The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Gamolon]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?

Again. You cannot tell a molten substance by sight alone. Especially when there are other materials that could have mixed with it.

That is a fact.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.

How were the temperatures maintained? It couldn't have been thermite as that burns very rapidly.

So what do you suggest?

The thing with aluminum is that it cools more rapidly then steel, this is why it is used as heat sinks in many electronics. It has a higher heat transfer rate then steel. This is why aluminum engine heads are used. It radiates/conducts away all of its heat so rapidly that it cools off much faster than anything else. So if a piece of aluminum were to be in contact with a piece of steel, at melting temps, the aluminum would transfer its heat to the steel.
Aluminum will not stay hot longer then steel. Certainly not for the length of time the piles
remained at the reported temps. Please correct 5this if I am wrong...
Which will cool faster? Archive - Physics Forums Archive

Hot objects transfer heat to their surroundings by radiation. If you put a pot on top of the red hot coils, the coils often cool down enough to see the decrease in the brightness of the coils; this is because conductive heat transfer away from the coils decreases the amount of power that must be removed by radiation and convection to the air.
When you start stacking metal layers on top of each other, like a sheet of
steel and a sheet of aluminum, you are adding interfaces. And the heat
plate is going to have to get hotter to transfer the same amount of heat
through these interfaces.

Question: I am in search of a metal that when heated, rapidly dissipates the heat, and cools quickly.
Replies: In terms of cooling quickly, what you want is a material with low heat capacity and high thermal conductivity, and you want to have as little of it as possible (low mass). There are lots of metals that fit that bill, but in terms of overall usefulness and cost, aluminum comes to mind.
Metals for Soldering Irons, Cool Quickly

IOW's, if it was aluminum melting in the rubble piles, the fuel source would have to remain high and constant, as aluminum rids itself of the heat much faster then say steel...Regardless NIST ignored the reports of the molten steel/metal altogether, and this is one strike against them IMO.
We have to dig into their reports to find evidence of any extreme temps and times that suggest any steel was melted or weakened
I would like to discuss this next, after any opposing comments..

Mr. Jones.

The point I am trying to make is this.

There is no proof that the molten metal seen was molten steel. That is a fact. You could not have visually determined what the molten substance was by sight alone.

 

[eots]

Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot.

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.

what other materials would that be

Hmm. You seem desperate, Princess. Can it be the basis of your CT is melting away? We both know you aren't stupid and are well aware what other mats were present but I'll name just one and provide a link [Jefferson Labs] to its melting temp: Steel alloys.
What's the melting point of steel?

so your claim is mats where mixed with aluminum ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY]Molten Aluminum Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[SAYIT]

what other materials would that be

Hmm. You seem desperate, Princess. Can it be the basis of your CT is melting away? We both know you aren't stupid and are well aware what other mats were present but I'll name just one and provide a link [Jefferson Labs] to its melting temp: Steel alloys.
What's the melting point of steel?

so your claim is mats where mixed with aluminum ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY]Molten Aluminum Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

Like you I have no hard evidence of the make-up of the molten mats at GZ or that seen oozing from the building. Unlike you I do not presume to know what they were but the basis of your CT is melting faster than any material in the WTC on 9/11.

 

[SAYIT]

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

 

[SAYIT]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550.

TThe melting point of aluminum is 1220 F.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.htmlhe


Wrong. The perimeter columns were ENCASED in an aluminum facade. All 1300 feet, four faces of each tower.

Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

So what, in your opinion, maintained these temperatures for that long?

This is not for me to speculate at this time, this thread is supposed to be about the reported information, and what if anything did NIST do about it, and what it is their reports concerning it.
I have been posting what was said to have been found at GZ, and what NIST reaction was, and how it reflects in their report.
In trying to stay true to the theme of the thread, I am not speculating or what my opinions are, and in agreeing with your requests to try to link to info that is being discussed, and sourced, I've been trying to stay true to that as well.

In fact maybe you could link to the amount of aluminum on/in the towers that you mentioned? We should reasonably expected NIST to tell us what THEY thought kept the fires in the rubble burning for 100 days, and what the fuel source could have been.
Is there anything withing the NIST reports that mention any of this, or comes close to an answer?

That info and the link were provided by Daws on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys.

 

[eots]

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals

 

[eots]

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmirch

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Mr. Jones]

Again. You cannot tell a molten substance by sight alone. Especially when there are other materials that could have mixed with it.

That is a fact.


How were the temperatures maintained? It couldn't have been thermite as that burns very rapidly.

So what do you suggest?

The thing with aluminum is that it cools more rapidly then steel, this is why it is used as heat sinks in many electronics. It has a higher heat transfer rate then steel. This is why aluminum engine heads are used. It radiates/conducts away all of its heat so rapidly that it cools off much faster than anything else. So if a piece of aluminum were to be in contact with a piece of steel, at melting temps, the aluminum would transfer its heat to the steel.
Aluminum will not stay hot longer then steel. Certainly not for the length of time the piles
remained at the reported temps. Please correct 5this if I am wrong...
Which will cool faster? Archive - Physics Forums Archive

Hot objects transfer heat to their surroundings by radiation. If you put a pot on top of the red hot coils, the coils often cool down enough to see the decrease in the brightness of the coils; this is because conductive heat transfer away from the coils decreases the amount of power that must be removed by radiation and convection to the air.
When you start stacking metal layers on top of each other, like a sheet of
steel and a sheet of aluminum, you are adding interfaces. And the heat
plate is going to have to get hotter to transfer the same amount of heat
through these interfaces.

Question: I am in search of a metal that when heated, rapidly dissipates the heat, and cools quickly.
Replies: In terms of cooling quickly, what you want is a material with low heat capacity and high thermal conductivity, and you want to have as little of it as possible (low mass). There are lots of metals that fit that bill, but in terms of overall usefulness and cost, aluminum comes to mind.
Metals for Soldering Irons, Cool Quickly

IOW's, if it was aluminum melting in the rubble piles, the fuel source would have to remain high and constant, as aluminum rids itself of the heat much faster then say steel...Regardless NIST ignored the reports of the molten steel/metal altogether, and this is one strike against them IMO.
We have to dig into their reports to find evidence of any extreme temps and times that suggest any steel was melted or weakened
I would like to discuss this next, after any opposing comments..

Mr. Jones.

The point I am trying to make is this.

There is no proof that the molten metal seen was molten steel. That is a fact. You could not have visually determined what the molten substance was by sight alone.

Study the links that I provided regarding aluminum IE: why it's used as heatsinks etc...
My point that you're ignoring altogether is this-
Reports from credible sources about the molten state of steel/metals were ignored by NIST, and should have been treated as an important detail.
Fact-the temps at GZ were in the extreme
Fact-Aluminum cools faster then steel
It seems that you are already starting to ignore the theme of the thread....
There is no proof that the molten substance/metal was NOT steel, and that's the point. NIST was charged with examining EVERYTHING regarding
ALL the evidence.
So where in the NIST report is there evidence of extreme temps? Let us go into detail regarding that questions shall we?

 

[Mr. Jones]

TThe melting point of aluminum is 1220 F.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.htmlhe


Wrong. The perimeter columns were ENCASED in an aluminum facade. All 1300 feet, four faces of each tower.


So what, in your opinion, maintained these temperatures for that long?

This is not for me to speculate at this time, this thread is supposed to be about the reported information, and what if anything did NIST do about it, and what it is their reports concerning it.
I have been posting what was said to have been found at GZ, and what NIST reaction was, and how it reflects in their report.
In trying to stay true to the theme of the thread, I am not speculating or what my opinions are, and in agreeing with your requests to try to link to info that is being discussed, and sourced, I've been trying to stay true to that as well.

In fact maybe you could link to the amount of aluminum on/in the towers that you mentioned? We should reasonably expected NIST to tell us what THEY thought kept the fires in the rubble burning for 100 days, and what the fuel source could have been.
Is there anything withing the NIST reports that mention any of this, or comes close to an answer?

That info and the link were provided by Daws on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys.

Has already been addressed. Read the links I provided regarding aluminum.

 

[Mr. Jones]

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?

Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot.

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.

Alright..extinguish the fuel/heat source...which one will cool faster?

