De grote 9/11 topic

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Voor de zichtbare instorting vond er binnen ook al vanalles plaats zoals het instorten van vloeren, buigen van kolommen . Dergelijke zaken maken geluid .

vallende liften en mensen niet vergeten...

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pastafarian

Is dat het zinnigste dat je te zeggen hebt? Wat betreft het thermiet-fabeltje:

- Thermiet is nog nooit voor een controlled demolition gebruikt, er is geen enkele zinnige reden waarom dat gebruikt zou worden in plaats van de gebruikelijke springstoffen.
- Thermiet maakt geen rechte sneden in staal, zoals op de foto's die de truthers zo graag tonen.
- De zogenaamde thermietresten in het puin zijn stoffen die je in ieder gebouw vindt, beweren dat die alleen van thermiet konden komen is onzin.

Kortom, dood en begraven, die bullshit!

als je de truthers tegenspreek en ze zitten zonder argumenten volgen automatisch de beledigingen ... niet aantrekken !
Leuk nog eens een zinnig mens hier tegen te komen

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Diego Raga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJR0fWpnH0

't Word pas écht leuk rond de 2-de minuut.

Wsl was dat een gesmolten koffiezetje of zo, dat eruit stroomt als gesmolten staal...

eerder het gesmolten passagierstoestel...

[Diego Raga]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

eerder het gesmolten passagierstoestel...

Ja, mss zo'n speciaal XXXL-formaat voor zware passagiers, verstevigt met poutrels om skyscrapers te stutten...

Bekijk het nog eens en zet de video stil op 1.51 -1.54 - 2.04 - 2.21 - 2.24 en 2.36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJR0fWpnH0

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Diego Raga

Ja, mss zo'n speciaal XXXL-formaat voor zware passagiers, verstevigt met poutrels om skyscrapers te stutten...

Bekijk het nog eens en zet de video stil op 1.51 -1.54 - 2.04 - 2.21 - 2.24 en 2.36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJR0fWpnH0

Vergeet niet dat aluminium dat van vast naar vloeibaar overgaat bij ~ 660° C zilverachtig wit is.

Dada aluminiumlegering van een stukje gecrasht vliegtuigdeel.

En men ziet daar duidelijk geen witte of zilverachtige kleur naar beneden vallen, maar "oranjegeel".

En ook de debunkers zijn hiermee debunked:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/200...flow-from.html

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Debunking Molten Aluminium Flow From South Tower

Debunkers such as RKOWENS and disinformationist Judy Wood have tried to discredit the truth movement with lies or misunderstandings on basic laws of physics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzM...e=channel_page

I think we all can agree that the material flowing from the south tower has a orange-yellow appearance.

This indicates a temperature of 980C - 1050C leaning on the heavy side as it looks more yellow than orange.




This is due to two laws of physics

"Emissivity—This is a dimensionless constant, the ratio of the energy radiated by a material to the energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. This is the total energy across the emission spectrum. Emissivity is a number less than or equal to 1."

"Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency."

Some claim that its possible for the material flowing from the south tower to be aluminium, they claim the aluminium is heated to 980c thus giving it a orange yellow colour.

Aluminium melts at 660C at which temperature is looks silvery

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron.

Here is a video example of aluminium being heated in a container to 980c or 1800 F...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVA...e=channel_page

As you can see the aluminium cools rapidly to a silvery colour, as metals are a great conductor of heat.

The molten material flowing from the south tower even remains orange yellow during its whole descent.

Ironically for debunkers NIST knows this and agrees that the molten material is not pure liquid aluminium, and have hypothesised a different scenario to make the aluminium orange yellow...
"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."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

However as Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.

The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron...

If any debunkers can show how to make aluminium orange yellow while getting it to flow from a building. Then officially this will be debunked.

Its not to hard to find aluminium it can be readily bought in the form of soda cans.

Good luck to you debunkers!

Even colors of iron of staal checken bij "normaal daglicht":
http://members.optusnet.com.au/terry...rChartEtc.html

klopt !


Deze zijn identiek, lichtoranje vanaf 980 °C van iron komt het er dichtste bij.
Zeggen ze ook hierboven.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Diego Raga

Ja, mss zo'n speciaal XXXL-formaat voor zware passagiers, verstevigt met poutrels om skyscrapers te stutten...

