunked on your claims. So have other 9/11 Deniers. If and when you can make a plausible, solid scientific case, accepted and reviewed, you will have taken a step to earning the right to debate."

This comment alone is a desperate attempt at damage control. The enemy is aware that we are on the verge of reaching critical mass, which WILL require a nationally televized debate, and the 9/11 perps are fanatatically terrified of letting that happen. He says we have to "earn the right" to a debate. We have. ;-) No matter what BS tactics you use, you are not going to have the last laugh UNLESS your employers stage another attack. And even then, masses of Americans WILL suspect the truth, that it was an inside government operation. You are in YOUR last throws of power.

If the government's story is true...

You can get rich!


You can start a demolition business that performs controlled demolitions by setting a fire in a building, waiting around for 1 hour, and watch it as it falls into its own footprint!

What are you waiting for? It's a profit making opportunity!

If the gummints story is true...

You can save space!


you can melt all your aluminum cans into one ingot,using your gas stove(with a nice hot blue flame) and a cast iron frying pan..!!! oh...wait..I forgot the frying pan could concievably melt...

Science doesn't work that way

As much as you might wish it to, science does not work by debate. It's patently silly to think you make science work that way.

As you know, Stephen Jones is not a qualified strucutral engineer or forensic scientist. As you also know, his paper has been debunked mostly on the basis of not knowing the subject matter and screwing up on basic facts. He has not had his work peer reviewed by any qualified scientist. No rational person would consent to debate with an amateur whose SOLE purpose is political and not scientific. To think otherwise is silly.

yeeeeeees...and your not

yeeeeeees...and your not serving any political purpose in here at all are you...please.


how about the videos of wtc7 falling as evidence of demolition. the only hypothesis which fits all of the evidence is controlled demolition. the onus is on the government to explain how this collapse occured 'naturally', when common sense dictates that this is exacly what it looks like, controlled demolition.

of course jones doesnt know how the planting of explosives took place. he is a man not an omnipotent diety. i don't know what day, or in what room, i was concieved but im still pretty sure it happened. you can know something happened without knowing every detail for certain.

your faulty word games dont work here. and the papers you provide are full of misdirection and strawmen. if you have something to contribute thats great, but if your trying to stop people from questioning or thinking for themselves you'd best go back to youtube or videogame posts or whatever. you are out of your league, anonymous.

Says exactly who?

"The only hypothesis which fits all of the evidence is controlled demolition."

Quite false as already has been demonstrated. Plus there is no evidence of explosives whatsoever. Repeating your myth will never make it true.

Want some easy cash? Answer me this!

If fire can make a building collapse into its own footprint in near free fall, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I'll give you $1000 if you can cite 1 example outside of 9/11/2001 in which a high rise building fell into its own footprint in near free-fall as a result of fire.


false? how?

what other explaination details the total spontanious collapse of building seven? how has the singularity of this concept been demonstrated to be false. are there any other instances of building spontaniously turning to dust from fire damage. there is evidence of explosives in the very nature of the collapse, the eyewitness reports and, now, the findings of doctor jones.

repeating that this has been demonstated to be false does not make it so. explain how controlled demolition is not a resonable conclusion given the data. you are ignoring information in your effort to promote an official theory, which has not even been determined yet.

so what happened then? what was the initiating force in the sudden collapse of seven? how is the uniform absence of resistance in the structure the result of fire? how was so much concrete pulzerized before the building hit the ground? what caused the collapse of the central collumns as evidences by the initial drop of the penthouse proceeding collapse proper?

what is the key fact that makes you sure that this collapse was accidental?

Patented and Manufactured Thermite Linear Cutting Apparatus

NIST STATEMENT: Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.

NOT TRUE-- unless NIST is referring to the traditional railroad welding applications, where the compound is gravity fed. The apparatus referred to in this comment performs an extended linear (horizontal cut) at high velocity, while the nozzle is some distance from the target material.

MY RESPONSE: There is a patented thermite based cutting device that provides a cutting flame characterized as a “high temperature, high velocity jet,” Furthermore, the nozzle of the patented device “is considered to be a ‘supersonic’ or ‘hypersonic’ nozzle, and is capable of cutting through a target material in seconds. U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001).


NIST STATEMENT: NIST states that the thermite “would need to have been…held in direct contact with the surface” of the steel.


MY RESPONSE: Firstly, the patented thermite cutting apparatus (in its linear “ganged” application) provides that the cutting nozzle of the apparatus is spaced at a distance “from the surface of the target material by a standoff distance (SD) based on the thickness of the target material to be cut.” Furthermore, nozzle standoff distance “is related to the scale of the apparatus, and in general, a larger cutting apparatus would require a correspondingly larger standoff distance (SD).” U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001). “A “wing-like element, is inserted into the nozzle of this embodiment to redirect the cutting flame around the contour of the foil. This further improves the effectiveness of the cutting flame by focusing the high temperature, high velocity jet existing the nozzle. The thermite component thrusts outward from the nozzle as ‘a high velocity jet.’” U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001). The stand off distance of the nozzle from the target material is approximately “1/16 to ¼ inches.” U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001).


NIST STATEMENT: NIST states that the thermite would have to “somehow” be held in place.


