Monday, October 15, 2007

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter. And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

So yes . . . NIST will forever be "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" unless it stops covering up the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.




31 Comments:

Blogger Masher1 said...

Every SINGLE building builder SHOULD be screaming FOUL MOST HIGH! about the events of 9/11.
The single most important question i want answered is WHY was there a fire for 2 MONTHS under that rubble pile.

What fuel will allow a fire to be sustained in an solid concrete crucible SEALED under a huge pile of powdered concrete and tons and tons of steel? For 2 MONTHS? SIXTY DAYS PLUS? Not no "THERMATE" that I KNOW. But what?

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at Oklahoma - look at the movie X-Files - at most a corner of the upper 30 or forty stories of the facade should have fell - the towers were over specified, heavy duty, uglier than sin American engineering - with a solid concrete and steel core. They should never have "totally" collapsed.

And then the theater of WTC 7 with a countdown on the Red Cross Blackberry? What kind of AQ operative counts down on a red cross emergency frequency?

And how the f*ck did the BBC know about WTC 7's collapse 24 f*cking minutes before it came tumbling down - didn't the BBC have access to the Red Cross Blackberry?

The 9 slash 11 story is bullsh*t - and this country is bullsh*t until justice is handed out.

I hereby issue a warrant for a citizens arrest of the US Government including all of the administration, all of the agency heads, most of congress, the joint chiefs of staff every executive and staffer at every Israeli consulate and embassy built on US soil, the executives, managers and editors of any mainstream lessee of US bandwidths and the supreme court, every lobbyist on K street, Blackwater, Haliburton, Bechtel, MITRE, PTECH, COMVERSE (and other members of the coalition of the billing).

Oh yeah - and anybody associate with PNAC.

Did I leave anyone out?

Go gt get `em folks - let's give `em a taste of real American Justice! Maybe we can watch them get busted on COPS!!!! Imagine Dubby taking a dumb and a storm trooper kicks his privy door down!

.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It makes you wonder, are any buildings in NYC - in the nation - really safe enough to work in - or even walk around in? A baby farts and the walls come tumbling down? Pretty terrible engineering - I wouldn't work in one.

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

1:25 PM  
Blogger reflux the chemist said...

Great post. This is some of the concrete evidence we need to push into the faces of the sheep and their masters. Its high time we stop this bullshit and take our country back.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

masher1 - yes, thermate. first of all, thermate provides its own oxidizer (iron oxide). second the reaction went to completion before the building collapsed - the intense heat of molten iron was insulated by the overlying rubble, much like the interior of the Earth can remain molten iron.

3:39 PM  
Blogger Masher1 said...

Don't Get me Wrong i looked at this Well. The mass to continue this fire is the problem. The amount of water put into this area would have flooded the whole area many times. This did not happen. The fire continued. Removing the steel slug so quick must have been Issue # one. Magnesium? Not enough mass i think. My theory is U-238. The three buildings demoed that day all must have had some form of Tuned Mass Dampers to make them not sway so much.


Just think down that road a tad....

Then read this one....

4:19 PM  
Blogger Gary said...

NIST: "We are Unwilling to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

6:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't the people who designed the buildings in the 60's have to figure out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level of the building? Wouldn't there be more steel and concrete toward the bottom? Shouldn't we have had a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level within 6 weeks of the collapse because that could have been determined from the original documentation?

This is the nation that put men on the moon 38 years ago. High school kids should be able to figure out a plane could not produce those effects in less than 2 hours. We haven't even been told the tons of steel on the floors where the planes hit.

psikeyhackr

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they say also:


Your letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.

I think we have three questions here...

1) what exactly does "taken as a whole" mean?

2) why they say "play a role in the collapse"? there is no third solution: we had explosives or we did not. If we had explosives how can they say that they didn't play a role; if we hadn't, why they just don't say it in clear words?

3) why did they conduct "its own set of interviews" after having already collected more than 500?

9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Masher1, a new truth site appeard recently that may explain that. Have you seen the totally new hypothesis at this site?
http://www.nucleardemolition.com

1:25 PM  
Blogger imdougandirule said...

