Survivor's Report of Explosion and Fireball at WTC Exit as it Fell

[spooked]

Here is survivor Brian Clark's story in his own words. He was working on the 84th floor of 2 World Trade Center, the South Tower, and was one of the few working above the impact to make it out safely. He made it out before his co-worker Ronnie, who had THIS strange experience while fleeing:

"Now, Ronnie, who I told you had gone up to the 91st floor and later told me he panicked and went down,
when he exited the building it was at the very time when Tower Two was starting to fall. So the moment I was watching the building from Trinity Church was exactly the moment he was coming out of the same place I did, and he was caught in an explosion. He heard the explosion, swirled around, and a fireball was rushing at him from right at the doors where he was about to leave the building. He put his hands up in front of his face and got blown many, many yards across Liberty Street, which I'd run across earlier. He was severely burned in the arm, he had head wounds, cracked vertebrae. He doesn't remember really what happened right after that, but he ended up at St. Vincent's Hospital."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html


So here we have an explosion heard at ground level as well as a FIREBALL rushing at someone just as they are exiting the South Tower and the South Tower is starting to fall. WHERE WOULD THIS FIREBALL HAVE COME FROM, and has anyone else heard reports of this?

[spooked]

1. This is the experience of the last known person to exit the South Tower

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40650...

His name is Ron DiFrancesco, and here is more of his experience with the explosiona and fireball:

"As DiFrancesco and Kren passed an adjoining hallway near the Church Street exit, they heard an ungodly roar. DiFrancesco turned to his right in the direction of Liberty Street, to see a massive fireball --compressed as the South Tower fell -- roiling toward them."

"The two men bolted for the exit. DiFrancesco was bowled over by the explosion as he reached some stairs. Something slammed into the back of his head. The last thing he remembers is the sound of his own voice: "Help me, help me!"

"In addition to his burns and broken bones, he had suffered a serious impact wound that had gouged the back of his head. His body was peppered with shards of glass and stucco carried by the fireball (His wife would pick a two-centimetre long shard of glass out of his forehead about a month later)."


Again, where would this FIREBALL have come from?

[hack89]

2. That is a good question considering that ...

high explosives don't create fireballs (hollywood special effects withstanding.) HE destroys using a high pressure, high impulse shockwave. If you have ever seen it explode, all you see is a puff of black smoke with at most a small bright flash. A "rolling fireball" is a low pressure phenomena.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. But thermobarcic weapons do

which is what I've been speculating was used in the WTC.

[Jazz2006]

54. I've noticed you speculating on that recently

and if I'm not mistaken, beginning around the time the thermite/thermate theories began to peter out as unfounded and unsustainable, but since you've been speculating on it for quite some time now, I'm curious, have you come up with any specifics at all about how such weaponry could/would/did bring down the towers in the manner in which they fell?

[DoYouEverWonder]

82. When I look at the pictures and videos of the WTC

both buildings blew up with such violence that they looked like volcanoes going off. That is why I refuse to call the collapses a control demolition. This was not a CD, the buildings were blown up. Considering how these towers were built, these massive steel structures, I do not believe that the damage from the passenger jets and the resulting fire was enough to cause the total collapse of these buildings. Partial collapse, sure but not total failure of the entire building.

So IF the jets and the resulting fires were not enough to be the cause of the total failure of the towers, then what is the cause? It had to be something that could generate a lot of energy. Enough energy to pulverize everything except the steel. I've looked at 100's of pictures. I rarely see anything recognizable. No chairs, no desks, no people, no body parts, no computers, no filing cabinets, no nothing. Just dust and steel. That was about all that was left.

So far the only thing I can come up with other then a nuke is some sort of thermobaric weapon. The US is currently using shoulder mounted thermobaric weapons in Iraq with great 'success'.

A version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

<snip>

"SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

Sounds like what happened to the WTC but on a much smaller scale?

[mirandapriestly]

95. I agree that the appearance of the towers was beyond

"controlled demolition". I don't know why some of us always say "controlled demolition" because it wasn't "controlled". I am guilty of that too. Canetoad said something like they just looked like they were exploded, forget the controlled demolition part. It also seems to me that "the perps" wouldn't leave anything to chance, they would make sure the job was done. Many aspects of demolition, controlled or not, are not foolproof. So maybe there is something more forceful at play here. The reason thermite sounds good is that it leaves no evidence, really. It's "ingredients" can be explained by other things. But since most of "the evidence" was removed , well, maybe that doesn't matter.

[Carefulplease]

96. "The reason thermite sounds good..."

"The reason thermite sounds good is that it leaves no evidence, really."

That would explain why Jones has found no evidence. Thermite melts steel columns inconspicuously. Wonderful stuff. ;-)

[wildbilln864]

3. Here's a site I found...

with some interesting videos. I did a search there with the keyword "WTC".
Click here for one eight second clip.

[mrgerbik]

4. I don't think the CT'ers

have ever properly explained the eyewitness reports of explosions.

All I've heard is that pressure pulses, exploding transformer stations and pancaking floors caused these anomalys. Is there a proper explanation from the CT side that would inform us nutball, crazy kooks as to what these actually were?

[hack89]

5. I don't know about the CT side,

but those of us that reject CD also understand that the collapse of the WTC was a noisy, violent chaotic affair with many things happening that could be mistaken for explosions.

There are very few people in the world who have actually heard real high explosives going off - I have not read any accounts of the distinctive, high pitch "cracking" sound they make. In addition, the fact that HE cutting charges (thermite too for that matter) do not create fireballs is proof to me that the source of those explosions was not CD.

[LARED]

6. Speaking to this, I recently had some experience in this

realm. My neighbor's detached garage burned to the ground a few weeks ago. It was 3:00 AM. I awoke to what I thought were shotguns going off in the street. Then I heard some booms that made me jump out of bed thinking someone lit off an M-80. It was the fire. Tires blowing up, cans exploding, all sorts of things make explosion like nosies in an intense fire.

For reference the building was about 150 feet from my house.

[mrgerbik]

8. these explosions were of a much higher intensity

as showcased in many videos. These weren't tires exploding... Not to mention there were explosions before the towers were struck.



edit: lol i must be tired... can't type today

[LARED]

13. Huh?

showcased in many videos. These weren't tires exploding... Not to mention there were explosions before the towers were struck.

There are no videos that show explosions, and no evidence there were explosions before the towers were struck.

[Klimmer]

18. You are wrong . . . there are.

There is video footage that shows explosions. Many. All the footage available just watching the towers fall is full of explosions with heavy debri shooting off in perfect projectile like motion from explosions (a building falling straight down due to your pancake theory under the influence of gravity doesn't do this), and all the squibs seen from the controlled demolition.

I also refer you to my post below where I talk about the Re-edit of "9/11 Eyewitness." The footage shows the bright flashes of many bombs going off, even through the smoke of fires. If you haven't seen this footage then do so (not that it will matter to you and other OCTers).

Also I suggest you listen to William Rodriguez's 1 hour + testimony from the conf. in LA this past June. Definitely explosions occurred in the basements of the towers before the jets hit. Try telling that to the African-American that William helped save. Try to explain to this 9/11 survivor that a bomb didn't explode prior to the jet hitting and burn the skin off about 60-70% of his body. Google video it. Again, not that it will make a difference to you, but to others out there really seeking the truth it will.

[LARED]

19. If you want to believe you see explosions in the collapse videos

have fun, but the bottom line is that there is zero evidence for explosions. Regardless of what Rodriguez states. His story has changed more times than I can count.

Ask yourself this; if Rodriguez is in the basement, how can he know explosions occurred before the jet impact?

[Klimmer]

20. Lared, with your reasoning we couldn't accept anything we have learned . .

from remote sensing of our universe. Light (the EM spectrum) is measurable remotely sensed evidence, that is also physical evidence. Light carries information that can be measured, analyzed and studied. Seeing is believing. All forms of light throughout the entire electro-magnetic spectrum carry properties from that which it is emitted, reflected, or absorbed by including visible light. When we see explosions, they give off tale-tell signs that are unmistakable.

William Rodriguez has changed his story? Prove it. If you had listened to his testimony you would know how he knew the difference between an explosion happening in the basement below him, once again with physical evidence and several other eye-witnesses present, and then the explosion that happened after-wards high above in the building, again with several other witnesses present. At the time he did not know it was the jet, but later he learned this fact.

I find your arguments very weak and shallow. You have a lack of critical thinking skills. Anything that has been proven with physical evidence, and can also be easily seen by many, as well as eye-witness testimony to collaborate the facts, you automatically have a knee-jerk reaction and say we have no evidence.

I guess in your world up is down, black is white. This kind of reasoning is sooo Neo-Con Rethuglican. How is it that you call yourself a Democrat? Democrats as a whole are usually critical thinkers.

[LARED]

24. Thanks for the optics lesson, Unnecessary and lacking critical thought

Can you please state for the record how you have determined that the collapse videos show explosions rather than the a progressive collapse. Thanks in advance.

Regarding William Rodriguez. Sorry but I've been down that road about 5 times and will not rehash it again. You can do your own homework. You failed to answer my question how does he know there were explosion before the jet hit if he was in the basement?

BTW I'm not really making arguments, I'm stating facts. You have zero evidence of explosions. That's a fact. Get used to it.

