| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Henry" |
| Date: |
17 May 2007 09:40:50 AM |
| Object: |
!! Top 10 Reasons The NIST Report Is A Farce !! |
It's amazing that anyone could consider this comical load of
garbage to be a credible report.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/071106_nist_report.html
In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation
that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely
collapsed.[1]
Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock
solid proof that the official story is true. I am writing this list In
order to help remedy this situation. All of my claims are documented—I
am not making this up. Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to
be true, but they are. I have provided the footnotes to prove it.
This is for anyone who still takes the NIST report seriously.
I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:
#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the
primary reason the towers collapsed.[2]
#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever
completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3]
#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with
a shotgun experiment.[4]
#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5]
#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6]
#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the
towers should not have collapsed.[7]
#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to
release.[8]
#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]
#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!),
that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to
explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse
began![10]
NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?
#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss
molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was
“irrelevant to the investigation”![11]
This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal
investigation, as well as a new investigation.
Most of this information is in an essay I wrote about the NIST report.
For a more complete examination of the NIST report, read:
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4324
[1] www.nist.gov/
[2] This is NIST’s theory in their own words: “The two aircraft hit the
towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural
components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the
towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it
not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent
multifloor fires.”
Taken from: NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4.
Therefore, the NIST theory is a “fireproofing theory”. If the
fireproofing was not removed the buildings would not have collapsed
according to NIST.
Plane damage was therefore insignificant:
Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the
official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have
been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial
impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in
this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).
Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California:said “‘The [plane]
impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN
News, Oct 5, 2001.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference.
June 4, 2006.
[3] No steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history
according to the New York Times:
Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but
Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
[4] Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:
“It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation…
there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like]
thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of
surface area of structural steel.”
In other words, the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where
they were struck with the shotgun blast. Their own photos clearly show
that the shotgun blasts removed little fireproofing, disproving their
theory.
taken from:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference.
June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the
shotgun blast tests.
[5] Eyewitness testimony:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
[6] As Seen from in NIST’s FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[6]
NIST responds:
“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively)
falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support
only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects
due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity
of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the
falling mass. [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics] The
downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger
due to the increasing mass.”[6]
Jim Hoffman explains why this is impossible:
“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:
* Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers
provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
* Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers'
footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
* Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”[6]
Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific
papers, agrees [see page 28]:
“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of
momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as
upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support
columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by
the impacted mass.”[6]
[7] Here are NIST’s own test results:
* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse
exposure to fire"
* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength)
values (600 C)
* Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
* NIST found that there was no floor collapse.
* "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of
sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial
period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given
location on September 11th."
See here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis
and here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests
[8] “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to
show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite
calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse
visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
[9] What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know
exactly, but they did reveal:
“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by
combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the
influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle
cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The
less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were
compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the
structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to
observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
This does not prove their predetermined conclusion so they change their
data until they get the desired result—building collapse:
“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower...
To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic
evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the
investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical
reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns
by the sagging floors were adjusted...”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed
the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports. Does this
“evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun
to fool around with?
NIST also revealed:
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there
have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse
visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
[10] NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events
from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for
each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as
the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the
conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn.
12; emphasis added.
The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of
the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the
report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it
started.
[11] I can’t believe they actually stated this on the record! NIST truly
sets a new standard for absurdity.
NIST: “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.” Read it here!
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13
NIST is trying to say that the molten steel was created after the
building collapse. How do they know that? If so, why isn’t it mentioned
in a 10, 000 page report to show this? This statement defies belief.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: !! Top 10 Reasons The NIST Report Is A Farce !! |
17 May 2007 09:56:27 AM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
It's amazing that anyone could consider this comical load of
garbage to be a credible report.
Try again, Henry
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: !! Top 10 Reasons The NIST Report Is A Farce !! |
17 May 2007 02:39:17 PM |
|
|
Perhaps Henry should speak with a structural engineer, who will
explain to him how steel behaves when heated to near incadescent
temperatures.
Harry C.
On May 17, 10:56 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henry wrote:
It's amazing that anyone could consider this comical load of
garbage to be a credible report.
Try again, Henry
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: !! Top 10 Reasons The NIST Report Is A Farce !! |
17 May 2007 04:52:56 PM |
|
|
On May 17, 2:39 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps Henry should speak with a structural engineer, who will
explain to him how steel behaves when heated to near incadescent
temperatures.
Henry doesn't really want to speak with anyone. Henry just wants those
who agree with his position to stand up so that he can count them on
his side, and discount those who do not agree with his position.
He's not interested in truth, he just wants to organize a protest
march. As far as he's concerned, he is the holder of the truth, and
that's good enough for him.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: !! Top 10 Reasons The NIST Report Is A Farce !! |
17 May 2007 08:43:39 PM |
|
|
In that case PD, Henry should locate a good shrink before the men in
white jackets throw a net over him and take him to someplace where he
can be rearted.
PD, I really don't usually make it my practice to respond to fruitcake
posts like Henry's, but it seriously offends me that a newsgroup like
sci.physics whould be essentially taken over the the psychos,
conspiracy buffs, and other crackpots that both know nothing about
physics, and don't care.
I'm a physicist, and this is why on only visit the newsgroup every
other month, and the reason why almost everyone else with an education
is physics tends to avoid the newsgroup as being a joke.
It's time for the crackpots to leave, and return to the alt.crackpot
newsgroups where they belong.
Harry C.
On May 17, 5:52 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 17, 2:39 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps Henry should speak with a structural engineer, who will
explain to him how steel behaves when heated to near incadescent
temperatures.
Henry doesn't really want to speak with anyone. Henry just wants those
who agree with his position to stand up so that he can count them on
his side, and discount those who do not agree with his position.
He's not interested in truth, he just wants to organize a protest
march. As far as he's concerned, he is the holder of the truth, and
that's good enough for him.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
