Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/evidenc ... scientific-forensic-facts.html
Published: Oct 15, 2010
Author: Richard Gage
Post Date: 2010-10-15 12:46:42 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 109
Comments: 4

Ed. – This is the actual 10-minute statement read by Richard Gage, AIA, to the media at the AE911Truth press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC on September 9, 2010.

Good afternoon, my name is Richard Gage, AIA. I’m a member of the American Institute of Architects; I’ve been a licensed architect for 22 years; And I’m the founder of the non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

As a group, we now have more than 1,270 architect and engineer petition signers. Collectively, we have more than 25,000 years of building and technical experience. This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters today in 65 [it turned out to be 67] locations around the world, including 30 states and 4 countries.

Today, we’re here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse. The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications.

For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe. Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts pyro

This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.

Even before the microspheres and red/gray chips had been identified and brought to our attention, we were deeply concerned about other aspects of the destruction of these iconic buildings, and how they were investigated. More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises. Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel. A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F — far more than is needed to melt iron or steel, which melts at about 2750°F.

The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Center – and why. Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts excav

This need makes it all the more disturbing that top engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any reports of – molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.

They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned, such as:

1. Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds – which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.

2. More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations. These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen

3. Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.

4. 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.

5. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other. Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts wtc7 filmstrip

6. The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 ½ seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 ½ seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.

There are other falsehoods and omissions in NIST’s official report:

1. NIST overstated the severity and duration of the fires in all three skyscrapers, apparently in order to more credibly attribute the destruction to the fires, yet without exaggerating them enough to account for molten iron or steel.

2. NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues.

3. NIST did not test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis.

4. NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos.

5. NIST claims that the falling section of each of the Twin Towers, above the jetliner impact zones, crushed the much larger and more massive intact lower section. But [in the case of the North tower,] video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]. This indicates that the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower [section].

6. NIST’s technical analysis into the twin towers’ collapses stops at the “initiation of collapse.” There is no technical analysis of the structural behavior of the building during the collapse itself. In response to our Request for Correction on this matter, NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence.

This week, here in Washington, DC, we personally delivered our DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The SF Press Conference Edition,” which included highlights of the forensic evidence, into the hands of staffers for the science advisors of every elected representative on Capitol Hill. In addition, we have sat down with over a dozen of them and presented in detail the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition. We have personally invited over 400 of them to today’s event. How many Congressional science advisors are here today? [None].

I urge you to go to our website AE911Truth.org for more information, including comments by our members on the problems with the official investigation. At this point, we are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to ask a federal grand jury to investigate those responsible for the NIST report, including Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder and Co-Project Leader John Gross.

We’d like any and all reporters who will be covering this story to know that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are here to give you any technical support you need.

Finally, I’d like to thank the thousands of scientists, senior level members of the military, intelligence and other government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, firefighters, scholars and university professionals, 9/11 survivors and their family members and concerned citizens here and around the world for their continuing support.

We also want to thank our growing family of more than three hundred sustaining financial supporters. We could not do this without you.

Now, I will answer any quick questions you may have. Keep in mind that most of your questions will probably be answered during the Mock Debate – which will be starting in just a minute. Also, more detailed information is available in our DVD, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction, which is available on our website AE911Truth.org.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Horse (#0) (Edited)

The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust.

Has anybody checked those nano-specks for Hebrew lettering and text? When the Pope went to Israel, they gave him a nano-Bible or nano-Old Testament so I'm only being partially sarcastic about the encoded lettering question. The microspheres sound to me like residue from Carbon Arc Gouging that could have been scooped up from a welding area and planted in the alleged dust samples. Has anybody even asked if the original supposed sample from some woman's apartment or any of the alleged samples might have been contaminated or planted? Not that I've seen and don't believe the chain of said evidence should be accepted on faith in Stephen Jones, Niels Harrit, et al., or their guesstimation proclamations of thermite/thermate viewed as "Gospel".

P.S. Carbon Arc Gougers also sound like explosions. They are like welding erasers and could have been used to cut through the WTC beams.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-10-15   17:26:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: GreyLmist (#1)

The whole damn point of nanothermite being found in the WTC dust is that nanothermite is not available outside either a US or Israeli government restricted access lab. That proves it was an inside job. The government did plant Mohammed Atta's passport even though there is no proof he boarded the plane.

The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie

Horse  posted on  2010-10-15   18:20:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Horse (#2) (Edited)

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
http://www.journalof911studies.com...WhyIn d eedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
http://fedgeno.com/documents/wtc-investigation.pdf

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Provenance of the Samples Analyzed for this Report

In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction [6], a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings.

It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig. (1).

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape [17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7, which fell hours later.

On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of 1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm). Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and, on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.

Another sample was collected from the apartment building at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008 for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each sample verifying that he had personally collected the (now split) sample; he wrote:

“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’ World Trade Center Towers, was collected from my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission to use my name in connection to this evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence of a witness who also signed his name].

On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006 paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November 2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms. MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored. She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.

Another dust sample was collected by an individual from a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore his material is not included in this study. That sample, however, contained red/gray chips of the same general composition as the samples described here.

_____

I suppose we can call that last alleged individual "Harry Potter" and guess that his alleged sample surfaced sometime between the 2006 online request and 2009 when that paper was published. Ms. MacKinlay could be yet another shadowy art student in the 9/11 saga. I wonder if her new California location is anywhere in the vicinity of Jones' Los Alamos stomping grounds. At best, that sample was unguarded for a week before it was found. What's the odds of two day- old samples surfacing on the same street from two different addresses and both being sent on the same date? Should we call those guys "The Hudson Brothers"? -- a 70's pop music group with their own television show who've been compared to the Marx Brothers, one of whom was married to two comediennes, Goldie Hawn and Cindy Williams of "Laverne and Shirley"? And maybe Mr. Delessio and Mr. Breidenbach are salesmen who would like to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge. We're just supposed to believe all of their stories about dubiously collected and stored dust several years old. Thermite, nano or otherwise, is not positively identified in the papers linked above, just extrapolated as a hypothesis. Jones points to "molten metal" pouring from the WTC as if that's evidence of thermite nearby but there's no proof that it even was molten metal, just his insistence that's what it was. Dust doesn't have to contain thermite to burn but how strange is it that NYC didn't ignite from a thermitic dust storm swirling around the fires? Thermite doesn't explain things either like burned vehicles and unscorched paper flying around and the dustification of buildings 110 stories tall. The buildings were reportedly aluminum cladded so it's not unusual if the dust had large amounts of aluminum in it. Proving 9/11 was an Inside Job doesn't hinge on faith in whatever "Weird Science" Jones and Co. have to say just because they said so.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-10-16   1:57:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Horse (#0) (Edited)

One of the more interesting pieces of evidence is from omissions.

In 2007 there was a decision in a major lawsuit brought by Industrial Risk Insurers against the Port Authority and Citigroup, in the Second Circuit. Industrial Risk Insurers v. Port Authority of NY & NJ (2d Cir, July 12, 2007) 493 F.3d 283. What was argued and not argued is significant.

In this case, Industrial Risk, the insurer for the Silverstein cooperative that had leased the WTC from the Port Authority, sued the Port Authority and Citigroup Global Markets Holdings - the current incarnation of Smith Barney, Citigroup Inc. and others who had been the major tenants of WTC7 - claiming that Port Authority and Citigroup had, prior to the leasing of WTC7 to the Silverstein group, made structural alterations to WTC7 which made it more vulnerable to the sort of fire that destroyed it on Sept. 11th, and therefore they owed some compensation to Industrial Risk, which had paid off on the insurance for the building.

Among the risky alterations made by the defendants was designing and constructing throughout the building a diesel fuel system that pumped diesel fuel through the entire building at all times.

The Court noted that WTC7 was a 47-story building that had "burned wildly" for seven hours before collapsing.

Now, the defendants had been able to fend off Industrial Risk's suit but - and this is the significant part - without ever suggesting that the collapse of WTC7 was an inside job or that there was anything suspicious about either the fire or the collapse. With many millions riding on this case, the defendants would surely have raised this suggestion if they thought it had the slightest plausibility. The fact that they didn't suggest it, even when they were at risk for millions of dollars, is highly persuasive that the people with the most knowledge of the building and the fire knew that there was no such possibility.

Shoonra  posted on  2010-11-19   8:02:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest