I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

www.journalof911studies.com...
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II) 6 of 11
Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth) © 2006

I find this recording extremely interesting, hearing it now again.
I hope they found some further corroboration by now.

TIME DELAY FROM BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS TO AIRCRAFT IMPACT
The authors have located evidence that possibly shows how long the time was between the initial explosion and the later impact of AA Flt 11 at WTC1.
Jenny Carr was at a business meeting with others on the morning of 9/11 at 1 Liberty Plaza, and a recording was being made of that meeting.
During this recording a first explosion is heard, and then a second one about 9 seconds later. This data still needs to be corroborated, and both authors and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are involved in this; however, it is worth presenting at this time. This was found inside a movie compendium, "9/11
Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001". To repeat, this needs further corroboration.
Link: Jenny Carr, Video - 9 Seconds

I can't find that link, there is none attached, so I'll give the whole video :
video.google.com...
"9/11Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001",
and go in 14 minutes, 30 seconds, to hear the Jenny Carr recording.

In this same 36:22 long compilation of previously released material you can watch also William Rodriguez explaining the first explosion in the lowest basement, and then at least 6 seconds later the impact of the plane, "much much higher up there."

In the study by Furlong and Ross a lot more small and bigger details can be found.

It seems that their investigation in the exact two WTC tower collapse times, and my investigation in the exact WTC 7 collapse times, and subsequent exact WTC towers times, and their pre-collapse seismic events turning up in the seismic records, will be of interest for all of us.
I invite them to contact me, to see if we can add my findings to theirs, one way or another.

First of all, I want to apologize because this is the first time I've noticed this thread (haven't been around much until this past week).

I'm assuming you want my opinion on the NIST responses to the FAQs?

Here goes:

1. The NIST answer is, of course, bull#. If they want us to buy the progressive collapse theory then they have to stop treating the subject as if the top floors above the impact zone was one big "tinker toy block". All 20+ floors did not fall at once in order to INITIATE failure...so their answer is crap.

2. I don't doubt for a moment they stuck with the physical laws they needed to...but see answer 1 above. You can still maintain CoM and CoE and screw things up. It's in your modeling assumptions (the devil is in the details) that you screw everything up and can still say you satisfied physical laws.

3. Yes, but what they didn't say is when it came to picking which timeline of events (and I'm talking about failure initiation not occupant egress and airplane impact) they were going to go with when they "stacked the deck" - see letter from NIST on challenges made by the families of 911 victims.

4. Well, the major portion of evidence needed IS the major pieces of steel and equipment...and they still screwed it up. They didn't get any test samples from WTC 7 and an extremely insufficient number from WTC 1 and 2.

5. They derived the temperatures by modeling - and then they threw the model results out the window and pulled much higher temperatures out of their asses. So they're telling the truth here, they just aren't telling what they did with their temperature modeling results (circular file anyone?)

6. See 5. They probably got data, they just threw it out once they got it if it didn't meet their a priori assumptions.

7. They did do large-scale modeling, and then they threw the results out.

8. Because the results wouldn't let their a priori assumptions initiate failure.

9. No further comment.

10. They had to stack the deck so much just to get to failure initiation that their card stackers were worn out and they just didn't have the energy to tackle fixing the actual collapse.

11. Because they don't make their a priori assumptions initiate failure.

12. They are lying. They did not do "extensive property testing"...and they didn't even do "adequate" specimen testing.

13. But then the fire model also didn't initiate failure, so they threw that out too.

14. Hand-waving, smoke, mirrors and a period...followed by "no more questions".


[edit on 1-23-2008 by Valhall]

Valhall, that was exactly my intention.