Of course your uber-critical thinking skills only seem to get you a far as name calling. As seen above and other places. Your insistent that disagreeing with you is a sure sign of support of the Bush maladministration is also a wonderful display of critical thought. Does that mean you are not a Democrat?

[Klimmer]

28. I didn't give an optics lesson, I was simply pointing out all the . . .

information and physical evidence we can get from the entire EM spectrum. Didn't say anything about optical theory.

I've already answered about the many visual and physical evidences of CD in the many videos and film footage of the towers coming down on 9/11. Apparently you see progressive collapse and many of us, including so many honest scientists who don't work for the government or the military-industrial complex see CD. I say the evidence overwhelmingly supports CD. You say progressive collapse (aka pancake theory). Wow, it has all the classic signs of CD as demonstrated so well by Mr. Ray Griffin, but apparently you don't see it. And the Thermate evidence that you can't get rid of either.

I'm sorry for you, but as science works, the evidence invalidates your pancake hypothesis, but completely supports the the CD hypothesis. In real science you must reject an invalidated hypothesis, but you keep hanging onto it, why?

William Rodriguez is an American hero, a 9/11 survivor, and was honored and metaled by Mr. Evil-Incompetent himself --- the Shrub. Don't hold that against William though, he wasn't thinking MIHOP at the time, he only had many unanswered questions at the time. William even shook the man's hand, eeewwwwwwhhhhh!

I guess I will explain it with an analogy:

I'm sitting in my family room and hear below me a large boom and the floor I'm standing on rises from the explosion. My wife runs up the stairs screaming and runs into the family room and I see she has burns on her arms and her hair is singed. She was trying to light the floor furnace and something went wrong. To my shock and horror I run to her to give her aid and comfort, and then all of a sudden another big boom happens just above both our heads, and since we don't see anything on the ceiling we deduce it happened on the roof. Both events happen separately and independently, and we can tell from what direction and we can even tell the time both events occurred by looking at my watch. We run out of the house and see our neighbor has just crashed his remote controlled powered plane into our roof of our house, and since it was a gas powered small engine plane, it catches our roof on fire . . .

Now clearly I have enough world experience to say which event happened first and from which direction it came as I'm very familiar with my house and my surroundings. When I heard the boom on the roof I didn't know what it was, but I knew where the sound came from and I also can confirm on my watch what time it was. After going outside, I realized then the boom was the plane hitting the roof. Just common standard deductive critical thinking is all I used.

Hey, your not disagreeing with me, but you are disagreeing with verifiable scientific data and many scientists now, that are completely MIHOP and just don't think it but know it. Science is about fact not fiction. You support the OCT which is time and again invalidated, but you can't cherry pick the evidence, you have to look at it all. The 9/11 truth movement have solid hypotheses now that are supported by solid evidence and we gain more nearly everyday. All of this evidence completely invalidates the OCT, but you keep trying.

You are tenacious (or stubborn) that is for sure.

[LARED]

59. You have not answered my question

Can you please state for the record how you have determined that the collapse videos show explosions rather than the a progressive collapse. Thanks in advance.

I'm asking on what basis you possess the skill and experience to determine the visual evidence shows CD.

Apparently you see progressive collapse and many of us, including so many honest scientists who don't work for the government or the military-industrial complex see CD. I say the evidence overwhelmingly supports CD.

Please provide some evidence. And please show me some scientist with bonafides that support CD.


And the Thermate evidence that you can't get rid of either.

You must be behind the curve. Thermate is a loser issue for the CD proponent as there is zero evidence for Thermate.

[mrgerbik]

7. My bad.. the post was supposed to say OCT n/t

[Klimmer]

9. To the faithful OCT defenders . . .

Again, I'm amazed at your fervent desire to defend the corrupt BCF and their hand-picked 9/11 Commission and the white-wash report they published, which is only useful as a door stop.

There are many eye-witness reports from firemen, police officers and survivors that indicate purposeful explosions and the consistent boom, boom, boom of explosions going off. Many even describe the explosions going off in a controlled fashion and zippering sideways around floors and also vertically from top-down fashion.

The fires were not hot and raging. Even some firemen had gotten to the impact floor of one of the towers and indicated they could put the fire out. The building came alive with explosions shortly after that radio communication, pulverizing and demolishing the towers from the top-down in such controlled sequence that the buildings fell nearly at free fall, just a second longer perhaps.

Explosions going off in the basements of the towers prior to any jets impacting, molten yellow steel pouring out of a corner of the South Tower (thanks to Thermate), random explosions, and then zippered explosions,squibs from CD, fire-balls, molten pools of steel that lasted for months (Thermate again), it is all here. The jets slamming into WTC towers was just for effect. The jets were just patsies. The jets could never bring down the WTC towers and they knew it. All of the very clear signs of CD are all here and there is nothing you can say about it or do about it, that will change this truth.

