Sunday, 24 January 2016

6 errors in NIST's 9/11 FAQ pages

Everything I've heard points towards the 3 WTC skyscrapers being taken down by explosives, in a controlled demolition. But in the end it wasn't the compelling arguments of the skeptics, but the incredibly bad arguments from the official story advocates, that finally pushed me over! It was how NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, who did the official scientific investigation) pretended that they can't find anything at all indicating explosives! Not even worth testing for it, which is the normal procedure! And how they brush off all the evidence actually indicating this, using some extremely weird scientific twists, that would make even a high school student, with any talent for the subject, raise an eye-brow!

Here are some examples, that make me, a master of science in bioengineering, certainly raise my eye-brows:

(The below examples are all from the NIST 9/11 FAQ page:
World Trade Center Investigation Frequently Asked Questions

and its sub-pages:
Questions and Answers about the Overall NIST WTC Investigation (9/19/2011)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (9/19/2011)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (updated 6/27/12))

[Some 200 technical experts - including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia - reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steels from  from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.]

BEGAN to collapse... Meaning they never even attempted to figure out how they could continue to collapse symmetrically and totally, all the way to the ground! Without tipping or breaking apart. This total, symmetrical collapse is something that requires immense skill and experience to achieve with a skyscraper, when on purpose. See this youtube play list of some failed attempts (and some successful ones) for illustration:

Building collapses (Play list by me)

NIST is pretending that this part is so normal, it doesn't even deserve their attention! Despite this never having happened to a steel-framed building before or after.

[Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials]

Yes, ok, but nobody is suggesting thermite did it! We're talking about nano-thermite, which is a much finer distribution of thermite. When I studied combustion theory at Chalmers, I learned that fire and explosion is the same thing, explosion is only faster. Reaction speed can be achieved by making the fuel more finely distributed. Thus thermite is a combustion fuel, but nano-thermite is an explosive. Yet NIST does not even mention nano-thermite! A FAQ asked by 2000 scientists!

[Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.]

Nonsense. A peer reviewed report of the findings of nano-thermite has been made by Danish chemist Niels Harrit et al:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

He talks about red-grey chips of nanometer size, containing the said elements and burning vividly when ignited. Such chips, in large amount, do not just form spontaneously in a fire or a collapse! A nanometer is typically around 10 atoms wide. How could iron (not steel, btw) atomize itself spontaneously to that degree? And mix itself evenly with equally atomized aluminum and sulfur? I've taken a course in nanotechnology, and I know it's a highly advanced technology. Not something that just happens!

[many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.]

Hundreds of massive structural components? Many thousands of pounds of explosives? Why not just 10 or 50 pounds?

Doesn't it seem a bit weird that one second tonnes of explosives are required to tear down a building, but the next second they conclude that zero explosives works just as fine...? If the moderate case of 50 pounds is ruled out as too little, wouldn't the extreme case of zero pounds be automatically ruled out too, logically?

And just so you know, there was renovation work going on in the elevator shafts, in the months leading up to 9/11.

NIST admits they did not follow protocol, because:

[NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST’s WTC investigation]

They do not say that they broke the protocol BY not testing for explosives, but that is what they are accused of, and they do not deny it. And when you know that, their explanation that there was a scope for a broader investigation feels a bit insufficient, doesn't it? How can fewer tests be a broader investigation? ADD more tests and we will not protest, but why exclude tests that are otherwise required?

[21. Why does NIST state that a yellow stream of molten metal seen in some photographs pouring down the side of WTC2 was aluminum from the crashed plane /.../?

/.../ 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.]

With the risk of repeating myself... pure nonsense! I guess it helps to see the pictures of this bright shining, orange, dripping liquid:

If this were the case, if you could just melt aluminum in a big crucible, throw in some computers and office partitions, not even stirring it, and suddenly it would go from looking like mercury to glowing like the setting sun, then why is there no record of this ever having happened before or after? Why don't we perform such lab experiments in school? Why haven't even NIST themselves carried out this lab experiment, just to show that it was possible?!... To back up their claim!

Btw, you can see from the pictures that the color is uniform. Not just oriented to slug in the surface. (Or pieces of furniture.) Organic matter and metal spontaneously tend not to blend very well.

What this pouring liquid looks like is probably exactly what it is: A stream of molten steel, from the nano-thermitic reaction that has already started inside the building.

So, in order of appearance:
1) Wrong scope for the whole investigation.
2) Pretending that thermite/thermate is the controversy, when it is about nano-thermite.
3) Claiming that they couldn't have tested for thermite/thermate because something similar could have formed spontaneously in the rubble. Well nano-thermite certainly couldn't.
4) Admitting that it takes huge amounts of explosives to demolish a building, and then concluding that zero explosives must therefore have been used.
5) They broke protocol by not testing for explosives. They claim that their reason for not following protocol was that they needed BROADER procedures, but this does not address the controversy, as excluding steps make it a narrower procedure than the protocol dictates.
6) Claiming that molten aluminum can shine like molten steel, so long as some part of the liquid touches on a piece of furniture.

This was just a few of the weird science twists on the NIST 9/11 FAQ pages. And I didn't even mention the freefall of WTC7! (But you can hear and see their unbelievably weird explanation of that here, on youtube...)

But finally a bit of humor, to lighten up the mood! You gotta watch this, if you have 3 min to spare:
Aamer Rahman - OSAMA BIN LADEN


  1. A very interesting subject, still!

    I have not done the research you've done, so I cannot say that your points are right or wrong. I do however find the conlusion that everything points to that w3c was purposely demolished by explosives illogical. NIST draws conclusion A - no foul play (except by the terrorists!), drawn by a large set of facts produced in their report. Now some fallacies are pointed to here. They may be actual errors, I cannot tell, but let's say they are. Firstly, that does not imply a reason for why NIST is wrong. Also, these erroneous facts do not therefore imply ¬A. In this case, they at best say that the report does not imply A. In that case, we're back to speculation or other logical conclusions.

    That aside, the report may very well be tailored to give a desired conclusion beforehand. It might have been politically impossible to do a lot of research trying to imply foul play, like experiments with thermite and such. And from my neutral view, I think that if you expect to find a certain answer, you'll most likely find it - it's in the human nature. Only a fully impartial group, extremely well funded and with lots of time and full access could come close to a definite conclusion, and that will imho never happen.

    Still, a novice like me cannot help to wonder how controlled a thermite "explosion" would be, whatever the burn rate. Just a fraction of a second off at one burn point compared to another and you'd fail. That is, if such a collapse has to be controlled to occur at all. Standard demo charges would be very visible. The fall of WTC7 was a jawdropper to me too, though... Never heard a good explanation of how that went down, so of course there's room for question. Also, I'm probably wrong about everything.

    Finally, I'd myself recommend the intro to the movie 'Postal' to end a too long comment:

    1. Ah, no, no... I don't at all mean to say that everything IN THIS BLOG TEXT points towards a controlled demolition! Perhaps I need to clarify that in the text. All I meant was to make a little introduction that before this text happened, there was evidence being examined and blah blah, it all pointed towards the 3 WTC skyscrapers being demolished by explosives. NIST said something else, and here starts the actual text which is my comment to their report.

      About the logical steps, you are right that just because a report writer makes errors, it does not mean that the conclusion must be wrong. But that's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that we have a highly respected, well established center of science, NIST, making errors that a high school student under severe time pressure would hesitate to make... So are they mistakes? Or are they lies?

      Because if they are lies, for whatever reason, they're covering up mass murder! In the best case.

      And yes, a demolition with nano-thermite can be controlled. It is neither harder nor easier than with other explosives, as far as I've understood.

      But now I have a youtube video to watch! :)