Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Faith in science

Retired NASA engineer explains why he doesn’t believe the official 9/11 report

By Shane Cohn – VCReporter – 09/09/2010

It has been said that it requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious. But is it unusual to want peace? Truth? Dwain Deets doesn’t think so, and the retired NASA director is determined to demonstrate that the official version of the events of 9/11 defies science. His lectures have been gaining popularity… Deets, a physicist and engineer, was the former director of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center’s Aerospace project and is currently a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Having retired from a 37-year career, Deets has set out to show that the American public has been duped into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His goal is simple. Faith alone cannot end the wars abroad. But perhaps science can.

VCReporter: Of all the indications that the official 9/11 explanation is insufficient, what is the most glaring?

Deets: Building 7 is the most glaring. I think people can realize, after what happened at Building 7, that the public was not told anything close to what went on. I think you actually get kind of the same thing in all three buildings at the World Trade Center. So when I talk about them and the major problems presented, it will be with all buildings in mind. There are four main points: One, there is no historical precedent with steel-frame, high-rise buildings to have been totally destroyed due to fire. So you got a situation with no precedent, but it happened three times in the same day. These buildings supposedly came down due to fire, officially. Second, there is indisputable evidence that there were extraordinarily high temperatures, in the ground and it persisted for weeks. When I say indisputable evidence, I mean things like satellite imaging photos from NASA. They can measure the temperatures showing how it’s persisting weeks after the event. And there are eyewitnesses of molten metal and things that would require extremely high temperatures. There are a number of different elements that have been analyzed chemically afterwards, and it can only be explained due to extremely high temperature. There are a lot of tiny spheres. We refer to them as microspheres, and they are iron-rich. To be a sphere, they had to have been liquid, even to the point of maybe vaporizing because that is the way it would form into a sphere. The surface tension, as it cooled down, it would do so in a spherical shape. So that’s hard evidence that there had to be extremely high temperatures.

When you refer to high temperature, are you suggesting there were explosives involved?

What I’m saying is, the temperatures are so high that the ordinary office fires and aviation fuel fires can’t come close to explaining those high temperatures. The third point is, there has been evidence of high-tech, and I can’t say they’re explosives, but they are nano-thermite. Nano meaning they’re extremely small and had to be manufactured with very sophisticated equipment and knowledge, which we only know about in government laboratories. But it was highly sophisticated, and how exactly it is designed, it could be very explosive, or something used in a different way. We use the term pyrotechnic to describe that category. So it was used as an explosive or pyrotechnic. But either way, the key thing is it provides an explanation why the temperatures were so high and persisted for so long afterwards. So it fits together with that set of findings in a very consistent way. The fourth major thing is, all three buildings came down at freefall, gravitational freefall, or very close to it. The only way that can happen is if the lower structure was abruptly removed to allow the top part to fall into freefall. This fits into the other things I talk about. There were several varieties of explosives. And the ones that we found are just one of those, and not necessarily the one that did most of the damage. We just don’t know that kind of thing. When I say we, there was an international team of scientists and chemists that studied the dust from the WTC and reported in the open literature, so it’s there and there has not been any counterpublication to say this is not true.

In regard to Building 7, is it not possible that the debris from the previously collapsed main towers had initiated the fires that damaged the bottom eight floors to the point of collapse causing the free-fall?

There is no evidence that there were fires for the initial time period. There could be that there were. But there have not been any photographs released to the public. About 100 minutes is the first indication that there were any fires, and even then it was not on the floors where supposedly the fire damage caused the buildings to come down. That would be several hours later. Let’s say you were taking this to [a] court of law; you wouldn’t have a chain of evidence that led from the debris to the fires. The other piece of evidence is whether the fires, especially that kind of office fire, can lead to compromising the steel structure and causing the whole thing to come crashing down. So you go back to saying there is no precedent in the history of high-rise steel structures that fires lead to the building coming down. Some of those fires have historically lasted up to 18 hours and still didn’t compromise the structure. So it’s unreasonable to think that if the fires did start from the debris it would lead to the buildings coming down. The other part is that it came down in pure free fall for what is equivalent to eight stories’ worth of free fall

Why do you think the government has never officially addressed the collapse of Building 7?

I think it causes a severe problem for them in explaining what happened. At first you have to talk about the great length of time that the government agency that was supposed to investigate Building 7, which was NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology.) They stalled up until November 2008 before they issued their final report. That is seven years to come up with a final report. Clearly, it was a problem to them. Either they couldn’t explain it or they could, but didn’t want to. They didn’t want to give the explanation that the evidence pointed to, which I think is the case.

Didn’t they also deny a request from engineers into the report about how Building 7 came down, citing a “concern for public safety”?
They did. In this case, this is a freedom-of-information request asking for details of their computer model. They said they had a very sophisticated computer model that modeled the structure, the fires, and based on that, they said this is the explanation, that fires caused the whole thing. For professional engineers to request that information through the law of the Freedom of Information Act, to provide that information, they have resisted it to this day. So anyway they are using this argument that revealing this sophisticated model could or might endanger public safety is very hard to justify, particularly when it’s professional engineers wanting to understand what caused the building to come down.

