NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up - great article!

[janedoe]

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Lie of the Century
by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[pox americana]

1. Excellent slicing of NIST baloney.

Under the heading "A Mountain of Distracting Details":

NIST does not actually provide a complete theory of the collapse, only a theory of events that led up to "collapse initiation." However, the casual reader may conclude that NIST does provide a complete theory from phrases in section titles such as "Collapse Analysis," "Global Analysis," and "Probable Collapse Sequences.

But rancid baloney is usually good enough for the Bushbots.

[janedoe]

2. Sorry for my brief post, but I wanted to flag folks to read ...

...Hoffman's article, then come here and discuss it.

Hoffman did an excellent job not getting bogged down with details, while point his finger at plenty of holes that need attacking. ;-)

[hack89]

4. "bogged down with details" ... what a hoot!

details require knowledge. Where has Hoffman ever demonstrated more than a superficial knowledge of science and engineering?

[pox americana]

5. Why don't you read his report?

You'd be surprised.

[hack89]

11. I did..

and until I see it supported by real engineers it does not convince me. NIST has always been one of the preeminent engineering and science institutions in the world. The idea that the government could pressure them to whitewash 9/11 and not a single scientist or engineer would publicly speak out against it is ridiculous. There are 5,000 people working at NIST and you expect me to believe that everyone of them is in on the plot. Occam's razor leads me to believe that the simplest conclusion is that Hoffman, especially considering he is not an engineer, has no clue what he is talking about.

[spooked911]

12. NIST: "one of the preeminent engineering and science institutions in the

world". They WERE-- until this report came out.

5000 people may work at NIST-- it doesn't mean all of them worked on this report. That is specious reasoning. The main team seems to have about 14 people, but only two of them worked directly on the collapse.

In fact, how the actual collapse occurred was specifically not modeled, only the initiaiton of the collapse. So, only a few people had to be in on the cover-up.

Besides, who is going to lose their cushy government job by objecting to the conclusions that were clearly pre-ordained?

Would YOU speak out on such a thing?

[hack89]

15. Once again...

show me one engineering society or organization that has questioned the methodology or conclusions of this report. Doesn't even have to be American - French, Russian, ... I don't care. Hoffman is not an engineer - it is as simple as that.

There are thousands of scientist and engineers that challenge the government everyday - they are the bedrock of environmental, anti-nuclear and anti-depleted uranium movements. Even if they were not involved in the writing of the report they would know poor science when they saw it - were are their voices?

Yes - I would say something. I would not allow myself to be complicit in murder. Surely you would do the same - nothing you have said would lead me to believe you are amoral. Your view hinges on the assumption that not one of 5,000 people would have the courage to challenge the cover up of a crime - I do not share such a cynical view of human nature.

[paulthompson]

17. Not revelant to this report per se...

But this is how things have been managed in regards to 9/11 investigations all along.

December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation “Inadequate”
The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. (NEW YORK TIMES, 12/25/01)

[pox americana]

16. Speaking of no clue

"real engineers" have been calling bullshit on 9/11 since 9/12. See philb's link in post #8 below.

[hack89]

18. One guy writes a compilation of CT theory..

and is never heard from again. Did you read what he wrote? It's a cut and paste job of the standard CT theories - even Hoffman is quoted. No technical analysis - not an equation to be seen. If he really is an engineer why doesn't he write in the language of engineers?

Google his name and try to find his name on any technical papers or associated with any engineering school or firm.

[pox americana]

19. If bogus numbers impress you, stick to Popular Mechanics. n/t

[hack89]

21. Another reasoned response! n/t

[stickdog]

22. Where is a shred of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supporting NIST's

fantasies?

It's all bullshit computer models, photographic "analysis" and rank speculation. A complete joke.

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. the definition of an ironic statement (n/t)

[stickdog]

27. The definition of a side stepping non-answer.

I didn't do a $20 million dollar study without using a shred of physical evidence to back my speculative claims. NIST did.

In case you hadn't noticed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=51577

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. I think it's pretty clear that you didn't.

And I think that its pretty clear that all the physical evidence" that does exist points to the NIST findings.

[spooked911]

29. okay, let's see you tell us their model for how the global collapse ensued

--what calculations did they use?

A lot of us really want to see this. Good luck finding it.

[spooked911]

30. by the way, it is not at all clear that all the physical evidence

points to the NIST findings.

Did you know in the analysis of the WTC dust, they found traces of explosives?

Did you know they simply wrote that off to "clean-up demolition"?

How could they tell then that there were no explosives used to bring down the towers?

[hack89]

34. BS - show me that dust analysis n/t

[stickdog]

37. Why don't you produce a single SHRED of physical evidence that

supports your (and NIST's) beliefs?

