| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Another person mails NIST about WTC 7.; Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 18 2008, 03:54 PM (1,209 Views) | |
| Stundie | Sep 18 2008, 03:54 PM Post #1 |
|
FYI....Another Phd in Physics is questioning NIST WTC 7 Report. Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report WTC Technical Information Repository Attn: Stephen Cauffman, NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610. Dear Sirs: I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project. However, like Ptolemy’s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise. Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations: 1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours. 2. The building completely collapsed. Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel. Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness. Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materials². In contrast to the non-existent observational basis for your theory, there exists a large and growing body of evidence, physical, eye-witness, anecdotal, and circumstantial, that points to controlled demolition as the reason for the building’s collapse. Millions of people worldwide are in ready possession of this evidence. Allow me to briefly review this evidence for you. Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 1. The rapid onset of collapse indicates controlled demolition. Natural collapses begin slowly as the steel deforms (but this has never before led to collapse from office fires). 2. The symmetrical, straight-down nature of the collapse. In a natural collapse, the building would tend to topple or show asymmetries. 3. The time taken by the collapse, approximately 6.5 seconds. This is almost free-fall speed and indicates little resistance, which is incomprehensible if natural. Your theory of a slower collapse within the outer frame of the building is outrageous speculation. 4. The neat, tidy debris pile, a few stories high, with adjoining buildings essentially untouched. Such a pile is the main objective and hallmark of controlled demolition. 5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures. Particles in the dust indicate these materials. 6. The evidence of corroded steel with sulfur found by FEMA. Again, sulfur is a product of a thermate reaction. Eye-witness Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 1. The testimony of Barry Jennings. Mr. Jennings timeline is crucial and unassailable. The essentials of his story were told to Eye-Witness Channel 7 News shortly after 1 pm on 9/11/01, and later elaborated on in taped interviews. BEFORE either tower fell, he was blown back, by an explosion, from the sixth floor to the eighth floor in a stairwell in WTC 7. The sixth floor landing was destroyed. Help came twice and ran away when each tower collapsed. He was in the dark for several hours. He heard explosions from that time (before 9:58 am) until he was found and led to safety around 1 pm. At that time the lobby of WTC 7 was completely destroyed. None of this could have happened because of the tower collapses. All his eye-witness evidence points to pre-demolition blasts in WTC 7. 2. The video-taped statements of various firemen and policemen before 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 to the effect that WTC 7 was “coming down” or “about to blow up.” This pre-knowledge indicates controlled demolition. 3. The video-taped statement of a witness who overheard a “count-down” for WTC 7 on a worker’s radio. 4. The many videos showing the actual collapse of WTC 7, with various evidences of controlled demolition such as a kink in the roof, exploding charges at upper stories, and so on. 5. Audible explosions heard by eye-witnesses just before and during the collapse of WTC 7. Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 1. Larry Silverstein’s remarks about the decision to “pull” are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of “pull” are beside the point. There is a causal relationship between “and they made that decision to pull” and “then we watched the building collapse.” The latter follows the former. The decision to “pull” resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition. 2. When Barry Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM, Floor 23, in WTC 7 around 9 am, they found it empty. Why? $13 million dollars was expended to create this impregnable floor, and the towers had not yet fallen! The food and coffee showed the occupants had left in a hurry. Then Jennings made a phone call and was told he must “get out of there.” Why? The only plausible answer is that the pre-demolition blasts were about to begin. 3. The BBC and CNN early announcements of the complete collapse of WTC 7 have never been satisfactorily explained. Obviously, the pre-knowledge of the demolition was handled badly by these news outlets. Circumstantial Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 1. Removal and destruction of WTC 7 steel before examination is the most compelling evidence of fraud. It is inconceivable that, if WTC 7 fell as the result of office fires, the steel would be quickly removed and shipped away to be destroyed before examination. This fact alone is enough to convince anyone that there was something to hide. The action of the government in this respect defies all the norms of civilization itself, were the collapse to be a truly natural and unexpected event. 2. Real examination of the steel was denied to all. Instead, it was shipped away like garbage. But, with GPS tracking, no truck was allowed to lose its way to the dump or the dock. No independent party was to have access to the steel. Again, this suggests fraud. 3. Omission from the 9/11 Commission Report of any mention of WTC 7 also points to fraud. The complete collapse of a 47-story building is not trivial. 4. NIST’s failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process, and points to a selective and thereby fraudulent investigation. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made. 5. The entire 9/11 “official” story appears to be a litany of impossible and improbable events, accompanied by a brazen suppression of evidence. Your investigation of WTC 7’s collapse must be seen within this context. In this respect, your selective approach to the collapse of WTC 7 continues the pattern of obfuscation. In any criminal investigation, the behavior of witnesses and possible suspects is of vital interest, especially where it concerns the removal, destruction, and suppression of evidence. Many of the circumstances surrounding WTC 7’s collapse suggest fraud. Every scientific theory, to be valid, must give results that are repeatable. What does your theory predict? Firstly, it predicts that other steel-framed buildings that have office fires may also completely collapse after a few hours. Will firemen attend to such fires? What will be the result in loss of life and property if they decline to fight these fires? What will be your liability for these losses, if they act on the basis of your theory? Secondly, fire insurance rates for steel-framed buildings should now jump astronomically. What will be the effect on building owners, and society in general? Thirdly, will controlled demolition companies now attempt a cheap way to bring down a building by setting a few fires? What mischief will this cause to surrounding properties and all concerned? Your theory, if believed, has extremely serious consequences for the steel building construction industry and society in general. For this reason, it is doubtful whether anyone will embrace it. On the contrary, there is likely to be a public reaction that will expose its falsity. In addition, a vast and growing number of citizens of this and other countries are now on the march toward a truthful and independent accounting of 9/11. Your theory lacks scientific credibility. It is certain to be repudiated by future generations if not this one. Sincerely yours, John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) ------------------------------------------------ One of the things I was not aware of, was NIST giving everyone 3 weeks to comment on their report. 3 weeks, when it only took them 7 years to get this far. lol |
 |
 
|
| Tim Riches | Sep 18 2008, 06:27 PM Post #2 |
|
That is amazing. Impressive work done by Dr. Wyndham and eloquently phrased also. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Sep 18 2008, 08:14 PM Post #3 |
|
Excelante!! Por Favor !!! |
|
|
|
| Tim Riches | Sep 18 2008, 09:29 PM Post #4 |
|
Also, in case the reference to epicycles is too vague, the wiki has some interesting info on it. Boiled down, it's a slang phrase meaning 'bad science.'
