March Newsletter 04: Fill & Download for Free

Sometimes you get more accurate information when you ask Google than you get from Quora! ‘-)NEWShttps://nypost.com/2020/04/12/irs-first-batch-of-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-have-been-sent/FROM THE NEW YORK POST April 12, 2020 | 3:38pmIRS: First batch of coronavirus stimulus checks have been sentBy Mark MooreApril 12, 2020 | 3:38pmEnlarge ImageAPSign up for our special edition newsletter to get a daily update on the coronavirus pandemic.MORE ON:CORONAVIRUSOPEC, Russia approve biggest ever oil cut amid coronavirus pandemicFeds investigate coronavirus scam over deal for 39 million face masksNYC hospitals 'days' away from running out of coronavirus test swabsNYC coronavirus cases top 100,000, death toll reaches nearly 7,000The IRS said over the weekend it has started sending coronavirus stimulus payment to eligible Americans who have direct deposit.“#IRS deposited the first Economic Impact Payments into taxpayers’ bank accounts today,” the IRS announced in a tweet Saturday.“We know many people are anxious to get their payments; we’ll continue issuing them as fast as we can.”The payments are part of the $2.2 trillion package passed by Congress at the end of March intended to help workers who have been laid off or furloughed and to give businesses a financial boost to offset the dire economic effects caused by the pandemic.Individual taxpayers who make less than $75,000 will be eligible for $1,200 checks, and married couples filing jointly who make less than $150,000 will get $2,400.They will also be eligible for $500 for each dependent child under 17.The checks begin to phase out for individuals making more than $75,000 and end for those who make $99,000 or more.Couples who earn more than $198,000 will not get a check.The income amounts are based on tax returns filed for 2018 or 2019.Taxpayers who don’t use direct deposit will get checks, but that could delay the process by weeks.

Like all Political changes, there are to be winners and Losers.Property is likely in the short to mid term likely to be once again a la credit crunch 2008:9 to be a high risk LOSS.I do NOT RECOMMEND you invest in UK Property, unless you are willing to take a mid to long term HIGH RISK and LOSE Money.UK Based banks are heading for a catastrophic fall and crunch in investments, and Portfolio Performance, so avoid these. Look at overseas banks IF you can access your Monies safely, and collect payment for Goods etc, check with your local banks to see what arrangements are Legal after Brexit. WARNINGSOME UK Banks are going to FAIL because of Brexit unless the UK Government can afford (unlikely) to bale them out. Consider checking out a bank that is much stronger, check your banks Liquidity, its Financial backup, and IF there are any “Brexit” Jitters…DANGER !!!AVOID PANICK and DO NOT put everything you got in just one basket, SPREAD your “risk” accordingly to your assets and requirements. YOU MUST DO your Financial “homework”. Brexit is a unique risk, a never before tried Danger, who seems to be most knowledgeable?Money markets and UK Property will experience a “less than 2 percent growth in 2020, meaning Politely, a MAJOR RECESSION.I recommend targeting Industries which are involved in supplying Goods, and seeking to identify IF anywhere in the new EU Brexit Border Frontiers, there are possible “Niche” or Legal Loop Holes, for SPECIAL HIGH SPEED DELIVERY of fresh FISH, SHELLFISH, CRAB, etc, and Perishable Foods, yoghurts, Cheese etc, that will post Brexit be in terribly terribly short supply.if you can find a way to transport Hospital Medecines, and Life saveing Medical treatments etc, QUICKLY to AVOID delays at cross channel Ports, you will be a hero.Data Links on computer servers to Europe will all be CUT by Midnight October 31st, so IF you can find a location or a creative way to LEGALY keep one open, you may expect heavy trade on it in Goods !!! (if you can GET THE ITEMS DELIVERED, perhaps via a friend in France or Belgium Holland or Germany or something. )***Identify Post Brexit which areas are “worset hit” by Brexit transport and supply delays, and have the greatest NEED to get supplies quickly.Brexit is going to create a terrible “Black Market”, so I dare say “other goods”, Toys, Clothes, Petrol Scotch, Wine, Tobacco, Motor Oil, Certain spare parts for certain makes of Motor car vehicles etc, etc is going to be in dire shortage this winter (if Boris truly intends to follow his mad cap scheme on October 31st).Find KEY MARKET AREAS, such as childrens clothes and shoes, and “hard to get” items.But REMEMBER, a week is a long time in Politics, be adaptive and pro active, and keep checking the market situation.There will be money to be made in SOME AREAS, not in everything all at once (I HOPE!!!).Consider stocking up on certain Wines, and Spirits that are imported and will be hard to get. Be aware however, that storage of items must be SAFE and must NOT create a danger or fire hazard for people in your neighbourhood.Brexit will be miserable enough without your stock of stuff going up in smoke because it was not safely stored.Brexit stockpiling 'expert' advises what to buy and how to store items in event of no deal food shortageHe said he began to store extra goods as warnings over a no-deal Brexit became increasingly regular and has now amassed a full stockpileBy Chloe ChaplainFriday, 22nd March 2019, 07:19 amUpdatedFriday, 6th September 2019, 15:04 pmPeople across the UK have started stockpiling