[spooked911]

47. Dust analysis:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

The analysis came up with five pollution sources: the WTC plume (which contributed S, Cl, K, Cu, Zn, Pb, and elemental carbon); dust from the WTC collapse (Mn, Cr, and elemental carbon); dust from cleanup demolition at the WTC site (S, Si, Ca, Ti, Fe); residual oil combustion (S, V, and elemental carbon); and traffic dust (Al, Fe, and elemental carbon).

[hack89]

53. How do you get explosives for controlled detonation from that?

doesn't it specifically say cleanup? You do realize that "demolition" encompasses more than explosives don't you - jackhammers and wrecking balls are also demolition. And while we are at it, what high explosive is S, Si, Ca, Ti and Fe a signature of?

[spooked911]

55. They did do some controlled demolition for the smaller WTC buildings

that were badly damaged (but still standing) from the twin tower collapses.

And I doubt that jackhammers and wrecking balls produce as much dust as explosives.

Iron (Fe) dust in the air wouldn't be expected from wrecking ball damage or jackhammer work would it?

I don't know specifically what explosives the other compounds indicate.

But here's a question for you: if the dust they identified as dust from the cleanup demolition is just from knocking the buildings down with a wrecking ball and pounding cement with a jackhammer, why or how would they distinguish that from the dust from the WTC collapse? Why would it have a different chemical signature?

[hack89]

58. The answer is in your source...

They were cutting steel

Hazi also observed a large increase in the fine fraction for Fe and Mn during December 2001, when WTC workers were using a large number of blow torches on the bent steel.

[spooked911]

59. The point is that these chemical traces were identified as

being from "clean-up demolition", there was controlled explosives demolition at the site, so couldn't this dust cover-up traces of demoliton of the towers themselves?

[hack89]

61. None of those chemicals are identified with high explosives..

so I don't see it. What is your source concerning explosive demolition at ground zero?

[spooked911]

64. "America Rebuilds", a PBS Home Video Documentary

this video shows the controlled demolition of WTC6 , as part of the clean-up at ground zero.

Ironically, the workers use the term "pull" before they set off the explosives:

"we're getting ready to pull building six."

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. metal signature would have shown spalling.

What they did show was impact and fire damage.

[spooked911]

48. Eh? I don't know what you mean.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. the effect of high explosives on steel

is easily distinguishable from fire and kinetic impact damage. Spalling is the colateral effect on the steel beyond where cutting charge detonates.

[stickdog]

36. WHAT physical evidence? Not a single shred of it supports

NIST's fantastically flimsy ravings:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. Ok tell me smart guy

exactly what piece of evidence doesn't support the NIST report? ;)

[spooked911]

46. the rapid speed of collapse, the pulverization of building components

the huge dust clouds etc etc. All the stuff we've argued about for months and months here.

[stickdog]

63. The question is WHAT FUCKING PIECE OF EVIDENCE DOES???

Here's supposedly the BEST and most comprehensive study of the actual PHYSICAL evidence of the WTC site.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

Highlights:

1) NOT ONE PIECE of WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) NOT A SINGLE unprocessed, intact floor truss was recovered or analyzed.

3) NO testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) ONLY 12 total core columns were analyzed from WTC-1 & WTC-2 COMBINED.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, NOT ONE demonstrated ANY exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only THREE demonstrated ANY SIGNS of exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C for one of these three the evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF RECOVERED STEEL showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.




Yet you are one of the Knights who say NIST.

[spooked911]

3. The catastrophic total collapses

I like this line: NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total collapses, blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."

It seems to me that explaining the catastrophic collapse is the most important thing for the whole report-- rather than making fancy maps of temperature gradients for each impacted floor, and then leaving out how they calculated the temperatures!

[pox americana]

6. "collapse initiation"

My guess is that the only reason the top of Tower 2 started moving is that the core had been undermined to the point where the top chunk was being supported more or less by the exterior columns alone.

And as far as Tower 1 goes, was there ever even a tipping top to "initiate" a collapse?

[janedoe]

7. The NIST report may have meant "ignition" instead of "initiation"

:nuke: Yep, the top of WTC1 tipped....
to the left, then to the right, then to the left....
(I posted a link to that video about a week or two ago. I'll see if I can find it for you.)

Ahhh... if an axially loaded member is buckling in one direction, it cannot reverse direction without an outside force acting on it. As for a structure, this should also be true, but in a slightly different way. i.e. If the left face of the building is moving downward, before the right face, there is less load on the right face. So, why would it collapse?

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. because of the way the WTC was constructed

Once it buckled in one direction, the entire structure was compromised. Load bearing structure was not uniform throughout the area of the floors. Once the core failed it telescoped straight downward onto the floors below. The floors above the failure that tipped disintergrated soon after.

