NIST release rebuttal of CD theories

[Graham]

oh dear god......

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[andyb]

I've just read the NIST try to rebut the CD theories but haven't deen too good a job. They also say that it was NOT a pancake collapse.

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon"

This is followed by:

"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially"

sounds like a pancake collpase theory to me??

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This has only just been released, and I'm sure it will soon be debunked. They must be getting a bit worried to release this now.

[foliagecop]

Then there's this, concerning freefall:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) 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 (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

"The falling mass increased"??

I'm no expert, and know next to b* all about physics, but is this possible? Can a falling mass, under any circumstance, actually increase?

The whole report stinks like Friday's fish on a Monday. Contradictory, pie-in-the-sky, guff.

[Snowygrouch]

Nice that they admit to NOT having actually tested for explosives or incediaries such as thermite.

They must be getting VERY worried to actually start publishing rebuttals of us "tin hat loony tunes brigade".

Oooo I think we hit a nerve.............

PS the falling mass stuff completely ignores the safety factor which would be between 5 and 10. All beams would have been able to withstand up 5>10 times the maximum anticipated service load. Also if one floor collapsed you only have about 12 feet for it to fall. It aint gong to be travelling fast enough in 12 feet of fall to decimate 100,000tons of beams in 10 seconds.

Also important that they admit their official timings of the fall to be very similar to our own. An important one that.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I know even less about physics than the poster above Calum but ...the south tower actually toppled at the impact point didn't it? so the floor trusses bowed in the heat and took the 47 steel core columns with them according to NIST?

[uselesseater]

Have they mentioned the molten steel in the basement and pouring out of the south tower prior to collaps, or is the unofficial line still the whacky spontaneos, accidental, thermite reaction caused by gypsum and aluminium.

[spiv]

[andyb]

They did mention the orange molten stuff coming out the south tower, apparently motlen carpet and computer or something equally implausible

[Spectre]

No this is good.

They are taking the criticisms seriously and trying to engage in an intellectual argument - albeit very controlled and one-sided.

This means they are worried.

It is also a big mistake on their part. The cover-up guys have always played a better game (from their perspective) by just ignoring criticism or alternate perspectives. By accepting the intellectual credence of such alternative arguments and viewpoints they will ineveiably draw more attention to these actual arguments rather than burying it as has been the case previously.

If we were playing poker I'd say they've shown a clear lack of nerve ...

Big mistake NIST guys - you should have stayed quiet.

Thanks for helping the spread of truth by laying out the stall in even clearer fashion.

[Pikey]

Spectre your spot on IMHO!

It will by interesting to read the 911 scholars (re: Prof Steven E Jones et al) response to this!

[kbo234]

As David Ray Griffin says, even if the free-fall-speed collapses were possible (which they weren't), this does nothing to explain the collapse of the 47-beam steel cores of the buildings which should have been left standing up like the spindle on an old record player.

There is still no sensible explanation here for the pulverisation of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete or for the pools of molten metal in the basements...nor any attempt at analysis of energies required for all this destruction at all.
Now that they have admitted the free-fall nature of the collapse any good GCSE physics student could tell you that at free-fall speeds all the gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy (of motion) of the falling object. There is NO ENERGY left to do anything else....anyway, it is fairly obvious to anyone that in order for free-fall collapse to take place the falling pieces of the building must meet no resistance from those parts below them.

We have all read this kind of thing before but this NIST report skirts around all these fundamental issues.

Never was an effort to 'blind with science' more obviously attempted.

I will send an email to Gordon Ross, who has engaged in arguments debunking the debunkers at Popular Mechanics. He presented analyses of the collapses in extraordinary detail. It would be interesting to get his take on this document.

[brian]

Alex Jones just said on talksport radio NIST is considering bombs may have been in WTC 7.

http://www.talksport.net/

Listen live top left.

[MiniMauve]

[Andrew Johnson]

Jim Hoffman's site has a reply:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

[Annie]

Some initial thoughts from Dave Shayler:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1925003 82

This is great news. They are responding and they still haven't actually refuted much of our evidence (although it will be presented that way).

We need to consider the argument about melting points of steel. They admit that our figures are right for melting point of steel in relation to burning kerosene but then try to claim that paper etc somehow made this burn hotter. Paper, carpet etc does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Steel is also an excellent conductor so heat is quickly dispersed across the structure. They still have to account for why no? other steel structures have fallen due to fire damage. We need to look at that Hercules in Iran which went into a ten-storey building.

Interestingly they have admitted that they did not carry out a proper review of controlled demolition and that FEMA's Pancake theory doesn't hold water.

In their model of the falling floors, we are still presumably missing an account of why there aren't two lots of central columns still standing.

There is no explanation of how reinforced concrete comes to be turned into dust. And the explanation of the hotspots at ground zero is unconvincing and untested by objective analysis, especially as the fires from the jet fuel went out.

They provide no explanantion for how the second plane seems to merge into the building without its structure deforming on impact or indeed why there is no 'blowback' of bits of plane etc.

The par below rather seems to indicate that they are not that sure, particularly with regard to WTC7:

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements".

They also admit that they didn't test for explosive substances:

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Others did though so NIST still have to explain why some steel recovered did test for traces of sulphur and why the rest was shipped off to China. The fact that the steel has not been foresicated should be acknowleged by NIST when they indicate as its absence affects the certainty of their conclusions.

"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

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.

"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.

"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. "

So where did those fires come from?

[xmasdale]

[Annie]

Andrew Johnson just sent this through:

Jim Hoffman's site has a reply:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

It's just like the Physics thread I started almost a year ago....

[Skeptic]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Alex Jones said something on James Whale last night about NIST coming round to accepting WTC7 was brought down by explosives.

[Skeptic]

^^

To be honest I think the prisonplanet team have got the wrong end of the stick.

It seems to me that NIST are trying to address questions about the possibility of explosives as a form of debunking or rebutting the CD theories. I don't see much to suggest that they are going to work with the hypothesis that explosives were used and re-evaluate their data.

As someone else said, the positive thing we can take from it is that the turht movement is forcing the officials to answer these kind of questions.

[Mark Gobell]

Five years on and:

There is a total absence of any attempt to explain why we do not see any trace of the massive 47 central steel columns remaining.

When is one of these "scientific" investigations consisting of hundred's of structural engineers going to provide an explanation of the incontrovertible video evidence that clearly shows ejected debris travelling in an upward and outward trajectory away from both towers during the "collapse" ?

How does 500,000 tons of material in each tower get converted into dust ?

Collapses in near freefall time ?

I imagine we will be sitting here in another five years, and another five years and still we won't have any meaningful explanation.

Can somebody please also explain why these new "versions" are a reason for us to rejoice. Their net effect is to raise more questions than they claim to resolve.

If this is the game as it clearly seems to be, spinning one pack of lies in place of another, as per the NORAD tapes we are never going to get to the bottom of these issues. Ever.

Do we anticipate a time when they have given up trying to explain it ?

Will we still be around / interested by then ?

Will the persistent asbsence of any meaningful explanation somehow trigger endictments ?

What do we expect to achieve by continually waiting for their next version of what they think happened, and responding by saying Oh goody they are in a mess again ?

[MiniMauve]

What's your solution, Mark? What's wrong with saying, "Oh good, we have made NIST think.", while we continue to push for a real investigation? I don't believe anyone has suggested the truth movement should back off. In fact, I would think this would provide new energy, would galvanize support for investigating 911. So, I'm not sure what your point is...

[gordon]

I'm having difficulty getting onto the NIST site so have not been able to download the article to read again. The Scholars will be releasing a detailed response to the NIST factsheet but this concerns only the more obvious inconsistencies in their argument. Quotations from NIST are given in italics.


It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.
Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." In order for a pressure to build up two floors must come together. This can only happen in two ways one of which, involving at least one floor becoming detached, is ruled out by NIST now saying that this pancaking did not occur. The only other possibility is if the columns supporting the floors buckle or fail in some way. Nist are asking us to believe that the air then ejected as squibs some thirty or more storeys, some 100 metres below the collapse front, rather than through the very obvious route offered by the failed columns around the entire perimeter of the building. Not only does this defy credibility, the very fact that NIST thought that they could get away with this, defys credibility.

Here we see why NIST have decided to ask their own questions. They say,
6. 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)?
Whereas the question could be posed as, "Why did the structure offer minimal resistance to the falling upper mass?" In this case NIST's circular answer would be more obvious, when they say,
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.
They do not support this contention with any analysis whatsoever. They don't even provide a single calculation to support the claim that the towers would provide little resistance to a falling mass but instead rely on,
The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
The NIST study was supposed to determine why little resistance was provided. Not merely declare that there was little resistance. This must be studied before building recommendations can be made. That is why a budget was allocated.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, 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 (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.
This is simply wrong in so many ways. The towers were designed to support the static weight of the structure multplied by the safety factor. NIST are ignoring the safety factor, asking us to believe that the towers could carry only the static weight. The question must be asked that if NIST's collapse theory relies on there being no safety factor in order to initiate and progress the collapse, what removed that safety factor prior to initiation. Conservation of Momentum dictates that the upper section must slow in order to accelerate any part of the lower section. Conservation of Energy dictates that the upper section must slow in order to be able to cause the damage caused to the floors, core and perimeter structure.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
. . 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.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point
AND????
This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives..."
Hardly surprising since their attitude in ignoring the molten metal seems to extend to also ignore the evidence of the many eye witnesses of explosions. If the pancaking is now ruled out how does NIST account for the evidence of regular patterns in the explosive sounds that were previously explained away as the falling floors progressively striking lower floors.

“12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."”
NIST STATEMENT: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
Perhaps this explains why they found no corroborating evidence. The ability to believe and try to explain away the squibs and their regular pattern, as being caused by overpressures at the collapse front must have helped.

NIST: Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none. If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. “
It is absurd to even suggest that aluminium can become a homogenous mass with pieces of burnt furniture and carpet. Their densities will dictate that the debris will float on top of the aluminium and it will burn. NIST have stated that there is, "no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning." No mechanism has been forwarded as to how this aluminium could coalesce, mix with the colour altering debris then be ejected from the tower.

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.
Why do NIST fail to see the relation between these two obsevations above?. We are told that thermite requires several minutes to weaken a beam, yet the fact that there was visual evidence of a reaction which lasted for several minutes totally eludes them.

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
If the entire south face simply disappeared this would not cause a total collapse, so it can be easily seen that bowing of this one face affecting only a proportion of the columns on that face was insufficient to initiate complete collapse.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
It is welcomed as a step in the right direction that NIST do not ascribe to the ludicrous floor pancake theory, but they have failed to give any collapse theory at all. They tell us what did not happen and even provide a diagram of the floors which did not pancake, yet fail to identify how the collapse progressed.
NIST go to great lengths to show the array of talent that they used but a number of people calling themselves experts, just after 9/11, claimed that the jet fuel fires melted the steel. Those who sought more logical explanations pointed out that this was impossible, and NIST now agrees. But why did NIST use contractors who had previously stated that the jet fuel fire melted the steel? One notable example is Eduardo Kausel, as reported by Scientific American.

What was it Rabbie Burns used to say? Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive?

Gordon.

[blackcat]