Iron, Sulfur, Oxygen
“Corrosion is the disintegration of an engineered material into its constituent atoms due to chemical reactions with its surroundings.”
Iron, sulfur, and oxygen are the primary ingredients of the eutectic corroding Sample 1.
Gypsum wallboard, when burned, produces sulfur dioxide.
Structural steel is mostly iron.
Iron, sulfur, oxygen.
September 6, 2010
· 
Joseph Nobles · 
No Comments
Tags: eutectic, FEMA Steel, molten whatever, Sample 1 · Posted in: WTC 7
Pat Buchanan Endorses 9/11 Truth?
Oh, I thought so for about five minutes.
How did I get to Pat Buchanan’s no-longer-official website anyway? (Consults history…) Ah, yes, did a little search of the term “building what” just now. It was number three on the list. Intrigued, this humble reporter was. Clicked over, he did. Marvelled.
There it was, an endorsement and an embed of the Building What? campaign:
The 9/11 families have produced a 30-second ad that will appear on TV screens all over New York City. Please go to BuildingWhat.org to find out more. Also see additional 12+ videos on their YouTube Channel…
Wow. First off, this isn’t the 9/11 families. Four 9/11 family members doesn’t make this a 9/11 families production. This is actually a joint production of NYCCAN and AE911Truth. As you can see, the webmaster (a Linda Muller) isn’t saying something like, “Oh, look at the junk these folks are saying.” He’s requesting his readership to go to the website, find out more, and check out all the videos. Without a disclaimer, this is most definitely an endorsement.
The FAQ says that this is no longer an official webpage of Pat Buchanan and that he doesn’t decide content. It looks like he needs to get his hand back in or get his name off this site…
September 5, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · 2 Comments
Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates
Explosion Right Before East Penthouse Falls?
Or wind noise?
Amazingly enough, this is brought up in a story where Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars claims that NIST edited videos to leave out the east penthouse collapse! Except for this one with the “explosion” on it. Kind of weird for NIST to edit the east penthouse collapse from other videos, but then release this video with the “explosion” on it, don’t you think? Is it a mistake, or is NIST doing it to us on purpose?
It’s amazing to me because it’s so freaking hard to get anyone advocating for controlled demolition on 9/11 to even acknowledge the existence of the east penthouse as part of the collapse. And suddenly, now that they have “proof” of an “explosion” right before the east penthouse collapses, it’s NIST who’s trying to keep people from seeing it!
Funnily enough, that’s the only “explosion” anyone can hear in this video. No one present that day on West Street, a couple of blocks from the building, even seems to notice it until the final descent of the outer shell. Visual evidence clued people into this collapse, not audio! So it’s this one explosion that takes down all of WTC 7? Is that going to be the story now?
Listen to this video of the Phillips building demolition in Oslo, Norway:
Listen to this video of the Landmark building demolition in Fort Worth, Texas:
Now go back and listen to the actual audio of the collapse of Building 7. Notice anything different, anything at all? I certainly do. Enough so that I thank the International Center of 9/11 Studies for releasing this video for us. With controlled demolition advocates like this, I may be able to retire soon!
September 2, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · 2 Comments
Tags: East Penthouse, NIST, Paul Joseph Watson, Sound of Explosives, WTC 7 · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, WTC 7
Building What is Up!
And there may be a lie on every page!
Take, for example, the first page:
In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten.
What are the lies, misinformation, and misleading statements in these two sentences from Building What?
- “In any other situation, [the collapse] would be played over and over on the news.” Technically true. However, on a day when four passenger jets are hijacked and flown into buildings, when one of those planes is crashed after a passenger revolt, when two huge office buildings collapse, when Manhattan is evacuated, the collapse of a 47-story building just isn’t the hot news item it normally would be. It still was covered. It still was played over and over again on the news — not to the extent the Towers were, but it was covered by the new media. End result: Highly misleading.
- “complete, free fall collapse” The complete collapse was not free fall. There was a 2.25 second period of virtual free-fall during the entire 16+ second collapse of WTC 7. End result: Incomplete, misleading language that tends to produce a falsehood in the minds of the readers.
- “It would be discussed for years to come…” It has been. NIST’s report was the culmination of a years-long process. End result: False.
- “…and building design codes would be completely rewritten.” Building codes are being rewritten with the NIST recommendations. It’s rank hyperbole to say the codes must be “completely” rewritten. End result: False.
That’s two sentences on the very first page. Do the evidence pages continue this trend?
- Free Fall Collapse: A slanted recounting of the NIST-David Chandler exchange culminates in this whopper — “However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.” This is false. NIST’s modeling had already shown how this short time period of virtual free fall could happen. It occurred right after all remaining columns had buckled over an 8-floor span of Building 7. NIST did not go on to explain how the free fall could have occurred because they already had.
- NIST Collapse Model: Here, the website uses a figure from the NIST report on Building 7 to show how the modeling doesn’t look like the actual building falling. However, the figure is showing a modelling of building performance that included all observable fire data but none of the observable building damage. In this run, the building still fell down — just in a remarkably different progression. Building What? and AE911Truth are misapplying this data to prejudice their audience against the NIST report. (The modelling with all observable fire and building damage is very much like the collapse of the building, but doesn’t include the stiffening effect of the curtain wall.)
