Posted by winstonsmith (here)
It wasn't a traditional demolition. Tower seven was conventional and piled up just like a CD. The question is why would they not use the same dis-assembly method in the towers? Answer: Because you had planes involved in the psy-op to contend with. You have to CD from the top down and that resulted in the towers peeling open and wide distribution over a huge footprint--much larger than the 208 feet square originals.
Have you studied the steel inventory of NIST to see what members they saved and where they came from in the towers? That might shed some light on just how inefficient (or impossible) Ms. Wood's weapon of choice actually was. Granted the NIST samples are only a small fraction of the debris that was recycled, but it might hold a representative accounting of where the pieces came from.
The destroyed structure was spread well over and outside of the 16 acre site. You are looking at two towers rising above a 75 foot sub-basement that absorbed much of the pile your eyes have convinced you should be there.
I've shown you recycling figures, photos and videos of the debris which refutes what Ms. Wood says. She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
Yes I have studied the NIST's reports regarding 9/11. I have also read the 9/11 Commission Report, so called. Post #9 in this thread provides the link to an article I wrote on the subject of 9/11. The article was published by The Journal of 9/11 Studies in March 2015, re-published on Global Research and cited in other works. (David Ray Griffin commented that he considers my article to be a very important development on the subject of 9/11.)
NIST is not charged with the responsibility of cleaning up disaster sites and it played no role in cleaning up the destruction in the wake of 9/11. It has no first hand, personal knowledge of the clean up and it does not know the extent or characteristics of the debris that was there, or what debris was not there that one would have expected to find. Rather, NIST ostensibly relied on representations of others involved in the clean up; others who had varying and often conflicting interests and some who had reasons to flat out ensure that incriminating evidence was destroyed. As you correctly note, at most, NIST evaluated a small fraction of the debris. Further, while NIST claims that explosives played no role in destroying WTC 1, 2 and 7, NIST also admits that it never tested for any type of explosives. Hardly a scientific approach to such an incredibly important subject.
Some people chose to accept the NIST reports on the subject of 9/11. After much study and careful thought, I chose not to. I find that as a general rule those who accept the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 have spent little, if any, time doing their own study and analysis of the available evidence and information. That goes for the official theory concerning the cause of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7. (To be clear, I am not saying or even implying that you fall into that group. Indeed, I am reasonably confident that you do not.) As my article makes clear, I find NIST's work and conclusions to be unreliable and, in my legal opinion as a trial lawyer for nearly 40 years, NIST's ultimate conclusions on the subject of the cause of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (which is plane impact and jet fuel) would be inadmissible into evidence by an impartial judge under the rules of evidence that apply in the federal courts of the United States and virtually all, if not all, of the state courts. If an impartial judge did admit the official version of the cause of the destruction of these buildings into evidence, e.g. (or, i.e.), NIST's opinions, he/she would also admit into evidence an alternative scientific explanation of the cause(s) of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
I have no hesitation in saying that if the official version of the causes of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 where presented to an impartial judge or to a jury, along with the alternative explanation (which is that explosives and incendiary devices were used that had been planted prior to 9/11/01), the judge or jury would conclude that NIST's conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny and would conclude that explosive devises were used. That would be a disaster for those responsible for 9/11 and all that followed in its wake.
I am not advocating here or in my article that Dr. Wood's opinions would be admissible into evidence. They may, in whole or in part. If you read my article you will see that I did not advance one alternative explosives theory over another, but rather I provided information and links to enable readers to do their own research and reach their own conclusions. (In all candor I did not include a direct link to Dr. Wood's work, but some links will eventually link to her work if one does his or her own research.) I am saying, however, that if one desires to stay within the realm of what is scientifically and physically possible under the laws of physics as we know them, only an explosives hypotheses can account for what occurred and was observed on 9/11 vis-a-vis the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.