Van Romero talks about his 9/11 "Retraction"
Van Romero stated that within a week or so of 9/11 he learned that the fireproofing, (SFRM -Sprayed Fire Resistive Material) was blown off by the jet impact, thereby exposing the steel to very hot fires which weakened the steel. He said, "...exposed beams, hot fire..."
Really? How did he learn this?
Sounds to me like he wanted to end the nagging phone calls about his earlier common sense observations.
How about it Van? Can you please tell us, where this SFRM failure evidence came from?
Even if there was SFRM failure, it would have only occurred in a relatively small area, especially in the South Tower where most of the damage was confined to the East side on a few floors. Even if the SFRM failed, the capacity for steel and concrete to wick the heat away remained an important factor.
Am I wrong or wasn't the idea that the fireproofing was knocked off not put forward until much much later? The wasn't anymore new information 10 days after the attack than there was the day after the attack to make any determination about what caused the complete destruction of the towers. What a lying sack of crap he is. His retraction wasn't so much forced as it was likely bought.
What about the simple physics Mr. Romero? What force was keeping the top portions of the buildings together while they crushed the stronger bottom portions? I was suspicious from day one when I saw the towers come down. The reason for my suspicions was this very question; How could such a small piece of the building destroy such a bigger piece all the way to the ground? Even though I wasn't alive when Kennedy was killed, I still had grave doubts about the story I was hearing. What kept in the dark for so long was the size and scale of the operation. I just couldn't believe they could get away with such a large crime without the press and everyone crying foul. It took a long time and me watching building 7 come down in the first zeitgeist film before my trance was broken. Obviously Van Romero is still in his.
Maybe this one will wake him up.
was first brought up by NIST circa 2003-2004. Trust me, there is no hint for any such claim beforehand.
Regardless, it's BS. The core columns were protected by gypsum wallboard, not SFRM.
The only paper he could have read 10 days after 911 was the one of Bazant.
1) Van Romero says that more data came out after the first article, and this contributed to his CD denial. The only specific thing he mentions (which Thomas mentions first) is that insulation was (allegedly) blown off the beams by the plane explosion - enough to cause the entire floors to give way.
Is this true, in the sense that by the time of the 2nd article, NIST/FEMA were claiming the explosion had blown off the insulation, and in sufficient quantity to lead to collapse?
If so, how were they claiming to have discerned this; did they find the steel from those floors, and some how rule out it had come off in the total destruction?
If no authoritative agency claimed this by the time of Romero's retraction, then this is evidence of Thomas and Romero engaging in a deception, or of being woefully misinformed in a way that undermines both their credibility and the official 'collapse' story.
2) Romero says he learned after his retraction that the WTC towers were DESIGNED to collapse inward, so they wouldn't fall to the side and hit other buildings.
Is this true; does any official source claim these buildings were designed to collapse?
WTF? They were designed to hold up 2-5 times their own weight - but collapse inward if pressures somehow exceeded that amount?
Was this a standard engineering/code requirement for the design of skyscrapers at that time?
Never mind the fact that they exploded outward on all sides ...
I can't take it! Why are they fooled by junk-science and BS propaganda? They must read Popular Mechanics!
"We learned that there were exposed beams, a hot fire and...it's..this..this very straight-forward, uh, reasoning that that hot fire, uh, with those exposed beams exposed to that hot fire caused the beams to collapse."
Hot Fire + Exposed Beams + Exposure to Hot Fire = The same thing that explosions look like.
It was most certainly blown off -----during the controlled demolition------ in areas and on floors where the jet DID NOT impact. There would have been few pieces in the debris pile with SFRM still adhering.
If nanothermite was placed on the underside of the floor pans, say goodbye to not only the pans, but all the SFRM nearby on the trusses. The demolition that pulverized concrete and drywall would surely take care of flimsy SFRM at the same time.
The only things still standing are Romero's job and the gov't grants for energetic materials research and New Mexico Tech.
It's striking that the release of this video basically coincides with the publication of the Harit/Jones peer-reviewed energetic materials paper. If New Mexico Tech has nothing to hide, one would think they would go out of their way, being the experts they are, to participate and review the findings of the paper and samples. If they have soemthing to hide, one would expect denial.
The motivation behind this video is pretty transparent. (and they are pretty lousy liars, if you ask me)