I had to be rather exhausting about my thesis first.
It will be clear to anyone reading all those past pages however, that if my thesis can't be refuted, the reader will be left with just one simple conclusion :

If explosives were used at WTC 7, all official investigations must be rewritten, since the notion of possible, pre-planted explosives seemingly never occurred to ALL these benumbed researchers, afraid of loosing their pay-checks, or reputation.
To their defense, I'll admit knowing that these people WILL get viciously smeared and subsequently kicked out of their jobs, if they dare to confront their superiors with the Swiss cheeses, all these reports, in fact are.
See Kevin Ryan for a particular grave example.
And don't forget William Rodriguez, the man who saved numerous lifes on 9/11, who in the end had to live on the street, to stay alive.
What an IMMENSE shame for a once great nation, which treats its whistle blowers in such shameful manners.

If you don't mind, I will "redress" your above post, to include the NIST FAQ&A.
And then follow up every Q&A with your answers.

This will greatly enhance the readability for the, to be expected, hot debate's participants.

NIST FAQ&A :
wtc.nist.gov...


Here goes:

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Valhall : 1. The NIST answer is, of course, bull#. If they want us to buy the progressive collapse theory then they have to stop treating the subject as if the top floors above the impact zone was one big "tinker toy block". All 20+ floors did not fall at once in order to INITIATE failure...so their answer is crap.

2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

Valhall : 2. I don't doubt for a moment they stuck with the physical laws they needed to...but see answer 1 above. You can still maintain CoM and CoE and screw things up. It's in your modeling assumptions (the devil is in the details) that you screw everything up and can still say you satisfied physical laws.

3. How does NIST explain the absence of a timeline for the WTC Towers?

NIST developed and reported detailed timelines for various aspects of the WTC disaster beginning with the impact of the aircraft. These timelines included the progression of fires through the buildings, the response of the structure to damage and to fire, egress of occupants from the towers, and the emergency response. The timelines were developed based on extensive analysis of the photographic and video evidence, analysis of computer models, first person interviews, radio transmissions, and other data documenting the events of September 11, 2001. A general timeline for each of the towers is reported in NIST NCSTAR 1. Detailed timelines for specific aspects of the WTC disaster are reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8.

Valhall : 3. Yes, but what they didn't say is when it came to picking which timeline of events (and I'm talking about failure initiation not occupant egress and airplane impact) they were going to go with when they "stacked the deck" - see letter from NIST on challenges made by the families of 911 victims.

LaBTop : 3. I strongly contest their timelines with my thesis proofs.
They "mix apples with oranges" when they compare three different US official institutions timelines and try to get them all "lined up" (to NIST, one of them).
The LDEO and 9/11Commission timelines were based on seismic events clocked by GPS, and aeronautical GPS based facts provided by NTSB and FAA and their affiliates.

And their latest correction in January 2006, when they corrected the most televised 9/11 event, the second plane impact, with an additional FIVE seconds corrected for GPS times backed by atomic clocks used by several broadcasting companies, and then ADDED these SAME FIVE seconds to all OTHER main 9/11 events, is right out ludicrous.

I have more faith in long term scientists, who know their accountability hangs on repeatedly standardizing their GPS times to their atomic clocks, than to believe, mostly lying mainstream media and their personnel, forced to conform to corporate liars policy, doing the same job as painstakingly correct as a scientist who knows that his next publication will be shot down immediately when he gets sloppy with the GPS clocks.

4. Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?

The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment. In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site. FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.

Valhall : 4. Well, the major portion of evidence needed IS the major pieces of steel and equipment...and they still screwed it up. They didn't get any test samples from WTC 7 and an extremely insufficient number from WTC 1 and 2.

5. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC Towers and how valid are they?

Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was the Fire Dynamics Simulator. This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the World Trade Center Investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the Investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).

In a following set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.

Valhall : 5. They derived the temperatures by modeling - and then they threw the model results out the window and pulled much higher temperatures out of their asses. So they're telling the truth here, they just aren't telling what they did with their temperature modeling results (circular file anyone?)

6. At least one private sector source has asked (1) Whether the Commerce Department’s legal structure impeded NIST’s ability to obtain information and therefore prevented NIST from finding the facts; and (2) Why NIST did not use its subpoena authority?

No. The Commerce Department’s legal structure facilitated NIST’s ability to obtain valuable information and evidence for the investigation.

NIST is required to comply with laws regarding the treatment of human subjects, the Paperwork Reduction Act, copyright, and other applicable laws. NIST is also required to comply with the provisions of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Therefore, NIST staff followed all the prescribed procedures when seeking to acquire relevant documents, interview building occupants and first responders, and acquire visual evidence. NIST has stated publicly that although documentary information was lost in the collapse of the WTC Towers, the information obtained from other sources was sufficient to conduct its investigation.

Under the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST was granted subpoena authority. NIST’s experience during the investigation was that it was able to obtain all essential documentary and visual evidence without the need to invoke subpoena authority. The existence of subpoena authority was helpful to NIST in getting access to data.

Valhall : 6. See 5. They probably got data, they just threw it out once they got it if it didn't meet their a priori assumptions.

7. Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

For studying the impact on a 110 story building by an actual Boeing 767 aircraft, a full-scale test was not feasible. For a test to capture the response of the towers as a system, it would have been necessary to construct a test assembly that included the core columns, exterior columns, floors and hat truss. Even to replicate experimentally the response of the floors near and above the impact zones would have required test assemblies of about 20 stories for WTC 1 and 30 stories for WTC 2. No facility exists to conduct such a test, either with fire or in the absence of fire; and, indeed, such tests are not conducted in current engineering practice.

Therefore, NIST relied on high-fidelity finite element modeling of the aircraft impact event and subsequent fires. The analyses were calibrated against the observed structural response of the towers upon impact (videos, photographs, and physical evidence) and the evolution of the ensuing fires.

NIST did not conduct reduced scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.

Furthermore, fire test facilities with the capability to apply arbitrary fire exposures (in contrast to the standard time-temperature exposure) and arbitrary loads to structural components did not exist in the U.S. at the time of the investigation. Even had such a facility been existent, each large-scale structural fire test would have evaluated only a single set of conditions, e.g., structural system, fire exposure, amount of fireproofing, etc. Even a modest parametric series of such tests would have been prohibitively expensive.

NIST did conduct full-scale fire tests of single and multiple workstations. These tests were of sufficient size to properly capture the combustion physics. These tests established burning histories, mass burning rates, and heat release rates. The results were used to validate the fire dynamics calculations for fire growth and spread. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E. NIST also conducted full-scale fire tests exposing insulated and bare structural elements to real fires to validate the fire and thermal modeling approaches. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5B.

Valhall : 7. They did do large-scale modeling, and then they threw the results out.

8. Why did NIST conduct ASTM E119 testing of floor systems that were not representative of the condition of the fireproofing on September 11, 2001? Why did NIST ignore the results of these tests, which showed that the floor system did not collapse, in its analysis of the thermal-structural response of the towers?

NIST’s review of available documents related to the design and construction of the WTC Towers indicated that the fire performance of the composite floor system was an issue of concern to the building owners and designers from the original design and throughout the service life of the buildings (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). NIST found no evidence to determine the technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material for the WTC floor trusses and of the fireproofing thickness to achieve a 2 hour rating. Further, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC Towers’ floor system were ever conducted.

Therefore, NIST conducted a series of four Standard Fire Tests (ASTM E 119) for the following purposes, as stated clearly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:

• to establish the baseline performance of the floor system of the WTC Towers as they were originally built,

• to differentiate the factors (thermal restraint, fireproofing thickness, and scale of test) that most influenced the collapse of the WTC Towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and

• to study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative (at the time) structural and fireproofing system.

The thickness of fireproofing material used in this series of four tests ranged from ½ in. to ¾ in. This range of thickness was, indeed, consistent with the thickness of fireproofing as originally applied to the floor steel in the WTC Towers.

NIST concluded from its aircraft impact analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-2) that the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel traveling, initially, over 500 miles per hour (700 ft/s) (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D). Since the test assemblies for all four Standard Fire Tests were protected with sprayed fire-resistant material (SFRM), conclusions could not be drawn for the response of the WTC Towers to the fires on September 11, 2001, because the aircraft impact resulted in there having been unprotected steel in the fire-affected region.

The fire-affected floors in WTC 2 had the originally applied fireproofing, which was specified to be ½ in. and averaged approximately ¾ in. in thickness. The fire-affected floors of WTC 1 had upgraded fireproofing on the order of 2½ in. thickness. However, the fireproofing thickness did not matter, since much of the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel.

Valhall : 8. Because the results wouldn't let their a priori assumptions initiate failure.

9. NIST conducted a single workstation burn and a multiple workstation burn as a part of its investigation. Why did NIST only provide temperature data for one of these tests? Was the ventilation used in these tests representative of the ventilation that was present in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001?

As documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5C, a series of tests of single workstations was conducted to gain an appreciation for the open burning behavior and the general effect of jet fuel. The principal quantity measured was the rate of heat release. This quantity, combined with the ventilation, heat losses to walls, etc., determines the temperatures that would be reached if the workstation were burned in an actual fire. NIST NCSTAR 1-5C contains the heat release rate curves from all of the single workstation fires. The series of multiple workstation fire tests, conducted in a replication of part of a WTC floor, is fully documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E. In these tests, the window openings were close to the same size and layout as in the fire floors in the towers. There was no glass in the windows, replicating the broken windows seen in the photographs of the vicinity of the tower fires. The report includes, for all of the tests, plots of the heat release rate and temperature histories in multiple locations.

Valhall : 9. No further comment.

10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?

The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.

Valhall : 10. They had to stack the deck so much just to get to failure initiation that their card stackers were worn out and they just didn't have the energy to tackle fixing the actual collapse.

11. Why didn’t NIST consider the “base” and “less severe” cases throughout its analysis of the WTC Towers? What was the technical basis for selecting only the “more severe” case for its analyses?

All three cases, (the base case, less severe case, and more severe case) are reasonable and realistic representations, each within the range of uncertainty, of the conditions in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001. Of the three, the more severe case resulted in the closest agreement with the visual and physical evidence. (Refer to NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Section 7.1 and NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Section 9.2.4.)

Valhall : 11. Because they don't make their a priori assumptions initiate failure.

12. What was the source of the material properties that were used in NIST’s thermal/structural analyses of the WTC Towers? Were these properties obtained from physical testing of steel recovered from the WTC Towers?

NIST conducted extensive property measurement tests on the recovered WTC steel, which included all the many grades of structural steel used in the WTC Towers. To account for natural variation in properties from different batches of manufactured steel, NIST augmented the experimental data with published data for steels of the same construction era. These data included room temperature, high-strain rate, and high-temperature mechanical properties, along with physical properties.

Valhall : 12. They are lying. They did not do "extensive property testing"...and they didn't even do "adequate" specimen testing.

13. NIST states that the fires in WTC 1 were generally ventilation limited. If this was the case, wouldn’t the fires have burned out in about 2 minutes? Why do NIST’s models show the fires burning longer?

Nearly all fires are limited either by the burning rate of combustible fuel (fuel-limited fires) or by the availability of air (ventilation-limited fires). Many fires that are ventilation limited do continue to burn, with the burning rate determined by the chemistry of the combustion and the rate at which the oxygen arrives. This was generally the case for the WTC Tower fires. Of course, if the rate of air inflow were too slow (e.g., due to very few broken windows), the limited combustion would not have generated sufficient heat to continue pyrolyzing fuel, and the fire would have gone out. This was not the case on the fire floors in the WTC Towers.

The Fire Dynamics Simulator, used to reconstruct the fires in the WTC towers, included the burning characteristics of the building combustibles and the ventilation through the broken windows and the damaged building façade. The simulation showed that there were ample perforations in the building facade to maintain the ventilation-limited combustion until the fuel supply was depleted.

Valhall : 13. But then the fire model also didn't initiate failure, so they threw that out too.