At the Alex Jones "9/11 & the Neo-Con Agenda: Facing the Facts" conference in LA this summer, Rick Siegel showed a Re-Edit of his film "9/11 Eyewitness." Now I don't agree with Rick on everything he says, but his new Re-Edit showed some amazing film sequences from the air from helicopters flying by the towers after the jets had slammed into them and just prior to the free-fall of the towers, in zoomed-in, slow-motion detail through the billowing smoke of one of the towers you can clearly see the very bright pin-point flashes of explosives going off in fireworks fashion, and everyone in the audience was just amazed at the footage. Most of us had never seen that before. You can clearly see the bombs going off. Amazing film footage. Wow!

I highly recommend that people order the entire conference on DVD from JusticeVision.org or call [phone] and order all 21 hours of the conference: volume 89.1, 89.2, and 89.3. You can get the entire conference for about $15, very well worth it.


To the OCTers, do you get benefits for your work? Do they cover you for medical, dental, and pay workman's comp?

[hack89]

10. I take it you have not bothered to even read the archives?

all those issues have been discussed time and time again. Why don't you take some time to catch up on the debate so you can contribute more than flame bait?

[Klimmer]

14. Hack 89 . . .

I've been following the debate for a long time now especially here in the dungeon, long before I remember you coming along with a few other OCTers. I came here to the "September 11" forum just after November 2004.

I just don't post as often as you might. I have a life, and have made the effort to keep it reality based in physical evidence and science.

[hack89]

17. Then why the flame bait?

if you have followed the debates here than you know that nothing you posted is "proven" - every argument is flawed or has some alternate explanation other then CD or conspiracy.

[hack89]

11. I am sorry, but firemen are not considered reliable sources

in this forum. Their lies about the extensive damage to WTC 7 is proof of that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Their lies?

Please provide the quotes and if you find any pictures please send them to NIST because they would like to see them.

[hack89]

25. Sure - for at least the tenth time...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[greyl]

12. Thermite doesn't explode.

Please choose one baseless conspiracy theory and stick with it.
There are several dozen to choose from.

[salvorhardin]

15. I'll have "invisible jewish elves" for $100, Alex. n/t

[Klimmer]

16. You are right --- Thermite doesn't explode. I never said it did . . .

However, Nano-Thermate does. Listen to Dr. Stevens lectures sometime and learn. No one is claiming just Thermate was used, it was used in combination with other more conventional explosives.

Again, listen to a lecture on the use of Thermate to help bring down the towers by Dr. Stevens. More or less it is used to cut through key steel beams so when the bombs go off, the building easily falls into it's footprint. They are used in combination with one another.

[hack89]

26. But high explosives cut steel in CD

every day of the week. And HE alone is used to drop buildings in their footprints all the time. So tell me again why they needed thermite?

And can you show where nano-thermite is real and more than some theoretical research project? I googled it and got nothing - any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Klimmer]

27. In CD work . . .

they often go in prior to the HE being detonated of the CD process and cut primary support beams using torches or what have you. Obviously, on or just prior to 9/11, if someone were to go in there and start cutting large inner core support beams on the WTC towers, someone would of had a problem with that now wouldn't they?

It is not thermite we are talking about but thermate. There is a difference. Why not listen to Dr. Jones presentation he gave in LA this past June and learn about it? He talks about Thermite, Thermate, and Nano-Thermate. I told you were to go and you can listen to it and watch it for yourself. I gave info on where to purchase the entire conference all 21 hours, on DVD for a minimal cost of approx. $15, in another reply and post. You get an incredible amount of evidence, research and eye witness testimony all for your watching and learning for cheap. What more can I do?

I recommend everyone check out these DVDs. The conf. was very good (one of the best I have heard). Even for those who know so much about 9/11 truth, everyone there learned something amazing and new. Check it out.

[hack89]

67. Thermate is a pyrotechnic, not an explosive.

Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

I challenge you to show me a single instance of thermate (or thermite0 being used for CD.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. According to you OCTers, we don't need controlled demolition,

high explosives, or thermite/thermate to bring down buildings slated for demolition.

Kerosene and a big weight dropped on a building should do the trick.

Much cheaper than hiring engineers, paying for HE and all that.

9/11 and the OCT er's have pr oven that. All that crap the charlatans who make the big bucks working in controlled demolition feed us is just crap. Buildings are very easy to drop, apparently. Or at least that's what they claim.

