Shane Geiger moved to NYC to find WTC dust. He did excellent things that are not well known. He asked the hard questions. He kept AE focused on the scientific method. His actions are still effecting our future.
He passed away suddenly from a blood clot due to an ankle injury in August 2011.
Shane insisted on the scientific method and often pointed out logical fallacies. He had a sharp mind and a tender heart and is missed. He thrived on calling out Sunder's bullshit. I wonder what happened to his dust samples?
Earlier today I was searching for videos of bona fide building collapses. I thought a great video might be to show Building 7 side-by-side collapses as well as side-by-side other demolitions. To compare and contrast, as it were in a single 1 minute video. People respond to the side-by-side demo already. That might do more to affect someone than whole books of analysis. Anyway, I found a few examples of concrete buildings tipping over due to earthquakes, but I could not find any skyscrapers collapsing. I did see nice examples of failed demolitions, which in itself underscores the fantasy of the NIST story...... A single column failure won't be MORE successful in destroying a skyscraper than a failed demolition! A planned and executed demolition that's a failure does far more harm to the stability of a building than an unseated girder --- yet the unseated girder exceeds the damage of a botched demolition to equal the effect of a successful demolition?! That's some crackpot stuff.
This is the first I have been seeing that picture of John Gross next to that melted girder. Is that recently released somehow? Do we know when/where it was taken? I am presuming at ground zero. It belongs right after his denial in Blueprint/ESO. Good video however. Gets a lot of info in a short time. bravo.
There are many, many, many undiscovered things at 911datasets.org. It's too much data for a few people to go through. If you find interesting files, send me the direct links and I'll post them @ 911encyclopedia.com.
Does this accurately characterize the NIST position on molten steel. Here's the way I understand it.
During the investigation: NIST (John Gross) denied reports of molten steel and evidence of molten steel.
Meanwhile Gross is photographed 3 times posing with this evidence. NIST ignored the FEMA Appendix C evidence for the eutectic steel as well as the USGS and RJ Lee evidence for iron-rich microspheres in WTC dust. Gross further dismissed that there COULD be any molten steel since that would require 2,700 degrees F. and the fires were nowhere near that hot.
NIST final report makes no mention of molten steel.
NIST Q&A later admitted that reports of molten steel witnessed by first responders and clean-up crew would have been due to "combustion in the pile." So they admitted the possibility of molten steel but waved off its significance, as if steel-melting combustion in an oxygen starved pile drenched with water is a typical thing. Further they say that any molten steel would be irrelevant because we don't know the condition of the steel before 9/11.
When pressed about the FEMA evidence they claimed it could not be identified as belonging to WTC 7, so they didn't deal with it. (It wasn't accounted for in their TT report either). They made no formal attempt to justify its existence as being due to sulfur from gypsum, but others supporting the official story and NIST report have.
So they have admitted the possibility of molten steel but are waving off its importance, after having denied it and said it would be impossible.
Nice summation
This will cause heads to blow off from cognitive dissonance. If they ever see it.
I miss Shane
Shane Geiger moved to NYC to find WTC dust. He did excellent things that are not well known. He asked the hard questions. He kept AE focused on the scientific method. His actions are still effecting our future.
He passed away suddenly from a blood clot due to an ankle injury in August 2011.
RIP buddy, and thank you.
-Justin
Agree JK
Shane insisted on the scientific method and often pointed out logical fallacies. He had a sharp mind and a tender heart and is missed. He thrived on calling out Sunder's bullshit. I wonder what happened to his dust samples?
Earlier today I was searching for videos of bona fide building collapses. I thought a great video might be to show Building 7 side-by-side collapses as well as side-by-side other demolitions. To compare and contrast, as it were in a single 1 minute video. People respond to the side-by-side demo already. That might do more to affect someone than whole books of analysis. Anyway, I found a few examples of concrete buildings tipping over due to earthquakes, but I could not find any skyscrapers collapsing. I did see nice examples of failed demolitions, which in itself underscores the fantasy of the NIST story...... A single column failure won't be MORE successful in destroying a skyscraper than a failed demolition! A planned and executed demolition that's a failure does far more harm to the stability of a building than an unseated girder --- yet the unseated girder exceeds the damage of a botched demolition to equal the effect of a successful demolition?! That's some crackpot stuff.
Dust
Shane collected sources, not actual samples. He was all about the chain of custody and didnt want to insert himself into it.
John Gross at the pile?
This is the first I have been seeing that picture of John Gross next to that melted girder. Is that recently released somehow? Do we know when/where it was taken? I am presuming at ground zero. It belongs right after his denial in Blueprint/ESO. Good video however. Gets a lot of info in a short time. bravo.
dtg
Thank David Cole (kawika)
Originals here:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/NIST_FOIA_12-057_Feb_07_2012
The Gross pics (among other people you will recognize) are in the folder:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/SFolder:WQEO747PTQ6JALMVDD5HYIWULETIKJ2H
direct link:
http://911datasets.org/images/NIST_FOIA_12-057_Feb_07_2012.torrent
There are many, many, many undiscovered things at 911datasets.org. It's too much data for a few people to go through. If you find interesting files, send me the direct links and I'll post them @ 911encyclopedia.com.
Thank you
Damning pictures indeed. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting pics indeed
I had meant to put a speech bubble in his pics "What steel?"
speech bubble etc
That would make a good poster.
NIST position on melted steel
Does this accurately characterize the NIST position on molten steel. Here's the way I understand it.
During the investigation: NIST (John Gross) denied reports of molten steel and evidence of molten steel.
Meanwhile Gross is photographed 3 times posing with this evidence. NIST ignored the FEMA Appendix C evidence for the eutectic steel as well as the USGS and RJ Lee evidence for iron-rich microspheres in WTC dust. Gross further dismissed that there COULD be any molten steel since that would require 2,700 degrees F. and the fires were nowhere near that hot.
NIST final report makes no mention of molten steel.
NIST Q&A later admitted that reports of molten steel witnessed by first responders and clean-up crew would have been due to "combustion in the pile." So they admitted the possibility of molten steel but waved off its significance, as if steel-melting combustion in an oxygen starved pile drenched with water is a typical thing. Further they say that any molten steel would be irrelevant because we don't know the condition of the steel before 9/11.
When pressed about the FEMA evidence they claimed it could not be identified as belonging to WTC 7, so they didn't deal with it. (It wasn't accounted for in their TT report either). They made no formal attempt to justify its existence as being due to sulfur from gypsum, but others supporting the official story and NIST report have.
So they have admitted the possibility of molten steel but are waving off its importance, after having denied it and said it would be impossible.