NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

I haven't read the whole thing yet but I like this part.

D. Floor Sagging
In the original Request, the Requesters demonstrated that the results of NIST’s
physical tests of floor assemblies were vastly different than the computer models
ultimately relied upon by NIST in its analysis. In the Response, NIST states “it is not
possible to compare the floor sagging observed during the ASTM E119 tests with the
floor sagging calculated by the analysis models. The ASTM E119 furnace profile is not
representative of real fire condition. In addition the specimens had been fireproofed
which prevented the steel from heating as quickly as it would in an unprotected condition
as was modeled based on the estimated damage to the fireproofing due to debris impact.
Finally, deflection of the floor assemblies undergoing the ASTM E119 testing was
limited to prevent damage to the instrumentation. Visual data of the WTC Towers
confirmed significant floor sagging at several locations in the towers.”
- 7 -
The biggest problem with NIST’s response to this point can be summarized as
follows: Why did NIST perform the floor tests if the results were, by design, not going to
be used in the subsequent analyses? Why did NIST officials pay Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) approximately $250,000 of the American public’s tax dollars to
perform these tests? Will UL or NIST be refunding this money to the taxpayers since the
factors NIST claims make these results unusable were knowable beforehand? NIST must
justify its performance of these physical tests in some meaningful way in order to satisfy
the DQA, NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines. In the alternative, NIST may admit that the
real reason it did not want to use these results is that they did not support NIST’s
predetermined conclusions.

Bold and Italics are mine.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by seanm

 

Since you have bought into the official story hook, line and sinker, how do you refute what these Physicist and Scientist have to have to say about the
NIST report?

As you well know, etshrtslr, but need to be reminded often, there is no "official story" and never has been. We have known why the 9/11 Truth Movement has had to resort to that strawman argument from the beginning. That you would continue to resort to it shows what we knew six years ago: you have no evidence to support your claims and assertions.

There is only the evidence from hundreds of independent sources that converge on an inescapable conclusion. That body of evidence whose very existence you all need to deny to stay afloat has never been refuted by you or anyone else.

Just as you avoided having to deal with the facts I presented in my last response to you, you are now trying to change the subject. Not a problem, my friend. I, and others who choose to think rationally, can handle your evasions.

We'll take one at a time, so that you may respond in detail to my response.

We'll take Dr. James Quintiere, respected expert whose concerns about NIST, along with concerns of other respected critics of NIST can, and should be, taken seriously. We should note, however, that for some unexplained reason, you chose to leave out Dr. Quintiere's conclusions, reported by your respected 9/11 Truth site, 911blogger.com:

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said."

www.911blogger.com...

Once again, we find another member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn't present the whole story but chooses to cherry pick quotes that doesn't support the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Story.

Please address in detail why you feel you have to do that, etshrtslr. Do you think your readers will all fall for misrepresentation that any of them can easily verify?




[edit on 25-10-2007 by seanm]

[edit on 25-10-2007 by seanm]

[edit on 25-10-2007 by seanm]

Originally posted by bovarcher


Some people will not accept that the buildings' collapse was caused by a combination of the planes bursting some of the structure on entry, and the conflagration of 24,000 gallons of avaition fuel gradually weakening the rest.

You are in violent contradiction to the NIST report.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by bovarcher


Some people will not accept that the buildings' collapse was caused by a combination of the planes bursting some of the structure on entry, and the conflagration of 24,000 gallons of avaition fuel gradually weakening the rest.

You are in violent contradiction to the NIST report.

Not in your wildest dreams, Valhall. He just needed to add that the aviation fuel started the fires of the contents of both towers, the massive, unfought fires that eventually weakened the damaged steel enough to cause failure.

I assure you, this isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by seanm

As you well know, etshrtslr, but need to be reminded often, there is no "official story" and never has been.

Glad to see you come back and play my friend.

No official story? Are you serious? Are you sane?

Then what is the 9-11 commission report and the NIST report?

US tax payers have spent millions of dollars on those reports and we have never received all the evidence those reports were supposedly based on, for example the construction documents of WTC 1 & 2.

Before I go any further answering the rest of your insane reply please address this question which I have posted several times as have numerous other posters.