[janedoe]

25. Why would the floors above the "collapsing" floor disintegrate?

And, if the building is tipping to the left, why would it fail on the right? It would have less load on it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. Far more to it than "less of a load on the right"

Once the structure begins to tip there is very little lateral rigidity to hold it together.

Remember the construction is a core of dense columns with an outer perimeter, separated by lots of space and connected by trusses. Once the core buckles, it's done, load or no load, one floor pancakes onto the next and everything heads south real fast.

[spooked911]

31. kind of like this building in the inset picture fell apart when it tilted?

Oh wait.

Maybe the japanese know how to build buildings better?

[janedoe]

33. Cool pic!

Thanks for the great picture example. That was a lot easier than my drawings.
:applause:

[LARED]

35. Actually they do

Maybe the Japanese know how to build buildings better?

Remember Japan has those nasty little things called earthquakes on a fairly regular basis. Their building codes address that issue. To survive earthquakes an important design criteria called allowable storey drift will be far most strident in Japan than on the East coast of the USA.

That's one possible reason why the building on the inset is still standing.

[spooked911]

45. I will grant that the Japanese may build structures differently due to

earthquakes.

However, you seem to expect us to believe that the upper chunk of tower 2 will collapse on itself in seconds as it tilts and falls, yet this Japanese building can remain standing indefinitely when tilted at a similar angle-- because of different building codes?

I don't buy it.

[LARED]

51. More than just codes are at play

The two building are also constructed differently. One appears to be a steel frame and the WTC is a tube in tube design. Both steel buildings, but nonetheless different designs that will of course have a different response to drift.

[spooked911]

56. Yes, but how did the upper thirty stories of WTC2 collapse in on itself

in a matter of seconds?

I understand the building wasn't designed to be tilted, but still, it should have some resistance to the tilt before caving in.

[LARED]

60. It did resist

It did not start to collapse until the storey drift was somewhere around 10 to 15 degrees. (my guess)

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Nope

Not even in the same league. The forces involved vs the material rigidity and load bearing strength isn't even in the same ballpark. That building would have had a MUCH higher "strength to weight ratio".

[janedoe]

32. If it starts out tipping, it will continue tipping...

...unless acted on by an external force.


Compare stresses

The only way for the top chunk to rock to the right, then the left, might be if the core was still intact and acted as a pivot point, but it would still require an outside force to change the direction of it's momentum. Example: a playground see-saw (or teeter-totter). The kid on the end that's moving down needs to push off the ground to start moving back up.

Assuming a "natural collapse," (i.e. without explosives):
If the core is gone and the building tips (rotates) to the left, the left side was weaker than the right. Now that it has tipped, there is even less load on the right side than before the tipping. So, with less load on it, why would it fail?

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Wrong

It didn't "tip" like you are showing. The "more stress" "less stress" arrows are irrelevant to the collapse. The structure was obviously more compromised on one side more than the other. Most likely impact damage to the core and the MISSING perimeter columns where the aircraft hit had something to do with it.

Once one side buckled, the core lost load bearing integrity, like bending a straw, and telescoped at the point of failure, initiating the collapse. The "chunk" of the tower that began to tip disintegrated from the point of collapse up, as the core buckled beneath it, so that the tower basically ground it's way down to the ground in a mass of debris.

I think people misunderstand the huge forces involved regarding the WTC towers. the picture of the building you posted is a good example of this.

[pox americana]

42. That is complete nonsense.

There is so much magical thinking in that reply I'm going to politely pretend you didn't say it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. And that's a highly developed response

Can you explain the magic part...? I Somehow doubt it.

[pox americana]

44. It was either magic (NIST theory)

or explosive demolition.

It sure as heck wasn't gravity, and incidentally there's no evidence that I've seen of compressive load failure in any of the 63,000+ columns that would have had to buckle to produce such a collapse.

[janedoe]

50. Here are links to the WTC1 bobble, as is starts to go down.

Viewed from the north, you can see the radio tower tip west, then east. Also notice the angular speed changes (and jerks) the entire time it's visible. It almost looks as if it "snaps" into the vertical position, just before it disappears. If you replay that portion of the video, over and over again, and focus on the top chunk of the building, you can see that the radio tower is moving with the building, not flopping loose. (Even if it were flopping loose, what would make it change directions?)

(You may want to mute this first one.)
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem3/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3%20(divx%205.1).avi

The link does not work correctly, so I will post in two parts that you will need to join. Join the following two lines together, leaving no space in the word "demolition."
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem3/911.wtc.1.demo
lition.north.3%20(divx%205.1).avi

That jerking and rotating appears in this one as well.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg

The jerking changes in the rotation look ...unnatural.