 

[SAYIT]

This is not for me to speculate at this time, this thread is supposed to be about the reported information, and what if anything did NIST do about it, and what it is their reports concerning it.
I have been posting what was said to have been found at GZ, and what NIST reaction was, and how it reflects in their report.
In trying to stay true to the theme of the thread, I am not speculating or what my opinions are, and in agreeing with your requests to try to link to info that is being discussed, and sourced, I've been trying to stay true to that as well.

In fact maybe you could link to the amount of aluminum on/in the towers that you mentioned? We should reasonably expected NIST to tell us what THEY thought kept the fires in the rubble burning for 100 days, and what the fuel source could have been.
Is there anything withing the NIST reports that mention any of this, or comes close to an answer?

That info and the link were provided by Daws on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys.

Has already been addressed. Read the links I provided regarding aluminum.

Your links have already been addressed. Read the link I provided from Jefferson Labs regarding alloys and melting temps. The bottom line? There is no hard evidence of molten steel at GZ. None. You may want to ditch this thread and start one with real facts.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Relevant info on melting points:
What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

What's the melting point of steel?

At what point will unheated steel lose its integrity? Remember, not all the steel was heated to these temps, and where is the proof in the NIST report that regards this?
That is what this thread is about. The NIST report and what is in it.
You also do not consider that fire travels to alternative fuel sources to maintain the heat, and the steel recovers once it is cooled, and also distributes the heat to the connected members, thereby spreading it, thereby cooling the initial parts that may have been hot.
Aluminum transfers heat more rapidly then steel, therefore cooling faster then steel, which puts into doubt that it was aluminum that sustained the temps for 100 days at GZ.
Let us move on to what NIST actually said about the temps, their data, and their testing shall we?

 

[Mr. Jones]

That info and the link were provided by Daws on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys.

Has already been addressed. Read the links I provided regarding aluminum.

Your links have already been addressed. Read the link I provided from Jefferson Labs regarding alloys and melting temps. The bottom line? There is no hard evidence of molten steel at GZ. None. You may want to ditch this thread and start one with real facts.

Bullshit, why don't you ditch yourself from the thread, as you are doing the same thing as the other threads, and ignoring the links and what they have to say.
Again keeping with the threads intention, what does NIST have to say about all of this?
Their testing? If you want to ignore what the threads intention is then by all means get the fuck out.

 

[Gamolon]

Study the links that I provided regarding aluminum IE: why it's used as heatsinks etc...
My point that you're ignoring altogether is this-
Reports from credible sources about the molten state of steel/metals were ignored by NIST, and should have been treated as an important detail.

Who is deeming it important? You? I thought you weren't going to speculate?

Fact-the temps at GZ were in the extreme

Yeah? So?

Fact-Aluminum cools faster then steel

So what?

It seems that you are already starting to ignore the theme of the thread....

You were the one that brought up melted steel previously. I was just showing you that melted steel was not proven and could have been melted aluminum.

There is no proof that the molten substance/metal was NOT steel, and that's the point.

And there is no proof that it WAS melted steel. Thank you for finally admitting that we don't know for sure.

NIST was charged with examining EVERYTHING regarding
ALL the evidence.
So where in the NIST report is there evidence of extreme temps? Let us go into detail regarding that questions shall we?

They were charged with studying the debris pile temperatures??? What does that have to do with the collapse?

 

[SAYIT]

Relevant info on melting points:
What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

What's the melting point of steel?

At what point will unheated steel lose its integrity? Remember, not all the steel was heated to these temps, and where is the proof in the NIST report that regards this?
That is what this thread is about. The NIST report and what is in it.

Your lame effort to introduce "molten steel" is not in the NIST report and the temp at which steel can be soft is 1000 degrees F, just as Jefferson Labs stated (bold, above).

 

[SAYIT]

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmirch

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Sorry Killa, but you have once again shot yourself in the foot. The first interview on that web site is with a Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret). I'm guessing he is first 'cause he's their heavy hitter. Anyway his answer to the first question is all that is needed to dismiss the source of your "proof":

Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?

General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

 

[eots]

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

the investigation was run by a handful of people wtf are you babbling about

 

[eots]

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmirch

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Sorry Killa, but you have once again shot yourself in the foot. The first interview on that web site is with a Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret). I'm guessing he is first 'cause he's their heavy hitter. Anyway his answer to the first question is all that is needed to dismiss the your source of "proof":

Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?

General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 Architects and Engineers: