WTC Steel

NIST from Paul Coker on Vimeo.

"Evidence that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its treatment of a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of the specimens of steel were 

“rapidly corroded by sulfidation” 

(FEMA 2002, Appendix C). 

This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called 

“perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” 

(Killough-Miller, 2002). 

A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr.Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that 

“[f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated” 

(Glanz, 2001). 

But the NIST report, in its section headed “Learning from the Recovered Steel,” fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation. Why would the NIST scientists apparently share Mayor Bloomberg’s disdain for empirical studies of recovered steel? 

One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said: 

"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge,

“none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible”

(Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). 

So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane’s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building

This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first---after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.

We now learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the only one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south tower, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the collapse of at least one tower. The director of OEM reported directly to Giuliani.

So although Giuliani said that he and others “were told” that the towers were going to collapse, it was his own people who were doing the telling.

As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have discussed these facts, but it did not.

The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses, manifested by The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST Report, which said, amazingly:

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. . . . [Our simulation treats only] the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building . . . was poised for collapse"

(80n, 140).

Steven Jones comments, appropriately:

"What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? . . . What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas . . . ? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted” to make them fit the desired outcome." 

(Jones, 2006)

Full Article

http://www.mujca.com/textnewyork.htm