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 Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well I guess welcome to the club.
Outside of Popular Mechanics
nobody can really explain it.
With all the possibilties being tried and debunked,is a controlled demolition becoming more likely?


(PrisonPlanet)-The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

prisonplanet.com...

Full story here
prisonplanet.com...




posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


Here are some quotes from the document:

From a letter dated 9/27/07.
From Catherine S. Fletcher - Chief, Management and Organization Division
NIST

"NIST did not test for explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive."

"As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

"While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250C."

So having NO evidence is evidence that there is no need to investigate. Not being able to explain the total collapse explains the collapse?? Not testing for explosives proves they did not exist??



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I had to read the PDF link since I don't trust the journalism of the Watson brothers.Not a bash just an honest observation of over a year.
So far it's a very interesting read.I wonder how long it will take before some people at NIST are fired and/or the statements are retracted.
I believe 9/11 was an inside job but I'm very cautious (and somewhat cynical).When I read it in a major (reputable) publication and can cut out the article I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Thanks for the post!



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
OK, maybe I'm reading this wrong. They didn't say that the collapse was unexplainable. What they said was-


NIST carried it's analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on solutions.

...

With regard to your first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation. The text of section 6.14.4 is based upon the analysis of photographic and video evidence of the collapses from several vantage points. With respect to the second request for change, it was most critical for NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.



which to me is simply saying that their computers simply are not powerful enough to actually model the collapse itself in any useful way. Also, what they were trying to explain is the factors that led to the collapse. If you can explain everything that occurs up to the moment of collapse, then modeling the collapse itself is redundant.

Now, you could certainly argue that their methods are flawed or something, I'm not qualified to comment on that. But I think that their words are really being twisted into saying something they're not.

[edit on 10-16-2007 by Esoterica]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

If you can explain everything that occurs up to the moment of collapse, then modeling the collapse itself is redundant.


This assumes that the failure of the upper section of each tower would inevitably lead to the initiation of a global collaspe. My point is, if their models ran to the point of localised structural failure and not beyond, then how have they ascertained that the localised structural failure would inevitably become a global failure?



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Structural Engineering 101

The structural design of a building is menat to distribute the forces of the building down to the foundation.

No one floor of any building is ment to take the static load of all the weight above it, but to tranfer the load away down to the foundation. This also allows the building to flex due to the wind sheer that it has to take being so high.

How Stuff Works - Skyscrapers

"This structure expands out lower in the ground, the same way a pyramid expands out as you go down. This distributes the concentrated weight from the columns over a wide surface. Ultimately, the entire weight of the building rests directly on the hard clay material under the earth. In very heavy buildings, the base of the spread footings rest on massive concrete piers that extend all the way down to the earth's bedrock layer. "

A tall skyscraper is a system, and like any system, if you introduce weight or stress incorectly or take away one part the system the entire system fails.

A large aircraft, which adds a lot of weights, and slams into a building taking away a large portion of the frame will result in failure. Then the results of this failure componds to additional failure starting a chain reaction.

Due to the linear shape and design of the towers and being aware of how static load works working in the structural engineering industry, I expect what happen to the towers as soon as the aircrafts hit. I sat there in awe as they stood as long as they did, with the smoke billowing from the building, knowing the intense heat at which jet fuel burns.

Frankly I expected them to fall as they did, but I thought it would only be a few minutes not 45 min. to an hour.

I do not believe they were rigged with explosives. If they were, the whole colapse would have start right away, similar to the look of a controled explosive for large bulding. They would have also been lower, to ensure the job was correct.

After all, if terrorists tried in 1993 and tried at the foundation. It would have been much easier of a cover up job to duplicate the prior attack. That is why I do not think it was a cover up job.


+4 more 
posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrKnight
No one floor of any building is ment to take the static load of all the weight above it, but to tranfer the load away down to the foundation. This also allows the building to flex due to the wind sheer that it has to take being so high.


Structural Engineering 202. The floors transfer the loads to the columns. Which then transfer to the foundation. Columns hold this load continuously. Where's the added load? Even if floors failed and pancaked down, how do you and they explain the columns?


A tall skyscraper is a system, and like any system, if you introduce weight or stress incorectly or take away one part the system the entire system fails.


Quick question. Where did you learn this?


