Mr. Watts posted a series of 9/11-related questions on February 16, 2008 - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6149 . Although a response was subsequently provided to Mr. Watts, he felt it did not directly address his questions. This entry represents Part 2 of 3 with the Part 1 available here - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6559 .
The questions Mr. Watts asked are, in some instances, quite specific and lengthy, requiring multiple diary entries to address the responses adequately. When reviewing the questions, please refer to the link above for my initial response to Mr. Watts' summary questions.
(5) Molten metal
"Tom: I would guess you've answered this before; but just what is your explanation for the molten steel observed by firemen and others below the collapses weeks afterwards?" ... NIST ignores the molten steel saying something like, 'it doesn't matter if it was there because it was only observed after the collapses.' That does indeed violate the scientific method by not considering ALL of the evidence. And why do you suppose they only investigated the collapse initiation and not the collapse itself...
"Also, scientific method was not adhered to when the possibility of explosives was not even considered. This in spite of the fact there is a multitude of evidence (audio and visual) and there were hundreds of testimonials -- including by firemen and policemen and news people -- citing the fact that explosions were heard and seen.
"In sum: 1) why the molten steel and 2) why the violations of scientific method?"
You are correct, Mr. Watts, in that I have answered this previously. I've provided a link to the diary entry that addressed this issue - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6509 . The one revision I'll make to the linked response is that based upon a video example provided by Mr. Ledger in the comments section of the link, I think it likely that there was molten metal at the base of the debris piles.
However and as I asserted then, the most likely cause of the molten metal was the heat of compression caused by the condensing of a 100-story building into 10-stories. As the potential energy for each floor was transferred into kinetic energy, approximately half (i.e., 480 kWH) of it was converted into heat. This is similar to the heat that's created in a tire pump cylinder after you've compressed the air several times – albeit in a gaseous application or in a diesel engine that operates off of the heat of compression.
Once the debris piles reached a particular temperature, the combustible material provided the fuel to sustain and increase the temperature of the piles (the piles themselves acted like an insulating blanket that kept the heat inside – much like the giant mulch or wood chip piles that expel excess heat as steam in the fall and winter months). Oxygen input was limited and the combustible material smoldered as it was consumed – not unlike an underground dump fire or coal seam fire.
The end result was that the melting point of steel was reached, which seems to have created the molten metal observed by many, although not widely photographed or recorded.
As to the other two questions regarding the scientific method that you've highlighted – (1) why did NIST "limit" itself to the collapse initiation and not include the actual collapse and (2) why weren't controlled demolitions considered as a workable hypothesis – I'll refer you to NIST's own answers.
NIST's "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" (December 14, 2007) states as Question 10 - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm :
"10. Why didn't NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?"
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling..."
As referenced in NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" (NCSTAR 1), Section E.1, one of NIST's mandate from Congress was to, "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft..." (p. xxix) - http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf . The Truthers asking "why didn't NIST analyze the collapse" is like asking your spouse, "did you pick up the bread", when it was never on the shopping list. You can ask all you want, but the spouse never got the bread because they were not asked to pick it up.
And regard the collapse... if you align dominos linearly and then push the first domino on the end of that line, what do you suppose will happen? Right, one after another the dominos fall down. Do you accept that action for what it is or do you need to site and watch this every time to confirm it? I think we safely "know" that each one will fall until the last one is knocked over.
The same exists with WTC 1 and 2; it's only our minds that have the difficulty (given their height and perceived mass) comprehending that structures such as the towers are actually vulnerable. They seemed fixed and result in their standing, when in reality it's just another BIG domino.
NIST's "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" (August 30, 2006) states as Question 2 - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm :
"2. Why did NIST not consider a 'controlled demolition' hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis? A key critique of NIST's work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a "progressive collapse" after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis."
"NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST's dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov . This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
"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 steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
"NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."
The scientific method requires that you review all the available data – NOT all the available conjecture. If someone says the heard an "explosion", then that certainly does not mean that controlled demolitions were the cause. The only thing that this "evidence" means is that witnesses heard explosion-like sounds coming from the tower structures prior to their collapses (i.e., data). With this perspective and the hypothesis that was advanced by NIST, the "explosions" heard by many are the failure of structural elements and equipment as the towers were subjected to dynamic loading that they were not designed to carry or capable of withstanding.
To hypothesis that controlled demolitions were the sources requires (as part of your testable hypothesis) that you support via available evidence the "how", "when", and "where" of the demolitions' placement within the structures. Additionally, support via evidence on "how" the demolitions survived intact the aircraft impacts to work as planned is also needed. Truthers fail at this point because they have no evidence – only conjecture to offer in the form of open-ended questions.
(6) Flight data recorder (FDR) et al.
"Tom: any comments on the [UAL Flight 93] flight data recorder (impact angle). [sic] lack of any fuel contamination, witnesses contradicting official story flight path?" - For reference, pleasee see this press release for Mr. Watts concerns - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html .
(6)-1. The NTSB animation of UAL Flight 93 is available for review here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQKoIMCHq70 . The animation was compiled from the FDR output, as published by the NTSB in the "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder" for UAL Flight 93 - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf . While I haven't reviewed the entire report and animation, the two seem to align on key points (e.g., inverted nature of crash and rate of descent).