[hack89]

69. Feel better now? ......Good

Are you saying the WTC was done exactly like the "charlatans who make the big bucks working in controlled demolition" would do it? They routinely use thermite plus thousands of tons of unnecessary explosives?

I find it interesting that it looked just like CD despite the fact that no demolition expert in the world would do it that way.

I can't help it if you don't understand potential energy and gravity.

I can't help it if you don't even understand what the official story even is - have you even read any of the NIST reports?

[John Q. Citizen]

70. Sure, they take a conclusion and try to cram the facts in to fit

their conclusion. Did they test for HE? no. Did they study building #7? no. Did they do modeling? no.

If you believe what NIST did is quality science, then you don't know what quality science is.

But why would you?

[Carefulplease]

71. Did they test for HE?

It is unnecessary to look for traces of gunpowder on the hands of a murder suspect when the victim was drowned and no bullet hole is seen on her body.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. So you are agreeing that they jumped to a conclusion and then

forced the facts to fit their conclusion?

There were numerous reports of secondary explosions, reports made by fire, police, building personnel, on the scene news casters, citizens, etc.

The buildings fell in a manner that appeared to many (including Dan Rather) to resemble a controlled demolition.

Would investigators want to know if, perhaps, the hijackers had smuggled explosives onto the plane? Would that be valuable information to have?


To address your rather strange analogy;

In the states, murder victims are routinely autopsied. (I don't know about other countries) but just because a body is found floating in a lake doesn't mean the case is closed. If eyewitnesses said they heard gunshots then sure, the police likely would test for gunpowder. The point isn't to prove the person died of a gunshot wound, it's to gather the evidence to fully understand the crime and what occurred.

Perhaps the perp fired a gun at the victim which missed, but which caused the victim to fall overboard off the boat. The police and prosecutor would definitely want to collect and analyze such evidence.

Except FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 commission for some strange reason didn't want to know if there were such evidence available.

This is not quality science or forensic work. it jumps to a conclusion and then tries to fit the evidence into the conclusion.

[AZCat]

73. The collapse of the buildings may have appeared to resemble...

a controlled demolition, but that isn't reason enough to suspect one.

Science isn't about investigating every possibility regardless how improbable they might be.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Science and forensics should at least make an attempt to

rule out such a close appearance to a resemblance of a planned demolition, not to mention the numerous eyewitness reports of secondary explosions.

It would have been fairly quick, easy, and inexpensive to make a good faith effort to do so.

It's a mystery why they didn't even bother to check. i think it was because they already had a conclusion in mind and then just attempted to force the facts to support that conclusion. That's not good science or forensics.

[Make7]

77. Maybe they did bother to check.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister2.pdf

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

78. They make no mention of building #7 though. They also make no

mention of the forensic evidence shown in the FEMA report appendix C.

Apparently, they have given lip service to a complete investigation, and little more.

[Make7]

79. Maybe that's because their report on WTC7 is not finished yet.

NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs

You wouldn't want them to make any pronouncements before their investigation is complete, would you?

How is the metallurgical analysis in the FEMA report appendix C of any significance to the collapse of the Twin Towers?

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

81. High temperature corrosion of steel might be relevant. Eaten away

steel doesn't offer anywhere near the strenght of pristine steel.

No, take their time. They've had five years to looka t it, maybe in another five years they will get it right.

[Make7]

87. "..analysis of sample K-16 yielded no revelations on the collapse.."

Single Column K-16

The third example of a unique damage feature of a perimeter column was found on sample K-16. (As discussed below, a piece sectioned from this column prior to arrival at NIST was studied and reported on in the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]/Building Performance Assessment Team [BPAT] [McAllister 2002] report, Appendix C.) This was a single, unidentified column that experienced what appeared to be a large amount of material degradation as a consequence of erosion/corrosion processes, Fig. 6–20. Of all the recovered steel examined, this was the only case where this type of degradation was observed on a perimeter or core column. The damage consisted of localized thinning in the outer and inner web plates in this area, leading to significant perforations in the outer and inner webs. The stampings at the base of the column on the flange indicated that it was a 50 ksi column with column type 143. The database of all columns showed that columns matching this description were no higher than the 52nd floor level in WTC 1 and the 53rd floor level in WTC 2. Therefore, it was unlikely that this column experienced degradation prior to the collapse of the towers. The attrition appearance of the column, in terms of the two webs experiencing the highest degree of degradation with minimal attack observed on the flange sections, also indicates that the column was in a horizontal position while the attack occurred.

  <- snip ->

The wasting of the web plates most likely resulted from a high temperature, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur. While not enough evidence was available to indicate whether corrosion occurred through gaseous, liquid, or solid attack (in addition to varied conditions possible in the rubble pile and lack of information associated with the recovery of this column at the WTC site), it was likely that the degradation process was most likely a complex combination of these three. As sulfur was not readily available in large amounts in the steel (0.02 weight percent max.), an external source must have supplied this specie (e.g., plastic, rubber). Viewing the column, this external source was in all probability burning directly on top of the outer web while the column lay in a prone position.