MY RESPONSE:The patent addresses the “somehow” in a clear and direct fashion. “[A]ny conventional holding device (not shown) such as clamps, thermite welding magnets, suction devices, or counter thrust devices may be employed to maintain the housing in substantial contact with the target material.” U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001). Furthermore, the patent states that the loading tool for the thermite compound can be “any conventional handheld or stationary device for pressing desired amounts and densities of thermite charge into the charge tube” of the device. U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001).

NIST STATEMENT: NIST claims that once the thermite is held in place that it would have to be remotely detonated.


MY RESPONSE: Patent 6183569 provides that the “activation device from one of the housings is positioned on an end of the ganged apparatus [for the extended linear cutting application] and is accessible for remote activation.”The present invention also provides a formable, and separately storable, thermite powder charge for providing an energy source for generating a cutting flame which produces the cutting action of the apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001). The charge is ignited through the use of “a conventional activation device such as a fuse…may be inserted during the pressing process.” U.S. Patent No. 6,183,569 (issued Feb, 6, 2001). The fuse is ignited through use of an electric match, which may be remotely activated.

Really actually...

"They do nothing to refute Dr. Steven E. Jones' doctoral-level and peer reviewed assertion."

Jones has no doctorate in structural engineering or forensic science. His paper has only been "peer-reviewed" by a political journal and he has been unsuccessful in getting any qualified person to do so.

Needless to say, Jones was debunked up and down and left and right and will soon fade into history as that reality dawns on the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Jones needs to go

If Jones really wanted to help the truth movement, he'd get out of the way and quit undermining the research of others with his junk science.

youre a moron

youre a moron

Debunk this.

I note your comment that, "You're going to have to believing those like Jones who have no qualifications......."
Whereas the author of the site that you mention is "trained in science"
Well that really convincing argument has changed my mind - NOT.
I'm feeling all left out now, so can you give us some more laughs by "debunking" my site.

Gordon Ross.


Although I've reviewed many of the key 9/11 truth sites, for some reason I just encountered yours for the first time.

I think it is extremely well done, and puts forwards very logical and cohesive expalantions for what happened in 2001.

It is a pity that researchers such as yourself have the burden of uncovering the truth, and amazing that you have done so without access to much material evidence, and incredible that the US government, which has complete access to these materials, can only concoct the most implausible explanations.

A laugh

I'm sorry Gordon if I offended you, but since you haven't presented a stitch of evidence of any explosives nor refuted NIST in any way whatsoever, you must realize that except for the 9/11 Denial Movement, you have no credibility whatsoever.

You know, maybe your right,

You know, maybe your right, I think we should all pack up and forget about the WHOLE thing. Who cares that our government has murdered 3000 of us on live television, traumatized millions, let the heroes who attempted to dig out survivors breathe in god knows what!? Who cares that another 3000 US Servicemen have sacrificed their lives for a lie to put forth a geo-political agenda hatched from the bowels of god knows where? Who cares that our US Constitution is has been systematically dismantled on the passage of the Patriot Act via the Anthrax attacks on our Congress while the White House was on Ciprol starting Sept 11th.


Thanks Anonymous for setting us straight!

lol... bastard

yeah seriously..

yeah seriously..

Gordon's analysis

It is uncanny how closely your conclusions fit...

You have a nice night.

Stop posting the same links over and over again...

We get it. You are trying to reach your post quota for your masters, but please try to be a bit more original in your postings.

How does it feel to be a patsy for the government?

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

NIST's Cover Up of WTC Demo

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.

No one ever claimed that multiple aircraft impact had been analyzed at the design stage. Frank A. DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said in a January 2001 interview that he believed the building was sufficiently resilient to sustain multiple impacts. Months later, he was lost after the North Tower collapsed. He had remained at the scene, helping with the evacuation on the upper floors.

However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

How convenient. A paper available here concluded that about 46% of the plane's initial kinetic energy was used up in damaging the exterior columns, and the minimum velocity required to penetrate these columns would be 130 m/s (291 mph). From my own analysis, the perimeter columns (around floor ninety-eight) were no more than about 48 pounds per lineal foot or 66 lb/lineal foot allowing for the spandrel plates; the core columns ranged from around 53 (the inner core) to 257 (outer core) pounds per lineal foot. (The core column mean was about 157 lb/lineal foot.) Most of the remaining 54% kinetic energy would have been dissipated in smashing some of the 4-inch concrete slab as the plane came to a halt. Relatively small fragments of debris would have caused little damage to W14x257 or W14x193 members. With the core columns aligned such that a flange was facing the incoming debris, even in the worst-case fire of kerosene burning over a few minutes followed by aircraft combustibles and an entire floor's office fuel load burning over 102 minutes, and even if all the fireproofing had been destroyed on the exposed flange, these outer core columns could have got up to only about 400 C maximum and would have retained at least 85% of their cold capacity.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707).

False. See this comparison at which includes links to Boeing's specifications pages. Moreover, the 767s which allegedly hit the Towers were lighter than a 707. It is generally agreed that they were only carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel on impact. The operational empty weight of a Boeing 767-200ER is a little over 80 tonnes. If we suppose 100 kg apiece for 81 passengers and their baggage, the total is 90 tonnes plus the fuel at 3.1 kg/gal or 31 tonnes, for a total of 121,000 kg or 266,757 lb - well short of the 336,000 lb maximum take-off weight of the 707.