- Sulfidated Steel: Again, Sample 1 of the FEMA report is being misapplied by AE911Truth. Apart from the other false statements on this page, the citation of sulfur evaporating at 445°C is no point at all, since the hypothesis is that Sample 1 corroded because of high temperatures in a sulfur-rich atmosphere. For sulfur to be in the atmosphere, it would have to have evaporated – i.e., turned into a gas. Evaporated doesn’t mean disappear, folks.
- Explosive Residues: Independent researchers have actually misidentified paint chips as thermite. Seriously. Paint chips.
- Eyewitnesses: First off, no one technically is an “eyewitness” to explosions during the Building 7 collapse. At best, they are “earwitnesses.” And explosions do not equal explosive devices. Any actual explosive device used to cut core columns would have been distinctly heard on videotapes of the collapse. Amusingly enough, the only compilation of WTC 7 collapse video displayed by Building What? has no audio! Come on, folks, play the audio! Make us all “earwitnesses!” PS: Keith McPadden has told several versions of his experience, which don’t play well together. And if he’s correct, how is it that the Red Cross is in on the conspiracy? (The guy holding the radio in his account is a Red Cross volunteer.)
- Foreknowledge: Another amusing page from Building What? They imply on the front page that Building 7 hardly got any coverage at all, and then spend this entire page documented the extensive coverage of Building 7′s collapse on 9/11. The building was expected to fall down. Firefighters made the decision to pull people away from the building around 2:30 that afternoon, based on perfectly rational reasons. It caused a lot of controversy because people wanted to find any survivors they could in the wreckage. The plaintive call of beacons sounding the location of victims under the rubble is still haunting in the footage of the day. So lots of people were talking about Building 7 on the ground. A controversial decision with lots of passionate discussion led to a situation where news media discovered the story and covered it, sometimes mistakenly. PS: The Precision item is a hoot! The controlled demolition guys were so precise in their work that they knew right to the foot where the dust cloud would stop? Get real!
- Destruction of Evidence: This page is a massive begging of the question. Sorry, folks, you have not demonstrated “intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime” with respect to the clean-up efforts. All you have demonstrated is a rush to clean up the site while the collapse investigators were getting their act together. If there was any criminal act being covered up, it certainly wasn’t the secret controlled demolition of these buildings in concert with the 9/11 attacks. This is not a reason to believe controlled demolition. You must prove controlled demolition before this item comes into play!
I’ve not seen the entire website and associated videos and photographs, but thus far I still haven’t seen the collapse of the east penthouse into WTC 7 included as part of the collapse sequence. In fact, one of the better videos showing that is the Dan Rather video, and its audio has been edited onto another collapse video! For a full video of what I’m talking about, check out this NIST video which includes the entire collapse:
So the Building What? website is yet another attempt to foist misinformation onto the general public by AE911Truth. It’s a shame that a few 9/11 family members have lent their names and reputation to help get this misleading website into the public eye. I hope they reconsider.
September 2, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · 3 Comments
Tags: BuildingWhat?, East Penthouse, FEMA Steel, Free Fall, Sound of Explosives, Thermite, WTC 7 · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, WTC 7
Question
If AE911Truth thinks the government facilitated the 9/11 attacks, why is AE911Truth petitioning the government for an investigation for subpeona power?
September 1, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · No Comments
Tags: government did it, question · Posted in: AE911Truth
I’m So Disappointed
Fresh off of my late disappointment with AdamT choosing poorly, I have been awaiting so anxiously the revelation of the full Building What? website, due to be released today, this very day. But, alas! Here it is, 14:00 Eastern, and still no brand-new website. Sigh.
Of course, I’ll be adding a Building What? section here at AE911Truth.INFO to the top menu. The people behind that effort were very clever and bought up all the buildingwhat domain names. However I was able to buy a few building-what domains. They currently direct to the home page, but sometime this weekend they will point to the new section specifically.
Also, I should have the Molten Metal page up this weekend as well. I think I’ve said before that the pages from here on out are more difficult to write because of the overlap of subjects. I’ll get there, though. Someday. Maybe by the 10-year anniversary of the attacks!
Again, I’m so sad that the new website hasn’t shown up, I don’t know what to do. Oh, well.
September 1, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · No Comments
Tags: AdamT, BuildingWhat?, molten whatever · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, WTC 7
For The Record
The NIST Report used thermal conductivity in its modeling of the response of the structural steel to fire. I’ve produced the actual citations. The thermal conductivity settings were set to begin with 47 and progressed down as the conductivity slowed due to the steel heating. I’ve also demonstrated how Kevin Ryan deceptively quoted from the wrong chapter of the NIST report (a chapter that directed people to the correct place for the information they sought). People interested in the truth will check my citations (seen below) against the actual report. People interested in believing what they wish will consult Kevin Ryan for their cookie and their pat on the head.
Also, my original post on Sample 1 said that it could not be determined “where in the building” the sample had come from, not that it could not be determined if the sample came from WTC 7 at all. People who believe they have corrected me on this matter are sadly mistaken.