That in itself should be an effort in the interest of safety. In each of these four cases I brought up, if you look at what NIST has done, they have basically denied that these issues exist. Regarding hot temperatures, they come out and say we have no evidence of either high temperatures or that anybody saw it, even though there are testimonies from responders. They are just stonewalling all the way.

But they did admit, however, that the building collapsed at free fall. Shouldn’t that be evidence in itself?

Yes, they did admit that. But the thing is, they didn’t change any of their conclusions.

Why? Do you believe this is some sort of plan to engage our country into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, I certainly think that we, as prudent members of the public, should consider it was highly likely, and it’s based on a record that our government has done that in a number of cases. Most recently, it did it to escalate the war in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident turned out to not be an incident, and that has become publicly known because documents concerning that have been declassified but not publicized by the media. There is certainly a pattern. If you just put together the fact that all this happened on 9/11 and then we go to war. It fits a pattern and you have to wonder about that.

Let’s assume you are right. What is your political agenda? What do you want the public to do?

I want the public to demand of their representatives to investigate this, to stop stonewalling and investigate this to wherever it leads. I think that will be healthy for the country. It will be difficult to go through that, but it will force politicians to be more careful about doing things, because they will realize they won’t be able to get away with it. I think it will be good for the country. I think it will end the war. A large segment of the population believes we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan because of 9/11, but I think that would change.

Why do you think the vast majority of the public has accepted the findings?

The big media plays such a big role. The mainstream media, and I don’t know how this works, but they haven’t allowed any questioning of 9/11. A lot of the questions about what went on get marginalized and called conspiracies.

September 22, 2010 - Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering

4 Comments

  1. “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” — Unknown, mistakenly attributed to Joseph Goebbels
    We can all agree, insurance fraud should be prosecuted. Yet when the federal government stands to make the greatest expansion in a century, the noble lie is created. Unlike all the hype surrounding subjective material, the laws of physics are objective and can not be broken.
    NC constitution Article I Sec. 14. Freedom of speech and press: “Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained, but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse.”
    “Our” national news media is generated north of the Mason Dixon line, and they have managed to brainwash the general public into believing things that only happen in cartoons. Many people resist through cognitive dissonance, not even realizing the truth is more than they can grasp. It all comes down to the statement:
    Aluminum in free space can not penetrate a larger piece of rigid structural steel at subsonic speed (STP@SL).
    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.~ Wayne Dyer Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.~ Jim Morrison
    Prof can be seen in history, as a B-25 Mitchell struck the Empire State building July 28th, 1945. The facade of the ESB is granite, and masonry has negligible tensile strength. Tensile strength is what keeps a material from being pulled apart (penetrated) and structural steel can withstand over 85,000 psi (THE strongest tensile building material used in quantity even today). The aircraft punched a 18ft x 20ft hole in the facade, yet the wing span is over 67 feet. Many publication try to avoid discussing the airframe, as it fell to a lower roof terrece and the street level.
    To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.~ Ayn Rand
    The higher the building the lower the morals.~ Noel Coward
    I once shot a steel car rim with a handgun, not a good idea. The bullet is ten times the density of water and travels at the speed of sound (just under 1200ft/sec, for STP@SL). But we are expected to believe an aluminum projectile the floats on water (Sully’s airliner in the Hudson river, indicating .2 mass density compared to water) and can only travel about 500ft/sec, is able to travel over 126 feet through steel without stopping. This is absurd, as it would only take a constant force of 50g to stop such a projectile in 63 feet, assuming a velocity of 500ft/sec. As the kinematic equation shows, 1/2 Mass(Velocity squared), the velocity is exponential compared to mass being a linear function. From the standpoint of metallurgy, the shear modules of aluminum is 25 Gpa, where as basic steel is 70 Gpa. Even the construction technique of using sheet metal to fabricate planes, lends itself to the dissipation of energy through crumpling. Examples can be seen in uni-body construction of cars to meet impact safety requirements.
    In conclusion, the carppetbagger’s hoax that commercial airliners hit the WTC, can easily be disproved by observation of physics and metallurgy. Even basic math shows the energy needed would be one thousand times greater than a commercial airliner could generate, that’s three orders of magnitude.

    Just goes to show the morons that claim “NASA” status.

    Like

    Comment by Mat H Physics | September 12, 2014

  2. “The state of Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation and revenge… And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.” — From the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli’s first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956.

    “We believe that the two Zionist terrorists were going to blow up the Mexican Congress. The second phase was to mobilize both the Mexican and US press to blame Osama bin Laden. Most likely then Mexico would declare war on Afghanistan as well, commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism.”

    -Mexican Congressional Press Secretary Lic. Adriana Lopez

    “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

    “All democratic circles in America and of Europe, especially those of the Italian centre-left, now know that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world, to place the blame on Arab countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    -Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga

    “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover

    “But you can’t make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them. It can’t last.”
    – Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

    Like

    Comment by Dave | September 12, 2014

  3. […] Retired NASA engineer explains why he doesn’t believe the official 9/11 report […]

    Like

    Pingback by Retired NASA engineer explains why he doesn’t believe the official 9/11 report « Truth Is Rising | September 12, 2014

  4. […] Faith in science « Aletho News. […]

    Like

    Pingback by Faith in science « Aletho News « The Progressive Mind | September 12, 2014


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.