As an architect in the San Diego area, I can tell you that there is no possible way the jet fuel could have produced a flame hot enough to melt the structural steel used in the WTC. Even mechanical systems in the buildings that ran on oil couldn't have raised the temperature of the inferno created by whatever crashed into the buildings.

I don't think I even have to go into the Pentagon "crash" or WTC 7. How anyone can ignore the demise of WTC 7 and think that's what happens is beyond me. Fortunately, Larry Silverstein took out an enormous insurance policy on these buildings he bought in the summer of '01.

In the entire history of aviation, only two buildings have failed due to a plane crashing into them - the twin towers. And only one building has ever come down because nearby buildings fell - WTC 7. Buildings have burned for days before being put out 60 years ago and are still standing today. The WTC was designed and engineered significantly superior to most skyscrapers of the time and prior.

1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you please check the link to the NIST response? I cannot open it.
THx

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'In the entire history of aviation, only two buildings have failed due to a plane crashing into them - the twin towers'

In the entire history of aviation only two high-rise buildings have ever been hit by fast-moving airliners. Don't you get it? This had not happened before, and pulling garbage like the quote above out of your arses just makes the lot of you look like fools.

As for the original post, did you actually understand what NIST said? They cannot model the entire collapse, but they certainly modelled it to the point of collapse, after which the system grew too complex. These are real scientists and engineers who seem to be spending far too much time pandering to you lot.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous RGS said...

1. The towers were not steel cage buildings they were a box outside a box and cannot be compared to the other buildings which are typically mentioned.
2. There is no record or any controlled demolition being done on buildings over 400 feet tall anywhere in the world - a tower or two but never something this complicated.
3. The NIST doesn't say that fire caused the collapse. They say that the the plane crash demolished a number of columns and that the fires caused the remaining steel columns to weaken to the point that the collapse began. The load, at that point was some 20 times what the floors had been designe to hold.
3. They don't come down in "free fall" but rather take around 15-20 seconds to come down. This is showm unambiguously by a number of recordings made at the scene and by the seismic records. Even at that point, the heavier cores are still standing - there is video evidence for that.

This has been taken out of context. The statement was made with reference to the request for the NIST to use it's models to prove that the collapse would have proceeded as we can see it did. Their point is that their models don't converge on a solution because the situation they are trying to model is chaotic. This is really not an area to be looked at intuitively, which is how the blogger is approaching it.

3:58 PM  
Blogger Masher1 said...

A TWO month long blaze is going to have to get FUEL from somewhere. The molten steel reports SIX weeks post 9/11 UNDER the sheer tonnage of concrete dust and steel and what the frack ever else does not snuff out the fire then the fuel needs to be there already. How much in REAL cash would 3 such TMD units COST in just lead (PB) versus the WTC builder having at his disposal a FREE substance 1.7 times as heavy by volume I.e. U-238 or DU.

I am sorry but I am going to have to chock this one up on the Greed side and say market # for lead Don't show this much product going into a single job. Keep in mind the cost of this much lead on the open market say some 1600 to 2000 tons between the 3 towers 1,2,7.

And there is not even one that can convince me that the did not have TMD units either because i KNOW they did. A damn black hole of information is those spaces in those buildings. Deep and Black.

But i have a light!

11:32 PM  
Blogger The Wendigo said...

to anonymous @ 2:37 pm --

The more important feature is that there was no fuel sufficient to melt the structural steel.

The only way you can continue to believe that a jet brought down a WTC tower is to ignore physical reality.

It's quite simple: petroleum fuel products cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, or even cause it to deform.

You can do the laboratory exercises yourself, if you doubt what I'm telling you. You will find the same.

The reason the NIST is so equivocal is because it's an arm of the government, and the government isn't going to admit to any sort of intentional destruction of the WTC buildings. Because really, if it did, then a whole lot of schitt would start flowing downhill onto a lot of people, starting with Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, and including Larry Silverstein.