14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?

Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact. Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces. Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.

Valhall : 14. Hand-waving, smoke, mirrors and a period...followed by "no more questions".


LaBTop : There is far too less attention to the fact that PAIRED trusses were used under the cemented floor pans.
NIST acted as if all trusses were single trusses.
Look up drawings of a floor plan, and look at the amount of paired trusses.
In my eyes, 2x more then single trusses.
Also look up construction of the corner Vierendeel facade column packages, 2 column packs connected by very strong welds to the corner plates with build-in window frames. These corners were much stronger then many posters do want us to believe.
But they "zippered" loose in a far too easy manner, on ALL four sides.

If needed, I can provide a good picture of such a single triplet (2 Vierendeel column packets with a corner/window pack welded in between), landed beside WTC 5, after collapse of WTC 1.

LaBTop and Valhall

Isn't the real absurdity of NIST's answer to number one the fact that they are reducing all of the building's resistance to collapse down to the strength of the connections holding the floors to the columns. To me it seems that with only a couple leading sentences and a few "outside the core" phrases they seem to make 98% of the building disappear. (Only the lower part that is... we still need the huge bulking mass on top to do all the dirty work.)

Originally posted by NIcon
LaBTop and Valhall

Isn't the real absurdity of NIST's answer to number one the fact that they are reducing all of the building's resistance to collapse down to the strength of the connections holding the floors to the columns. To me it seems that with only a couple leading sentences and a few "outside the core" phrases they seem to make 98% of the building disappear. (Only the lower part that is... we still need the huge bulking mass on top to do all the dirty work.)

I THINK I understand what you are saying. But I'm going to talk through it to be sure.

The most absurd part of their answer (for me) is that they speak as if the weight of the entire section of the building above the failure point fell as one full unit of mass on to one floor and then another floor and then another floor pile-driving each floor out of the way on it's way to the ground. And I have yet to see any official report/source/explanation that explains how that could happen and account for the behavior of the core columns while doing it. And a physically sound explanation of the behavior of the core columns is REQUIRED in order to satisfactorily explain how that could happen.

And that explanation is probably never going to come because they won't be able to provide the causal effects required to make the core columns behave in the manner they would have had to have behaved in order to pull off the global progressive failure.

Let's be clear that NIST only fiddled (and I'm using that term as an operative word) with their model until they produced the initiation of failure for a floor. And then they called it good stating - once failure is initiated "Katy bar the door". But it is the "Katy bar the door" assumption that has never, ever, ever been soundly backed with science because it is that assumption that requires a sound explanation for the behavior of the core columns.

reply to post by Valhall

Valhall, there's two ways I can explain what I was saying and hopefully this one is the best.

I think they are slyly changing the definition of "floor" through the three paragraphs to make the core and exterior columns disappear. One definition is like when you're outside the building and look up and say "That's the fourth floor" and the other is what an actual floor was in the towers.

Here's their answer again with my additions in bold to make it more consistent. Where they change the definition are underlined.:

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors outside the core below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor outside the core below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors outside the core if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors outside the core if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors outside the core above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors outside the core below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors outside the core of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor outside the core immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor outside the core is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor outside the core of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor outside the core under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor outside the core by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors outside the core that can be supported by an intact floor outside the core is calculated to be a total of 12 floors outside the core or 11 additional floors outside the core.

Okay, that's only the first two paragraphs because I'm running out of space. but I think you get the idea. In the third paragraph they switch back to the outside definition of a floor and thus, they come up with a collapse. Does this make sense?

I'll jump in quickly to provide you with that corner picture promised earlier on.

400x284 pixels size :


850x604 pixel size :


This is a broken out corner section of WTC 1, north tower.
It rests against the west wall of WTC 6 (Custom House).
Top section is crumbled, bottom is sheared off from the bolds.
You look at the Outside face of the corner.
Left and right of the corner plate are 2 separate lone columns each.
This was the standard corner section outlay :
One Vierendeel triple column packet, one sole column, one corner plate, one sole column, one Vierendeel triple column packet. Corner plates welded and bolded to the sole columns.
Source is readable in the picture.

Just a quick question - maybe you can help me out with something I've been pondering.

I looked at the seismograph data, and I get your point that it shows something occuring before the collapse in the Towers. I'm gonna forget all about Building 7 and just concentrate on the towers here.

We're looking at a predominently steel building in its death throes, right?

Now as daft as it sounds, could your initial "spikes" be caused by the building harmonic changing as the systematic failure of the main buiding components occur? Kind of like a "pre-shock", like you get in plate tectonics just before the main movement occurs?

I'm interested in your take on this idea.

reply to post by neformore


Correct me if I'm wrong but you're thinking something "slipped," a LOT of weight shifted, thus the spike. Right?

The kind of instantaneous shift you would have in mind would have to be pretty much a free-fall drop of a section of at least one core column, probably multiple core columns. They would have to just up and free-fall a few feet and then IMPACT to actually cause that shock energy to rush down into the bedrock. An instantaneous dynamic load, as compared to a slower shifting in a static load or etc., which wouldn't cause spikes.

If you just heat a column then it's just going to be heated and maybe warp and deform a little. Maybe a truss is sagging next to it. How would any of that cause a seismograph spike, or how could it possibly without introducing other things that happened to the buildings? You would actually have to cut a solid chunk completely out and let the column fall down onto itself to produce the kind of shock loading you're looking for, as far as I can see.

Does that make any sense?

[edit on 31-1-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by neformore


Now this kind of reasoning is exactly why I think most people with a fair bit of honesty, after looking at first glance at my evidence and arguments, make that exact same assumption, and think, "move on, nothing to see here, this bloke sees far too deep into these charts, when there's just a tiny hick-up in front of those huge spikes.

I'm really baffled and flabbergasted that all these passers-by, don't think it through to the inevitable end, and connect the dots, suddenly realizing that the damning proof of bigger-than-main-collapse seismic pre-collapse spikes in the WTC 7 collapse graph is the main culprit in their faulty reasoning.


And that my only reason to be able to defend my position on the pre-collapse spikes in the two Twin Towers collapse graphs is exactly that comparison to the pre-collapse event in the WTC 7 collapse graph.

Because if that HUGE pre-collapse anomaly in the WTC 7 collapse was not present, I could never defend that the Twin Tower pre-collapse spikes were indicative of the same huge energy event taking place at both of them before the actual global collapses, since the comparison to the far bigger global collapse spikes is of a magnitude exactly opposite as in the same comparison for the WTC 7 graph.
Simply said, all pre-collapse spikes are of equal magnitude.
While the global collapse spikes of the Twin Towers were much bigger than their pre-collapse spikes, the WTC 7 pre-collapse spikes were bigger than its global collapse spikes. How could that ever occur, without a great amount of extra energy put into the equation?

You can't dissect my WTC 7 proof of human intervention from the two other collapses, it is only valid in the eyes of a tribunal, when presented as a triplet evidence package.

One other snippet to chew on :

Did it ever occur to anybody, when looking at the Twin Tower collapse charts, compared to the WTC 7 collapse chart, that there seems to be an asymptotic difference in exposed seismic energy ?

Both big towers were each about 2 times bigger than the WTC 7 building.
110 floors compared to 47 floors.

But their collapse graphs show far, far more energy than you would expect from an about 2 to 1 comparison in combined mass and height.

All that extra energy is showing off in their far too big global collapse spikes.
That extra seismic energy's most probable cause, were the demolition charges used to blow the mechanical floors up, and all the core columns apart.
Thus giving room for falling columns to impact with tremendous force on still standing lower parts of the buildings.
As I said before, I suspect the planners to have used shock-sensitive circuits to ignite the thermobarics, placed on every three or five floors.
One thermobaric charge can easily blow up several floors worth of concrete slabs, at once. Their explosive power can be directed up-and downwards like as double-tulip formed blast, or radially, or beam-like.
Their explosive force bleeds off rapidly within distance from their ignition center.

