It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST Answers the Critics... LOL

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Have a ball with this one boys... Here, the NIST chooses 14 questions to "DEBUNK"...

I scanned it and it is a joke, so I will leave it to you all to rip up... I have to run... I will be back later.



wtc.nist.gov...

I have noticed that Howard has been missing for a few days... do you think he was off publishing this?
I am on to you Howard...

[edit on 30-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Took em long enough.


This load of crap is most amusing.


NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov....


Yeah, right. The wreckage from the WTC was carted off and disposed of before anyone could get a real and thourough analysis. You sort of need the actual debris for a thorough investigation.


And this gem.


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.


Ok..............so now they didnt pancake........

And this:


The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, 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 weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001


I guess Howard did write it lol.

Thanks for the link. I needed a good laugh.




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
This is awesome. It is an answer to all of your questions and you treat it as if it means nothing. Please refute each item that you do not agree with.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.


HAHAHA!!!! tell it like it is, perjurNIST.

there would "HAVE HAD TO BE"! they FINALLY listened to the 'CTers'.
on one hand, there would have to be THOUSANDS of POUNDS of thermite to do it, and yet, it can do it with zero pounds all by itself. good science boys. buy yourself a yacht and a villa.

i like that they go to great lengths to IMPLY there were no blasts at WTC7, and then go on to explain how they will consider multiple blast scenarios. more money well spent from the doublethink tank, NIST.

these poor suckers must have bad lynch mob nightmares every single night they try and pu their evil heads to sleep on their goose down and silk pillows.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   


This is awesome. It is an answer to all of your questions and you treat it as if it means nothing.


Your being sarcastic? (This really is an honest question.)



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
No, I am one of I think 4 people on the whole site who believe the official story. I am glad this was published, but, it will be ignored. Sad....



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
it will be ignored. Sad....


No it won't be ignored, just laughed at...



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Sorry, but it is not as funny as rocket pods, holographic planes and super secret thermite buried in the walls since construction. This is a concerted effort to answer many questions that have surfaced about this investigation. I have read plenty of threads stating 'why did they not states this or that'.

In fact, some of it looks lifted directly from this site. Maybe it is a CIA psyop we all type into.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
In order...

Question #1... Buildings designed for a 707 hit...



The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum...


A 707 has more MASS than a 767 and is SMALLER so it should have hit harder and penetrated MORE CORE columns...

Force = MASS (not sixe) X Acceleration

The TOP SPEED of a 707 is also SEVENTY MILES PER HOUR HIGER than a 767.

The NIST is PURPOSELY misleading in their statement here saying a 767 is LARGER but ignoring that it would have hit with far les force and far less momentum than a 707.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Nice to see that Esdad's so excited for the home team.

Looking over it, it looks like NIST is just rehashing the same general counter-arguments. I'll be waiting for them to get to the counter-counter-arguments, like addressing the fact that the buildings were not airtight (in response to their squib comments), there could not have been enough pressure to cause expulsions ~50 below the collapse wave even with 100% of the air going straight down, etc.

I'd like to see them eventually try to show actual evidence for all of the buckling they were claiming, too. That would be nice.

They straw-man the melted steel thing, instead of the very relevant question of: where was any significantly heated steel? Glowing indicating 600 C, or anything? Significant amounts of buckling? They offered conjecture for it in their report, but nothing else, and there were a lot of columns in both buildings that would've had to have been pretty freaking heated. We should have seen a LOT of exterior buckling, too, if that's what we're to believe caused the collapses of those massive buildings. So it's strange they couldn't find any evidence of it.


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.


Did I miss the silvery molten aluminum coming out of the corner of WTC2, or do the rest of you realize that it just wasn't there, too? All I saw was bright yellow-orange running out.

They go on with,


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.


as a reason there wouldn't have been thermite, even right after stating that the molten material could be seen coming from WTC2 for several minutes before its collapse.


Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.


So... any critical thinking going on over there at all?

But like I said, the majority of it seems to me to be similar to the counter-arguments commonly made here on ATS. There are some interesting new twists on information, and now NIST appears to be formally backing away from pancake theory (I'm not so sure they were really ever so clear on it before, but seemed much more indecisive), but has still yet to explain in any detail how the collapses were allowed to fall so symmetrically so quickly, with so little/no loss of velocity the whole ways down. Only analyses of the first floors to fail are in their report, which were pretty insubstantial on their own for reasons also commonly pointed out around here.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Question #2... Why not consider CD?


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


Ahhhh... the bowing. They say they do not support panckaing or progressive collapse so why then would the collapse not have been arrested by the remaining, unheated intact 70+ floors?


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


So they have totally debunked NOVA for us and POPULAR MECHANICS then right?


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 that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.


WTF? How do these two points debunk CD? Talk about 2 + 2 = 17

Doesn't the last sentence support the pancaking that they deny above? Make up your mind NIST... Ambiguous at best...


clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.