Your post may have the intention of trying to "rehabilitate" the reputation of the NIST report, or otherwise to support the "official story" on the events of the WTC impacts on 9/11/2001, but I'm afraid you need a lot more than fake skepticism and bogus distraction.

Physical science is against you. Perhaps that is why you maintain anonymity in your comments, because you wouldn't want to be identified as posting nonsense.

I can understand that. I post under a known identity that makes me traceable to my blogs and my thoughts. Feel free to "criticize" me, anonymous. Please, feel free.

9:31 AM  
Blogger The Wendigo said...

my 9:31 comments apply equally to the post by "rgs" at 3:58 pm.

"rgs" is trying to distract people from the simple elemental chemistry facts.

this has nothing to do with "intuitive analysis" versus "complex modeling."

you do not need a complex model to determine what petroleum fuels will do to structural steel. you need only a laboratory, some structural steel, and some petroleum fuels.

it's quite simple.

"complex modeling" is designed to be used as a distraction. nothing more.

nice try, rgs.

9:37 AM  
Blogger Virginia Foxxe said...

The whole point of how/why the three WTC buildings collapsed is moot, as far as I can see. Why not just leave it as "who knows?" and focus on the main issue. That being, how could three hijacked airliners ever have evaded the US defences in the first place?

The United States has not only the greatest offence capacity of any country in the world, it also has the most sophisticated defence capacity. So how could not one, not two, but three hijacked airliners managed to evade USAF and NORAD and US missile defence systems, and proceed to their targets and crash into those buildings? And a fourth plane was hijacked/crashed (but not into a building) but also was never even intercepted? And don't forget, the Pentagon is (for obvious reasons) the most heavily defended building in the entire world, with its own dedicated missile defence system. How did a Boeing 757 evade those defences?

Oh sure, we all know the official excuse. Drills were being carried out, with the scenario being that hijacked airliners might be attacking none other than the WTC and Pentagon (hell of a coincidence), and nobody knew the difference between what was real and what was drill. Get real. First of all, if that were true, by conducting drills in such a way that nobody can tell the difference between a real attack and a simulated drill scenario, SOMEBODY exposed the country to grave risk by leaving the nation unguarded while the drills were being conducted. Gross negligence resulting in 3000 deaths on that day, and more than 3800 US deaths in the ensuing years in wars sparked that day. Who is responsible for that gross negligence?

Secondly, if any government can spend 400,000,000,000 dollars a year on "defence," and to fail so miserably, isn't it time to start re-thinking priorities? Maybe the 400 billion would be more effective if spent on benevolent causes that would make people around the world respect America instead of spending it on causes for pissing people off and making them want to attack America?

8:06 PM  
Blogger Virginia Foxxe said...

The whole point of how/why the three WTC buildings collapsed is moot, as far as I can see. Why not just leave it as "who knows?" and focus on the main issue. That being, how could three hijacked airliners ever have evaded the US defences in the first place?

The United States has not only the greatest offence capacity of any country in the world, it also has the most sophisticated defence capacity. So how could not one, not two, but three hijacked airliners managed to evade USAF and NORAD and US missile defence systems, and proceed to their targets and crash into those buildings? And a fourth plane was hijacked/crashed (but not into a building) but also was never even intercepted? And don't forget, the Pentagon is (for obvious reasons) the most heavily defended building in the entire world, with its own dedicated missile defence system. How did a Boeing 757 evade those defences?

Oh sure, we all know the official excuse. Drills were being carried out, with the scenario being that hijacked airliners might be attacking none other than the WTC and Pentagon (hell of a coincidence), and nobody knew the difference between what was real and what was drill. Get real. First of all, if that were true, by conducting drills in such a way that nobody can tell the difference between a real attack and a simulated drill scenario, SOMEBODY exposed the country to grave risk by leaving the nation unguarded while the drills were being conducted. Gross negligence resulting in 3000 deaths on that day, and more than 3800 US deaths in the ensuing years in wars sparked that day. Who is responsible for that gross negligence?