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?

The Bronfmans would have had them shot or "suicided".

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns,

The amount of "dislodged" fireproofing would have been far too minimal to have any impact on the fact that the fires could not have raised the temperature of more than a tiny fraction, if any, of the steel to greater than the critical temperature at around 550 C. Not enough of the Cafco Blaze-Shield on the trusses would have been compromised - over a sufficient number of floors, and a sufficient area on each of these floors - for the effect of the fire(s) to have been enough to tip the balance from survival to catastrophic collapse. The Boeing 767-200 series has a fuselage diameter of about 16.5 feet, i.e. less than one-tenth the width of each Tower, and less than one and a half floors in height. The floor trusses originally had 3/4 inch of FRC; by September 2001 the entire impact zone of WTC 1 (floors 92 to 99) had been upgraded to 1.5 inches with Blaze-Shield II. The tested performance of Blaze-Shield II's cohesion / adhesion strength ranges from 360 to 399 psf compared with a standard performance of 150 psf; its compressive strength has been found to be from 1,700 to 2,380 psf.

"Preliminary calculations suggest that the resulting overpressures [from the fireballs] were less than 1 lb per square inch (PSI)...It is likely that the force of the impact and the speed with which debris travelled through the structures compromised the sprayed-on fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate areas of the impact."

Civil Engineering Magazine, May 2002

"The force of the impact and the resulting debris field and fireballs probably compromised spray-applied fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate area of impact. The exact extent of this damage will probably never be known..."

FEMA 403, Chapter Two, 2-24

An overpressure of "less than 1 psi", i.e. less than 144 psf.

It is fair to say that some of the FRC on some trusses in the immediate impact area was compromised by debris. The deflagration overpressure was far too low to damage fireproofing. The main damage area in WTC 1 would have been a rectangular section of some 17 feet in width and 60 feet in length from the north face to the core, and much of this tiny proportion of two or three floors would have been already destroyed by the impact. ("AA 11" had a descent angle of about 10 degrees, so 68 feet horizontally - taking it into the core - would correspond to a 12 feet height drop which makes for an extra floor albeit at reduced length of damage zone.) The west, south and east sides would have undergone relatively little damage in the inter ceiling-floor zone; floors above and below likewise. The truss-initiated collapse theory requires total collapse and removal of at least five floors, which would not have happened in 102 minutes of release of some 10^12 joules per floor with almost all of the truss FRC remaining even on the worst floors. Each WTC floor had about 56 tons of fireproofing, so the FRC over three floors at 168 tons was more massive than the plane and its fuel. The Blaze-Shield would not have been "blown" off the trusses.

Since the impacting debris (from "Flight 11") was approaching at a descent angle of about ten degrees, most of the trusses were shielded from this by four inches of solid concrete. Where the debris did not smash its way through the concrete, most of the FRC on the trusses would have remained intact. The height of the trusses was 29 inches, so from 29 inches / tan [10 degrees] we have 164 inches, say 14 feet, as the length of the strip where the truss bottom chord might have had its FRC compromised in places, beyond the extent of the smashed concrete. The width of the strip is 17 feet, from the diameter of the plane fuselage, so 14 x 17 feet is 238 square feet. At 207 feet by 207 feet, each floor was 42,849 square feet, so the area of possibly partially compromised bottom chord FRC is some 0.6% of the total floor area. Wing debris (from part of a single wing for a given floor due to the aircraft roll of about 25 degrees), and debris bouncing off a floor and smashing through ceiling tiles (which were 2 psf), could have added a little, but not enough to prefer the fire collapse theory over the controlled demolition theory.

and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing

False. See above.

to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1

The south face of the North Tower was, at worst, only hit by a few fragments of plane debris at relatively low velocity. If any South Tower debris had hit it, it would have impacted at too low a velocity to significantly damage columns. Sufficient fireproofing would have remained on the trusses to inhibit any mechanism for "sagging" of floors, and controlled demolition remains the only credible mechanism for collapse of at least five floors and / or initiation of global collapse.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,

The perpetrators had pre-selected the target floors. Explosives were rigged accordingly, and operators used Dov Zakheim's S.P.C.-built remote transceivers to fly the planes into the target floors. And as the thermite began to take out many of the core columns, perimeter column failure would have initiated at the weakest point.

and the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by

...when the operators in WTC 7 noticed that the office fires were going out.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.

Probably correct, although dust clouds render video footage inconclusive.

The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

My analysis of the WTC specifications concluded that the gravity load of floors 98 - 110 of WTC 1 was about 34,573 tons. The drag equation D=Cd*0.5*V^2*A*r derives from the laws of momentum. Where M1*V1 + M2*V2 = M1*Vf + M2*Vf in the case of an inelastic collision, the worst-case situation of all displaced particles from a fluid being forced to move in the direction of the moving solid rather than displaced sideways to flow around it would correspond to Cd = 2, hence D=V^2*A*r. A light office floor such as floor 97 had a total mass of 1,771 tons (316 tons superimposed dead load, 337 tons superimposed live load, 785 tons concrete dead load, and 333 tons steel dead load). Its volume was 207 x 207 x 12 = 514,188 cubic feet; hence its density was 6.889 pcf or 110.3 kg/m^3. Let's say 111 kg/m^3 including air.