food (Rawson)In briefSupermarkets have warned that transport disruption caused by a no-deal Brexit could mean that shelves run out of foodIt has led to concerns that people should be stockpiling certain items ahead of the 29 March leave dateAndrew Rawson has advised on where to begin with storing additional food in preparationA no-deal Brexit "prepper", who has published a book on how to stockpile goods, has shared his top tips on how to prepare for any potential food shortages caused by an unplanned withdrawal from the EU.The i politics newsletter cut through the noiseAndrew Rawson, who lives in a rural area in the north of England, has been habitually storing food and household items since his village was hit by a snowstorm a few years ago.During the storm roads were inaccessible and he began to notice that local shops, which were unable to receive deliveries, began running out of several items.He said that the concept of food shortages "hadn’t really crossed my mind before" but that the speed at which shelves ran dry encouraged him to keep a stockpile of certain foods.Mr Rawson, who works in the public sector, said that he turned his attention to Brexit in June last year due to the apparent lack of progress being made and the continued warnings about the results of a no deal.'It’s for ordinary people worried about Brexit'He has since amassed months worth of goods, including tinned food, cleaning products and drinking water, for his wife, three children and pet dog.And he has written a guide to help others who are panicking about the consequences of a no deal - Preparing for Brexit: How to Survive the Food Shortages - his 116-page self-published book which is for sale on Amazon for £6.73 or free for Kindle users."I wrote the book because it took a fair bit of planning and thought to do my Brexit prepping and I was starting to see people posting that they were worried about the future but didn’t really know what to do," he said."So I thought the book could be a real help to people unsure where to start, particularly as it’s for ordinary people worried about Brexit rather than those with an interest in prepping which has its own image."Mr Rawson is referring to a movement of people, often known as preppers or survivalists, who actively prepare for national or international emergencies or disruptions.The trend, which is more poplar in the US than the UK, focuses on being self-sufficient through stockpiling food and goods and learning certain survival skills such as first aid training, self-defence and DIY.Warnings from food suppliersMr Rawson's book is not a guide for general preppers, he said, but for those with specific concerns around the impact that the UK leaving the EU with no deal could have on food supplies from Europe to the UK.Several leading supermarkets in the UK issued a warning on Tuesday to say that shelves could be left empty in the event that a deal is not reached ahead of the Brexit deadline of 29 March.DUP MP says people can 'go to the chippy' if there are no-deal Brexit food shortagesSainsbury's, Asda, Lidl and Marks and Spencer were among those to warn that they would be unable to stockpile certain foods and that the UK is very reliant on the EU for produce.In a latter from the British Retail Consortium they have said that any no deal disruption to the transportation of goods from mainland Europe to the UK could severely impact the amount of product in UK shops."The book advises on things like how and where to store supplies, how to prep on a budget and other food sources to add to supplies if needed," he said. "There is also a section on why prepping is sensible. I have heard of quite a few people buying the book for sceptical friends and family to explain the reasons for Brexit prepping."He said that his basic advice for those considering stockpiling is to "decide how long they want and can prep for".'Include treats for morale'"Different people will have different levels of concern so some may be happy with a couple of weeks, others may want a couple of months," he said."Also [they need to consider if] they have the space or resources necessary - they may need to compromise. But something is better than nothing."He said that since launching the book, and accompanying social media sites, he is often approached by people asking for help with what to do in order to prepare for a possible no-deal."My advice is, firstly, don’t panic. Stay calm, make a plan and go from there," he said. "If you have family members with particular needs build them into your plans, pets too."Even getting a few bits in puts you in a better position and means that, if panic-buying happens, the shops can be avoided as you have supplies already. Some people are happy with a few bits to keep them going, others want to know they’ve got weeks or months worth, everyone is different."Only buy what you like to eat," he added. "Make it a mixture of very easy to cook and eat as well as foods that might need more cooking. And include treats for morale."Some people want to know they’ve got everything they need for however long whereas others are prioritising things they think will be in short supply - for example pasta or olive oil. Essentially- everyone needs to think about the best way for them - what don’t they want to do without if it comes to it, and go from there."He advises people not to panic-buy foods (Mr Rawson)Lack of trust in the GovernmentMr Rawson said that he believes a great deal of the concern comes from people dealing with