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!

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]

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?

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.

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 .

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!

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.

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.