What caused the top 34 floors of the south tower to twist and lean and not follow through with the known laws of physics?

OR

What caused the obvious and clear violation of the laws of physics when the twisting and rotation of the top 34 floors clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum?

How come NIST never addressed this questions in its OFFICIAL REPORT?

Why didn't the 9-11 commission address this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Since I have asked this question of you several times and you have refused to answer it , I will refrain from responding to the rest of your question until mine is answered.


[edit on 25-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by seanm

Not in your wildest dreams, Valhall. He just needed to add that the aviation fuel started the fires of the contents of both towers, the massive, unfought fires that eventually weakened the damaged steel enough to cause failure.

I assure you, this isn't rocket science.

What do you mean add? Don't you mean he just needed to say something altogether different than what he said?

Yeah, I think that's what you meant to say.

Thank gawd it's not rocket science...we haven't got to you being able to figure your own KE yet.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by seanm

As you well know, etshrtslr, but need to be reminded often, there is no "official story" and never has been.

Glad to see you come back and play my friend.

Sadly, you won't be glad for long, my friend.

No official story? Are you serious? Are you sane?

I'm quite sane. And you know I am dead serious. I don't play games. There is no "story", never has been, never will be, as much as you think you can assert it into existence. I marvel at your religious belief, and that you are impervious to reason.

]Then what is the 9-11 commission report and the NIST report?

Reports. Reports of the investigations. Reports of the massive investigations. Reports of the investigations of many hundreds of independent and government structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, chemists, and physicists of all of the evidence and all of the knowledge that led to and supported conclusively the conclusions delineated in the NIST, FEMA, ASCE, and 9/11 Commission Reports. And never yet refuted by anyone.

And here you come back, against all reason, against all evidence, against all rational thinking, and whine that it's just a bloody story. How many years do we have to wait for you to come back down to earth, act rationally, and stop this bloody nonsense that the most massive and documented forensic investigation in the history of mankind is just a made-up, fictional, government "story"? Do you really think we are are so stupid to take you at your word? YOU have the responsibility of refuting that evidence but you want to avoid doing so by claiming all that evidence is just a made up "story." My God.

US tax payers have spent millions of dollars on those reports and we have never received all the evidence those reports were supposedly based on, for example the construction documents of WTC 1 & 2.

The construction of the WTC towers is fully known, the blueprints available, no one in doubt of its construction, no one ever in a position to hide the evidence, no one involved in its construction ever in doubt, and here you are claiming all of the evidence from hundreds of sources isn't convenient to poor little you. And you actually have to misrepresent the statements of those who have disagreemnts with aspects of the NIST report for your own ends!

Before I go any further answering the rest of your insane reply please address this question which I have posted several times as have numerous other posters.

You don't get to any further, etshrtslr. That evasion no longer works. Honest readers here, those truly interested in the truth, will react in amazement that you would go out of your way to blatantly avoid responding to the answer to your previous question, particularly since I cautioned you specifically in my last post:

"Just as you avoided having to deal with the facts I presented in my last response to you, you are now trying to change the subject. Not a problem, my friend. I, and others who choose to think rationally, can handle your evasions.

"We'll take one at a time, so that you may respond in detail to my response."

[...]

"Once again, we find another member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn't present the whole story but chooses to cherry pick quotes that doesn't support the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Story.

"Please address in detail why you feel you have to do that, etshrtslr. Do you think your readers will all fall for misrepresentation that any of them can easily verify?"

You should understand that if you are going to raise questions, you have the responsibility of addressing the answers and questions posed of you.

You do not get special privileges of asking questions without addressing the answers when requested. You do not get to hide behind the 9/11 Truth Movement mechanism of "we are just asking questions." You are obligated to address those who respond directly to your questions.

Now, I have demonstrated that Dr. Quintiere actually drew a conclusion contrary to your suggestion and I asked you to address it and why you misrepresented his statement. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too, just as others I have addressed here have tried to do.

Either you answer the question directly or concede that you were wrong. It is time for you 9/11 Truthers to put your money where your fat mouths are. Civilization demands it. We are tired of your evasions and intellectual dishonesty.