Secondly, if any government can spend 400,000,000,000 dollars a year on "defence," and to fail so miserably, isn't it time to start re-thinking priorities? Maybe the 400 billion would be more effective if spent on benevolent causes that would make people around the world respect America instead of spending it on causes for pissing people off and making them want to attack America?

8:07 PM  
Blogger Virginia Foxxe said...

The whole point of how/why the three WTC buildings collapsed is moot, as far as I can see. Why not just leave it as "who knows?" and focus on the main issue. That being, how could three hijacked airliners ever have evaded the US defences in the first place?

The United States has not only the greatest offence capacity of any country in the world, it also has the most sophisticated defence capacity. So how could not one, not two, but three hijacked airliners managed to evade USAF and NORAD and US missile defence systems, and proceed to their targets and crash into those buildings? And a fourth plane was hijacked/crashed (but not into a building) but also was never even intercepted? And don't forget, the Pentagon is (for obvious reasons) the most heavily defended building in the entire world, with its own dedicated missile defence system. How did a Boeing 757 evade those defences?

Oh sure, we all know the official excuse. Drills were being carried out, with the scenario being that hijacked airliners might be attacking none other than the WTC and Pentagon (hell of a coincidence), and nobody knew the difference between what was real and what was drill. Get real. First of all, if that were true, by conducting drills in such a way that nobody can tell the difference between a real attack and a simulated drill scenario, SOMEBODY exposed the country to grave risk by leaving the nation unguarded while the drills were being conducted. Gross negligence resulting in 3000 deaths on that day, and more than 3800 US deaths in the ensuing years in wars sparked that day. Who is responsible for that gross negligence?

Secondly, if any government can spend 400,000,000,000 dollars a year on "defence," and to fail so miserably, isn't it time to start re-thinking priorities? Maybe the 400 billion would be more effective if spent on benevolent causes that would make people around the world respect America instead of spending it on causes for pissing people off and making them want to attack America?

8:07 PM  
Blogger Virginia Foxxe said...

The whole point of how/why the three WTC buildings collapsed is moot, as far as I can see. Why not just leave it as "who knows?" and focus on the main issue. That being, how could three hijacked airliners ever have evaded the US defences in the first place?

The United States has not only the greatest offence capacity of any country in the world, it also has the most sophisticated defence capacity. So how could not one, not two, but three hijacked airliners managed to evade USAF and NORAD and US missile defence systems, and proceed to their targets and crash into those buildings? And a fourth plane was hijacked/crashed (but not into a building) but also was never even intercepted? And don't forget, the Pentagon is (for obvious reasons) the most heavily defended building in the entire world, with its own dedicated missile defence system. How did a Boeing 757 evade those defences?

Oh sure, we all know the official excuse. Drills were being carried out, with the scenario being that hijacked airliners might be attacking none other than the WTC and Pentagon (hell of a coincidence), and nobody knew the difference between what was real and what was drill. Get real. First of all, if that were true, by conducting drills in such a way that nobody can tell the difference between a real attack and a simulated drill scenario, SOMEBODY exposed the country to grave risk by leaving the nation unguarded while the drills were being conducted. Gross negligence resulting in 3000 deaths on that day, and more than 3800 US deaths in the ensuing years in wars sparked that day. Who is responsible for that gross negligence?

Secondly, if any government can spend 400,000,000,000 dollars a year on "defence," and to fail so miserably, isn't it time to start re-thinking priorities? Maybe the 400 billion would be more effective if spent on benevolent causes that would make people around the world respect America instead of spending it on causes for pissing people off and making them want to attack America?

8:10 PM  
Blogger Virginia Foxxe said...

The whole point of how/why the three WTC buildings collapsed is moot, as far as I can see. Why not just leave it as "who knows?" and focus on the main issue. That being, how could three hijacked airliners ever have evaded the US defences in the first place?

The United States has not only the greatest offence capacity of any country in the world, it also has the most sophisticated defence capacity. So how could not one, not two, but three hijacked airliners managed to evade USAF and NORAD and US missile defence systems, and proceed to their targets and crash into those buildings? And a fourth plane was hijacked/crashed (but not into a building) but also was never even intercepted? And don't forget, the Pentagon is (for obvious reasons) the most heavily defended building in the entire world, with its own dedicated missile defence system. How did a Boeing 757 evade those defences?