And I don't think those charges were the usually used ones.
I think very modern, steel column shattering, thermobaric devices were used, which do not leave any notable traces afterwards since their main contents are gases, and these were only in the possession of black-op funded agencies.

Fill in any of your favorite ones.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You would actually have to cut a solid chunk completely out and let the column fall down onto itself to produce the kind of shock loading you're looking for, as far as I can see.

Does that make any sense?

Yes, it does. Thanks for the reply

I shall go think some more about how to put my next question and come back to you

I have a feeling you missed my answer by 2 minutes.

I have given an answer to your question already on page 8, since Aim64 came up with the same reasoning, and I then added a lot more in further posts, which explained it quite clear :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST tries to prove that a column failure at the 5th or 7th floor initiated that collapse. Thus the whole building, according to NIST, is crashing down only a few floors, then collapses totally caused by the too strong force of this acceleration and subsequent deceleration of its total mass.
What you in fact proposed there, is an "evaporation" of steel components, so a part of the building suddenly wasn't there anymore.
That's what all of us are used to call an explosion, which removes parts of a structure, so it can free fall in itself, started by a sudden global drop which impacts the ground with such great force, that the above still intact structure will be shattered to pieces by the sudden fall-acceleration and then deceleration of its total mass, which will then rain down in broken-up pieces to the ground. A men-made demolition collapse.

There were no devastating fires UNDER the NIST proposed failure floors.
The steel structure covering the ConEd electricity sub-station was super-reinforced, with the most massive steel beams and columns to be found in the whole WTC complex.
And exactly the building failure initiated at that spot?
NIST's final editors in charge, really would like us to believe that.
What a farce.

It's directors are mouthpieces of the existing political power structure, and not free thinking scientists AT ALL, an outright shame for all our colleague professionals at NIST with a bit or a lot of conscience left.
Luckily they left an abundance of hidden facts and hints in that huge report.

Start reading the NIST report with all the rescue workers recordings in it, and look up the guy who came running out of the basements, and what he said.
And all the other FDNY members remarks about strange events on lower floors, far below the impact damages.
And the reports of flooding of the basements.
Water muffles explosions enormously.
But explosions under water in a basement amplify seismic effects also enormously, since the water is 100% coupled to the soil and rock.

Sooo can ANYONE debunk this? Where did MikeVet and Aim64C go?

Can anyone from JREF debunk this HERE?

Swampfox46_1999? jthomas? C.O. ?


[edit on 26-2-2008 by Silly]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Silly]

reply to post by Silly


Don't hold your breath. All the jrefers know how to do is ad hominim attacks. They don't talk about the real issues, they just talk about those who DO talk about the real issues.

Originally posted by LaBTop
And the reports of flooding of the basements.
Water muffles explosions enormously.
But explosions under water in a basement amplify seismic effects also enormously, since the water is 100% coupled to the soil and rock.

I can't believe that anyone still thinks that there were massive explosions. The planes hit with an equivalent of something like 2000 lbs of tnt. Any explosion that would have registered on a seismograph would have to be that large, and it would have been inescapable and undeniable. Water helps, but it doesn't result in 100% of the energy being directed into the columns. Unless it's very deep water.

So how much flooding was there? How much could there be? The basements were an acre on each floor. To get even 1 foot of water on 1 floor would require 325,000 gallons. Divide that by 60 min/hr and you get 5500 gal/min. That would take a pipe around 18 inches and under pressure to achieve that flow rate. And that's for just 1 floor. Of course, the water mains were cut too when 2 fell, so no more water for 1's collapse.

Plus there's the problem witht the fact that 2's core never failed. In fact, there were survivors of the collapse in there.

While I believe a limited amount of explosives were used to initiate the collapse, what followed was unaided. there were no massive explosions 'ejecting' facades or whatever. That's just disinfo.