NIST Contradiction and WTC Collapse

I originally started authoring the following as a response to a poster regarding why I thought thermate was used in the CD of the WTC. As I progressed to write a response, I uncovered the following.

I thought it too significant to be ignored. The following two posts are what I wrote (it is split due to post length limitations).

wtc.nist.gov...

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

They are trying to suggest that because the MAXIMUM take-off weight of the 767 is 20% greater than the 707, that this alone meant that all the damage was significantly greater, because of this single fact. The 767 wingspan is 17% greater compared with a 707.

707: www.boeing.com...

767: www.boeing.com...

Again, from NIST:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Good question! Maybe the answer is here.....

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

So why didn't it examine CD?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Only 236 pieces out of 500,000 tons of steel???

Based on this comprehensive investigation

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns

Seems reasonable........

dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors;

Yeah........ and.......... ???

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.

Anyone see a problem there?!?!?! "unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires"??? An aircraft hitting a building is "unusual"!!! What are they trying to say (and screwing up severely)????

To have "unusually large" and "jet-fuel ignited" fires, suggests that the fuel fire caused a much larger ("unusually large") secondary fire that was not jet-fuel fed. How else can you explain their particular choice of words??? It is known that jet fuel is insufficient to burn at the temperatures they suggest. All that should have occurred was a regular office fire, and plenty of those have occurred before, on a much larger scale, and without building collapse following.

What did they find that makes them say that in that way?? For jet-fuel ignited fire to occur, means there has to be a secondary source of fuel, not related to the jet fuel, but set alight by it.

e.g. If I ignite a paraffin block with a match, the match is not ignited, it is a source of ignition. See what I'm saying???

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.

Source please (assuming this was a real investigation?).

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).

OK.........

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.

So if that isn't a progressive, pancake collapse, what is?! What kind of collapse was it? How does this explain the central core??

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Finally..... wasn't this how the building stood since it was built, with the floors suspended between the inner and outer columns?

If so, all that should have occurred was it sagged on a few floors, but no collapse. The weight didn't suddenly increase.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.

NIST SAID IT!!!!

Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing, insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors;

Thought they just said fire wasn't the cause, thus making the fireproofing a moot point, surely??

and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001

HOLY CONTRADICTION, BATMAN!!!!!!!

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.

(Just in case you missed it the first time).

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Conclusion: if (by NIST own admission), the collapse of the WTC

was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.

and the damage to the building as a direct result of the aircrafts impact with the structure was insufficient on its own as well....

Frank A. Demartini, January 25th, 2001:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

.....and.....

the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

......there are these mysterious "unusually large" (is there such a thing?!) fires raging that have no source that has been properly explained at all (because the jet-fuel fires weren't sufficient, by NIST own admission)......

......then what did bring down the WTC?? Only one plausible method remains: CD.

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

Building collapses don't normally produce seismic readings of magnitude 2.1 and 2.3.

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

I'm assuming here that they took a video with the time on it (e.g. 9:00) and lined up the seismograph at 9:00 and figured this out???

Considering the recording equipment was located at Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, then allowing for the speed of sound of the shockwaves through the earth to travel from the WTC to the recording equipment:

Speed of sound through the Earth: approx. 4 miles/sec through rock. (Source: www.seismo.unr.edu... )

21 (miles) / 10 (seconds delay) = 2.1 miles per second, which is within the realms of possibility for the speed of seismic waves.

The recordings lasted for 15 seconds.

From multiple recordings shot very close to the towers (important), we know that a large event occurred about 4 seconds prior to a visible collapse starting.

15 - 4 = 11 seconds of time in the seismic recordings is actual collapse time.

Allowing for the fact the times are "approximate", even if we said:

14.5 seconds total record time per event
4.5 seconds for the VT footage of the pre-collapse event from other sources

14.5 - 4.5 = 10 seconds of time in the seismic recordings is actual collapse time.

Light travels faster than sound though air:

Light: 186,000 miles/sec
Sound: 761 miles/sec

Therefore, based off recordings taken particularly close to the towers, the fact we are hearing (and in one instance that I'm aware of, seeing the pre-collapse event in the form of camera shake) an event a relatively substantial period before we see it in the form of a collapse, suggests that the initial 5 seconds of the 15 second seismic recording is actually recording a massive pre-collapse event.


The 10 seconds is easily explained, with the recording starting 5 seconds ahead of any visible collapse. Together with numerous records of loud explosions being recorded before the visible collapse on various pieces of VT footage, we have very compelling evidence supporting CD.

Consider the following:

NIST say the recordings begin 10 seconds after the start of collapse, and last for 15 seconds.