Bekijk het nog eens en zet de video stil op 1.51 -1.54 - 2.04 - 2.21 - 2.24 en 2.36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJR0fWpnH0

de truther plaat blijft nog eens hangen hoeveel keer komen jullie terug met dezelfde onzin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

[Diego Raga]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

de truther plaat blijft nog eens hangen hoeveel keer komen jullie terug met dezelfde onzin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

Is de temperatuur van brandende kerosine dan voldoende hoog, om aluminium of staal in een oranje-gele stroom van +/- 950 C° te laten smelten?
Dat het staal of aluminium kan verzwakken, tot daar nog aan toe, maar laten stromen als een waterval ?
Daar moet toch iets anders aan te pas komen, vrees ik.

Een voorbeeld, ik werk alle dagen met een vlamboogpistool waar door die vlam een zinkdraad loopt dat die zink doet smelten, om metalen constructies van een beschermende coating te voorzien tegen roestvorming.
Die vlamboog is een mengsel van gas en vloeibare zuurstof en heeft bij een goede afstelling, een constante temperatuur van minstens 1000 C° en dit wordt dan nog eens vermengd met perslucht, om die vlam mooi strak te maken.

Zo ziet dat eruit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37v9...eature=related

Toen ik daar jaren geleden mee begon, richtte ik uit nieuwsgierigheid al eens mijn metallisatiepistool op een stuk metaalafval van 2 of 3 cm dikte, om te zien wat effect dat gaf.
Het duurde veel langer dan een minuut en dit met de vlampunt net tegen dat dik stuk metaal gericht, vooraleer dat stuk een rood-oranje kleur aannam die niet verder uitdijdde, en wegsmelten deed dat helemaal niet, hoogstens verkleuren en vervormen.

Bij dunnere platen van bv 2 �* 3 mm, kon ik daar wél een gat in branden, maar die smeltdruppels stolden direct rond de rand van het ontstane gat.
En stromen deed dat hier ook helemaal niet, hoe fel ik er ook m'n best voor deed.

De kerosine in die gebouwen was voor het grootste deel al verbrand bij de impact en de rest ervan was verspreid over een onbepaalde oppervlakte en bereikte ook amper de helft van die noodzakelijke ijzer- of aluminium smelttemperatuur en dit dan nog zonder behulp van stuwende perslucht, om van het gebrek aan temperatuurverhogende vloeibare zuurstof nog maar te zwijgen, wegens de dichte rookontwikkeling in die crash-scene.

Maw, brandende kerosine alleen doet geen staal in lopende beken smelten, noch aluminium, daar zijn een pak zwaardere middelen voor nodig.

btw: In de video onderaan de tekst wordt ook een en ander duidelijk in vraag gesteld: http://freedombytes.info/blog/?p=833

[atmosphere]

Wat er uit de toren stroomt als deze nog rechtop staat is volledig onbekend !
, speculatie

Het smeltpunt van Aluminium is 660 graden , kan dus wel smelten door kerosine brand. Met houtskool kun je ook aluminium smelten !! maar dat is dus verder niet van belang.

Bij de branden in de puinhopen is het een ander verhaal.


Dat wat er uit de toren stroomt lijkt veel meer op brandend masteriaal vanwege de grote hoeveelheid licht die het geeft . De zon schijnt en nog zie je dat het fel licht geeft.

De idiote claims spreken elkaar steeds zwaar tegen overigens. waren er nu thermiet explosies volgens Jones?

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Misinformation


Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible?

Dit is waarschijnlijk de domste 9/11 vraag die ooit is gesteld!

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Diego Raga

Is de temperatuur van brandende kerosine dan voldoende hoog, om aluminium in een oranje-gele stroom van +/- 950 C° te laten smelten?

ja...
mij hoef je niet te geloven, misschien de honderden wetenschappers van het NIST wel

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Vergeet niet dat aluminium dat van vast naar vloeibaar overgaat bij ~ 660° C zilverachtig wit is.

Dada aluminiumlegering van een stukje gecrasht vliegtuigdeel.