The entity making the claim that the NTSB lied within their published reports that detail the flight data, when they are compared to the raw data in the comma separated value (CSV) database is Pilots for 911 Truth.org ( http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store.html ). Interestingly, though, and much unlike the NTSB, you have to purchase their DVD to see where the NTSB has lied (Chapter 3 of Pandora's Black Box). This act alone makes me question this group's motives and sincerity. We have only their "word" in a press-release that we had been lied to - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html .
Where I am not inclined to purchase the DVD (and Pilots for 911 Truth.org feels that this damning analysis of the NTSB report is SO important that we should pay for it), I can only comment on the NTSB sources, which appear valid to me. If you have copies of what this groups claims, Mr. Watts, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
(6)-2. I am unaware of the New York Times article (which you mention, Mr. Watts) that details UAL Flight 93's approach as differing from the one issued by the NTSB. However, this claim also appears to come from Pilots for 911 Truth.org from whom you must purchase the DVD to view the claim. If you have copies of what this groups claims, Mr. Watts, then I'd be interested in reviewing it.
(6)-3. Pilots for 911 Truth.org and another Truther, Killtown, assert that these photos taken by eyewitness, Valerie McClatchey, refutes the NTSB's assertion that UAL Flight 93 approached Shanksville from the north -click here . The claim is that the imaged smoke plume is traveling southwest and not southeast - click here vs. click here . My ONLY response is, "Ah, okay – if you say so!"
I recommend that the smoke plume's position be triangulated before reporting its location and associated travel vector. But based solely upon the linked images (which capture only one perspective), I cannot draw those conclusions. If you know of other eyewitness accounts that differ from the FDR and NTSB's conclusions, Mr. Watts, then I'd be interested in reviewing them.
Regarding UAL Flight 93's approach and evidence found in New Baltimore:
The aircraft debris found in New Baltimore consisted of light materials (e.g., paper, nylon, and pieces of cloth) that were easily carried on the southeast wind, following a directed impact. At the time of the crash, the wind was blowing at 9 knots in the direction towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore- http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/ .
The debris in New Baltimore included charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual, a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport, and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports. It also included "black webbing" from insulation lining the interior holds of the aircraft - click here .
"Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina, said he rushed outside morning when he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. The wind was strong that morning, Brant said, and within minutes debris from the crash was 'falling like confetti'"- click here .
Where are the inconsistencies, Mr. Watts, with these witness testimonies?
(6)-4. I believe I addressed the soil contamination concerns at length in the initial response. I have cute and pasted it below:
"So, I'll presume that this is directed to UAL Flight 93 and its impact in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. At 563 mph and 40 degrees nose-down and inverted attitude - click here and http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf , the impact of UAL Flight 93 was quite impressive. The momentum of the resulting explosion was directed eastward across the open field and into the nearby woods. The woods sustained significant damage from the resulting explosion and fireball - click here .
"Although the aircraft in this movie is right-side up and traveling significantly slower, note the directed explosion after impact - click here . A large majority of the fuel is consumed in the resulting explosion. In the 1996 paper prepared by Sandia National Laboratories entitled "Fuel Dispersal in High-Speed Aircraft/soil Impact Scenarios", the researchers propose the following:
"'Due to the porosity of the soil, some of the fuel will be lost into the ground and will not be available for combustion. However, under the right conditions, the soil can act as a wick (as on a candle), and draw a significant portion of the fuel back out of the ground,"(p. 78) - click here .
"The soils that compose the UAL Flight 93 crash site are classified as Cookport loam (CoB) on 3-8% slopes, Rayne-Gilpin channery silt on 3-8% slopes, and Wharton silt loam (WhB) on 3-8% slopes - click here . These silt loams contain an increased percentage of loam, which is relatively porous to water and air - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loam . Therefore, the soil porosity appears to have been elevated and the great majority of the fuel could have been consumed in the resulting fire ball and impact-related fire. This would leave a soil TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) concentration of little to none. Admittedly, this explanation requires further review and analysis to better determine its plausibility."
(6)-5 The FDR for UAL Flight 93 reported a final pitch angle of about -40 degrees (NTSB "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder" for UAL Flight 93 on p. II-1) - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf . NTSB also published the same information in its report entitled "Flight Path Study – United Airline Flight 93" - click here . Note that the pitch angle upon impact might have differed from the final recording because the aircraft appeared to be continuing its nose over pitch as it impacted.
Regardless, the impact crater for the aircraft does show an approach that was steep BUT angled - click here and http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/shanksville-3.html . Note that the woods south and east of the impact crater sustained significant damage from the resulting explosion and fireball. This implies that the aircraft impact was at an angle and not near vertical (i.e., 90 degrees) as has been alleged elsewhere. A more vertical impact would have displayed a uniform radius of nearby damage.
(7) Barbara Olson – aircraft calls to husband
"Tom: Your bonus question is: Did Barbara Olson call from a cell phone or from a seatback phone?"
Ms. Olson, who was traveling on AA Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon, may have placed the two (2) calls she made to her husband on a GTE Airfone (aka a seatback phone) - http://www.911myths.com/html/barbara_olson.html . Todd Beamer, traveling on UAL Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA, was able to speak with a GTE operator without using a credit card - click here . However, Mr. Olson's recollection of the calls made by his wife are inconsistent and seem to reflect the emotion of the moments that detailed her last minutes alive – click here .