So if we treat the intact solid section below as a "fluid", not allowing for the energy sink of pulverising the concrete and tearing apart the steel, and not allowing for the heavier mechanical floors and the heavier steel columns on the lower floors, and set Cd to 2 which cancels out the 0.5 in the original equation, we have 34,573 tons ~ 31,365,000 kg as the moving mass in a fluid of density 111 kg/m^3. The downforce from gravity is 9.806*31,365,000 = 307,565,190 N. From the uplift D=V^2*A*r we have V=SQR(D/(A*r)) to obtain the velocity where the uplift equals the downforce. From SQR(307,565,190/(4,000*111)) we find the terminal velocity is around V = 26.32 m/s or 86.35 fps or 58.87 mph. Even if the moving mass had progressed at a constant 86.35 fps from a height of 1,212 feet, it would take some 14 seconds for the former floor 98 to hit the ground. The thirteen-floor section was 156 feet, which adds another 1.8 seconds. Running simulations which start at zero velocity and compute the forces every 100 uS to 10 mS of simulated time, the times from a standing start are about 15.9 seconds plus 1.8 seconds for a total of 17.7 seconds.

Although the 9/11 commission report actually admitted that the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds, and NIST talks about the "times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground" at 11 and 9 seconds for WTC1 and WTC2 respectively, the official conspiracy theorist could claim that "the first exterior panels" fell outwards and avoided the more slowly moving interior. Times of some thirteen to sixteen seconds for WTC 1 are quite possible from the evidence, since there is a grey area of about eight seconds when the view was obscured by dust clouds. There is enough uncertainty here that the collapse time is not a particularly good argument for or against controlled demolition, although the collapse times and the nature of the collapses such as pulverization of concrete and lack of stutter tend to favor CD. The best argument for controlled demolition is the fact that all three skyscrapers did in fact collapse after remaining stable for many minutes following physical damage, when the presence of Cafco Blaze-shield or Monokote fire resistive coating on almost all of the steel (or all in the case of WTC 7) would have prevented all but a tiny fraction, at most, from reaching dangerously high temperatures.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass,

If the "Bin Laden office fires-induced collapse" hypothesis were true, the resistance would not have been "little".

the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

NIST said the building section "came down essentially in free fall", Larry Silverstein said that they decided to "pull" Building 7, and Rumsfeld spoke of "the missile" that damaged the Pentagon. However, convictions should ultimately be based upon physical evidence of crimes, rather than the criminals' own words.

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

Very convenient for the "Bin Laden" theorists. This hypothesis doesn't work for Building 7, which was not hit by an aircraft.

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

The consequence of this is that the fires are cooler. Under optimum (stoichiometry of phi = 1) conditions, some 17 MJ of heat would be released per kilogram of wood equivalent fuel burned. In the oxygen-depleted compartment fire, the heat liberated per kg of wood is reduced to about 11.5 MJ, or about 68% combustion efficiency.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. At least NIST are honest and realistic enough to admit that the aluminum did not burn and thereby generate heat, since that would have required it to have been in the form of flakes or a fine powder.

Suppose we take an (on the high side) estimate of 1000 C for flame and hot gas upper layer temperatures in very close proximity to a plate of aluminum alloy just as it is supposed to have melted. If the aluminum was at the low end of the aircraft fuselage skin thickness range at some 0.03 inches or 0.000762 m and its area was 0.485 m^2, this would place the volume of the piece around 0.00037 m^3 and hence its mass would be 0.00037 * 2700 kg/m^3 ~ one kilogram. The heat required to melt this is given by the temperature increase of (660 - 25) which is 635 degrees K times the heat capacity of 900 J/kg.K (it's actually more than this over the range up to 660 C) which comes to 571,500 J, plus 397 kJ for the latent heat of fusion, to give a total requirement of 968.5 kJ. After allowing for elements such as zinc in the alloy, the melting point, specific heat and enthalpy of fusion would be slightly lower.

So we have this piece of aircraft debris which just happens to have settled such that its 0.485 m^2 area side is squarely facing the radiant heat from the flames of burning office stationery, carpets, workstations, etc, and in a vertical position against the wall at the top of a window. Suppose it has already reached 660 C (or slightly less for the alloy), after absorbing the initial 571.5 kJ. The rate of radiant heat transfer is related to the difference in the fourth powers of the absolute temperatures of emitter and absorber:

P = e * lowercasesigma * A * (Te^4 - Ta^4)

For the moment, we suppose emissivity e = 1. Taking the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (lowercasesigma) as 5.6703 * 10^-8 W/m^2.K^4, we have:

P = 5.6703 * 10^-8 * 0.485 * (1273^4 - 933^4) = 51.382 kW.

(If the emitter temperature is lowered from 1000 to 900 C, P drops to 31.225 kW.)

At 397 kJ required to melt the 1 kg after it has reached the melting point, the time required is 397 / 51.382 = 7.726 seconds, or slightly less for the alloy, or almost 12.7 seconds assuming 900 C for the emitter temperature.

A major problem with the "melting aluminum" theory is that aluminum is a poor absorber of radiant heat. Although it is not unreasonable to take 1 as the emissivity of flames, aluminum has an emissivity of only about 0.1. This is why it is used as a reflector in infrared heaters. Also, for a thin plate of aluminum, some radiation would be transmitted through it. Moreover, the location by the window would result in a further 40% or so reduction. At 1000 C (flame) and 660 C (aluminum) the potential aluminum absorption is proportional to 1273^4 - 933^4, i.e. 1.868*10^12, and it would be likely to transmit an amount to the exterior proportional to 933^4 - 298^4, i.e. 7.499*10^11. If in close contact with the wall, it would conduct heat to it.

Most of the radiant heat striking the aluminum would be reflected back, and would probably end up being vented out to drive the smoke plume.

A ten-fold adjustment raises the minimum time for melting of the 660 C aluminum from the above 7.726 seconds to 77.26 seconds. Yet there was enough melting liquid to be clearly visible, and to sustain a four-second flow before subsiding. Even if the whole 1 kg had somehow resisted melting for 77 seconds whilst receiving heat at 660 C, and then the entire piece suddenly melted within a mere 4 seconds, aluminum only expands by about 12% when molten to a density of 2400 kg/m^3. So the 1 kg would have a volume of 417 ml which is barely more than the contents of a can of Coke. The video evidence shows that the flow was much more than 100 ml per second, and at times more like a "waterfall". And...

Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.

...which would be many, many kilograms of aluminum, and would require a greater energy source than a few burning papers and carpets in an office compartment fire.

There was aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but this was on the three exterior sides and on the wrong side of fire-resistant plaster. The flows of molten liquid support the theory that thermite or thermate played a part in weakening columns over the space of several minutes leading up to each collapse. It is hardly surprising that guards were immediately placed at the crime scene, Ground Zero, to prevent independent investigators from getting hold of samples of steel, and a couple of weeks later Mayor Giuliani even banned photography at the site.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

See above reply re the Bronfmans, which is the true answer here.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Thermite played a role in weakening the buildings in the minutes preceding collapse; other charges were used at collapse time. Some charges in the basement were either set off by the aircraft impact, or were detonated seconds sooner than planned. If "exploding jet fuel" had caused the reported basement explosions, the aircraft impact would have needed to have preceded the explosions by almost nine seconds, whereas eyewitnesses reported explosions actually before the impact of the plane. The official theory requires that "devout Muslim suicide pilots" (who were also gamblers, drinkers and womanizers), masterminded by a man in a cave, managed to elude airport CCTVs and the entire US Air Force as they flew around US airspace, somehow persuaded the pilots to hand over control of the planes whilst armed with nothing more than box cutters, knew how to turn off the transponders, developed the flying skills of crack fighter pilots after one of them was even refused permission to fly a Cessna, and successfully provided PNAC and Israel with the "new Pearl Harbor" that they desired as a pretext with which to invade oil-rich or opium-rich Muslim nations and hand over the armed forces of the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc as Israel's proxy army to fight its enemies for free; whilst at the same time providing the incident to "bury the bad news" of the previous day's announcement of a $2.3 trillion hole in the Pentagon's finances, and handing the new WTC leaseholder and insurance beneficiary billions or dollars into the bargain. This renders it an unlikely conspiracy theory even before we allow for the physical impossibility of three fireproofed steel-framed high-rises collapsing in a single day.

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.

Of course they found no such evidence, since that would have been impossible.

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.

Nonetheless, it is evidence of foul play. And it is a pretty good indication that some of the steel was molten at the time of collapse.

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 for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed.

...circumstances such as thermite reactions continuing shortly after collapse, and molten steel trapped within insulating piles of rubble.

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion

This is not possible with hydrocarbon combustion, especially in an oxygen-starved environment.

within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Consider the silly notion that the potential energy from the "massive collapse" might have been responsible for melting the steel. Let's suppose hundreds of thousands of tons of steel was travelling at 100 mph, and all of its kinetic energy was converted into heat in an inelastic collision and was used to heat the entire mass of steel. The kinetic energy is given by:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2

and the temperature rise of the steel is given by:

T2 - T1 = 0.5*m*v^2 / (c*m) = 0.5*v^2 / c

where c is the specific heat of the material.

The mass is irrelevant to the temperature increase, which is determined merely by the velocity and the specific heat. (The units are chosen so that units of mass and velocity correspond to the equivalent units in kinetic energy, and units of mass in the specific heat). So 100 mph = 44.7 m/s, and we'll take c for steel as 450 J/kg.K, which places the increase in temperature at:

0.5 * 44.7^2 / 450 = 2.22 degrees K.

The fire collapse theorist might suggest that there were relative "hot spots". But they would have to be far hotter than the mean. Even a hot spot that was 500 times the mean increase would only be at 1110 degrees above ambient temperature. Unless this happened to coincide with steel that had already been appreciably heated, it would not melt. And the total mass would not have been so unevenly distributed across the building's footprint and so clumped together at a particular point in collapse time that some points would experience a bump 500 times bigger than the mean, and other points would escape with 500 times below the mean. 400,000 tonnes distributed over an area of 4,000 square metres would average 100 tonnes per square metre. There would not be a square metre where 50,000 tonnes was piled up at 500 times the mean debris height, and another square metre in the footprint that only got hit by 200 kg of material.

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

In other words, NIST are still trying to concoct a work of fiction.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

The fire / debris-induced hypothesis requires replacing. The results are eagerly awaited.

Source, latest revision

what is Jones molten steel explanation?

Let's admit for a second that the towers have been rigged with these thermate devices for a controlled demolition. How would this result in molten steel pouring out of the corner of the tower prior to collapse?
I'm guessing that somehow the fires - maybe with help of jet fuel - ignite one of the devices, but aren't the steel columns located centrally in the tower, not close to the windows? Just curious.

The other thing I don't quite understand with the controlled demolition scenario - and I hope someone here can enlighten me - is this: how do the thermate devices, that as I understand would have sliced through the steel columns 'like butter', also result in explosions that pulverize the concrete in the towers to dust? Were there explosives on top of the thermate, or did the thermate have this double effect of both slicing, and explosion?

Am very interested in any answers, thanks.

molten steel explanation

You've raised several questions, but I'll try to be brief.
The steel columns were both inside, in the core, and around the perimeter.
You question the explosive nature of the demolition and whether this could be caused by thermite. There is no stricture on only using one type of charge so a combination of incendiary and explosive charges could easily be utilised. Advanced forms of thermite, using nanotechnology are more explosive in nature than basic thermite formulae.
Notice that the area from which the molten metal issues was an area which fits in to the pattern of charges identified on my site.
Your intuition regarding this particular charge being affected by the impact fits well with the scenario indicated on this site.
The most important point by far is that the molten metal is unexplained by any theory which involves only the aircraft impact, consequent fires and gravity only collapse. That is why we see NIST and the FK's desperately trying to dodge round this particular issue with some very strange claims.
If you have any further questions or comments and would like me to attempt some answers, please feel free to e-mail me using the address on my site,
Gordon Ross

Gordon, thanks for the reply

Gordon, thanks for the reply and for the link to your site, I was searching for some more in depth information on how the collapse could have been engineered, and am grateful for the analysis you have done there. I will be reading it in more detail.
One comment that comes to mind about the perimeter columns, is that I assume they were not accessible in similar fashion to the central ones (through the elevator shafts)? So access would have had to be through the offices? Would be interesting to see if any of the survivors in corner offices noticed anything.

Thermite/thermate devices

Question: "Let's admit for a second that the towers have been rigged with these thermate devices for a controlled demolition. How would this result in molten steel pouring out of the corner of the tower prior to collapse?"

Response: It is curious that the molten substance is dripping from the side of WTC2 which appears to be most damaged. Hypothetically speaking: Let us assume that the patented devices as discussed above (or a similar facimile) were placed on certain beams. If the plane impact caused some of the devices to be moved from their set positions on the beams, then the result we see would be expected. The geometry of placement is extremely important to the successful cutting action of the device and any movement may result in (A: a catastrophic result, or (B: the high velocity jet partialy cutting a particular target material, or (C: The device, once skewed, would haphazardly react on any target material then in extant of its path, or a combination.

qwanto said, "Let's admit

qwanto said, "Let's admit for a second that the towers have been rigged with these thermate devices for a controlled demolition."

I say, yes! lets do that all day long...

qwanto said, "How would this result in molten steel pouring out of the corner of the tower prior to collapse?" and
..."aren't the steel columns located centrally in the tower, not close to the windows?"

I say, yes!, but there were perhaps many thermate devices up and down the core columns (and maybe perimeter walls too)..some damaged yes..spraying white hot iron onto the slanted/broken concrete floor...running downhill out the window.(most of it went to the basement dude..)

qwanto said, "how do the thermate devices, that as I understand would have sliced through the steel columns 'like butter', also result in explosions that pulverize the concrete in the towers to dust? Were there explosives on top of the thermate, or did the thermate have this double effect of both slicing, and explosion?"

I say, exellent question! the answer is, There were three different types of "explosives" used at ground zero that day,witnessed by many people and cameras!

# 1.

several large basement explosions to disturb the tower foundations hence putting stress on the towers.


a "minimum of no less than" 47 diagonal cut- Thermate charges were then set off,(there were probably hundreds) one by one, until all core columns were severed... thereby causing the upper core columns to "slip off"(down and sideways) initiating collapse. then..


...THEN...GROUPS of charges...every floor...high explosive shattering rdx type stuff...up in the ceiling tiles...up against the steel floorpans above...shattering the concrete and everything else in the building...many per floor...set off from the top down by radio control...everything turned to dust in midair.

NIST are traitors

That's the only thing clear here. No amount of bullshit can undo the truth.

Are NIST engineers allowed

Are NIST engineers allowed to disagree publicly?
Under Bush, most public employees cannot do that.

If NIST engineers cannot, their reply has been even further degraded.