  <- snip ->

While analysis of sample K-16 yielded no revelations on the collapse mechanism for the buildings, the changes in the web material as a result of high temperature corrosion exposure were interesting.

DIAL-UP WARNING: The following file is 40MB.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

Apparently they did not think it was relevant.

- Make7

[Carefulplease]

80. They make mention of both WTC7 and the FEMA sulfidation issue.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pd...
This is the interim report on WTC7

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
See "Single Column K-16" pp.229-233

[greyl]

29. No, you're repeating falsehoods. Do you know what "nano" means?

For the layman it means "very fucking small".
Did you try to verify the information before spreading it around? I don't think so.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn8930-nanowelding-could-j...

I think nano-thermite/ate was first mentioned on the TV show Cleopatra 2525
www.darkamber.net/cleo2525/index.htm

James Fetzer: Nano-thermate

dubfan posted on 2-7-2006 at 11:31 PM (post id: 2314605)
James Fetzer: Nano-thermate

In a recent interview, you mentioned "nano-thermate" as a possible substance used in the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. My question has 3 parts:

1. What is nano-thermate and what are its physical & chemical properties?

2. What is the evidence for the existence of such a compound? And,

3. Is it possible to obtain a sample?

James Fetzer posted on 13-7-2006 at 06:52 PM (post id: 2337159) - single

Steve is the right source to answer this, not me. I suggest you contact him, which you can do at [e-mail] . Then post his response in this place. Thank you.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214843/pg1

Hmm, no response yet.

[AZCat]

30. Interesting...

We've a couple of professors at the local U. that work with nanomachines. I wonder if they've worked with this (or are at least aware of it). Perhaps I need to drop by for a chat? It would be good to see some of them - it's been a few years and I'm not that good at keeping up.

[mirandapriestly]

32. You're the one who is repeating falsehoods

by saying that thermite isn't explosive. There is a certain mixture of it finely ground which is an explosive- It's a bomb, it's a plane, it's Super Thermite

[AZCat]

33. I don't think it's explosive.

Thermite doesn't produce a rapid expansion in volume from products to reactants.

[mirandapriestly]

35. I am not mistaken.eom

[AZCat]

36. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it...

but it just wouldn't feel right. Care to provide some justification for your claim?

[mirandapriestly]

42. So you guys don't even read Jones? It's not that long.eom

[AZCat]

46. Uh, no.

I'd rather not, so why don't you read it and tell me about it?

[Jazz2006]

55. This should be good. nt.

[AZCat]

56. Meh.

I don't expect much, but here's hoping. (insert fingers-crossed smiley here)

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

37. Invincible Ignorance.

Sorry, you are mistaken. Are you repeating something the idiot Fetzer said? (which btw, is in disagreement with steve e jones?)

I'll repeat the request for any evidence or support of your assertion...

www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/invincible_ig...

[mirandapriestly]

41. see my post below

and I consider your post to be a personal attack, Greyl.
and I don't even know which one Fetzer is.

[AZCat]

45. Well, then don't tell him!

Just alert on the post and let the mods decide.

[greyl]

50. You'd be mistaken again.

Check the link I provided, and learn about Invincible Ignorance.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

40. This is from Jones, but I also saw it referenced

on some patent sites for thermite devices.


"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive:

Nanoenergetics refers to a broad class of energetic materials and formulations that exploit mechanisms and properties that exist only at the nanoscale. For example, aluminum is a highly reactive metal when produced as nanopowder (size <100 nm). Metal powders are an important subset of nanoenergetics. Today it is well known that nanoenergetics can increase performance of explosives, propellants and pyrotechnic devices. The interest and appeal of nanoenergetic formulations lies in their ability to release energy in a controllable fashion, coupled with their higher energy density, relative to conventional organic explosives…. Recent advances in particle synthesis technology allow commercial scale production of nanoaluminum. (See http://www.nanoscale.com/markets_nanoenergetics.asp and, regarding bombs, http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_ga... .)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[greyl]

44. You've got a broken link, do you know what you posted?

Do you think the WTC buildings were constructed with nanometals?

Does anything at the working link you copied from Jones support the following statement which started this subthread?:

Explosions going off in the basements of the towers prior to any jets impacting, molten yellow steel pouring out of a corner of the South Tower (thanks to Thermate), random explosions, and then zippered explosions,squibs from CD, fire-balls,

[Klimmer]

58. Thanks for correcting me --- it is Superthermate rather Nanothermate . . .

I was referring to. I recall the lecture but screwed up the name. Sorry, mybad? I should watch that lecture/presentation again.