What will it be, etshrtslr, intellectual honesty, a willingness to address the evidence, your questions that I have answered, or more evasions of your responsibility?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by seanm

Not in your wildest dreams, Valhall. He just needed to add that the aviation fuel started the fires of the contents of both towers, the massive, unfought fires that eventually weakened the damaged steel enough to cause failure.

I assure you, this isn't rocket science.

What do you mean add? Don't you mean he just needed to say something altogether different than what he said?

Not in your wildest dreams, Valhall. Once again.

He is absolutely correct that the fires from the fuel and the damage from the crash are ultimately the cause of the collapses

Too bad you are unable to refute it, isn't it?

Originally posted by seanm
Too bad you are unable to refute it, isn't it?

If I told you, "You're winning!", would you get a rush in your head and a grin across your face?

"I marvel at your religious belief, and that you are impervious to reason." Hm. Why am I reminded of Cartman from South Park?

Speaking of KE, what would your own KE be, seanm?

seanm,

Did you pull funds from your retirement plan to buy that clown suit? I swear you seem to be completely oblivious to how ridiculous you look.

1. I AM a rocket scientist. So whether this requires it or not - I don't need your imbecilic comments on a subject you seem to have little knowledge on.

2. I've spent over 4 years here discussing this issue. Presenting calculations on everything from the heat transfer of a given amount fuel, to the calculations to show the buildings fell significantly slower than freefall. I've read the entire gawd blessed NIST report, 911 Commission report and the FEMA reports.

YOU haven't bothered to do jack-crap except show up and act like a 4th grader. If you want to see my work - get up off you lazy backside and find it.

It's all right here.

Originally posted by Valhall
...
to the calculations to show the buildings fell significantly slower than freefall.
...
It's all right here.

Closer to 13 +/- and 16+/- ... counting the lagging North tower core's demise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've been working in Lancaster, PA the past few weeks. I'll be damned if those horses only see what their blinders and buggies allow. Odd, that.

 

My point will not be muted by the lack of thought in the responses by one said clown-suited some one...


the statement that a conflagration of 24,000 gallons of jet fuel weakend and brought down the towers is an errant statement. And while jethro may think he can come and make a totally different statement and make the boo boo all better - it doesn't work in the real world. The original statement is still errant.

I'm sure bovarcher thinks his statement is accurate - but it's not. There was not 24,000 gallons of jet fuel available to fuel the sustained conflagration. Most of it - ACCORDING TO THE NIST - was consumed in the FAE at the time of the impact. What was left to burn was ignited office contents and finish out material.

I believe I said that before. I'd enjoy getting to visit with bovarcher some more if the clown car would get out of the way.



[edit on 10-26-2007 by Valhall]

Does seanm seriously think always saying "Read the NIST report!" and "The burden is on you!" is somehow him winning an argument?

Ohhh, he was the retarded one in debate class.

Sean, here an ATS search on the word "NIST". If you use those "reading comprehension skills" you keep refering to, you will see that most of the people you keep telling to go read the report have posted many topics on it.

My point being, they've obviously read it. In fact, this thread was created by someone who obviously read some or all of it (I was able to infer this by reading the title "NIST admits total...").

Anyway, here's the search. Comprehend it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by seanm
you have no evidence to support your claims and assertions.

You can repeat that to yourself and your ilk all you want, but it wont make it true.
How about you deny ignorance... Heres a start: www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 26-10-2007 by Unplugged]

Originally posted by Valhall
seanm,

Did you pull funds from your retirement plan to buy that clown suit? I swear you seem to be completely oblivious to how ridiculous you look.

Actually, I made it clear you don't understand the evidence.

1. I AM a rocket scientist. So whether this requires it or not - I don't need your imbecilic comments on a subject you seem to have little knowledge on.

I have a hell of lot more knowledge than you exhibited. That's why you were called on it.

2. I've spent over 4 years here discussing this issue. Presenting calculations on everything from the heat transfer of a given amount fuel, to the calculations to show the buildings fell significantly slower than freefall. I've read the entire gawd blessed NIST report, 911 Commission report and the FEMA reports.