We know that both buildings took less than 10 seconds to collapse. If, as NIST suggest, the seismic recordings were as a result of the actual debris hitting the ground, we should not have a recording that starts until 25 seconds after the start of the collapse, in real-time.

5 seconds for the pre-collapse event (as witnessed by numerous recordings shot immediately prior to the collapse) which isn't even mentioned by NIST despite the evidence
10 seconds for the collapse to occur and initial debris to hit the floor
10 seconds for the first shockwaves to reach the seismograph
= 25 seconds later.

For the seismograph records to start just 10 seconds after the visible start of collapse, means the seismographs were recording a massive pre-collapse event, as it would take 10 seconds to fall + 10 seconds to get to the seismograph before it was recorded = 20 seconds later. A CD is the ONLY possibility, and the evidence is substantiated by numerous pieces of VT footage that was shot just seconds before the collapse started.

You can't beat physics.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

A little more evidence from the NIST reports that show the planes impacts did not cause the towers to collapse.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

www.nist.gov...

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

You have voted mirageofdeceit for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

you know what they say. The victor's write history. These guy's are so victorious and thus so powerful that they can create and write history before our eyes. Even if we disagree. They have shackled all avenues of mass information. Internet 2 which I believe will be implemented during the next flaseflag operation will ban all writing against the government. ATS I feel is at its dieing days. Even if it is getting advanced.

Speaking of re-writing history, just wait until Trusted Computing is forced on us.

The original idea was that no program could be installed or run on your computer without your direct knowledge and consent. Sounds like an excellent idea that will wipe out viruses and spyware.

Unfortunately, the idea has been hijacked by people that seek to decide what software we can and cannot trust. Open-source software will be banned. Bootlegged software will not run without a license.

Software that is 'being used for terrorist propaganda' (truth) will not be tolerated.

Total control of all information;

have a look at my calculations regarding discrepancies between NIST and the LDEO seismic institute, btw both government institutions.

Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to NIST photo time stamp - Studyof911 Board :

www.studyof911.com...

It seems that you followed the same reasoning as me.
I have not had any challenge from any NIST or LDEO members regarding my thesis.
I am very curious if I ever get one, regarding my proof of total fabrication by either one of these institutes.

WOW! Great work! That is going to take a bit of time to read.

Did you solve the problem with the time discrepancy? If not, I'll have a look and see what I can find.

I gave NIST every slack of time in the books, and even assumed as the last resort that LDEO operated with 2 different event times in one report.

First the normal retention time of seismic signals in the earth crust, thus causing a delayed signal arriving time at LDEO.
I have proved without doubt that the 2 plane impact seismic graphs plus the 2 collapse seismic charts for both WTC 1 and 2 buildings were using the retention times.

Secondly I assumed as standard scientific practise, that LDEO also used the same retention times for their 5th graph, the collapse of WTC 7.

We arrive then at a ridiculous late time of arrival at LDEO's Palisades Seismic station, for the first collapse debris impacts on the ground, causing start of seismic signals to originate from the WTC 7 collapse site in New York, then traveling through the earth upper crust to that seismic station, taking 17 seconds (and not 10 seconds as you thought).
Thus putting the arrival time of the first seismic signals from WTC 7 at nearly the end of LDEO's graph.

At the very end I gave both LDEO and NIST the maximum possible slack, and assumed that LDEO's dr. Kim suddenly changed to real time in New York for his fifth graph (which he would never do, and if he did so, he would have explicitly mentioned such a abnormal change of parameters in that graph, he did not).
Still we arrive then to the conclusion that the biggest seismic signals written in Palisades station were PRECEDING the first collapse signals, with a difference of a few seconds.

This assumption of using two parameters for the time axis is unheard of in scientific praxis, so just forget that assumption, I just wanted to proof to them, that even if NIST came up with another time shift, and LDEO would lie for the government they work for, they still had a huge problem.

Now they have an immense problem, which they don't know how to solve, these graphs are on the Web for nearly 6 years now, and myriads of websites and individuals have saved them to hard disks or DVD.

They are in checkmate position, and they know it.
I addressed this same problem for them already years ago, and that's one of the main reasons NIST does not want to take responsibility for the Final WTC 7 report, and hired a subcontractor to write the essentials of that Final report.

Then they can shift the burden of proof to a non-government firm, who will take the blame, of course only after years of endless online fights.

However, any sane person reading my thesis, will understand after a few times re-reading, what importance this thesis holds, and understand that the American public is conned into a needless war, and more of those are coming.

I hope a majority of you, the real patriots, will stand firm and do something, at last, when they launch that last NIST report, if they will ever do.
They postponed it year after year, knowing that we are in their way.