A large aircraft, which adds a lot of weights, and slams into a building taking away a large portion of the frame will result in failure. Then the results of this failure componds to additional failure starting a chain reaction.


Sounds good in theory. Too bad no one has shown any evidence of the reality of this.


Due to the linear shape and design of the towers and being aware of how static load works working in the structural engineering industry, I expect what happen to the towers as soon as the aircrafts hit. I sat there in awe as they stood as long as they did, with the smoke billowing from the building, knowing the intense heat at which jet fuel burns.


Being in a similar situation and actually possessing a degree in Civil engineering with a structural background and working as a structural engineer, I was in awe when they fell. I guess to each his own.


After all, if terrorists tried in 1993 and tried at the foundation.


Yes, with the help of the FBI. That's proven BTW. The guy taped hours of his conversations with his FBI handlers.


It would have been much easier of a cover up job to duplicate the prior attack. That is why I do not think it was a cover up job.


Really? Since all the bomb sniffing dogs were in the basement since 1993, it would be easier to bomb the basement instead of bringing them in the front door under false pretenses? OK. Again. To each his own.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


And not to mention, (for the millionth time it's been ignored by the debunkers) NIST actually tried to model the collapse in the real-world with scale physical models of about 30-40 floors where the planes impacted. With fires 2-3 times hotter than jet fuel can burn and a gravity load four times larger than what actually happened on 9/11. THEY FAILED TO MODEL THE COLLAPSE EITHER GLOBALLY OR LOCALLY. They didn't even see a significant deflection in the truss beams, which was a critical to their theory that sagging trusses somehow pulled in the outer columns and initiated the collapse.

But, since the debunkers dont want to hear this they will just ignore it and go back to repetitiously drum beating the debunker talking point sound bites into their heads and flying off on ad hominem straw men and red herrings, anything to avoid the real issues.

Also, when NIST failed to model the collapse on their physical models, they turned to "black box" computer models which allowed them to enter ludicrous variables to model the collapse. They had a number of different test cases which all failed on the computers, only the most ridiculous scenario actually achieved collapse initiation, and even then it looked nothing like what we saw on 9/11, in that it was not symmetric and it did not progress past initiation.

They couldn't show the global collapse on the computers. They refused to let their peers review their "science" that they used to come up with their theories.... And nobody else has been able to recreate it either.

Obviously i'm just a nut-case, right?!?!



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
As pointed out by other posters NIST was not trying to explain every
thing that happened to the buildings on 9/11. They were looking into
the available evidence to try and determine what lead to the building
collapse. Once the upper stories began to move realized that structure
could not resist the forces and total collapse would soon follow.
Unfortunately most truthers insist that unless every detail down to the
tinest can be explained then what they call the OCT is invalid .



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
WRONG and stupid- go to the horse's mouth at www.nist.gov...

A large plane hitting a building will first damage the supporting structure on one building side, cut the stand pipes so no sprinklers work on the upper levels, a big substained fire eventually overheats the metal superstructure, and once one floor goes, it weakens the upper floors so they can fall and definately overloads the next floor so it collapses and continues to collapes all the way. Even a small nuke would make a round hole in the center of the building resulting in an immediate collapes. Its crazy to believe collapes is from something other than a large airplane crash. Small planes would not have the ability to do this type of damage, need the speed, fuel and dynamic energy.

NIST quote...
"Has NIST responded to those who believe that the WTC towers collapsed in ways other than the mechanisms determined by the NIST investigation?
When the final report on the WTC towers was released in October 2005, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety, and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report’s 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards, and practices. However, there have been claims from so-called “alternative theory” groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down.

To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (wtc.nist.gov...). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11, or that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, the fact sheet describes how photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed 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."

NIST respects the right of others to hold opinions that do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. However, the WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report."



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrKnight
 


"Due to the linear shape and design of the towers and being aware of how static load works working in the structural engineering industry, I expect what happen to the towers as soon as the aircrafts hit. I sat there in awe as they stood as long as they did, with the smoke billowing from the building, knowing the intense heat at which jet fuel burns.

Frankly I expected them to fall as they did, but I thought it would only be a few minutes not 45 min. to an hour.

I do not believe they were rigged with explosives. If they were, the whole colapse would have start right away, similar to the look of a controled explosive for large bulding. They would have also been lower, to ensure the job was correct."