[Make7]

62. Working link to first video

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem3/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3%20(divx%205.1).avi

-Make7

[janedoe]

52. Why is this bobble only east-to-west?

This bobble is east-to-west, as viewed from the north.
I find it quite fascinating that there is virtually no bobble north-to-south, as viewed from the west or east. WTC1 was hit from the north. Using the argument that vertical columns were knocked out by the plane, shouldn't it be the weakest on the north face? Also, the building's cross section has a larger moment of inertia for bending east-west, and a lower moment of inertia for bending north-south.

In other words, before the plane hit, the building was stiffer in the east-west direction. Before the plane hit, the building could bend more easily in the north-south direction. Then, the plane damaged the north face, which should make it even more flexible in the north-south direction.

So, these videos showing the east-west bobble seem to contradict logic as well as physics -- if you are to stay with the "natural collapse" theory.

[spooked911]

49. This doesn't make sense:

"The "more stress" "less stress" arrows are irrelevant to the collapse."

How excactly are they irrelevant? The "more stress" arrows show exactly how the top should have tipped and affected the lower structure. You yourself say the structure buckled.

[janedoe]

54. You're right!

And the only scenario where this kind of stress would be "irrelevant" is one involving explosive demolition.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. or if many of the core and perimeter columns had been

compromised by an aircraft impact and then fire, because the load bearing ability of the structure would have ceased to be uniform.

[janedoe]

67. So, what is your point?

Review my diagrams in post#32. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=51287&mesg_id=51593)

The "After tipping" diagram does not show uniform stress, does it? I drew the diagram to illustrate that there would be more stress on the left side, than the right. I even used two different colors to emphasize that the stress is not uniform.

[philb]

8. Mechanical Eng. debunks official story of WTC

Mysteries of the Twin Towers Roger Herbst BAAE, ME May 2004
http://septembereleventh.org/documents/rodgwtcpdf.pdf

[Make7]

9. :rubs eyes:

This series of photographs show the North Tower at about 6, 8, and 10 seconds into its collapse. Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempt to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the collapses. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total collapses, blithely asserting that
"global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Am I seeing things? Does the caption say that the picture on the right is the North Tower about ten seconds into its collapse?

And is that WTC7 in the foreground? The top of which is approximately at the same level as the visible remaining intact structure of the North Tower?

Maybe I'm just tired.

-Make7

[DemonFighterLives]

10. Great Site!

Thanks!
The heating of that steel has always bothered me. Most of the steel in large buildings I have seen has about an inch or more of asbestos on it. The NIST only talks about a couple of points scraped off.

[spooked911]

13. Key quote (though there are many):

"So we get detailed computer simulations of how the planes were shredded by the impacts, but when it comes to the collapses, the most quantitative thing we get is "tremendous energy of the falling building section." Why are there no calculations of the approximage amount of energy?

[spooked911]

14. They fudged the data:

For each Tower, NIST created two cases. The first set of cases, North Tower case A and South Tower case C, were based on the averages of NIST's estimates of building and plane strength, impact trajectories and speeds, etc. The second set of cases, North Tower case B and South Tower case D, assumed conditions more favorable to the failure of the buildings. The enhancements adopted for Cases B and D over cases A and C are described in the following table:
North Tower South Tower
increase in impact speed 29 mph 28 mph
decrease in approach angles 3º 1º
increase in aircraft weight 5% 5%
increase in aircraft strength 25% 15%
decrease in Tower strength 20% 15%
decrease in Tower live load 20% 20%

The Report noted that cases A and C did not produce results matching observations, so cases B and D were selected for use in its four-step modeling.

So in order to get the collapse, they had to model increased airplane speed, different airplane angles, increased airplane weight and strength, and importantly decreased tower strength!

[pox americana]

20. Good call!

Making the facts fit the conclusion is so scientific.

[janedoe]

69. Do we even know if cases A and C weren't fudged?

Perhaps they just kept tweaking their values until their model could predict a failure. I'm guessing that they showed two cases for each building to show they considered "other scenarios."

[spooked911]

57. Anyway, why should we trust a report that is dishonest about the size

of the core columns?



Those little tiny brown stubbly sticks in the middle are supposed to be the core columns.




You know, the columns shown here that are substantially bigger than the outer facade columns:

[spooked911]

68. Still wondering about how we can trust this report when they intentionally

mislead about the core columns.

[pox americana]

70. I'm beginning to see how the NIST got snookered.

The Bushbots keep waving around the NIST report as evidence that fires and not explosives caused the collapses. But the NIST was never really in a position to challenge the official theory, because they're not a law-enforcement agency, like the FBI. Their job isn't figuring out whodunnit, but investigating "accidents" using whatever evidence they're given in order to set safety standards to prevent future disasters.

I suspect there were also plenty of Boltons installed in key positions to make sure anybody who didn't keep the blinders on went away quietly.

But their report is still full of shameless b.s. and disinformation.