beachnut,
Look, do you or do you not acknowledge there's no official and valid explanation for what happened on 9/11?
Merely disagreeing with me serves no useful purpose. We are doing different things here. I am showing evidence consistent with the DEW explanation of what destroyed the WTC. And, you are saying, no, no, no.
What proposition do you assert your pictures of steel and of rebar show?
Why is that steel and rebar just sitting there, whereever the 'there' is.
What happened to cause the deformities in the steel in the pictures you've posted up?
Of course, these questions are rhetorical because the answer is known:
No one analyzed the steel in the pictures you are showing. That is the issue. That is the problem that ALL OF US HAVE, could we but recognize it.
There is no valid explanation as to what happened. The issue is unsolved, unresolved and unexplained.
Here, then, is one of the most important statements about the lack of explanation of what destroyed the WTC, in the context of the issue of steel in the entire body of 9/11 research work. This is a key passage, posters, do grasp this:
"The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001)—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion… are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.… It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ] "
And, with respect to this unexpected and unexplained, other than Dr. Wood's DEW explanation, that is, erosion phenomenon, this is the key visual evidence:
[qimg]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/632_eutectic.jpg[/qimg]
There is no explanation of what happened to the steel. Your photos are good ones for a certain proposition, or rather a certain question. Your photos are good for the proposition that why was none of it analyzed by a competent authority?
Further, the pile of steel in your pictures appears, from your post, to be standing for the contention that no steel was turned to dust, despite the visual evidence I continue to show that demonstrates the process in action. We now add to the visual evidence the documentary evidence that the steel that was not turned to dust showed unusual erosion and decomposition that has not ever been explained.
I have posted two types of visual data:
1--That showing the process of steel being turned to dust; and'
2--That showing that GZ was flat.
Here is yet another example of the latter:
[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/after.gif[/qimg]
And now I have posted evidence of unusual decomposition shown in the steel that remained.
The photos in beachnut's post also show unusual erosion, but none of that has ever been explained or analyzed properly, other than in the work done by Dr. Wood based on the visual component.
It was up to the properly empowered governmental authorities to determine what happened on 9/11. That was not done.
That is why we remain, to this day, vulnerable to other, further and more horrific false flag ops, posters.
Is anyone concerned about this; or, is the preferred methodology that of denial that 9/11 was a false flag op so that no one has to worry much about it happening again?
I understand that on many levels of being, especially emotional ones, denial of the false flag possibility is the preferred way to think.
So, posters, from this post forward, hadn't we ought to just focus on the real issue; namely: The emotional compenent of 9/11 that forces us to take certain positions because of our predisposition to do one of two things:
We either:
1--think critically about 9/11 with a willingness to consider that authorities we trust are lying to us; or,
2--we dare not consider the possibility that trusted authroities are engaging in deception.