uncertainty about what the future holds post-Brexit, combined with a lack of trust that the Government will look after people in the country.Read:What would a no-deal Brexit actually mean?"People feel they need to put things in place themselves to ensure they are OK after Brexit," he said. "Some people worry that all the shops will totally empty."I think that there will still be some stuff but not necessarily what you might want or buy normally. If panic-buying happens badly and then there is the concern that the shops will struggle to refill and keep up."Prepping is essentially shopping in advance so food shortages won’t affect you, or not so badly. Nobody wants to be amongst the panic shoppers so prepping means they don’t have to be. In a way it also helps those that don’t prep as there will be fewer people out panic buying and buying earlier means what preppers have bought has been replaced over time by the shops as it has been bought."Andrew's top tips for stockpilingDon't panic-buy food or stress out;Make a comprehensive plan beforehand, being sure to cater for your family or anyone you live with;Consider what food you would actually want to eat and be able to cook rather than just buying random items;Be practical about how much space you have to store items;Buying goods gradually is better than mass-buying products;You can buy a book to help you prepare for Brexit.

From the 22-member expert 9/11 Consensus Panel: Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC BuildingsPoint TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTCIntroductionAccording to the official account, the Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts and fire, and in the case of WTC 7, by fire alone. One implication of this account is that the destruction would have produced no molten steel or molten iron (which is produced in a thermite reaction). Structural steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,482°C (2,700°F), and iron does not melt until it reaches 1,538°C (2,800°F). [1] The fires ignited by the plane crashes, even with the help of jet fuel, could not have been hotter than 1,000°C (1,832°F), meaning that they would have been at least 1000 degrees F. cooler than what would be necessary to melt steel/iron. The presence of molten steel or iron, therefore, would have implied that the building steel had been melted by something other than the airplane impacts and the resulting fires.The Official AccountThere is no evidence that any molten steel or iron was found in any of the WTC buildings.The NIST report showed that the Twin Towers were brought down by the airplane impacts and the resulting fires, which were ignited by jet fuel. [2] WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, was brought down by fire alone. [3] There would, therefore, have been no reason for molten steel or iron to have been produced. [4]Molten steel or iron was not mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report, [5] the NIST report about the Twin Towers, [6] or the NIST report about WTC 7. [7] This silence about molten steel or iron implies its absence.The existence of molten steel (or iron) was inexplicitly denied by one of the authors of the NIST reports, engineer John L. Gross. [8] At a lecture at the University of Texas in October 2006, Gross was asked a question about “a pool of molten steel,” to which he replied:“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody – no eyewitnesses said so, nobody’s produced it.” [9]In a post-report publication (September 2011), NIST wrote: “NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.”Moreover, this report said:“The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.”Finally, this report said:“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.” [10]In summary:The NIST reports attributed the collapses to jet fueled fires, which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron.There was no evidence for molten steel or iron, and there was no reason to expect it.Even if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses.The Best EvidenceNot one of those claims can be maintained:The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it. The only explanation NIST suggested was that, if there was molten steel or iron, it would have been “due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile.” But NIST claimed that the buildings were brought down by building fires, which at most could have reached 1,000°C (1,832°F.) So the idea that burning debris from these buildings could have reached anywhere close to the temperature needed to melt structural steel (1,482°C, 2,700°F), [11] without the help of explosive or incendiary material, is implausible. It is also unscientific. Physicist Steven Jones has written: “Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce large pools of molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal.” The fact that the pools of metal had an orange color was crucial, Jones explained, because something had raised the temperature of iron to more than 2,000°C (3,632°F). [12]There were two types of evidence for molten steel or iron in the debris: Physical evidence, which was presented in a 2002 report by FEMA and elsewhere. Testimonial evidence from many credible witnesses, including firefighters and other professionals.I. Physical EvidenceI-A. The 2002 FEMA ReportNew York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]I-B. The RJ Lee ReportIn May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event.” [19] The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature.” [20] This