So what is their theory now... The 'Trash Compactor Theory'? I dislike Judy Wood, but she shot this one dow long ago.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Question #3 - No steel building has eveer collapsed from fire

Same old line here...


Knocked off fire proofing


and


massive structural damage


Funny, from the desingers POV the damage was not "massive" as the NIST would have you believe... he described it as "pushing a pencil through a window screen". Their oen reports show MINIMAL damage to dore columns... Since the planes hit one side of the building that lef at least 75% of the exterior cloums intact...

Will someone explanin redundancy to the good people at the NIST?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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.


Did I miss the silvery molten aluminum coming out of the corner of WTC2, or do the rest of you realize that it just wasn't there, too? All I saw was bright yellow-orange running out.


Did you even read the quote you posted? They are talking about why it's not silvery in appearance. That quote is their explanation for why it was yellow orange. It helps to read the things you are trying so hard to dispute.




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.


as a reason there wouldn't have been thermite, even right after stating that the molten material could be seen coming from WTC2 for several minutes before its collapse.


Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.


So... any critical thinking going on over there at all?




Good question. Are any of you people actually reading this, and are any of you bothering to use critical thinking on your outlandish theories?

Please read on Bsbray, you will see that your thermite quote was taken out of context, and is part of the reason thermite is improbable, not the whole reason as you would have us believe.


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.


Imagine that, using facts to build an argument.




But like I said, the majority of it seems to me to be similar to the counter-arguments commonly made here on ATS.



Much like the counter-counter-arguments.

Please outline how someone could realistically pull off the thermite scenario outlined above.


Originally posted by Slapnuts

The NIST is PURPOSELY misleading in their statement here saying a 767 is LARGER but ignoring that it would have hit with far les force and far less momentum than a 707.


No, you are purposely twisting what they said to fit your fantasies. They said the plane was larger. A fact. They did not mention mass. You also seemed to miss the paragraph before that where they explain that no evidence exists showing that the towers could even survive a 707 hit.


The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.


Not to mention that you are being misleading, when the only scenarios thought up originally was a 707 running out of fuel, making the top speed comparison irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975. They closed my thread, but you can still find it. I wonder why NIST did not jsut use that as a precursor to state that a fire in 1975, that covered less than 25 % of one floor, started by gasoline, caused truss buckling of the floor members. Now, we all know that the fires on 9/11 were larger and on more floors.

Yes, I am happy for the home team, and I feel good that they decided to address some of the things that are posted on the Internet.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975.


Yet, the building didn't collapse!!!

Not even a single chunk of concrete fell!!

You are off topic... take it somewhere else.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


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.


Imagine that, using facts to build an argument.


I'll ask again one more time because NIST obviously has the same syndrom as many do around here. Why does it take thousands of pounds of thermite? If this was part of the plan, they would know that there would be damage to the structure from the planes....so again, why the need for thousands of pounds of thermite?

Let me clarify....when they say that it would take thousands of pounds, what they mean is if the planes didn't hit and if you wanted a totally controlled demolition (i.e. no adjacent buildings getting damaged).....notice this didn't happen...so there goes about a few hundred pounds of thermite right there.

So, NIST states that there would be thousands of pounds needed with no planes.

Planes and fire brought the building down.

Why couldn't it be planes and fire with the help of a few hundred pounds of thermite?

I just can't believe how people can think that plane damage and fire can cause the buildings to fail, but they would need thousands of pounds of explosives/thermite when in both scenerios you have the plane impacts and subsequent fires. It's a red herring/smoke screen if you ask me.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Why couldn't it be planes and fire with the help of a few hundred pounds of thermite?

I just can't believe how people can think that plane damage and fire can cause the buildings to fail, but they would need thousands of pounds of explosives/thermite when in both scenerios you have the plane impacts and subsequent fires. It's a red herring/smoke screen if you ask me.


Stop being logical Griff...

They also ignore thermite variants and linear shaped "thermite/mate charges".



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by esdad71
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975.


Yet, the building didn't collapse!!!

Not even a single chunk of concrete fell!!

You are off topic... take it somewhere else.


Maybe because the fire was only on a part of only one floor and there was no 767 to slam into the building?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by esdad71
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975.


Yet, the building didn't collapse!!!

Not even a single chunk of concrete fell!!

You are off topic... take it somewhere else.


Maybe because the fire was only on a part of only one floor and there was no 767 to slam into the building?


You are wrong... it was spread over multiple floors...

Wrong thread. Done responding.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
And of these other floors the fire remained confined to utility closets or their close neighborhood, just on one floor the fire spreaded further and even then just on 21% of the floor's area.
Plus it was an ordinary office material fire which, as several CTers tried to persuade me, cannot heat steel enough.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join