En men ziet daar duidelijk geen witte of zilverachtige kleur naar beneden vallen, maar "oranjegeel".

En ook de debunkers zijn hiermee debunked:

niet bepaald, want, ten eerste : Hoe zou dit moeten dienen als bewijs voor controlled demolition.
Ten tweede : Wat het ook moge zijn , het is duidelijk brandend materiaal. In het zonlicht lijkt gesmolten metaal helemaal geen of nauwelijks licht af te geven.

[atmosphere]

Na een vliegtuig interieur brand

[atmosphere]

Toen ik daar jaren geleden mee begon, richtte ik uit nieuwsgierigheid al eens mijn metallisatiepistool op een stuk metaalafval van 2 of 3 cm dikte, om te zien wat effect dat gaf.
Het duurde veel langer dan een minuut en dit met de vlampunt net tegen dat dik stuk metaal gericht, vooraleer dat stuk een rood-oranje kleur aannam die niet verder uitdijdde, en wegsmelten deed dat helemaal niet, hoogstens verkleuren en vervormen.

Bij dunnere platen van bv 2 �* 3 mm, kon ik daar wél een gat in branden, maar die smeltdruppels stolden direct rond de rand van het ontstane gat.

Het smolt dus wel ! omdat die vlam heel plaatselijk verhit. Met meer van die zelfde vlammen zou het hele stuk gaan smelten.

De kerosine in die gebouwen was voor het grootste deel al verbrand bij de impact en de rest ervan was verspreid over een onbepaalde oppervlakte en bereikte ook amper de helft van die noodzakelijke ijzer- of aluminium smelttemperatuur

De kerosine branden werden interieurbranden welke al snel 1000 graden hitte geven.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

ja...
mij hoef je niet te geloven, misschien de honderden wetenschappers van het NIST wel

Het NIST al gelezen mijn beste?

Ik zal in uw plaats antwoorden: "Neen, anders zou ik hier zo geen onzin uitkramen"

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Na een vliegtuig interieur brand

Spijtig dat de motoren niet in de fik gegaan zijn en volledig verdampt (zoals één of andere militeir beweerde na de Pentagon inslag), ...

[Micele]

- De Wetenschappelijke methode |-| de Politieke methode = "NIST 9/11 investigation" ..

Truth and Justice - The American Way

The NIST Investigation

National Institute for Standards and Technology Encounters Resistance, Pretends to Investigate

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. In NIST's May 7, 2003 News Release on the progress of its investigation, there is clear evidence that the agency has been hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence.

In contrast to FEMA's investigation, which relied on volunteers from the ASCE, NIST's investigation was funded by Congress. However, NIST's investigation would not even start until virtually all of the steel had been removed from Ground Zero and recycled. On March 5, 2002, W. Gene Corley, leader of FEMA's Building Performance Study, testified to the House Science Committee about the need to further investigate the performance of buildings that were damaged or collapsed on 9/11/2001. With his own study almost finished, Corley stated that it would take $40 million to adequately study the issue.

The $40 million would cover the expense of stockpiling the steel and other debris; examining the steel; physically testing the steel; partial parametric computer modeling of the steel, the fire, the plane and the blast; and the examination of egress issues, says Corley. From the study, tools could be developed to address fire as a structural design load and to understand the behavior of structural connections under fire conditions. Tools also could be developed to look at strategies against progressive collapse. 1

Corley's call for millions to stockpile and examine the steel appears disingenuous since, by the time of his testimony, nearly all of the steel had been recycled. His ASCE volunteers had saved 156 pieces of steel, most of them small "coupons" cut from larger pieces. NIST would not need special facilities to store the steel, of which it had received 41 pieces by May of 2002. 2

In 2002, NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with a budget of $16 million, and was supplemented with additional multi-million-dollar appropriations in the following two years. 3 4 5 This contrasts with the $600,000 that had been allocated by FEMA to fund the only investigation of the building collapses that was active before the site had been mopped up. The new legislation, named the National Construction Safety Team Act (originally H.R. 4687), was signed into law on October 1, 2002. 6

It is apparent from reading NIST's website that its investigation was conducted strictly within the confines of the official story -- that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 resulted from the jetliner impacts. A presentation about NIST's response to the disaster claims there is a "critical and urgent national need" to "establish the probable technical causes of the collapses and derive lessons to be learned", but, prior to the publication of their Final Report on Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in late 2005, none of the materials on the NIST site even mentioned the possibility that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/offi...ist/index.html

....

NIST's Final Report on Building 7

On August 21, 2008, NIST held a press conference to release the draft of its Final Report on WTC Building 7. 11 The draft included a half-dozen PDF documents, all of which were locked. Researchers working make NIST's investigation more transparent published unlocked versions of the documents. Bloggers pointed out glaring illogic in in Shyam Sunder's answers to audience questions. 12 New York Times reporter Eric Lipton, who co-authored the anthropomorphism-laden book City in the Sky wrote a review of the press conference that summarized some arguments by "conspiracy theorists" in attendance. 13

NIST allowed only 30 days for public comments on its report. A group of sixteen researchers, including scientists, architects, and engineers, submitted this letter to NIST's WTC Technical Information Repository before the deadline. The letter points out numerous inconsistencies, unsupported conclusions, and failures of investigation in NIST's Report. NIST's Final Report, entitled "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building Center", or NIST NCSTAR 1A, was released in November of 2008. 14

In his review of the Report, whistleblower Kevin Ryan points out, among other things, that:

* The Final Report shows that NIST avoided physical testing altogether. Instead, it created a computer model that it claims supports their collapse theory, but won't even release that model for inspection by the public.

* In the new Report, NIST quietly drops the theory promoted by since 2001 by the New York Times and FEMA, that diesel fuel was responsible for the collapse, and minimizes the role of purportedly extensive damage from the fallout of the North Tower.

* NIST entirely ignores the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.

* NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion -- a behavior that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.

*To support its new theory, NIST apparently resorts to fabrication, claiming -- in contradiction to its earlier reports -- that girders lacked shear studs and had only two seat bolts per connection.

NIST's final installment was its December 2008 Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation. In it, NIST repeated the same sophism that it had used in its FAQ on its Twin Tower report: implying that thermite/thermate would have been unsuitable as a demolition tool because it acts too slowly, would have been too hard keep pressed against the steelwork, and would have required too much preparation and material quantities to go undetected.
NIST goes on to repeat its earlier assertion that testing for evidence of explosives "would not necessarily have been conclusive".

NIST's disingenuity is obvious in both its straw-man argument against aluminothermic-based demolition and its excuse not to look for or at evidence of incendiaries. In obligatory formal correspondence involving requests for correction to its Twin Towers report NIST officials were asked to correct erroneous statements about the conclusiveness of testing.

Maar goed dat onafhankelijke wetenschappers verder gedetaillieerd onderzoek deden (ook op basis van NIST´s rapporten) en zo het "DOOFPOTonderzoek van NIST" duidelijk aantonen:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ifiability.pdf

Falsifiability & The NIST Report - 20 -

Conclusion

Many of these criticisms of the NIST report could fairly be dismissed if subsequent reviews had provided explanations of apparent contradictions and thus had produced a testable hypothesis that coincided with the real-world data.

This has not occurred. Despite possession of all the resources available in the $20M study, NIST adheres to an explanation for the collapses which is basically circular and fails at critical points.

It is unable to produce forensic evidence for the required high temperatures; the test results contradict its claims; it is internally inconsistent; it ignores many lines of contrary evidence; and it makes no attempt to search for an alternative explanation.

NIST has resisted attempts to have the report corrected, thus publicly implying that the HICT does not need revision. It is therefore clear that further investigation is urgently required and that it must be independent of the bodies involved in the previous studies.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...tionOfWTC1.pdf

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler
B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA
M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA
Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC 1

Summary

The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building.
Any accretion of material into the upper block would have acted as an inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further. The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance.
Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that, given the observed acceleration, such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building.
When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a fiction. Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence.
Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point. We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact, it could not have played a significant role in the destruction of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...EarthShake.pdf

DID THE EARTH SHAKE BEFORE THE SOUTH TOWER HIT THE GROUND?
Graeme MacQueen
July 9, 2009

Conclusions:

If we simply checked time-stamps and exercised appropriate scepticism toward NIST’s revised seismic estimates we would find good reason to reject NIST’s position that a significant seismic signal began only when debris hit the earth. Innovation in the use of video cameras would not be necessary. But we have gone further and used video evidence, especially that embodied in the NY1 video, and we have been able put together an intriguing profile of the shaking of the earth and to suggest that:
• The shaking of the earth seems to have reached an early peak at approximately 9:59:04 a.m. This helps us make sense of LDEO’s original findings.
• A second and higher peak came much later. Representing the moment when debris hit the ground, it has been mistakenly represented by NIST as corresponding to the start of the LDEO seismic signal.
• The seismic event actually began before both of these points in time and, indeed, before any visible sign of collapse.

Seeking to corroborate the NY1 video evidence, we have looked at witness testimony from the FDNY oral histories and PAPD accounts, and we have found two kinds of corroborating evidence, direct and indirect. The direct evidence has confirmed that a quite intense shaking of the earth began well before debris impact and that some degree of earth shaking took place before collapse initiation. The indirect (auditory) evidence suggests that the distinct sounds associated with shaking of the earth began well before debris
impact. Some of these accounts confirm that the sounds, and by implication the vibrations, began before visible collapse of the South Tower.

I do not pretend to have resolved all the anomalies relating to the shaking of the earth at the time of the South Tower’s destruction. I do not expect to see these anomalies resolved until seismologists study the WTC events closely. But I believe it is clear that several of NIST’s key claims are untenable.

I am especially intrigued by the evidence we now possess that the earth shook before the initiation of each of the three dramatic building collapses of 9/11. This article has touched on some of the evidence relating to the South Tower.
In the case of the North Tower we have both witness evidence and video camera perturbation. [36]

As for World Trade Center 7, NIST acknowledges the existence of a seismic signal preceding the collapse by ten seconds: "A seismic signal approximately 10 s prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the falling of debris from the collapse (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Appendix B)." [37]

The official explanation of the collapses given by NIST is not compatible with these precollapse perturbations.
...
I hope other researchers will take advantage of the methods and materials used in this article to further refine our knowledge of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Natuurlijk wist NIST ´als federaal overheidsapparaat´ al op voorhand de uitkomst van hun onderzoek, ze moeten het wel zodanig uitleggen, ttz wringen in alle mogelijke bochten en woordenkeuze dat het wetenschappelijk lijkt...

En dat doen die andere wetenschappers nu net niet, ze pluizen de NIST-rapporten zodanig wetenschappelijk - dieper en nauwkeuriger uit - en halen er nog meer bronnen bij (ook alle getuigen) om dan tot de conclusie te komen dat de rapporten van NIST daar en hier helemaal niet kloppen of tenminste zeer twijfelachtig zijn, ttz not compatible met hun eigen "wetenschappelijk onderzoek".

Zijn dan alles studies van het NIST-agency "has been hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence" ?

Neen hoor, op 14 punten zijn ze akkoord met "NIST´s conclusies":

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...2/35TOCIEJ.pdf

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40 35 1874-1495/08 2008 Bentham Open / Open Access
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4 and James R. Gourley5

1S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84604, USA
2Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
3Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
4Blackwood, NJ 08012, USA
5Dallas, TX 75231, USA

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses
[...]

Bron:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust. Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] .

Further relevant papers are now in the peer-review cycle.
We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal. We will also be happy to receive sound, substantial work which has nevertheless been rejected by others. However, due to the volume of work, there may be substantial delays in publication here in the future. Thank you for your interest in careful research.

Sincerely,
Kevin Ryan and Frank Legge co-editors

[Svennies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het smolt dus wel ! omdat die vlam heel plaatselijk verhit. Met meer van die zelfde vlammen zou het hele stuk gaan smelten.





De kerosine branden werden interieurbranden welke al snel 1000 graden hitte geven.

En welk is het smelpunt van staal,nee niet té rap antwoorden...

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Het NIST al gelezen mijn beste?

ja maar jij niet blijkbaar

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

militeir

militair zeker

[Micele]

2 posten in 1 minuut, dat zullen wel overtuigende tegenargumenten zijn... (not)