|
|
|
|
| Soaper | Sep 24 2008, 11:33 AM Post #5 |
|
stated above in that post. about the GPS on the trucks. long story short its a BFT Blue force tracker. same thing in our humvees but smaller. any vechile that is contracted for DOD * department of defense * has one of these. all the way down to moving just toliet paper. i've talked with alot of the guys at truck stops. retarded. if they get off route they get fined / fired etc. i just wanted to clear that up. i know this is my first post. and hate it to be this. but yeah nonetheless still a great write up sent to NIST thanks smitty |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Sep 24 2008, 12:41 PM Post #6 |
Patriotic American
|
In other words, they had something to hide with the WTC 7 steel. "track valuable military assets" - Hmmmm. I guess that could be a good description of the WTC 7 steel. General Dynamics - Blue Force Tracking |
|
|
|
| UKperspective | Sep 27 2008, 06:25 PM Post #7 |
|
No what he is saying is that the managment in charge of these trucks and truckers have an anal fascination with the trucks keeping to standard routes and timings. The GPS is to stop them making money on the side by picking up extra loads for cash in hand. there is no mystery in this it has happened the world over for years. |
|
|
|
| MacXL | Sep 28 2008, 12:31 PM Post #8 |
|
this is by far the most articulate response to the NIST thermal expansion folkloric riot! the full response: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/09/dr_wyndhama_8217_s_reply_to_nist_about_t |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 2 2008, 08:33 AM Post #9 |
|
Who is John Wyndham and why is he qualified to respond? Why is he using the term "office fires"? Is this some kind of special fire? Fire is fire. What does the addition of the modifier "office" add (or subtract) from the argument? justfacts please. |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Oct 2 2008, 12:51 PM Post #10 |
|
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#JWyndham that's who and that's why. His background in Physics would give him insight into many aspects of WTC7's strange collapse, as well as being strongly in touch with the scientific method in his approach to the facts.
Yes fire is fire, but it sets the context. Also don't forget that in the past, some proponents of the official story have implied that the addition of office equipment made the fires burn hotter and thus could make a massive skyscraper fall symmetrically at near free fall speeds.
LOL - what a joke. Edited by Lin Kuei, Oct 2 2008, 12:56 PM.
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 2 2008, 01:47 PM Post #11 |
|
Which proponents? Names and associations, please. What "office equipment" was cited as contributing? Why is an astronomer any more (or less) qualified to address the issue of structural collapse? Would you hire this person to design a highway bridge and then drive across it just because they may be familiar with the scientific method? What about the issue regarding structural damage to WTC7 as a result of debris from WTC 1 and 2 striking the structure? It appears to be ignored. Why all the "formers"? What does this person do now and how long has he been retired or unemployed? justfacts |
|
|
|
| look-up | Oct 2 2008, 02:09 PM Post #12 |
|
RE: OT, argument spoken by a true logician. fires + plus collapse does not mean that fires caused collapse. same with airplanes. |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 2 2008, 02:31 PM Post #13 |
|
Within the same ten hour period the building was structurally damaged by outside forces, was consumed in flames and then collapsed. Damage+fire+collapse means that damage and fire caused the collapse unless another event can be proven. justfacts |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 2 2008, 03:10 PM Post #14 |
|
Which damage is it that you speak of ? The final NIST report has ruled any damage negligible. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 2 2008, 04:26 PM Post #15 |
|
Bolding is mine. This is what a building being consumed by flames look like.  The fire lasted over 15 hours. But it didn't collapse. This is the most dramatic WTC7 fire shot I could find.  MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 2 2008, 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 2 2008, 11:51 PM Post #16 |
|
What building is that, MM? |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 3 2008, 12:09 AM Post #17 |
|
Dr. Wyndham seems to have worked at the California observatory in the early 1960's. |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 3 2008, 06:58 AM Post #18 |
|
That's pretty funny. First you ask what damage I'm speaking about then proceed to tell me it was not significant. Pretty good one. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 3 2008, 07:08 AM Post #19 |
|
I'm still waiting for you to remove your "was consumed in flames" remark justfacts. MM |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 3 2008, 07:34 AM Post #20 |
|
Consumed by flames. I can't change the past. The building was consumed by flames. Just a fact. |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 3 2008, 07:40 AM Post #21 |
|
Back to the original post. Why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure analysis then, say, my Dentist? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 3 2008, 07:44 AM Post #22 |
|
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html   MM |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 3 2008, 07:49 AM Post #23 |
|
Not "just a fact". You can't change the past but that doesn't require you to lie about it in the present! MM |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Oct 3 2008, 07:57 AM Post #24 |
|
Is this any better - "Consumed by office fires"? The past obviously does not require anyone to recognize the truth either. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM Post #25 |
|
justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:05 PM Dec 2
