DEBUNKERS! Please respond to the following debunking of the NIST report!

READ IT ALL!

911research.wtc7.net...

REFUTE EVERY POINT with FACT, EVIDENE, SCIENCE and LOGIC.

SUPPORT every NIST statement, 'fact', implication and methodology.

Do not try to derail the thread. Just debunk this paper for me. I would not have done this, but I was aske by JIMC-whatever to present a report on the errors/omissions/lies in the NIST report... so here you go.

Debunk away. (or is it rebunk... or is it unbunk... or is it undebunk... we will never know)


[edit on 10-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

The metal was combustable????

I would like to see what the people have to say about this... Such as HowardRoark, AgentSmith, And LeftBehind.

This will be a bloodbath in a few days.. hell maybe in a few posts...

Will be worth to see what the guys above have to say tho... Their next theory will be god did it..

Anything new in there?

First off, they don't back up any of their points. Like most CT sites they attempt to pass off their opinions as foregone conclusions.

One of the major things that sets off my BS detector is the complete lack of references and sources in this essay.

Frankly without sources or any real evidence presented there's not much to debunk. Especially considering that this is mostly stuff that has been covered extensively on ATS.

I wasn't aware that op/ed counted as evidence that somehow needs to be refuted.

I'll give you an example of what I mean from this essay.

911research.wtc7.net...

Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Notice that we are just supposed to take their word on the part in bold. No where do they adequatley prove this hypothesis. What does "engineering experience" mean, and what does it have to do with anything? Progressive collapse was not invented for the WTC collapse, it was a term in use before. Funny how something that never happened before requires new paradigms.

Secondly why would NIST need to model every puff of air and peice of debris to recreate the collapse, when they adequately explained how the collapse was initiated. They and hundreds of other experts did not have a problem with the way the building collapsed. Since no hard evidence exists that points towards demolition it would have been a waste of time for them to investigate it. Notice that no one is crying foul that they didn't investigate the "magical collapse theory" nor did they look into the "leprechauns did it" hypothesis. Without anything to support these things, they had no real reason to do so.

Keeping the reader in the dark about the history of steel-framed high-rise buildings is essential to passing off the notion that partial collapse automatically leads to total collapse.

I'm not sure what their even trying to say with this engineering history stuff. They don't reference anything other than one NIST quote. Not sure why engineering history means so much to this essayist, especially considering that the collapse of the WTC was a unique event

Here is the NIST quote they claim is a cover-up.

In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of such magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so rapidly and with little warning.

Hmm, it sure looks like NIST is saying that the collapse was unprecedented. Yet they would have us believe that this sentence is somehow minimizing the uniqueness of the event.



This essay repeatedly calls the NIST report misleading, yet the author seems to be the master of misleading statements.

The Report's implication that fire protection is essential is highly misleading, given that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fires, whether the steelwork was fire protected or not.

Apparently he misses the part in the NIST report that completely agrees with this statement. They admit that without the plane crashes the buildings would have stood. He also ignores the fact that no 100+ story building has been hit with airliners intentionally at high speeds.

And can we please stop with the wood stove comparison? Who is he trying to convince, kindergartners?

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

What does he mean without any evidence? Did he miss the multiple fire tests conducted with different conditions that were used to extrapolate the data for their temperature maps?

At this point you have to wonder, did the author actually read the report, or is he merely copying quotes from other conspiracy sites? My guess, intentionally misleading.

NIST calibrated its computer model of heat transfer to the steel structure using thermally isolated pieces of steel. NIST does not appear to have taken into account the role of heat conduction within the steel structure in lowering the temperatures of the fire-exposed steel.

Where is his evidence for this?

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers.

No, they just knew that that particular alternative explanation was nonsense.

Why are there no calculations of the approximate amount of energy?

Why should there be? It doesn't take NIST to tell me that the parts of the building above the impacts contained enormous amounts of energy.

Where are the author's calculations that prove there was not enough energy?

No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.

Notice that they provide no proof for this, we are just supposed to take their word for it.

I think the squibs have been covered enough, in fact theres a whole thread, active now that covers it.

Omissions and Distortions is the subtitle of David Ray Griffin's book critiquing the 9/11 Commission Report.

Look now their selling a book.

I don't understand most of his criticisms following the book advertisement, I think they're supposed to be excerpts.

I have no problem with picking the case that fit the data. It's called the scientific method. Not sure why the author has such a problem with it, maybe he's just trying to sell a book and I shouldn't be so hard on him.

Where is his proof that his flight path is more accurate? Seeing as how he provides no sources or references other than another conspiracy book, I'll stick with the experts.


You've got to love this criticism.

The Report does not contain footnotes. It is filled with claims, the basis for which the reader can only guess. It leaves the public with no way to compare its conclusions with the evidence on which it was purportedly based.