A new investigation must be opened immediately.

Anyone who disagrees is afraid of the truth.
That's all there is to it.

I doubt they are...

Check this link:

There are probably even more severe strictures on NIST engineers than on the EPA..

Here's the beginning paragraphs of the article:

Bush Declares Eco-Whistleblower Law Void for EPA Employees
Stealth Repeal of Clean Water Act Protections by Invoking "Sovereign Immunity"
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Published: Sep 4, 2006 at 08:40

The Bush administration has declared itself immune from whistleblower protections for federal workers under the Clean Water Act, according to legal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result of an opinion issued by a unit within the Office of the Attorney General, federal workers will have little protection from official retaliation for reporting water pollution enforcement breakdowns, manipulations of science or cleanup failures.

Citing an "unpublished opinion of the [Attorney General's] Office of Legal Counsel," the Secretary of Labor's Administrative Review Board has ruled federal employees may no longer pursue whistleblower claims under the Clean Water Act. The opinion invoked the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity which is based on the old English legal maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." It is an absolute defense to any legal action unless the "sovereign" consents to be sued.

The opinion and the ruling reverse nearly two decades of precedent. Approximately 170,000 federal employees working within environmental agencies are affected by the loss of whistleblower rights.

"The Bush administration is engineering the stealth repeal of whistleblower protections," stated PEER General Counsel Richard Condit, who had won several of the earlier cases applying environmental whistleblower protections to federal specialists. "The use of an unpublished opinion to change official interpretations is a giant step backward to the days of the secret Star Chamber." PEER ultimately obtained a copy of the opinion under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a more extreme position that absolutely no environmental laws protect its employees from reprisal. EPA's stance would place the provisions of all major federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, beyond the reach of federal employees seeking legal protection for good faith efforts to enforce or implement the anti-pollution provisions contained within those laws.

Can aluminium glow or not?

Can aluminium glow or not? It's a shame the debate has degenerated to arguing about something that should be easy to resolve. Want to discredit Dr. Jones? Just describe a way to make molten aluminum glow. Don't just show a photograph or a video, but describe a experiment that others can reproduce.

all metals glow as a

all metals glow as a function of temperature, the hotter, the color moves towards white hot.

What makes aluminum easy to rule out as far as WTC2 is that it is highly reflective, even while in a molten state. So while it may be glowing in a dark room, it will not appear to be glowing in a lit room (or in daylight).


It is much like the electric stoves, the rings can appear to glow let say on low to medium in a dark kitchen, but turn on the light and the coils appear cool to the touch, no glowing in bright light conditions.


Also when looking at a LARGE pool of molten aluminum, the glowing is more prevelent, but when it is pouring it is less evident. 

So Prof. Jones' experiments fit the criteria for the molten metal pouring out of WTC2, while the paper authored by Wood does not in any way.

Remember people, the only way that disinformation can work is if you fail to critically analyze the results and conclusions presented.



imgstack said:
"It is much like the electric stoves, the rings can appear to glow let say on low to medium in a dark kitchen, but turn on the light and the coils appear cool to the touch, no glowing in bright light conditions."

Is this the same imgstack that said:

"Remember people, the only way that disinformation can work is if you fail to critically analyze the results and conclusions presented."

So those glowing red rings "appear cool to the touch?" This is complete hogwash.

I bet you once took the bet about sticking the pencil through one ear and getting it out the other? Do you still do that experiment?

No but I once fell prey to

No but I once fell prey to my older brother who dared me to touch a stove top that APPEARED to be cold, and received a ring of blisters around my hand when I was 7 years old.


Your campaign to deceive fails with just one word added to your argument, DAYLIGHT. All of your examples are in darkened conditions, which in no way matches the conditions seen as the molten metal poured out of WTC2 minutes before it collapsed in 10 seconds.

Government Meltdown via Molten Metal

1. NIST states the stream of molten metal pouring out of the WTC is "conistent with aluminum"

2. Assuming some heat source (such as burning aviation fuel and/or desks, carpets, and chairs) can melt the aluminum from an aircraft, it seems reasonable to assume THAT ONCE THE ALUMINUM MELTS, IT LIQUIFIES, MOVES AWAY FROM THE HEAT SOURCE, AND IS NO LONGER EXPOSED TO HEATING. In other words, it appears likely that any molten aluminum in the WTC WOULD NEVER BE EXPOSED TO A CAPTIVE CRUCIBLE IN A LABORATORY Environment that would heat it well above it's melting temperature.

3. Furthermore, the absurd, desperate, and ridiculous argument from NIST that the red-orange color of the WTC metal is due to conmingling with burning carpets is SO STUPID AND ILLOGICAL that it exposes the NIST are not acting as honest brokers, but as sleazy butchers making sausage from the filthy by-products of the slaugher of innocent civilians. innocent "lambs" who gave their lives in order that the AWOL cokehead George Walker Bush could become the most powerful man in the history of our planet.

NIST should do experiments

NIST should do experiments to test their "wild" theories about what happened on 9/11/2001, if they want to learn the truth about it.

-- Prof. Steven Jones 

If you want to see aluminum glow, just heat it!

