University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Hey, wasn't there that huge tower in Dubai that caught fire last year?

Basically nothing - the fire was put out

It was on the outside of the building - in the polyurethane insulation of the cladding on the exterior of the building

Several buildings using same construction methods have caught fire in similar manner

Looks spectacular, but does no real damage to the building

a reply to: Flatcoat

Little lie, did watch the beginning of the video. Thought it was ignorant. All the jumping around of clips. Was trying to be nice.

Seen 18" steam pipping expansion loops and bends fall off their supports. Same for 36" flare pipping. Bends and loops are used because running steam pipping straight from Vessel A to Vessel B would fail. The bends have feet supported by pads. Many cases of pipping expanding beyond design limits resulting in feet sliding of pads. Also contactors do not always building as designed with the same results. That's way the video is ignorant.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Hey, wasn't there that huge tower in Dubai that caught fire last year?
Whatever did happen to that, I wonder?

It'll be nice to hopefully see an investigation that properly releases their methodology and data to be peer-reviewed, rather than keeping their modelling numbers in a lockbox. Lookin' at you, NIST.

No sky scraper in history has ever collapsed in it's foot print in history. For any reason, that's a fact! Here are some horrendous fires. Makes building 7 look like a joke.

skyscrapers don't collapse from fire ever

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: hellobruce

Samples of dust to show... it was dust! If Jones wanted credibility he would have had his work peer reviewed, and not just published in a "you pay, we publish" Journal!

Yes! Release all your data so it can be appropriately verified by independent sources, just like NIST di-

Ohh... Nevermind. The model they used was never released, at all.

We all know he can't do that. NIST never tested for explosives. And if they didn't something is definitely wrong. It was a white wash for sure. Show us the test results Bruce. No BS this time.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Still not worthy of my time, but show me where any of the WTC builds only suffered from fire damage. Show me where the only casualty to WTC buildings was solely fire damage. Show me where the WTC 911 was only a fire event. You cannot even get the events at WTC right. So ignorant to say a fire never caused a building collapse when its only a third of the cause of the WTC buildings failures. Fire is only one part of a four or five peace puzzle. I'm I wrong? Jets hit buildings. The buildings did not fall in their own footprint. Insulation was damaged. Fire fighting system failed. (Sprinklers) Structure were compromised. Fire damage. Thermal stress. Damage from other falling building.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The only thing that happen on 911 was an office fire? So ignorant......

If jets hitting the twin towers at the WTC didn't initiate the process of their collapse, the an iceberg never sank the Titanic.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Isn't the guy in that video the NIST director? (I haven't watched it yet either.)

a reply to: firerescue

It wasn't me who said anything about nukes. They do have tactical nukes that do not put out high levels of radiation. So I wouldn't rule it out.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: hellobruce

Samples of dust to show... it was dust! If Jones wanted credibility he would have had his work peer reviewed, and not just published in a "you pay, we publish" Journal!

Yes! Release all your data so it can be appropriately verified by independent sources, just like NIST di-

Ohh... Nevermind. The model they used was never released, at all.

We all know he can't do that. NIST never tested for explosives. And if they didn't something is definitely wrong. It was a white wash for sure. Show us the test results Bruce. No BS this time.

You do know you don't need to test for explosives? Physical evedance is s big part of determining if a explosive device was set off. The type of damage, explosive device fragments, and fragments from the ignition source. NIST has stated there is no evidence an explosive device was used. It's well documented a blast needed to destroy steel supports at the WTC would produce and explosion sound of 130 to 140 decibels. An explosion heard up to half a mile away. It's impractical to use thermite in controlled demolition, but it still would leave fragments of its ignition system. I also would assume some sort of housing would have been used to hold thermite in place which would have left fragments. The explosive paint idea fails on my levels. Its not dense enough to cause serious damage. What kind of ignition source woukd you use. Thermite paint, how would you get that to burn at a speed to get anything done other than a fire. Thermite paint probably would not be dense enough to cause more than a fire.
aboutforensics.co.uk...

a reply to: neutronflux

How much research must one do to understand he has been duped? NONE.

Almost 15 years later and a small part of the population STILL does not realize it was tricked by a sophisticated deception in accordance with military standards. Some folks can be fooled once, twice, thrice by known liars and still never know it.

I'm not in that class of people.

a reply to: neutronflux

The "hot spots" were from a thermal imaging satellite. Though they were likely also "hot" from radiation, we will never know. Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer AVIRIS, was operated by JPL and NASA over the area on 16, 18, 22 and 23 September according to Prager's footnotes.

a reply to: Salander

Though they were likely also "hot" from radiation, we will never know.

The clean up people in that area would have died from radiation exposure in short order.
Any evidence of acute radiation deaths?

a reply to: samkent

Have you heard of the Zadroga Bill? Ask Jon Stewart, he will tell you all about it, as he has run a campaign to address all the sicknesses, radiation poisoning, amongst those who worked at Ground Zero as they call it.

Matt Tartaglia described nuclear decontamination protocols in effect when he worked there. Some time later his teeth began falling out, and eventually he died.

There are many examples of people made sick from their work there, and many of the conditions are the same as those who survived Hiroshima or Chernobyl.

a reply to: Salander

Ask Jon Stewart, he will tell you all about it, as he has run a campaign to address all the sicknesses, radiation poisoning, amongst those who worked at Ground Zero as they call it.

No. If it were a 'hot spot' with high levels of heat due to radioactive material the clean up people would have died in a few days not weeks or months later.

a reply to: samkent
We can all agree the buildings fell? If a nuclear source was used it exploded. The nuclear source whould have literally atomized. The physical atoms giving off radiation would be everywhere, that's called contamination. Low estimate, 25 rems simgle dose to probably make people sick. The radiation and contamination at 911 would be extensive to expose people to even 1 rem an hour for low doses over time. Bottom line, if there was enough contamination to make people sick from radiation, they would have been crapped up with contamination. The contamination would have been carried to homes, restaurants, and hospitals. Anywhere people contaminated went would aslo be contaminated. Imagine 10 clean up persons contaminated going to the same lunch spot everyday? Tools and equipment would have be contaminated, making people sick. People indirectly not envolved with clean up but in contact with people contaminated would have get sick. No nuclear source that would of created enough contamination to make people sick was used.

www.radiationanswers.org...

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Actually that's just a clip showing Mr. Sunder stating NIST's theory as to why the building fell. It then goes on to show some of the many flaws in the NIST report, such as wrongly calculated expansion values for the beams, and certain very important structural components that NIST "forgot" to include in their model which would have made it completely impossible for the beam to fail in the way they claimed it did.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Then how does steam and process pipping in power and chemical plants on occasion expand to the point their pipping support feet slide of their pads. Beams with no expansion bend and loops ran in straight lines would be more susceptible to extreme tempature differentials and expansion. Because you do not like the outcome does not make it impossible. Why is your model better than the NIST. Because you manipulated it to get the results you want. Great science.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Then how does steam and process pipping in power and chemical plants on occasion expand to the point their pipping support feet slide of their pads. Beams with no expansion bend and loops ran in straight lines would be more susceptible to extreme tempature differentials and expansion. Because you do not like the outcome does not make it impossible. Why is your model better than the NIST. Because you manipulated it to get the results you want. Great science.

a reply to: neutronflux

First off, it's not my video. Secondly, the author of the video uses original plans of WTC7 to point out important structural components that NIST, for some reason, decided to leave out of their collapse model. Maybe because including them renders their entire theory impossible. Thirdly, you should get your facts straight before accusing me of "manipulating" something mate.