He criticizes NIST for doing the same thing he does. So according to his logic, we can throw out his entire essay as well.

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

What are the chances that someone could sneak into the twin towers and plant demoltion charges inside and around columns with no one noticing?

It's funny how he ignores the fact that no top down demolition has ever occurred. Isn't it convenient for your case when you only pick what looks like demolition, while ignoring all the stuff that doesn't look like it. Hurray for psuedo-science!

Edit:

I can't wait for thichheaded to actually contribute to this thread instead of baiting people.





[edit on 10-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

The Report's implication that fire protection is essential is highly misleading, given that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fires, whether the steelwork was fire protected or not.

I'd like to see the data on non-fireproofed steel building fires, if you please.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers.

No, they just knew that that particular alternative explanation was nonsense.

Agreed.

Who ever came up with the light refraction theory has no f'n idea how optical phenomena like refraction actually works.

Who ever came up with the light refraction theory has no f'n idea how optical phenomena like refraction actually works.

I don't know hardly anything about light refraction Howard, But I really think this is something that needs to be investigated.

Out all of the things that NIST have claimed, suggested said or made out, I think the Columns bowing inwards *may* be the only one I really agree with.
I don't really see an explanation for why the outer columns appeared to be bowing.

I think we need to get an experts opinion on this.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
First off, they don't back up any of their points. Like most CT sites they attempt to pass off their opinions as foregone conclusions.

Actually, they do back up many of their ponits. You are attempting to derail this by simply demanding mainstream data and evidence that IS NOT AVAILABE

Originally posted by LeftBehind
One of the major things that sets off my BS detector is the complete lack of references and sources in this essay.

GOOD JOB IGNORING EVRY POINT THEY RAISE! SWEET DEBUNK! Though it sucks that they did not write a form biblography, it is VERY clear what the basis of their refutations are. For example... the flight path distortion... WE CAN SEE IT IN ANY MAINSTREAM VIDEO. What mor "proof" do you expect?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Frankly without sources or any real evidence presented there's not much to debunk. Especially considering that this is mostly stuff that has been covered extensively on ATS.

way to ignore the arguments again! REAL EVIDENCE. I LOVE this argument. The EVIDENCE IS SUPRESSED... all they can go on is the limited video and photo records available to them. Yet another attempt to invalidate MANY strong points with a single sentence.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I wasn't aware that op/ed counted as evidence that somehow needs to be refuted.

NEEDS TO BE? WHO SAID NEEDS? i JUST ASKED ONE OF OUR LOCAL 'DEBUNKERS' TO REFUTE THE OBSERVATIONS. READ THE FIRST POST All I/they want is for their points regarding the errors, tweaked models and omissions to be answered to. By ANYONE but more pointedly the NIST.

911research.wtc7.net...

Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Notice that we are just supposed to take their word on the part in bold. No where do they adequatley prove this hypothesis. What does "engineering experience" mean, and what does it have to do with anything? Progressive collapse was not invented for the WTC collapse, it was a term in use before. Funny how something that never happened before requires new paradigms.


Clinging to a weak argument. I believe you know they are referring to the "low probability of occurence" theories regarding the collapse of WTC7. Sorry, they did not drag out a quote you have already seen a HUNDRED times.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Secondly why would NIST need to model every puff of air and peice of debris to recreate the collapse, when they adequately explained how the collapse was initiated.

Adequite? that is the bvest they can do for $20,000,000 and 3,000 lives? I disagree 100% that it is adequate to tweak your models it TEN DIFFERENT WAYS to get an "adequite" explanation

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They and hundreds of other experts did not have a problem with the way the building collapsed. Since no hard evidence exists that points towards demolition it would have been a waste of time for them to investigate it. Notice that no one is crying foul that they didn't investigate the "magical collapse theory" nor did they look into the "leprechauns did it" hypothesis. Without anything to support these things, they had no real reason to do so.

Again, way to avoid refuting ANY points they make.

There was PLENTY of evidence to suggest the "zipper truss" and "pancke theories" were weak and that the most SIMPLE other avenue to look at would have been CD.

It is ass backwards science. You know that thoug.

OK... blah, blah, blah... I could keep repeating my answers to your same arguments but why?

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE COMPUTER MODELS WERE TWEAKED TO SUCH AN EXTREME DEGREE?

WILL YOU DO THAT INSTEAD OF constantly citing "lack of sources" when you know darn well where the sources are from? Just answer that single question:

WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO TWEAK THEIR MODELS TO THIS EXTENT TO GET THEIR PREDETERMINED RESULT?

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%
increase in Tower fuel load 25% 25%

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.

If you know LITTLE about math you will not recognize the enormous difference in the calculations that these "tewaks" cause.

We will address the rest of the points ONE BY ONE later in the thread if people want to SUPPORT the NISTs claims instead of just calling the authors out for not writing a bibliography.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I can't wait for thichheaded to actually contribute to this thread instead of baiting people.