I've spent 5 1/2 years debunking the 9/11 Denial Movement. You'll note that I stick to facts and evidence rather than denying their existence.

YOU haven't bothered to do jack-crap except show up and act like a 4th grader. If you want to see my work - get up off you lazy backside and find it.

It's all right here.

Actually, as you should well know by now, I make it clear that everyone here who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories can be challenged to support their assertions and claims. Their reactions, and yours, demonstrate that facts and evidence are very inconvenient to you.

So don't going around lecturing me.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Does seanm seriously think always saying "Read the NIST report!" and "The burden is on you!" is somehow him winning an argument?

Try reading more carefully. There is no "argument" I am trying to "win."

Feel free to tell us who the burden of proof rests on.

You continue to show a complete lack of ability to research.

If you had you'd know that I don't have a conspiracy theory concerning this issue. Your nose is falling off...toot toot.

You haven't presented any "facts" here yet. All you've done is make multi-pages of assinine, nonvaluable posts with repetitive pleas for some one to figure your KE for you ...all the while not realizing that your request is infantile to the subject at hand. It doesn't matter what the KE of a 40,000 ton block is...there was no 40,000 ton block...nor was there a 100,000 ton block it impacted.

You seem to not realize how utterly unintelligent this makes you look. I base this perception off the fact you continue to treat other members in this thread as you have some superior intellectual position while at the same time repeatedly asking this question shows you have an unfettered lack of understanding of basic physics, the information about the collapse of the building, how multi-component objects react in failure, and what any of the information gathered on this site concerning this topic reflects.

You're exhibiting extreme cognizant dissonance exacerbated by delusions of self-grandeur in a public arena and seem to be oblivious that the audience of thousands to millions is setting here with their jaws hanging open at your lack of understanding of your own weak position!

I'm assuming you've been allowed to hang around for the entertainment factor - i can't think of any other positive reason personally.


[edit on 10-26-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
My point will not be muted by the lack of thought in the responses by one said clown-suited some one...


the statement that a conflagration of 24,000 gallons of jet fuel weakend and brought down the towers is an errant statement. And while jethro may think he can come and make a totally different statement and make the boo boo all better - it doesn't work in the real world. The original statement is still errant.

The statement in question is yours and yours alone: "You are in violent contradiction to the NIST report."

NIST:

"This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings."

[...]

"Subsequently, fires began to grow and spread. They were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel, but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage."

wtc.nist.gov...

Thank you for quoting the relevant section of the NIST report. I believe when you're able to review my posts in this thread you'll see that's exactly what I said a couple of times.

The impact, and FAE of the fuel, along with a small percent of jet fuel that did not get consumed in the initial blast INITIATED a fire that was then fueled for the duration by the contents of the building which would have been office materials and finish out materials.

That's the third time I've said that.

Originally posted by Valhall
You continue to show a complete lack of ability to research.

If you had you'd know that I don't have a conspiracy theory concerning this issue. Your nose is falling off...toot toot.

I called you on one statement. It still stands.

You haven't presented any "facts" here yet. All you've done is make multi-pages of assinine, nonvaluable posts with repetitive pleas for some one to figure your KE for you ...all the while not realizing that your request is infantile to the subject at hand. It doesn't matter what the KE of a 40,000 ton block is...there was no 40,000 ton block...nor was there a 100,000 ton block it impacted.

The burden of proof remains on you.

Obviously, it escaped you that the top two sections had mass, that their mass is relevant, that KE exists, and that those top sections had an effect on the remaining structure below them.

You seem to not realize how utterly unintelligent this makes you look.

When you make statements such as I just responded to indicating that you didn't read what I actually wrote nor even acknowledge fundamental facts, should I react and say, "now there sonny, you'll feel better soon?'

Get real.

I base this perception off the fact you continue to treat other members in this thread as you have some superior intellectual position while at the same time repeatedly asking this question shows you have an unfettered lack of understanding of basic physics, the information about the collapse of the building, how multi-component objects react in failure, and what any of the information gathered on this site concerning this topic reflects.

My God, you've gone out of your way to out yourself. And you wonder why 9/11 Truthers get no respect?

Amazing.