was the only statement about iron’s being modified by high temperature in this 2004 report.However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled “WTC Dust Signature Report,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 150 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [23]In addition, whereas the 2004 report did not use the word “vaporize,” this earlier version spoke of temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” [24] Accordingly, whereas the 2004 report referred to “high temperatures,” the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F). [25]I-C. The USGS ReportIn 2005, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published a report entitled “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” which was intended to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Among the components, it reported, were “metal or metal oxides” (which could not be distinguished by the USGS’s methods). “The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust,” the report said, “are Fe-rich [iron-rich] and Zn-rich [zinc-rich] particles.” [26] The report included a micrograph of an “iron-rich sphere.” [27]These iron-rich spherical particles – or “spherules,” as they are sometimes called – could only come about if iron is melted and then “sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes.” [28]Accordingly, the USGS report mentioned (without explaining) the existence of particles in the dust that should not have been there, according to the NIST explanation of the collapses.I-D. Report by the Steven Jones GroupNIST also ignored a third scientific report describing phenomena in the WTC dust that could have been produced only by extremely high temperatures. Entitled, in fact, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction,” this report, written by Steven Jones and seven other scientists, pointed out the existence of particles in the dust that required even higher temperatures than those implied by the RJ Lee and USGS reports.Jones and his colleagues performed tests using their own samples of WTC dust, which had been collected shortly after the destruction of the WTC – either very shortly afterwards or from the inside of nearby buildings (which means that the dust could not have been contaminated by clean-up operations at Ground Zero). They reported finding “an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules),” which were primarily “iron-rich … and silicates.” The iron-rich spherules would have required a temperature of 1,538°C (2,800°F). The silicates often contained aluminum, and aluminosilicate spherules, which were found in abundance in the dust, would have required a temperature of 1,450°C (2,652°F). [29]Iron could not have arisen from the steel alone and should not have been found in the rubble. The iron, which needs to be accounted for, is a byproduct of the thermite reaction.Still more remarkable, the Jones group reported, was a spherule found in the dust that was not mentioned in USGS’s “Particle Atlas,” and which was obtained only through an FOIA request, namely, “a molybdenum-rich spherule,” which had been observed and studied by the USGS team. This information is remarkable, because molybdenum (Mo) is “known for its extremely high melting point”: 2,623°C (4,753°F). [30] The presence of this molybdenum-rich spherules in the WTC dust was not mentioned by NIST, although it could have learned about it from the article by the Jones group or directly from the USGS.II. Testimonial EvidenceII-A. Testimony from Firefighters:New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [31]Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [32]New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [33]II-B. Testimony from Other Professionals:Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.” [34]Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.” [35]In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [36]Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.” [37]Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides … ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.” [38]II-C. Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.” [39]Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.” [40]Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains.” [41]Rebuttal of Official Claims: SummaryThe claim that no evidence of any molten steel or iron was found in any of the WTC buildings is strongly refuted by three scientific reports, one from a government agency (USGS).John Gross’s claim that “no eyewitnesses said” that there was molten steel (or iron) was strongly and repeatedly contradicted.The claim that molten steel or iron would be irrelevant because it could have been produced in the combustion pile: This would mean claiming, with no scientific evidence and no plausibility, that combustion in an oxygen-starved pile of rubbish could have heated steel to at least 1500°C (2800°F).With regard to the NIST claim that molten steel or iron is “irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse” because “it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers [including WTC 7] were standing”: Given the fact that the molten steel or iron in the debris could not have been produced without incendiaries or explosives, the presence of either of them indicates that some of the steel was melted before, or during, the final moments of the collapses.With regard to NIST’s statement in its post-report publication that there was no evidence for “the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers”: This is a statement that is truly irrelevant. The whole point is that the presence of melted steel and/or iron is an indication that the buildings must have been brought down by something other than fire.ConclusionNone of the official claims about the non-existence of molten iron or steel in the destroyed WTC buildings withstand scrutiny. The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact. Especially dramatic evidence of various types was provided by several facts: that the original RJ Lee report showed that there was almost 150 times more iron in the dust than normal; that the rubble contained steel with gaping holes, manifesting a “Swiss cheese appearance” that shocked the three “fire-wise professors” from Worcester Polytechnic Institute; that lead had been vaporized; that molybdenum had been melted; and that the metal pools contained iron that had been heated, as shown by the orange color, above 2,000°C (3,632°F).When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible.References for Point TT-6[1]On iron, see “Iron” in WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web. Steel, as an alloy of iron, comes in different grades, with a range of melting points, depending on the percent of carbon (which lowers the melting point), from 1,371°C (2,500°F) to 1,482°C (2,700°F); see “Alloys: Melting Point Chart”.[2]NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, p. 15. Regarding airplane impacts, see pp. 150-51; Jet fuel, pp. 24, 42; Fires, pp. 91, 127, 183[3]NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, November 2008, xxxv. In NIST’s words, the collapse of WTC 7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.”[4]In a post-report publication (September 2011), NIST wrote: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).” NIST Engineering Laboratory, “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (Question 15),” September 19, 2011.[5]The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004.[6]NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Vol. 1, Chapter 8.[7]NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, November 20, 2008.[8]Dr. Gross was the Co-Project leader on Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. See “John L. Gross”.[9]October 18, 2006 lecture, University of Texas at Austin, on the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Dr. John Gross, N.I.S.T.” Date confirmed here.[10]NIST Engineering Laboratory, “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation,” (Question 23) September 19, 2011.[11]“Iron,” WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web.[12]Steven E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3: September 2006, p. 18.[13]James Glanz, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” New York Times, November 29, 2001.[14]Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C.[15]Joan Killough-Miller, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.[16]James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002.[17]Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation,” JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 53/12 (2001), 8-11.[18]Thomas Eagar, “The Collapse: An Engineer’s Perspective,” which is part of “Why the Towers Fell,” NOVA, April 30, 2002.[19]RJ Lee Group, “Expert Report: WTC Dust Signature,” May 2004, 5.[20]Ibid., 11.[21]RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003, 5.[22]Ibid., 24.[23]Ibid., 17.[24]Ibid., 21.[25]WebElements: “The Periodic Table on the Web.”[26]Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” 2005.[27]To see enlarged photos of the iron-rich particles, go here, then click on “Yes” at the far right of the lines for “Iron-03” and “Iron-04.”[28]Steven E. Jones et al., “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008, 8.[29]Ibid., 1-2.[30]Ibid., 4. On its characteristics, see “Molybdenum” in WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web.[31]“Firefighter Describes Molten Metal at Ground Zero, Like a Foundry,” YouTube: TruthRadiator[32]Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder, May 29, 2002.[33]“Unflinching Look Among the Ruins,” New York Post, March 3, 2004. Part 1 of 5 of Étienne Sauret’s “Collateral Damages” (2003) was also available.[34]“Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement,” (YouTube: IC911STUDIES) in a presentation at Stanford University. See also National Conference of Structural Engineers, October 5, 2001. (James M. Williams, SEAU President, “WTC: A Structural Success,” SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, 3.[35]Quoted in Francesca Lyman, “Messages in the Dust: What Are the Lessons of the Environmental Health Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11?” National Environmental Health Association, September 2003. (Editor’s Note: Also quoted in “The scene at Ground Zero.”)[36]“Mobilizing Public Health,” Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall, 2001.[37]FEMA Director Allbaugh with Bryant Gumbel, CBS Early Show, October 4, 2001.[38]Greg Gittrich, New York Daily News, November 1, 2001: 10 (pay-per-view).[39]Trudy Walsh, “Handheld APP Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News 21, no. 27a, 11 September 2002.[40]“K-9/11: Tracking the Rescuers’ Trauma,” PENN Arts & Sciences, Summer 2002.[41]Tom Arterburn, “D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers’ Challenge of a Lifetime,” Waste Age, 1 April 2002.