101 Structural engineering? How can 2 buildings as tall as the Twin Towers fall down at almost free fall speed(10sec), without the supporting floors being blown up from under it?
Pan-caking effect they say. Impossible in 10 seconds. What happened to the independent iron core of the buildings? If the floors pancaked, the core should still be up.
Never before 911, and never after did a steel-framed building collapse because of fire, not even after 20 hour infernos.
What about all of the eye witness reports of explosions at the wtc, by police- and firemen.
How does your structural engineering explain that?


[edit on 16-10-2007 by enigmania]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by enigmania]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckk
WRONG and stupid-


This is incredibly offensive and uncalled for. Don't you know that you need to be able to act like you are at least 13 to be able to post here?

And, did you notice those big, flashing words at the top?

If you can't discuss this like an adult, dont!



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Yes, to each their own because I spend a few years in civil engineering before the last 10 in aviation, and I can fully understand how an aircraft can screw up the structure of a building.

The columns of each floor tranfer the load down to the next floor, thus creating the system to the foundation. That is what results in the "pancake" effect, as each system fails on each floor. The additional load may have come from, oh I don't know a few hundred thousand pounds (around 400,000) of aircraft that slamed into the structure of three to four floors. Taking out columns, and floor structure. Then a buring hot fire that twisted and bent remaing structure that lead to a multiple floor failure. Then a few hundred tons of concrete, steel and glass slamming down and weaking the floor structure and column at the next level.

Here is a much better link:

How Stuff Works: 9-11

"But the collisions did divert the entire vertical load of the buildings to the remaining columns, significantly increasing the structure's stress level."

And yes, most systems if subjects to the right forces will fail, hence the phrase, "system failure".





posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Well I guess welcome to the club.
Outside of Popular Mechanics
nobody can really explain it.
With all the possibilties being tried and debunked,is a controlled demolition becoming more likely?


(PrisonPlanet)-The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

prisonplanet.com...

Full story here
prisonplanet.com...


Score! one more for the good guys


Hopefully something else develops from this.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


I know the title of this thread came from the article, but it is incorrect and misleading. The NIST did not say that the collapse was unexplainable.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by MrKnight




Yes, to each their own because I spend a few years in civil engineering before the last 10 in aviation, and I can fully understand how an aircraft can screw up the structure of a building.


Thanks for the post MrKnight and I can understand how an aircraft might be able to screw up the structure of a building if, infact, the airplane penetrated the structure.

Please look at the yellow lines here. They represent the wing and the tail as in the NIST presentation of building damage.



The only difference here is I used an actual photograph whereas NIST used a drawing.

So looking at the yellow lines that represent the wing and horizontal tail exactly how did the wing penetrate steel box columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and then how did the left horizontal stabilizer represented by the short yellow line penetrate steel box columns 12, 13, 14 and 15?

Now if you want to propose that the airplane wing was lower then the fuselage wont fit in the hole and neither will the right wing fit in its hole.

Now, if you can figure out how the airplane got into the buiding then you need to call up these guys:

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;
DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI;
EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS;
DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO;
JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM;
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC;
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.;
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & :HEGER, INC.;
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP;
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.;
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.;
AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES;
and UNITED AIRLINES,

These guys are getting sued by Morgan Reynolds in New York District Court. (FILED UNDER SEAL QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007), Morgan Reynolds says there were no planes. He's a 'no planer'. The difference between Morgan Reynolds and the rest of us 'no planers' is Morgan Reyhnolds is putting his money where his mouth is.

So what I am saying here is if you think an airplane went into the WTC towers you need to call these guys up and say, "Hey an airplane went into the World Trade Center towers and I can prove it!"

Believe me MrKnight these guys will welcome you with open arms because right now they are hurting pretty bad.

You know why?

Ever heard of Rule 11?

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (amendments received to February 10, 2006) states that Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and other papers; Representations to Court, Sanctions, specifically states in (a)(3)” The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

I point this out because the Court, under Rule 11 (c) Sanctions, can “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

These sanction include (Rule 11 (1)(A) (excerpt) “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”.