50 lashes with a wet noodle for me.

Yes you are correct, Superthermate is explosive as a result of the nano-size particles of Aluminum.

[mirandapriestly]

75. well, it's the same thing,

nano just means really small which is a reference to the very finely ground aluminum, but some people don't understand it, I guess (or pretend not to)

[mirandapriestly]

31. super thermate is an explosive

if it is ground fine enough it is used as an explosive and not an incendiary

[greyl]

47. No, it isn't.

Carefully check the link you copied:
www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=...

[mirandapriestly]

48. the lengths you will go to to appear to "win" -

the information is in the first sentence. When the materials are in a fine powder they become explosive.

[mirandapriestly]

49. Distractions at work, Folks

they don't want you to think about the OP.

[greyl]

52. By who? Start reading at post #9. nt

[greyl]

51. What materials? Go ahead and quote the article. nt

[greyl]

57. "the info is in the first sentence"? Here's the first sentence:

Nanotechnology is grabbing headlines for its potential in advancing the life sciences and computing research, but the Department of Defense (DoD) found another use: a new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.
www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=...

That doesn't say "When the materials are in a fine powder they become explosive", does it?

[mirandapriestly]

61. My first sentence from above

""Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive:"


was what I was referring to. I didn't look at his links that were at the end.

Providing you know what thermite is, this will describe how a thermite mixture can be an explosive, using finely powdered aluminum:

http://www.navysbir.brtrc.com/cap/showcase/documents%5C...

[greyl]

63. I don't think you've shown support for Jones' statement yet.

I've read the pdf, and it doesn't quite confirm what you're saying.
Will you contact Conducting Materials Corp. to get to the bottom of the properties of this technology that doesn't exist yet, or shall I?

[greyl]

65. I emailed Dr Pai.

Have you had any luck in your search for the truth?

edit: to mirandapriestly

[mirandapriestly]

76. You don't seem to understand.eom

[AZCat]

22. "There is nothing you can say about it or do about it..."

"...that will change this truth."

Spoken like a true believer, IMO. I find it ironic that you call others "faithful OCT defenders" while it seems that you are the one who will not budge from the dogma of the so-called 9/11 truth movement.

If you truly have observed in this forum as long as you say, then why haven't you realized that those of us you mock are not supporters of the Bush side of things, but rather supporters of truth? I cannot count how many times I have seen flawed theories of 9/11 cheered on here merely because they are in opposition to BushCo. I don't think these diminish the occasional valid theory, but all theories must live within the confines of the physical world (no matter how appealing they might be) and it is important to understand those confines in order to properly investigate these theories.

[mirandapriestly]

34. ooh, I hope I got the re-edited version,

I received a copy I ordered a few weeks ago and haven't got around to it yet.
I know what you mean about the OCT geez they've got the Bush administration, the corporate media, the Evangelicals, and every tv-watching, non-book reading person in America on their side, why do they go after a handful of posters on DU?

[greyl]

38. For the children. nt

[AZCat]

39. If you don't understand that...

then how will you ever get your D.A.I.S.Y. committee membership?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

43. "Blown out the window" - another story

Where are the explanations for these and other reports? Mr Rodriguez who was working in the basement that day said he never got an explanation for the explosions he heard and felt. Here is another story I have always thought was weird - How did a guy get blown out the window?

"I was on the 98th floor," says Kevin Dorrian, a carpenter leaning against a van on Franklin Street around 1:30 with some fellow union members. "I saw a friend of mine get blown out the window. He was right there, three feet from me. He was putting up blinds. I couldn't do nothing. I took the stairs down, past the fires. I saw a light, a fucking lamppost light, blow up. The glass flew into a person. Killed him immediately." Dorrian's waiting to be allowed to go back in, to dig through the rubble."
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/longestwe...

[Make7]

53. Doesn't that sound like it happened when the plane crashed into WTC1? nt

[mirandapriestly]

90. that doesn't make any sense,eom

[greyl]

92. Sorry, yes, it makes the most sense in fact.

Your anecdote doesn't support what you want it to.
Why not accept the fact of it?

[Make7]

97. Do you believe his friend was putting up blinds after a plane hit the WTC?

[Make7]

66. Why wasn't Kevin blown out the window? He was only 3ft from his friend. nt

[BootinUp]

83. Must have been shaped charges

like in the Stallone and Sharon Stone flick...can't remember the name.



I jest.

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. So do you believe the Official Version?

What do you think happened that day?

[BootinUp]

85. You don't remember me?

I was joking with the shaped charges. I do believe that 19 hijackers attacked us on 9/11.

[DoYouEverWonder]

86. So what parts of the Official Theory

don't you believe, or are you just here to promote the official spin?

[BootinUp]

93. Your question is worded in an interesting way.

I don't believe I am spinning anything. What I want to do if possible, is show that there is no need to develop conspiracy theories to explain the 9/11 attack because our government did let us down they did fail to prepare for this event, one that was perfectly predictible. But it was a political policy and leadership failure, not a LIHOP or MIHOP but a LIHNOP. Not on Purpose.

In fact we have more credibility sticking to facts then pardon my choice of words here fantasy. Now am I saying there are no inacuracies at all in the NIST report in the 9/11 Commission report etc etc. No I am not saying that. Are these inaccuracies proof that the whole story they present is so full of holes that it collapses as a viable explanation. Of course not, and there are plenty of discussions here for people to review that show exactly that.

[Klimmer]

88. I got your EXPLODING "Superthermite" right here . . .

using nano metal technology and Superthermite together.

January 21, 2005

Military Reloads with Nanotech
Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.

By John Gartner

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14...

[mirandapriestly]

89. Thanks, guess we weren't the ones

"spreading falsehoods". I hope everyone looks at the tactics above and sees what these people are really about - it ain't finding out what really happened that's for sure.

[greyl]

91. No, you don't. Read carefully. I'm still waiting on a reply from

Dr. Pai concerning the issue, to clear the air.

Remember what you are trying to prove here.
Read the OP. Try to reconcile that account, and its accompanying hypothesis with the properties of nanoaluminum(which is not superthermate or superthermite).

If you care to explain how it all makes sense, and provide some basis in scientific theory, please do so.

edit: and please, don't forget to highlight the relevant parts of the article you provided as "proof" in your explanation.

[mirandapriestly]

94. Obfuscation techniques at work

You accused Klimmer of misrepresenting the truth by saying that thermite can be an explosive. I am saying that he is not misrepresenting the truth. If the aluminum is finely ground then the material becomes explosive. Nano technology refers to small particles and nano aluminum would refer to small particles of aluminum. It is conceptually the same.
You either don't understand this in relation to thermite or you are pretending not to understand it. Now you are bringing another issue into the question in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate from a simple definition by saying that it doesn't work with the OP. I did not claim that, I am simply saying that thermite can be explosive that is all because you were discredited klimmer which is unjust. (but common on this forum)

[whistle]

98. Recycled aluminum cans and rusted steel provide a cheap source of themite

...raw materials. Kinda makes me want to stop recycling the aluminum cans


Also, the thermite reaction is a process by which aluminum reduced iron to create the extremely high temperatures:

<snip>
The thermite reaction, discovered by Goldschmidt, is also a displacement reaction, but here aluminium reduces iron. The reaction is Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3, which liberates a good deal of heat. The liquid metal produced is at about 2300°C, which is very hot. Powdered aluminium and rust in the approximate ratio of 1:3 are packed in a refractory crucible with a magnesium ribbon, or a powder of magnesium and barium peroxide, to ignite it. Either the red or black iron oxide can be used, giving "red Thermit" or "black Thermit." A trade name for the powder is Thermit. The vigorous reaction makes liquid iron or steel, which flows out of a hole in the bottom of the crucible into the mold and can be used for welding. The stock to be welded is usually preheated with a gas flame playing through the mold. The metal produced is about half the weight of the original mixture. This reaction is also called aluminothermic, and can be used for reduction of other metals, such as nickel, manganese or chromium. <more>

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/alumin.htm

[mirandapriestly]

99. It's interesting cuz it leaves no

tracer like most explosives or incendiaries , which could be detected easily. But since the evidence was mostly shipped off then maybe it doesn't matter..

[whistle]

100. A theory also suggests small nuclear devices used in both WTC

..towers due to the tremendous heat and molten mass under the fallen debris of both towers for a month after the event

[mirandapriestly]

101. yes, the lack of any objects

found in rubble. and yet the paper was white, not burnt. there is a vid out there of a filing cabinet that had been melted into a ball, but parts of the paper files where still inside of it. Now what does that tell you?

[AZCat]

102. It sure as hell doesn't tell me...

"small nuclear devices" were used.

Are there warheads that have a yield that low? There used to be some in the U.S. arsenal (at least until 1989). The catch is that such a device would have to be a fission only weapon and would yield enormous amounts of radiation. There are clean nuclear weapons, but in order to eliminate most (but not all) the radiation you have to have a very high yield fusion weapon. The cleanest bomb ever tested (97% of the yield from fusion) had a yield of approximately 50 megatons, enough to wipe out pretty much all of Manhattan.



Edit: minor correction