This is an interesting thread, and I hope more people respond to it. I believe
mirageofdeceit has detailed some inconsistent statements in the NIST reports, as well as pointing directly to a deception on the part of NIST.

I would like to hear some more people on this, and there is an interesting piece of analysis by LabTop on his link.

I think it will take a bit of reading but it is worth the efforts.

Great job on the research, mirageofdeceit, the seismic records are a great addition to the evidence.

Just to put some context to the Richter scale of 2.1 (WTC2) and 2.3 (WTC1):

www.seismo.unr.edu...

Magnitude 2.0 (equivalent of 1.0 ton TNT)
Magnitude 2.5 (equivalent of 4.6 tons TNT)

Whilst the scale is logarithmic, a ball-park figure (actually on the small side):

4.6 - 1 = 3.6 tons difference between magnitude 2.0 and 2.5.
2.5 - 2.0 = 0.5 difference in magnitude on the Richter scale.

3.6 / 5 = 0.72 tons average increase in equivalent TNT required for every 0.1 increase in magnitude

therefore:

0.72 x 1 = 0.72 + 1 = 1.72 tons of TNT (equiv) for Magnitude 2.1.

0.72 x 3 = 2.16 + 1 = 3.16 tons of TNT (equiv) for Magnitude 2.3 (or 1.83 times greater than the Mag. 2.1 blast).

NOTE THE ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATIONS, BUT ARE UNDER-VALUE.

The significance of this, is that this is how much equivalent TNT needs to be detonated to produce the shock waves that were recorded on the seismographs.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

and understand what I wrote in my link?

If so, you understand by now, that I researched NIST and LDEO on a far deeper scale than you did up till now.
You made a few assumptions, without really getting deeper into the matter.
Which is good enough so to see, for most posters in these forums.

Most of your assumptions are however not precise, they are far too raw to compare to the real scientists who try to hide the real truth.

NIST has tried to alter their first assumptions a few times, to come near to my calculations, but they did not succeed, and they know it very well.

Proof of that is the fact that they them selfs hired Dr. Kim from LDEO to write a final seismic report, the follow up of dr. Kim's first seismic reports on the WTC collapses in November 2001.

And than omitted his 2006 final report from the NIST reports accessible through their NIST 9/11 reports website.
They say they removed it, but in fact they never put it online.

All this and the important links to NIST and LDEO reports can be found in my extensive thesis in my above link.

I have addressed this already years ago on this website, and at that time, nobody saw the immense value of it, except the member Wecomeinpeace.
He thought, that if I could prove that the Cianca picture with its telltale time stamp from the NIST report was genuine, then the whole NIST report would fall apart.

I have now proved that.
After years of patiently waiting until NIST fell into their own sword.
They added seconds to their initially time lines, but still don't come near to the LDEO time lines.

And there is still no response, even not from Prof. Jones and his inner circle of 9/11 doubters, who are hiding from public critique at their, closed to the public, forums.
I asked Bsbray11 to address my link in their forums, and I got a minimal response. They were busy with more important subjects. Which ones?
No real earth shattering ideas from them lately, that I know of.

If scientists become afraid of vitriolic attacks, they stop to be real scientists, they become fugitives.
Shielding yourself from the outside world, and communicate only in your private chatrooms does no good to your credibility.

As long as they don't open their forums to the global public, I don't take them serious anymore.

I dare to say that my research and the inevitable conclusion can not be debunked, and I invite anyone to try to do so.

I haven't actually read your thesis in depth yet. There is so much to take on that right this moment I don't have the time (hopefully at the weekend I can dig in ).

I appreciate that what I've written here merely scratches the surface, and to an extent I'm thinking out loud.

The key points to look at I think are:

* The recordings themselves
* NIST time-line
* LDEO time-line
* NIST/LDEO time-line differences

and try and broadcast these points to the world, the media etc..

One thing I've noticed with those who are skeptics of anything but the official version is that they are not inclined to read a lot.

The biggest problem I've seen with any of these theories is getting someone to listen long enough.

What I'm attempting to do is put a short version of the events together with the compelling evidence and briefly explain them. After that, it is up to the reader to visit the in-depth arguments that others such as yourself have put forward. If they aren't interested enough after that to read more, they never would have started anyway and are a lost cause IMHO.

In fact, I've voted you for a WATS!

You have voted LaBTop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I really think it is time to pull all this stuff together into the Unofficial 9/11 Commission Report. You said yourself that you did this research a few years ago and no-one was interested. Let's start putting another report together that rocks the world. As long as it is online, I doubt few will take serious note until that happens.

