by Dr. Richard Alan Miller
Make a donation in support Dr. Richard Alan Miller’s current writing projects at GoFundMe.
Excerpt from
The More Sinister Direction of Carbon Nanotubes (as weapons of war)
by Dr. Richard Alan Miller
copyright 2015
(see PDF booklet of full article below)
Part 3 – Building 7, and the 9/11 Event Revisited
At 5:20 PM, September 11th, 2001, a 47 story steel frame skyscraper in Manhattan underwent a swift, systematic, straight-down collapse. In a matter of seconds, the immense 600-foot tall structure was transformed into a small pile of rubble (and slag) lying almost entirely within the building’s original footprint.
The building is variously known as Building 7, WTC 7, or 7 World Trade Center. Despite its address, it was across the street from the superblock containing the rest of the World TradeCenter, and was of a different architectural style and newer than the 6 other WTC buildings.
The cause of the collapse has never been determined. FEMA’s Building Performance Study , the only government document that addressed the collapse of Building 7 in any detail, stated:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. … Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this
issue.
By the time FEMA’s report was published, the remains of Building 7 had been almost entirely destroyed, nearly all of the structural steel having been expeditiously removed and shipped to blast furnaces overseas. Without the physical evidence of the structural steel, such research, investigation, and analyses was impossible.
The Collapse of Building 7 was the third largest structural failure in World history, surpassed only by the collapses of the Twin Towers earlier that day. Fires are blamed for leveling Building 7, but fires have never caused the total or even partial collapse of a steel-frame high-rise, before or since September 11th.
Why, then, was there no serious investigation of the collapse of this building, and why does it remain virtually unknown to the American public? The most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theory today is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.
Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists for such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as geostrategic interests in the Middle East, such as pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.
Or, to get a terrorism bill through congress…?
What was in Building 7? – Building 7 was one of New York City’s larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.
Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.
One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.
The Vertical Collapse of Building 7 – Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical motion at near the rate of free-fall. The first sign of the collapse is the falling of the penthouse, immediately followed by the falling of the whole facade, as seen from both the north and south. The middle of the building’s north wall fell slightly faster than its edges.
In short, Building 7 imploded. Buildings are not designed to implode. They are designed to remain standing. To achieve a precisely vertical collapse, in which the remains of the buildingfall inward, is the objective of controlled demolition. What was strange was that neither thermite nor excess jet engine fuel can actually get hot enough to slag concrete, found at the bottom of the debris.
After the building itself fell, there remained a single steel girder, some 617 feet high. Then it also began to fall, with video showing the steel vaporizing as it fell onto itself. Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile and concrete slag.
The Destruction of Building 7’s Remains – Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.
That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangars. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.
Building 7’s rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.
There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study. No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse. The pile was so well confined to the building’s footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.
Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metal vendors and most of it was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked ‘save’ were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA’s BPAT volunteers.
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the New York Times as saying:
I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.
What Caused Building 7’s Collapse? – Upon watching any of the many available videos, that Building 7’s collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition. WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.
There is only one thing known in nature that can vaporize steel or slag concrete,
that is a plasma.
If the steel were reinforced with fullerene carbon fibers, and the fullerenes contained deuterium, a controlled demolition could be orchestrated using laser triggering mechanisms (outlined earlier).
So now we have a new conspiracy theory,
where this new weapon was experimentally deployed.
With the way media is controlled today
we will likely never know the truth.
Science News Short
A Space Elevator by 2050, using Carbon Nanotubes
by Dr. Richard Alan Miller
copyright 2015
Obayashi, a Japanese company, has announced they will have a space elevator up and running by the year 2050. If successful it would revolutionize space travel and potentially transform the global economy.
The Japanese construction giant says they will build a space elevator that will reach 96,000 kilometers into space.
The company said the fantasy can now become a reality because of the development of carbon nanotechnology.
“The tensile strength is almost a hundred times stronger than steel cable so it’s possible,” Mr Yoji Ishikawa, a research and development manager at Obayashi, said. “Right now we can’t make the cable long enough. We can only make 3- centimetre-long nanotubes but we need much more… we think by 2030 we’ll be able to do it.”