Read sig. Have a nice day. Its pretty much where I stand. I will not taint this thread with dribble on WTC that isnt suppost to here. I agree with the orginal point made, so I need not back up anything.

[edit on 7/11/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Agreed.

Who ever came up with the light refraction theory has no f'n idea how optical phenomena like refraction actually works.

BUT, as with EVERY other topic HOWARDROARK DOES know how light refraction actually works... AMAZING!

We all know NOTHING and MUST defer to Howard.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Actually, they do back up many of their ponits. You are attempting to derail this by simply demanding mainstream data and evidence that IS NOT AVAILABE

I see, they back up their points, just not with evidence. That makes a whole lot of sense.

NEEDS TO BE? WHO SAID NEEDS? i JUST ASKED ONE OF OUR LOCAL 'DEBUNKERS' TO REFUTE THE OBSERVATIONS. READ THE FIRST POST All I/they want is for their points regarding the errors, tweaked models and omissions to be answered to. By ANYONE but more pointedly the NIST.

And I did. Stop yelling.

Clinging to a weak argument. I believe you know they are referring to the "low probability of occurence" theories regarding the collapse of WTC7. Sorry, they did not drag out a quote you have already seen a HUNDRED times.

Sorry, I have no idea what your talking about.

There was PLENTY of evidence to suggest the "zipper truss" and "pancke theories" were weak and that the most SIMPLE other avenue to look at would have been CD.

Wait a second.

Didn't you just say this:

You are attempting to derail this by simply demanding mainstream data and evidence that IS NOT AVAILABE.

So there is "PLENTY" of evidence, but at the same time the evidence is not available?

Make up your mind, it's either there to back up their argument and they just chose not to show any, or it's unavailable and they can't show it.

Since you seem to think there is so much evidence perhaps you can post it, since the essayist chose not to.



Why should I defend the NIST choice of calculations. Please show me in the NIST report where they are Tweaking things beyond reality.

Or is it choosing the case that fits the data. Hmmm.

I suppose you would have happier if their simulation did not fit the data?

Anyway I thought you just wanted a debunk of the article, not a defense of the NIST report?

We will address the rest of the points ONE BY ONE later in the thread if people want to SUPPORT the NISTs claims instead of just calling the authors out for not writing a bibliography.

Which is it, did i just call them out for not showing sources, (which btw is one of the author's criticisms, oh the irony ) or did I make points that you will later refute one by one?

Why don't you start with this whole refraction of light business, then we can go from there.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Agreed.

Who ever came up with the light refraction theory has no f'n idea how optical phenomena like refraction actually works.

BUT, as with EVERY other topic HOWARDROARK DOES know how light refraction actually works... AMAZING!

We all know NOTHING and MUST defer to Howard.

perhaps you would care to explain then, how do you think the process worked in the WTC photographs?

Please detail all of your assumptions regardng the incident angles and air densities and be sure to show the math.

dont have the time for specifics n linnks right now but,,,,

when was the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING built????? 1920's ??

how much bigger, stronger , better built was wtc ???? built in the 1970's ???

i remember reading, hearing, seeing that::

#1 the empipre state building was HIT BY AN AIRPLANE
the picture showed the plane STUCK in the side of the building
some KID hit another building with a SMALL plane too,in the last few years
didnt hurt ONE BIT

#2 EVERY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION i EVER SAW
on tv.. even the 1+ hour specials. ALL had the buildings fall the same (DROP)
JUST LIKE WTC !!! ( the WHOLE THING .......ALL AT ONCE )

some of the DEMOS even FAILED to bring some down COMPLETELY !!!!!!!

#3 every building with the top HALF damaged (by who knows what)
ONLY PARTIALLY FELL ( THE FEW FLOORS THAT WERE DAMAGED )
and SEVERELY LEANED one way or the other

other than, all the SCATTERED DEBRIS,, any demo expert would be PROUD to
"PULL ONE that CLEAN" (that tall + STRAIGHT DOWN )

#4 the 1994?? W.T.C. garage TRUCK BOMBING DIDNT TAKE IT OUT
and that was directly at the MAJOR SUPPORTS ( with the weight of the WHOLE BUILDING ON TOP OF IT )

#5 and MOST IMPORTANT.......
I am NOT a T.V. person,, much less watch the NEWS.......

WHAT MADE ME TURN IT ON THAT MORNING, (sept 11) and watch CNN LIVE
of all things to watch
and see BOTH AIRPLANES STRIKE,,.... LIVE ????????
( and with a GOOD VIEW TOO )

that has been PUZZLING ME EVER SINCE !! ?


any help on THAT would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!!

[edit on 12-7-2006 by yeah right]

Originally posted by yeah right
dont have the time for specifics n linnks right now but,,,,

when was the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING built????? 1920's ??


how much bigger, stronger , better built was wtc ???? built in the 1970's ???