Would this stuff stand up in court?

[edit on 17-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

""Would this stuff stand up in court? ""
Yes, it will, but I give no person alive at this moment any chance that they will be able to bring it to an American court, or other western world court.
The American political playground is so intense rotten at present, you would not be able to address these kind of things in a civil manner.
You will be ridiculed, threatened and ignored.

Perhaps there is a chance to file a lawsuit at a third world country court like in Venezuela, India, etc.
You then need the backing of the family of a 9/11 deceased victim of such country, f.ex. someone who worked and died in one of the WTC towers.

The case would be to proof at least compliance by the US government or parts of it, in the events of 9/11.

The two collapse charts, when reduced to the same sensitivity as the 3 others (0 -10 nm/sec), clearly show preceding seismic events, just as big as the (23 sec chart position) preceding seismic event in the WTC 7 chart.

THUS I REPEAT :

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST found their first visual event proof of building failure, the east penthouse roof dent photograph by Nicolas Cianca, some seismic event, comparable to the head-on collision of a huge air plane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.

And the same comparable seismic events preceded the 2 Collapsing Towers.

Let it be clear :
There are preceding, identical seismic events, recorded at the LDEO seismic station, for ALL THREE TOWER collapses.

I STILL dare to say that my research and the inevitable conclusion can not be debunked, and I invite anyone to try to do so.

My research :
www.studyof911.com...


BIG Diagram of Nist-times contra LDEO-times, which contradict each other!


Small diagram obeying ATS pics posting rules:



I have conclusively proved, that the 2006 NIST WTC 7 report's initial collapse, actual time, does not compare to the 2006 LDEO WTC 7 report's initial collapse, revised actual time.

One can constantly observe NIST deceleration methods for a solid explanation of WTC 7's global collapse sequence, methods aimed at trying to fit undeniable facts into a deniable official theory.

The 2006 NCSTAR 1-6G report from LDEO's dr. Kim is indeed not present anymore at the index page of NIST NCSTAR 1-6 :
wtc.nist.gov...
Only 1-6A to D. The rest of the earlier mentioned sub-reports are now absent. Deleted.

The structural analyses were guided, and where possible validated, by observations made from the review of thousands of photographs and video recordings. This report covers the characterization of the conditions of the WTC towers before the attacks, their weakening due to the aircraft impacts, the response of the structural systems to the subsequent growth and spread of fires, and the progression of local failures that led ultimately to the total collapse of both towers.

* NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire



The reports provided here are presented in .pdf format. To read these files, you can download the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader free. If you have difficulty reading pdf files, you may need to update your version of Acrobat reader to the latest version. These 5 pdf files for Project 1-6 may also be downloaded as a group within a WINZIP (.zip) file. (61.9 MB)

NOT ONE NOTE about seismic reports anymore. Ain't that strange, or don't you think so?

The LDEO WTC 7 collapse start time was revised to 9 seconds later, in 2006, from the original FEMA time of 5:20:33 p.m., it was upped to a corrected later time of 5:20:42 p.m., and still did not come close to the actual NIST declared event start time of 5:20:52 p.m.
It comes 10 seconds short.

The two collapse charts, when reduced to the same sensitivity as the 3 others (0 -10 nm/sec), clearly show preceding seismic events, just as big as the (23 sec WTC 7 chart position) preceding seismic event in the WTC 7 chart.
And these 3 preceding seismic events (WTC 1, 2 and 7), have all three a magnitude, comparable to the maximum magnitude of seismic events recorded in the 2 plane impacts seismic charts from LDEO.

Note, that the plane impacts were both in a horizontal plain (X-axis), while the 3 collapses effectuated their force in the vertical plain (Y-axis)!

THUS I REPEAT :

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST found their first visual event proof of building failure, (the east penthouse roof-dent photographed by Nicolas Cianca),
some seismic event, comparable to the head-on collision of a huge airplane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.

And the same comparable seismic events preceded each of the 2 Collapsing Towers, WTC 1 and 2.
These 2 events become only visible, when the original LDEO charts of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses are set to the same sensitivity as the 2 plane impacts, and the collapse of WTC 7, which is a 10 times higher sensitivity of 0 -10 nm/sec.

When this is no "SMOKING GUN" evidence of official wrongdoing by the US government, or factions of it, please tell me, exactly, what else you think it is.
Give me your best efforts to debunk me.

I'm still waiting, in fact for a few years already.
Not one of the usual "official conspiracy" defenders, or "reasonable doubters" has ever come forward to accept my challenge.

I NOW CHALLENGE YOU ALL.

[edit on 20/4/07 by LaBTop]

Damn nice summary!