Oh sure, we all know the official excuse. Drills were being carried out, with the scenario being that hijacked airliners might be attacking none other than the WTC and Pentagon (hell of a coincidence), and nobody knew the difference between what was real and what was drill. Get real. First of all, if that were true, by conducting drills in such a way that nobody can tell the difference between a real attack and a simulated drill scenario, SOMEBODY exposed the country to grave risk by leaving the nation unguarded while the drills were being conducted. Gross negligence resulting in 3000 deaths on that day, and more than 3800 US deaths in the ensuing years in wars sparked that day. Who is responsible for that gross negligence?

Secondly, if any government can spend 400,000,000,000 dollars a year on "defence," and to fail so miserably, isn't it time to start re-thinking priorities? Maybe the 400 billion would be more effective if spent on benevolent causes that would make people around the world respect America instead of spending it on causes for pissing people off and making them want to attack America?

8:18 PM  
Blogger Pop ARF said...

The Truth with come out soon! I can smell it!

7:53 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Fletcher says: "clearly the report has utility with the professional community that will implement these changes." Lie. When it came to changing codes, the industry said no way - unique event, etc.

What we see here is Soviet science.

11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, so easy to debunk this bullsh*t. Where should I start???

Freefall speed? Wrong, each building took 13 seconds to collapsed. DEBUNKED.

Bombs reported in building? Wrong, aerosol cans and falling bodies make those sounds. DEBUNKED.

Fire can't melt steel? How do you think Blacksmith worked? DEBUNKED>

WTC7 was demolitioned? Wrong, gasoline tank was exploded. DEBUNKED.

No plane hit Pentagon? Wrong, video evidence was released. DEBUNKED.

Conspiracy theorists and ALL muslims/arabians should be put into detention camps and tortured for their crimes against us. Blogs like this should be taken down and the bloggert should be collected by CIA and locked away. LONG LIVE USA!!!! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!! WE WILL WIN THIS FIGHT!!

1:11 AM  
Anonymous Die Debunker said...

Fire can't melt steel? How do you think Blacksmith worked? DEBUNKED

With heated low-carbon iron.

Structural steel is a totally different alloy, strengthened for the very reason you cite. Higher carbon content and other alloyed metals bring the deformity point and the melting point up much higher than a kerosene fire can provide.

so, not debunked, not even close.

1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah - hydrocarbon iron sulfinated neurospaceship blah blah. The conspiracy criminals always love the science babble when they get DEBUNKED over and over again.

OK guy, so why do ZERO engineers support your conspiracy theory?? Find me one person who graduated college who believes in conspiracys, then!! DEBUNKED AGAIN, HOMIE!!

2:00 PM  
Blogger The Wendigo said...

You didn't debunk anything.

Jesus, what kind of education do you have? Do you even know what logic, rhetoric, reason and factual analysis are?

Doesn't look like it. Looks like you think that the only thing to investigation is simply to state a conclusion with BIG CAPITAL LETTERS and then insist that your conclusion is factually correct and represents rigorous logic and reasoning.

But that's not how the world works, Junior.

11:36 AM  
Blogger War Office said...

"why do ZERO engineers support your conspiracy theory??"

Interesting isn't it, the bottomless falsehood of those arguing in defence of the government's 9/11 story.

Here are 230 degreed professional engineers and architects who support this controlled demolition and thermite theory:
www.ae911truth.org

Now rather than admit that his question above was grossly misleading, as well as exposing his ignorance and/or insincere agenda, this person will return to ask another stupid question, just as misleading and dishonest as the one above.

2:42 PM  
Blogger War Office said...

"What fuel will allow a fire to be sustained in an solid concrete crucible SEALED under a huge pile of powdered concrete and tons and tons of steel? For 2 MONTHS? SIXTY DAYS PLUS? Not no "THERMATE" that I KNOW. But what?"

Yes thermite/thermate would do it.

2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home