Reply to NIST

Video presentation
Not so Clever Trevor
Sorry Dr. Greening et al
Reply to NIST
Where's your Evidence?
Tower Demolition
Momentum Transfer in WTC1

     It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.

     Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." In order for a pressure to build up two floors must come together. This can only happen in two ways one of which, involving at least one floor becoming detached, is ruled out by NIST now saying that this pancaking did not occur. The only other possibility is if the columns supporting the floors buckle or fail in some way. Nist are asking us to believe that the air then ejected as squibs some thirty or more storeys, some 100 metres below the collapse front, rather than through the very obvious route offered by the failed columns around the entire perimeter of the building. Not only does this defy credibility, the very fact that NIST thought that they could get away with this, defies credibility.

     Here we see why NIST have decided to ask their own questions. They say,

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

     Whereas the question could be posed as, "Why did the structure offer minimal resistance to the falling upper mass?" In this case NIST's circular answer would be more obvious, when they say,

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.

They do not support this contention with any analysis whatsoever. They don't even provide a single calculation to support the claim that the towers would provide little resistance to a falling mass but instead rely on,

The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

     The NIST study was supposed to determine why little resistance was provided. Not merely declare that there was little resistance. This must be studied before building recommendations can be made. That is why a budget was allocated.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

     This is simply wrong in so many ways. The towers were designed to support the static weight of the structure multplied by the safety factor. NIST are ignoring the safety factor, asking us to believe that the towers could carry only the static weight. The question must be asked that if NIST's collapse theory relies on there being no safety factor in order to initiate and progress the collapse, what removed that safety factor prior to initiation. Conservation of Momentum dictates that the upper section must slow in order to accelerate any part of the lower section. Conservation of Energy dictates that the upper section must slow in order to be able to cause the damage caused to the floors, core and perimeter structure.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
. . The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

     This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.

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


     This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives..."
     Hardly surprising since their attitude in ignoring the molten metal seems to extend to also ignore the evidence of the many eye witnesses of explosions. If the pancaking is now ruled out how does NIST account for the evidence of regular patterns in the explosive sounds that were previously explained away as the falling floors progressively striking lower floors.

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""
NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

     Perhaps this explains why they found no corroborating evidence. The ability to believe and try to explain away the squibs, and their regular pattern, as being caused by overpressures at the collapse front must have helped.

NIST: 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.

     NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none. If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
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. "

     It is absurd to even suggest that aluminium can become a homogenous mass with pieces of burnt furniture and carpet. The relative densities will dictate that the debris will float on top of the aluminium and the debris will burn.   NIST admit that, " there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."  No mechanism has been forwarded as to how this aluminium could coalesce, mix with the colour altering debris then be ejected from the tower.

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

Why do NIST fail to see the relation between these two sentences above?. We are told that thermite requires several minutes to weaken a steel member, yet the link between this and the visual evidence showing that there was a reaction for several minutes totally eludes them.

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 (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where 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. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

     If the entire south face simply disappeared this would not cause a total collapse, so it can be easily seen that bowing of this one face was insufficient to initiate complete collapse.

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.

     It is welcomed as a step in the right direction that NIST do not ascribe to the ludicrous floor pancake theory, but they have failed to give any collapse theory. They tell us what did not happen and even provide a diagram of the floors which did not pancake, yet fail to identify how the collapse progressed.

     NIST go to great lengths to show the array of talent that they used but a number of people calling themselves experts, just after 9/11, claimed that the jet fuel fires melted the steel. Those who sought more logical explanations pointed out that this was impossible, and NIST now agrees. But why did NIST use contractors who had previously stated that the jet fuel fire melted the steel? One notable example is Eduardo Kausel, as reported by Scientific American.

     What was it Rabbie Burns used to say? 

     Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive?








Enter subhead content here

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here