The Empire state building was a totally different design, materials and construction methods from the WTC.

It was also built before the advent of computer technology, and thus was considerably over engineered.

i remember reading, hearing, seeing that::

#1 the empipre state building was HIT BY AN AIRPLANE
the picture showed the plane STUCK in the side of the building

A WWII bomber that had just flown across the Atlantic Ocean is no comparison to a 757 loaded with fuel.

#2 EVERY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION i EVER SAW
on tv.. even the 1+ hour specials. ALL had the buildings fall the same (DROP)
JUST LIKE WTC !!! ( the WHOLE THING .......ALL AT ONCE )

So? Just because gravity workes the same in both cases doesn't prove anything.

#3 every building with the top HALF damaged ONLY PARTIALLY FELL
( THE FEW FLOORS THAT WERE DAMAGED )
and SEVERELY LEANED one way or the other

WTF are you talking about?

#4 the 1994?? W.T.C. garage TRUCK BOMBING DIDNT TAKE IT OUT
and that was directly at the MAJOR SUPPORTS

Not really.

#5 and MOST IMPORTANT.......
I am NOT a T.V. person,, much less watch the NEWS.......

WHAT MADE ME TURN IT ON THAT MORNING, (sept 11) and watch CNN LIVE
and see BOTH AIRPLANES STRIKE,,.... LIVE ????????
( and with a GOOD VIEW TOO )

that has been PUZZLING ME EVER SINCE !! ?

any help on THAT would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!!

Wow, you saw the first one live too?

""The Empire state building was a totally different design, materials and construction methods from the WTC.

It was also built before the advent of computer technology, and thus was considerably over engineered"""

nope SORRY , CONCRETE AND STEEL.....buddy!
and BETTER DESIGN/TECHNOLOGY


yes sir i did see them BOTH LIVE
a cnn guy ,on the street talking about something (interviewing someone?)
then you heard the plane swoop down and in the top LEFT corner of the screen the 1st one hit....blew and started smoking....
while looking at that from a helicopter view..... the second one hit

i even took off work that day ,, dont know why either
it SURE WASNT tO WATCH TV
[edit on 12-7-2006 by yeah right]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by yeah right]

sorry guy,,

i'm NOT into POLITICS or GOVERNMENT so i......
have NO REASON to LIE!!

just tellin it like i SAW IT!!!

How many of you actually researched any of this? Quoting every time you are going to disprove a source is not going to make you look smart when you're shoting blanks, the lady needs love to.

LeftBehind waisted un-needed energy on just putting down some noobs report rather then backing up with his own sources, hell he might even be COINTELPRO. How about someone with alot of times on there hands actually read the darn thing. I read only one part and that was lies in contruction or something which I myself can confirm with one video from the 80's which is super accurate reliable source.

video.google.com...

9/11 commision report said the interior cores of the WTC was only composed a hollow shaft of stair wells and elevators which as you can see in this ORIGNAL FOOTAGE, there are 14 of the worlds biggest pillers in the very center. Its very important you include those of course, or not, CIA had a device that can dematerilize objects through walls, what really happen was they used it from there super secret spy satalite and just as thety vaperized the collums in the center they building started to collapse only way this is possible since they dont exist after 9/11. Also by some metal objects you are using were probally from the WTC site so might want to remember those lost before ripping open that can of spegeti o's !!!!

So you are comparing crash of a plane with maximal takeoff weight of 16 tons (which it definitely didn't have upon impact) crashing at ca. 200mph to a jet liner weighing empty roghly 74 tons (plus of course fuel etc.) crashing at 540mph and thick masonry walls with a steel structure?

Why are you talking about the Empire State Building?

Howard, I do not make outlandish claims about my knowlegdeg of light refraction as
you do. Moot point. You just like ot chime into ANY thread, question the single weakest argument then proceed with your derailment.

Why will no one speak to:

- The FACT that the models used HORRIBLY unrealistic math and inputs?

- The fact the NIST FORCES THE ASSUMPTION that "global collapse" is "inevitable" following "collapse initation"? (A ludicrious claim)

- "The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone." WHAT? This makes no sense. Please clarify. When WTC2 camre down, the top 30 floors tilted and were not even collapsing onto the lower floors that apparently and magically offer "minimal resistance".

- Why does the NIST ADMIT they looked for evidence of "missiles" but never claim to have suspected the sulphidation of steel to be related to thermite (far more likely)?

- Why does the NIST not address what the NYT calls "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The sulfidation of steel? The NIST even says that "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified" but the CONTRADICT themselves and say "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives..." Anyone care two explain who these two statements are not mutually exclusive?



Doe s anyone want to SUPPORT THE CLAIMS made by the NIST and attempt an actual response?