Goodbye, AdamT. I abandon you to the lying lies of Kevin Ryan. When you decide to think for yourself, perhaps you will be worth the conversation.
ETA: Alas, I am the fool. My original post on Sample 1 did indeed say both. I remembered it wrong. Always check the source! My apologies for my honest mistake.
Kevin Ryan is still lying about cherrypicking the wrong chapter of the NIST report, however.
August 26, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · No Comments
Tags: AdamT, Kevin Ryan, NIST, thermal conductivity · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, Shoutout
So What’s The Deal with Derek Johnson?
Little known or cared-about fact: I’ll be in the Atlanta area over the weekend of September 11th for personal matters, and so when I saw an AE911Truth event happening in the Atlanta area that weekend, I was surprised and intrigued. Alas, it is not one Richard Gage is presenting. Instead it’s some Derek Johnson guy. Bummer. Still, I might be free, I might not, and so I thought I’d check Derek out on teh tubes and see what I could expect if I found the time to go.
The first thing I discovered was that he’s usually a lot closer to my current stomping grounds (Dallas) – Central Texas, as a matter of fact, where he’s the Libertarian candidate for the 57th District of the State Senate. He was president last year of his local TSPE chapter, and is a staunch, staunch advocate of the Austrian School of economics and Ron Paul. So there you are.
The videos of his first (I believe) speech for AE911Truth are up on the web, so I took a glance at the first segment. There was lots of religious talk. Gage and other AE911Truth speakers don’t get much into the religous motivations for what they are doing. Even David Ray Griffin, a process theologian, doesn’t ever veer into the spiritual side of 9/11 Truth. Johnson dove right in with both feet.
There was also a great deal of — how best to put this — testosterone in Mr. Johnson’s attitude, which is always a great mix with religious fervor and pseudoscience woo. This became obvious as well in his appearances over at the James Randi Educational Foundation forums, where he gave a little more information about himself:
- He’s taking his first attempt at the P.E. exam in October (so this will be one good study night he’s not using for the exam)
- He’s worked on hundreds of structures as a welder and weld examiner
- AE911Truth wasn’t very happy with his faith and Jesus talk and “booted” him off the list of approved presenters (there’s a list?)
And yet there he is on the event page at AE911Truth, so perhaps Johnson has promised to tone down the faith talk in exchange for getting back on the approved list.
According to Johnson at JREF, there are three issues with which he underpins his 9/11 Truth stance. In his words:
1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?
2. Does the 100′ unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?
3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?
If that’s all he needs settled to become the biggest debunker ever, EVER, then this website shall concentrate on getting those answers for him. Wouldn’t it be wild if Johnson got his answers and cancelled the big WeAreChangeAtlanta event? However, the folks at JREF were giving him a lot of good information and far more attention than his evidence and his attitude required, and he didn’t seem to be recognizing the errors of his analysis.
But then again, there was this tease:
Oystein: And why should Richard Gage, of all people, be better equipped to help you there than NIST?
Johnson: Because there is money going into “911 truth” and some of this money, in my opinion should go to real FEA and FOIA. Plenty of people are aware of AE911TRUTH, and that’s great, now it’s time to use it or get off the pot. That is why Richard and all other that have the means and desire should pursue FEA, it will vindicate or incriminate NIST.
Oystein: Has it occurred to you that maybe the “Scholars for truth” are avoiding such anaylsis, like the devil avoids consecrated water, because they suspect the end of their truther career? “Just asking questions” is so much more convenient…
Johnson: Let me answer by saying this, not all those in “9-11 truth” really want resolution. Some, maybe not many, but some are making really big bucks maintaining things just the way they are… too bad for that.
I’m sure Johnson doesn’t have evidence of this chicanery. It’s just his hunch. But it’s an interesting hunch to have from someone who’s still speaking with AE911Truth approval. Right now the perceived calumny at NIST and during the 9/11 attack has him yelling at the greater evil.
We shall see.
August 25, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · No Comments
Tags: Derek Johnson, JREF, molten whatever, NIST, WTC 7 · Posted in: AE911Truth, Other 9/11 Truth Advocates
Hey, AdamT?
Don’t you think it’s time to correct your blog post stating I was making false and misleading statements when it turned out to be Kevin Ryan?
August 24, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · No Comments
Tags: AdamT, Kevin Ryan · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, Shoutout
Dave Thomas and Richard Gage Coast to Coast
Ah, gee, I knew I was forgetting something last night. Dave Thomas of New Mexicans for Science and Research debated Richard Gage on Coast to Coast last night. I’d gone to an ARCE event last night, my first one, and got home and watched some Dexter. I just totally spaced on it.
The folks at JREF watched, though, and kept score. Check out the thread here. I’m just running through it and I’m amazed at the things Gage was bringing up, like the faked explosion on the “Seven’s Exploding” video. Hey, Richard, how many times can you say “fakity fake” in 10 seconds? Amazing.
ETA: Ooh. Dave made a really great video on lateral ejections.
August 22, 2010
· Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Tags: Coast to Coast, Dave Thomas, ejections, Richard Gage · Posted in: Shoutout