What this means, of course, is that if Morgan Reynolds and his attorney Jerry V. Leaphart & Associates., P.P. can’t proves their allegations against:

Science Applications International Corp.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. Boeing; NuStates; Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Datasource, Inc.; Geostats, Inc.;
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP;
Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi;
Eduardo Kausel; David Parks;
David Sharp; Daniel Venezana;
Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William;
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.;
Simpson Gumpertz & :Heger, Inc.;
S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.
Teng & Associates, Inc.;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.;
American Airlines; Silverstein Properties;
And United Airlines,

they are going to owe the above defendants a substantial amount of money in addition to which the Court may impose (Rule 11, (2) (excerpt) “directives of a non monetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

So, MrKnight I would respectfully suggest that if you have any information that would help the Court decide the truthfulness of the allegations, specifically your statement (if not mere speculation) “an aircraft can screw up the structure of a building" I would strongly recommend that you contact the defendants and get some bucks for your testimony.

I will not ask for a finders fee.

Thanks for the post it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrKnight
Structural Engineering 101

The structural design of a building is menat to distribute the forces of the building down to the foundation.

No one floor of any building is ment to take the static load of all the weight above it


"Structural Engineering 101": the floors aren't mean to take ANY loads from the floors above! Your whole thought process here is wrong.

The columns held the building up, and they were welded together solid all the way up on the inside.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I'm sorry, but i put Mr. Reynold's lawsuit up there with this nut-job. He filed handwritten paperwork that looks like he did it with a crayon. He accuses google of stealing his SSN and putting microchips in his brain or some-such... DON'T MESS WITH GOOGLE!! You can read it here for yourself;

techdirt.com...

Maybe something will come from Mr. Reynold;s lawsuit, but i aint holding my breath!

[edit on 10/16/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrKnight
 


"The columns of each floor tranfer the load down to the next floor, thus creating the system to the foundation. That is what results in the "pancake" effect, as each system fails on each floor. The additional load may have come from, oh I don't know a few hundred thousand pounds (around 400,000) of aircraft that slamed into the structure of three to four floors. Taking out columns, and floor structure. Then a buring hot fire that twisted and bent remaing structure that lead to a multiple floor failure. Then a few hundred tons of concrete, steel and glass slamming down and weaking the floor structure and column at the next level."

I see mr. Knight. And this all happened in 10 sec and made the buildings fall straight in their footsteps reduced to dust? A pancaking effect would go increasingly slower, the lower it gets. Drop a stone from the top of the wtc, it would take it 10 sec to reach the ground. The same speed as the towers fell with. It's called free fall, meaning no force holding it up, meaning blown up floors.
How do you explain why the core sructure wasn't still standing after the alleged pancaking?
God, I'm really trying to stay calm here, but I find it very hard to understand how someone with a degree in engineering, can not see that the official story is complete BS, and supports theories that defy the laws of physics.
Were is your common sense? The things you say in your response make me think you didn't do a whole lot of investigation about the collapse.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by enigmania]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by sp00n1




[I'm sorry, but i put Mr. Reynold's lawsuit up there with this nut-job. He filed handwritten paperwork that looks like he did it with a crayon. He accuses google of stealing his SSN and putting microchips in his brain or some-such... DON'T MESS WITH GOOGLE!! You can read it here for yourself;

techdirt.com...

Maybe something will come from Mr. Reynold;s lawsuit, but i aint holding my breath!

[edit on 10/16/2007 by sp00n1]


Thanks for your post sp00n1, but I think you may have confused Dylan Stephan Jayne’s suit with the Morgan Reynolds suit. Jayne’s suit was filed with the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reynolds suit was filed in New York.

You might want to check it out.


techdirt.com...


Handwritten Lawsuit Accuses Google Having A Name Similar To Accuser's Social Security Number
from the plaintiff-and-defendant(s)-have-a-responsibility-to-fight-the-war-on-terrorism dept.

We've seen some really bizarre and silly lawsuits filed against Google over the years, but this latest one wins hands down. Eric Goldman gets all the credit in the world for sending this one over. Someone has filed a handwritten lawsuit against Google, asking for $5 billion in damages, because his social security number, when turned upside down and scrambled spells Google. And then it gets weirder. The war on terrorism makes an appearance, as does a Burton snowboard. If you're reading this via RSS, click on through to see the filing in all its handwritten glory. Update: As pointed out in the comments, the guy actually filed 8 other things with the court, including a rather detailed description of how the Philadelphia 76ers play a key role in the code to unscramble his social security number to spell Google.


Thanks for your post sp00n1, as misguided as it is, it is truly appreciated.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join