9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

Here is another video explaining how acceleration was calculated. NIST has admitted FF for WTC 7, but "has refused to address the obvious implications".
Which questions how the lower mass of a huge structure would simply move out of the way to allow FF. This would not occur, and never has occurred in a building with fires that are spread out unevenly within the building, like WTC 7.

Acceleration + Serendipity - YouTube

A&E again hahahahahahahahahahah
1

They like Arts and Entertainment.....Makes their lives easier......

 

[GuyPinestra]

in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said. jet fuel, paper, office furniture, office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles, pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
you have no proof otherwise....

Umm no, I'm not. But regardless, let's look at your list.

1. Jet fuel - Mostly consumed at impact in the huge fireballs we witnessed, Residual amounts burned off in 10-15 minutes. Even if jet fuel burned hot enough in open air to damage steel beams and trusses (which it doesn't) it was burned off long before it could accomplish the feat.

2. Paper - Doesn't burn hot enough.

3. office furniture & cubicles - what percentage of that furniture was metal and couldn't burn, and where is your proof that wood and plastic can obtain a high enough temperature burning in open air to accomplish the necessary damage to the floor trusses?

4. Gypsum, sound proofing and ceiling tiles - Doesn't burn. Commercial applications mean code wouldn't allow them to use flammable substances in ceilings and sound proofing, and we already know that gypsum is not flammable.

5. PVC and chemicals - From what, exactly?

 

[Montrovant]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.

 

[PredFan]

It seems that it is more then just shoddy or shitty jobs. It is being called unscientific, and in some cases actual lies.

Here is a page for you to look at if you're interested that better explains it.
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan

Well if that's your only point then I have no issue.

Lacking a plausable alternative explanation, I have to go with the conclusion that Al Queda hijacked planes, flew them into the towers and they fell. The true details of what happened can probably never be known.

If that's the only point you can conclude, then carry on and have a nice fantasy filled delusional existence in Amerika..

I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.

 

[Gamolon]

in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said. jet fuel, paper, office furniture, office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles, pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
you have no proof otherwise....

Umm no, I'm not. But regardless, let's look at your list.

1. Jet fuel - Mostly consumed at impact in the huge fireballs we witnessed, Residual amounts burned off in 10-15 minutes. Even if jet fuel burned hot enough in open air to damage steel beams and trusses (which it doesn't) it was burned off long before it could accomplish the feat.

2. Paper - Doesn't burn hot enough.

3. office furniture & cubicles - what percentage of that furniture was metal and couldn't burn, and where is your proof that wood and plastic can obtain a high enough temperature burning in open air to accomplish the necessary damage to the floor trusses?

4. Gypsum, sound proofing and ceiling tiles - Doesn't burn. Commercial applications mean code wouldn't allow them to use flammable substances in ceilings and sound proofing, and we already know that gypsum is not flammable.

5. PVC and chemicals - From what, exactly?

Cardington test results were used. Last page of the inked document, Figure 3. The temperatures of the simulated office fire reached 1200 C in 40 minutes.

http://fire.fsv.cvut.cz/difisek/CZ_EN/WP5a-01-CZ_EN_TEXT.pdf

 

[Gamolon]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.

Guy,

The point is this.

For example, the plane that struck WTC1 severed about 31 perimeter columns. Those columns took and transferred some of the load. You effectively removed about 53% of one face of the perimeter facade. That means 53% of the load that those columns helped support has now been transferred to the remaining support components.

Now damage/severe a couple of core columns.

Now heat them up so they lose strength.

The other support components in that damaged area become overburdened and fail.

Let me ask a question.

If explosives were used to blow all the columns and supports on that one floor to initiate the collapse, how come the upper section tilted?

 

[Gamolon]

Mr. Jones,

Are you going to address your 36 minute, 50 minute, 55 minute, 60 minute, or longer cluster-fuck-of-evidence-to-back-your-claims regarding how long the collapse SHOULD have taken?

According to a PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIAN no less...

Just in case you missed it Mr. Jones...

 

[Gamolon]

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

 

[SAYIT]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.

Guy,

The point is this.

For example, the plane that struck WTC1 severed about 31 perimeter columns. Those columns took and transferred some of the load. You effectively removed about 53% of one face of the perimeter facade. That means 53% of the load that those columns helped support has now been transferred to the remaining support components.

Now damage/severe a couple of core columns.

Now heat them up so they lose strength.

The other support components in that damaged area become overburdened and fail.

Let me ask a question.

If explosives were used to blow all the columns and supports on that one floor to initiate the collapse, how come the upper section tilted?

Where, oh where is the evidence of explosives and explosions, who planted them at whose command, what did they use and who does a controlled demo from the middle floors of an enormous skyscraper? Those who dismiss the NIST report are obligated to offer viable alternatives and evidence. 11+ years later they still have nothing.

 

[Gamolon]

and left out the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008?

I read this and had to laugh. Watching gerrycan's videos huh Mr. Jones?

Do you want me to hand your ass to you regarding this crap? I dare you to ask me.

gerrycan doesn't know how to read construction drawings and made a HUGE blunder about the shear studs and NIST supposedly "leaving them out"...

Since you're too much of a chickenshit to respond, I'll show you just ONE of the many areas gerrycan and his videos fail miserably.

In his video he makes the claim that shear studs were on all the beams and girders. His evidence for this is 3 drawings from the Emery Roth & Sons set of blueprints, particularly S-8-10, S-8-19, and S-8-20. These three drawings DO show shear studs, but only for those floors (10, 19, 20). He assumes, stupidly, that there are missing drawings for all the rest of the 44 floors in WTC7.

The problem is that there is a drawing S-8 that was typical for floors 8 through 20 and floors 24 through 45. This drawing shows NO SHEAR studs for any of the girders on those floors.

The three drawings he sites above were drawings made from COPIES of S-8 in order to show changes on certain beams (they added plates to the bottoms of some of them on those floors) for those three floors only (10, 19, 20).

Even the Frankel Steel fabrication drawings for the floors don't show shear studs.

So my question to you is, how can you claim NIST changed their documents based on the fact that they discovered shear studs on the girders when there were no shear studs on those girders to begin with?

I have MANY more mistakes made by gerrycan if you want me to list them.

 

[Gamolon]

I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.

Guy,

The point is this.

For example, the plane that struck WTC1 severed about 31 perimeter columns. Those columns took and transferred some of the load. You effectively removed about 53% of one face of the perimeter facade. That means 53% of the load that those columns helped support has now been transferred to the remaining support components.

Now damage/severe a couple of core columns.

Now heat them up so they lose strength.

The other support components in that damaged area become overburdened and fail.

Let me ask a question.

If explosives were used to blow all the columns and supports on that one floor to initiate the collapse, how come the upper section tilted?

Where, oh where is the evidence of explosives and explosions, who planted them at whose command, what did they use and who does a controlled demo from the middle floors of an enormous skyscraper? Those who dismiss the NIST report are obligated to offer viable explanations and evidence. 11+ years later they still have nothing.

What I would like to have explained to me from the truthe side of things is how they separated the floors from the perimeter columns.

How was thermite and explosives used to create this partial core?

 

[SAYIT]

Guy,

The point is this.

For example, the plane that struck WTC1 severed about 31 perimeter columns. Those columns took and transferred some of the load. You effectively removed about 53% of one face of the perimeter facade. That means 53% of the load that those columns helped support has now been transferred to the remaining support components.

Now damage/severe a couple of core columns.

Now heat them up so they lose strength.

The other support components in that damaged area become overburdened and fail.

Let me ask a question.

If explosives were used to blow all the columns and supports on that one floor to initiate the collapse, how come the upper section tilted?

Where, oh where is the evidence of explosives and explosions, who planted them at whose command, what did they use and who does a controlled demo from the middle floors of an enormous skyscraper? Those who dismiss the NIST report are obligated to offer viable explanations and evidence. 11+ years later they still have nothing.

What I would like to have explained to me from the truthe side of things is how they separated the floors from the perimeter columns.

How was thermite and explosives used to create this partial core?

As your expose on the gerrycan videos clearly demonstrates, most of the "truthers" are actually liars or simply Internet "experts" spewing CT BS from the script. Some, like Jones, have a more nefarious agenda.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Well if that's your only point then I have no issue.

Lacking a plausable alternative explanation, I have to go with the conclusion that Al Queda hijacked planes, flew them into the towers and they fell. The true details of what happened can probably never be known.

If that's the only point you can conclude, then carry on and have a nice fantasy filled delusional existence in Amerika..

I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.

As depressing as it may be to think it, the only plausible alternative is a CD of some type.
What we can conclude when taking all the available info into account, is that the NIST theory can not stand up to scrutiny, for various reasons that can be pointed out.
If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

 

[daws101]

in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said. jet fuel, paper, office furniture, office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles, pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
you have no proof otherwise....

Umm no, I'm not. But regardless, let's look at your list.

1. Jet fuel - Mostly consumed at impact in the huge fireballs we witnessed, Residual amounts burned off in 10-15 minutes. Even if jet fuel burned hot enough in open air to damage steel beams and trusses (which it doesn't) it was burned off long before it could accomplish the feat.

2. Paper - Doesn't burn hot enough.

3. office furniture & cubicles - what percentage of that furniture was metal and couldn't burn, and where is your proof that wood and plastic can obtain a high enough temperature burning in open air to accomplish the necessary damage to the floor trusses?

4. Gypsum, sound proofing and ceiling tiles - Doesn't burn. Commercial applications mean code wouldn't allow them to use flammable substances in ceilings and sound proofing, and we already know that gypsum is not flammable.

5. PVC and chemicals - From what, exactly?

still wrong! the code or codes are written for maximum fire resistance not fire proof (meaning impervious to flame or high heat)
all those materials burn at a certain point some higher some lower.
if they did not burn or lose their structural integrity due to exposer to high temps then there would be no reason to have building codes or fire departments.
fun fact: high explosives do not cause fires.
Also shit head none of us "fools" ever said that fire ALONE caused the collapse.
that's you assholes attempting to minimize all the other contributing factors.

pvc for electrical conduit
chemicals for janitorial use and chemicals and solvents for maintenance..

 

[PredFan]

If that's the only point you can conclude, then carry on and have a nice fantasy filled delusional existence in Amerika..

I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.

As depressing as it may be to think it, the only plausible alternative is a CD of some type.
What we can conclude when taking all the available info into account, is that the NIST theory can not stand up to scrutiny, for various reasons that can be pointed out.
If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

Ok, now we can actually get somewhere.

You subscribe to a theory that it had to be a controlled demolition. Well, let's apply the same keen scrutiny to that theory as you have to the NIST's report.

Problem #1 with your theory:

How did a demolition crew rig both towers to explode and drop without any office worker, floor sweeper, or maintenance man knowing about it?

Problem #2

We've all seen buildings brought down by explosives. We watch the explosives go off and the flash of each explosion as the building drops. Why didn't we see the subsequent explosions that brought the towers down?

 

[daws101]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.

[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

If that's the only point you can conclude, then carry on and have a nice fantasy filled delusional existence in Amerika..

I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.

As depressing as it may be to think it, the only plausible alternative is a CD of some type.
What we can conclude when taking all the available info into account, is that the NIST theory can not stand up to scrutiny, for various reasons that can be pointed out.
If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

not the old and debunked had to be a CD of some kind ploy!

here's who really did it : Directed-energy weapon Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Teleforce

Later in life, Tesla made claims concerning a "teleforce" weapon after studying the Van de Graaff generator.[148][149] The press called it a "peace ray" or death ray.[150][151] Tesla described the weapon as being able to be used against ground based infantry or for antiaircraft purposes.

Tesla gives the following description concerning the particle gun's operation:


[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks.[152][153]

In total, the components and methods included:
An apparatus for producing manifestations of energy in free air instead of in a high vacuum as in the past.
A mechanism for generating tremendous electrical force.
A means of intensifying and amplifying the force developed by the second mechanism.
A new method for producing a tremendous electrical repelling force. This would be the projector, or gun, of the invention.[154][155]

Tesla claimed to have worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death.[156][157]

In 1937, at a luncheon in his honor concerning the death ray, Tesla stated, "But it is not an experiment... I have built, demonstrated and used it. Only a little time will pass before I can give it to the world." His records indicate that the device is based on a narrow stream of small tungsten pellets that are accelerated via high voltage (by means akin to his magnifying transformer).[149]

During the same year, Tesla wrote a treatise, "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media," concerning charged particle beam weapons.[158] Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a "superweapon that would put an end to all war". This treatise is currently in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade. It describes an open-ended vacuum tube with a gas jet seal that allows particles to exit, a method of charging particles to millions of volts, and a method of creating and directing non-dispersive particle streams (through electrostatic repulsion).[158] Tesla tried to interest the US War Department,[159] the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia in the device.[160]

During the period in which the negotiations were being carried on, Tesla claimed that efforts had been made to steal the invention. His room had been entered and his papers had been scrutinized, but the thieves, or spies, left empty-handed. He said that there was no danger that his invention could be stolen for he had at no time committed any part of it to paper. The blueprint for the teleforce weapon was all in his mind.[161]

 

[Gamolon]

If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

Oh the sweet, sweet irony is killing me Mr. Jones!!!!!!

Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.

Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the underneath mass.

They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds.

Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer,

Why won't you address your contradictions Mr. Jones?