If you want to see aluminum glow, heat it to the appropriate temperature. It's like a burner on an electric stove; the hotter it gets, the brighter it glows.

The temperature at which aluminum melts is below the glowing temperature for all metals, as shown in the picture below.

Barely melted aluminum on a tungsten substrate.
(Click on photo to enlarge.)

From the temperature chart, it looks like both the tungsten and the aluminum are at least 930°C.

For more information, see Michael Zebuhr's demonstration that Aluminum Glows

More Faulty Logic

In point #13 NIST says: "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. "

This is obvious backwards & pathological science and logic. They assume their hypothesis or "conclusion" is true, and they only consider data to support their assertion. They even verge on declaring their hypothesis as a self-evident axiom.

Furthermore, as if to feebly justify their criminal "reasoning", they boldface admit that they consider steel (molten or otherwise) in the wreckage "irrelevant" by irrationally claiming it provides no evidence, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out in his "requirement of total evidence" argument. This is like saying the body of a homicide victim is irrelevant and no autopsy needs to be done to determine if and how a murder was committed because it is just assumed/accepted/believed that the individual died of natural causes or suicide.

This NIST 14 point so-called "faqs" is completely full of contradictions and disinfo. They claim to refute the pancake theory and say the floor trusses "pulled" the perimeter vertical beams inward. If that is the case, then why are there so many pics of steel beams flying upwards and outwards for hundreds of feet from the wtc?

These guys are totally preposterous. Everything they say is completely false, and furthermore their logic and reasoning doesn't even make sense. They use the same false logic and mind-bending techniques as Jonathon Moseley, as I described in my previous blog on him.

NIST is government agency, an arm of the Commerce Department, part of the executive branch. Another case of the executive branch investigating itself.

We've got to get a real independent investigation going and put these treasonous murderers on trial so justice can be served and we can take our country back! I call for a citizens' grand jury and a prosecutor who has the guts to do something about this! We have more than enough evidence to obtain many indictments!

That's all I want to know

How do we get these mass-murdering scumbags into a courtroom?

Anonymous misses the boat--completely!

A small point: My response to Question 14 was inadvertently omitted:

NOTE: WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after
Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it". NIST
would like to bury it because it displayed all the characteristics of classic
controlled demolitions, including complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its
own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, at about the
speed of free fall (6.6 seconds compared to 6.0), an event so embarrassing to
the official account it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
If NIST is doing more, that is because its original studies are clearly inadequate
as, indeed, has been demonstrated by the comments made here about its "answers".

A large point. Anonymous says there is "no evidence" of the use of explosives
or of controlled demolition. But the combined effects of airplane collisions and
jet-fuel-based fires would not have weakened much less melted the steel nor
could a "pancake collapse" have occurred under those conditions. Both of the
towers were blown up from the top/down by some massive source of energy,
which not only pulverized the concrete flooring material and the furniture in
the offices, while turning living things into tiny specks, but tossed steel beams
outward and even upward with great force. The South Tower was destroyed
in 10 seconds, the North in 9, which is faster than the rate of free fall and not
physically possible absent the use of powerful explosives. In addition, NIST
had acknowledged finding residue of sulphur on steel beams and Steve Jones
has found traces of termite on others. In addition, pools of molten metal were
still observed in the subbasements three, four, and five weeks later. What is
there about all of this that you do not understand? Only the use of controlled
demolition is even remotely compatible with the evidence and can explain it.

Why Silverstein's "Pull It" DID NOT Mean Pull the Firefighters

It is incredible to watch the "holocaust deniers" and "WTC debunkers" try to hide their tracks, just like their Nazi forefathers claimed they reall mean to relocate the Jews, and not to incinerate them.

The most obvious canard is the attempt to gloss over Larry Silversteins comment to "pull it" with regard to WTC7. There are interpretations that this means to pull the firefighters, which of course would have been expressed as "pull THEM'. The next line of defense is that this means to pull the building using cables and such, which of course is absolute nonsense in this context.

But the final nail in the coffin for these liars is to look at Silverstein's statement in it's ENTIRETY and IN CONTEXT, instead of just the phrase "pull it", which is followed immediately by the phrase "And they MADE THAT DECISION TOO PULL AND WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE".

The last and most desperate line of defense is that this slip is so incriminating that it must be excused, just as Rumsfeld's prediction before the 1st impact in the WTC that some awesome terrorist attack was in the wings, and his statement after the 1st impact that another event was coming up. These criminals have it made: the more incriminating they are, the more we must excuse them, because the statements are SO INCRIMINATING !!!!

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

More comments on NIST's "Frequently Asked Questions"

Good comments, Shalom! I can't believe that anyone would continue to
defend any other interpretation. You are right on target! Many thanks.

Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST and the World Trade Center: Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman

Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer

Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier

Responses to NIST's FAQs
Kevin Ryan

Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs
Charles Pegelow

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice

Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones

More comments on NIST's "Frequently Asked Questions"

Good comments, Shalom! I can't believe that anyone would continue to
defend any other interpretation. You are right on target! Many thanks.

Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST and the World Trade Center: Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman

Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer

Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier

Responses to NIST's FAQs
Kevin Ryan

Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs
Charles Pegelow

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice

Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones