NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Above the 78th floor...Sorry for the one liner

reply to post by robert z


Oh please!! That flies in the face of mountains of scientific data supporting the use of scale modeling.

Albeit, it is impossible to perfectly model something. However, the models are incredibly accurate and provide all sorts of useful data. To suggest that the disconnect between the models' response and the real world phenomena is somehow the result of an unknown modeling failure is very convenient for you, to say the least.

If it were really so easy for these buildings to collapse, Why can't anybody re-create it?!?!?!

Why don't you tell all of the scientists and architects modeling earthquake-proof buildings that their models are totally worthless? Gee, i sure am glad none of those improvements that they made on real buildings using data garnered from scale-model buildings didn't do any good in all those cases where these earthquake proof buildings were the only ones that survived.

Why don't you tell all of those architects and structural engineers designing new buildings using scale models not to waste their time and just go ahead and build the building?

How can you tell me that an exact scale model is not an exact scale model?!?! That is what you are saying!

Your excuse is the worst sort of cop-out i have ever seen. Engineers build models all the time. NIST even has decent computer models of how the airplanes broke apart on impact. I mostly agree with these models and their estimates of how the planes damages the structures inside. However, i do find these to be somewhat biased to the worser-than worse-case scenario.

I'm sure you're more than happy to accept any weak theory that supports your beliefs and that you are also over-exuberant to blatantly ignore all of the hard facts that prove you to be entirely incorrect!


[edit on 10/17/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
The top block of WTC 2 was 110,000 tons. It pivoted on one point causing it to lean to one side before the pivot point failed and the bock started falling straight down.

Calculate the kinetic energy of each block and report back.

Hmm... the top block pivoted but also fell freefall? How is that possible? Calculate yourself out of that hole please.

You might want to read what I actually wrote. Could I be any more clear? And where did I say "free fall"?

Try again.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by sp00n1

 

As i predicted, the debunkers totally glossed over the fact that NIST's physical models failed to fail. It doesn't take a psychic to figure this one out...

Apparently they can't deal with the fact that it proves all of NIST's theories are total trash.

Why is it that under conditions far worse than on 9/11, the physical models still stood up without any localized collapse or significant deformation of the truss beams?

Perhaps Allah really was on the side on the terrorists, because i dont know who else could negate the laws of physics.

[edit on 10/17/2007 by sp00n1]

Yawn.... The actual towers collapsed. Get over it.

reply to post by seanm


With the help of explosives, sure.

If it can be done so easily without explosives, why can't they recreate it?!

Originally posted by seanm
Yawn.... The actual towers collapsed. Get over it.

Now we just have to find out the truth of what casued them to collapse.

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

9:57 a.m.

"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."

Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."

Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)

9:58:59 a.m. - WTC 2 collapses

reply to post by seanm


And the retreat to totally irrelevant, out-of-place, and downright confusing posts continues...

What are you trying to say?!

Originally posted by Esoterica
OK, maybe I'm reading this wrong. They didn't say that the collapse was unexplainable. What they said was-

NIST carried it's analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on solutions.

...

With regard to your first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation. The text of section 6.14.4 is based upon the analysis of photographic and video evidence of the collapses from several vantage points. With respect to the second request for change, it was most critical for NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.

which to me is simply saying that their computers simply are not powerful enough to actually model the collapse itself in any useful way. Also, what they were trying to explain is the factors that led to the collapse. If you can explain everything that occurs up to the moment of collapse, then modeling the collapse itself is redundant.

Now, you could certainly argue that their methods are flawed or something, I'm not qualified to comment on that. But I think that their words are really being twisted into saying something they're not.

[edit on 10-16-2007 by Esoterica]

I completely agree !!!
Their words have been twisted.

Lets ask ourselves how many times the NIST have investigated something like what happened on 9/11. NEVER. They're investigating in uncharted waters so why is it so hard to believe they may have missed a few things or used methods that may have not fit this particular scenario.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by seanm

 

And the retreat to totally irrelevant, out-of-place, and downright confusing posts continues...

What are you trying to say?!

I was disabusing Ultima 1 of his fantasies.

Well...i believe the designer of the world trade center towers said it all in. i believe,k it was a discovery channel show and he talked about how he had designed the building to be able to handle the impact of a plane bigger than the ones that struck the towers. Now i am no structual engineer, but im pretty sure that he and his collegues would definately not have made those claims if they did not have some solid proof to back it up. being as it was the tallest two builidngs at the time of the construction...i also dont believe that some 2-bit fresh out of itt tech dude would be contracted to design such a set of towers. But, thats just my .02 on the matter...and im pretty sure the main designer, had he still been alive, would of prolly had something to say about the whole thing...who knows, maybe he was "removed" for a purpose....

Originally posted by sp00n1

Oh please!! That flies in the face of mountains of scientific data supporting the use of scale modeling.

I just gave a theory on why the scale modeling might not work. Why? Because it would be almost impossible to replicate the exact structure, damage, and conditions on 9/11.

Can you say for certain that they did?

Any building that is taller than a 10 stories has to have a differnt design. Building under 10 stories have a static load that is supported by strong columns. Tall building have a dynamic load system, this allows them to transfer the load to the ground. This is explained in the "How Stuff Works: Skyscraper" link that I posted.

You have to keep in mind all of the evnets, and remember that each played a part on the destruction of the system.

First, you have two 400,000 pound aircraft that act as giant hammers, hitting the large structures, and that forces was sent into the entire structural system, causing damage to most of the support structure.

The fire alone might not have been enough to weaken the strucutre, but if it was shattered, cracked or damaged due to a high impact from a 400,000 aircraft, then the there might have been heat expanstion in cracks that normally that do not exist. Heat & Fire resistance coating that was more than 30 years old may have been knocked free off and away from the surface it was to protect.

Then when the initial failure of the first floor occured, due to the 400,000 aircraft knocking out the support columns, and the buring jet fuel, each colapse of every floor was another shock to the weak system. Each drop of every floor another few 100 tons slamming and shocking the structure.

These shock wave tranfer throughtout the entire frame, and into the foundation that is connected to the ground. Just as sound travel better through a solid than air, these constant shockwaves were disperced to the surrounding buildings. Right after 9/11 there were several building that were kept evacuated until there were inspected. This is due to the transference of engery from two aircraft slamming inot two buildings, and several hundred floors falling ot the ground.

Ever play with those ball bearings on a string? You move one and watch the last one fly up as the otehr two remain still? That is not magic, it is the transfer of energy throught those ball bearings. All of the arguments for the explosives do not take into consideration the system of forces upon the building.

Everyone talks about the fire and just the fire, or the law of free falling objects. Yes, the fall time should be slower, if the system was not already weak from a 400,000 aircraft shocking the system. Yes, otehr bulding with fire do not fall down. Yes buiding 7 was not hit by a plane but that does not mean it was not effected by the shockwave.

The same goes for the images of the hole that do not fit a plane. You have to remeber that the plane is not a solid metal object, it is a series of thin metal frames with a thin metal frame. It is designed similat to a skyscraper. This is due to the forces of wind on anr aircraft as it is in the air. It has to bend and move to distribute the load. Since an aircraft is a high drag tube, with high lift wings, which provide all of the lift, often the first thing to snap off is the tail or wings due to high stress.

Here is a NOVA interview With Dr. S. Sunder of NIST
NOVA Interview

NOVA Website

reply to post by robert z


Exact structure -- YES!

Conditions on 9/11 -- No, actually the test conditions were much, much worse than real world!

Exact Damage -- No. Nobody can say for sure, but it was rigged in favor of collapse. Especially considering they used four times gravity load. They also used more severed columns than they came up with in their plane crash simulations.

In the end they had;

*No global collapse!

*ABSOLUTELY NO LOCALIZED FAILURES!

*No noticeable truss sagging (which is critical to the collapse theories the postulate)

So, in the end NIST's theories are entirely baseless. Their theories are based more on fantasy than facts.

A great explaination by Dr. S. Sunder of NIST
Impact to Collapse Slide Show Narrorated by Dr. Sunder

He even states at the end that it was a combination of the various events that lead to a system failure.

He does state that the aircraft weighed about 280,000 pound, so my number was a bit large, but it was going over 500 MPH.

Yea, the NISt a bunch of nut jobs with no facts.

Wow they spent all that time when all of the facts of two 100 story building that were rigged to blow was right before their eyes. Yea ok if you say so.

In case you did not read, the title of this thread is "NIST Admits Collapse of Twin Towers Unexplainable" when in fact I just posted two NOVA links, one interview busting all of these conspiracy "theories" and a step by step narroration of how it happened. And yes, they show pictures that show the external columns buckeling due to the heat.

I guess PBS, NOVA and the NIST are all a aprt of the vast "conspiracy" cover up. What was I thinking. Oh, wait, what are "your facts" again?

Another step in the right direction for truth. A good thing

"The wheels of justice turn very slow, but they grind very fine".

The culprits will be found and tried for these crimes. It's just gonna take more effort like this, and time.

However I truely believe the focus needs to be put on the most easily provable cases of conspiracy, no matter how small (i.e. breaking Capone and a large part of his mob just about on the charges of tax fraud).

After we can do something like that,I believe the ball will start to roll, and people will start to talk, but focusing efforts on 5 different events(WTC1,WTC2,WTC7,Pentagon,Shanksville) with multiple different points of contention is going to make it very hard to bring these criminals down.

Focus, we need to focus on one thing, I'm not sure if the full collapse of either trade center is. I would love to focus on a money trail instead. Or the angled cut main support beam at ground Zero (but that evidence has been long since been sold as scrap, what like the days/weeks after. Or the obvious leaking of thermite from the corner of where that towers collapse initiated.

It amazes me a crime of this proportion that evidence wasn't left alone and studied for more time than that(granted they were looking for survivors, but I mean after that), and the rediculously low amount of money spent on the investigation is atrocious.

Sadly, thanks to Gulliani all we are left with is pictures, and video of that day, and most are suspect.

But again I believe if we go after smaller, easier to fry fish, we can initiate a "total collapse" on this conspiracy that's been going on for way too long.

Though this is a step in the right direction; and as soon as someone at PM grows a brain(not likely), we may see some real action start to take place. But I won't hold my breath.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Oh, wait, what are "your facts" again?

Oh, apparently you missed it. They failed to model the collapse... surprise!! It's impossible!!!

It's funny how when NIST says, with absolutely no proof, that the collapse was spontaneous, you guys go gaga over it and proclaim NIST to be infallible despite the numerous inconsistencies.

Then when confronted with proof that NIST proved their own theories to be total trash, all of the sudden NIST is an incompetent bunch of kooks.

Nice double standard.

Originally posted by seanm
Take a look at any video of WTC 1 and 2's collapses.

I know, but I'm saying that doesn't happen without explosions. So it doesn't do you any good to say to me, "oh but if you look at this video you can see that's what happened so I'm right." That's circular reasoning. Think out what SHOULD have happened in the given conditions (buildings impacted and on fire) based on all available technical information (which, unfortunately requires that you look into it, not so bad for me because I'm supposed to know at least some of it anyway). Stuff like "dynamic loads are bigger than static loads" doesn't cut it, because you don't know what forces are instantaneously being exerted or how much more brittle the material is going to behave or any of that, or even what bodies are colliding! Floors slamming floors would leave all of the columns standing straight up in the air. That's why NIST says they don't support pancake theory, too.

But anyway, you do NOT have two bodies. You have a complex structure with missing members, that can undergo deformations. But no single pieces are going to break off and slam each other with free-fall momentums. That's a poor completely unsupported idea of how the buildings should have behaved at any given point during what we were watching that morning. The floors only carried office furniture and the people walking on them. That's all ANY of them carried! The COLUMNS held the building up, and they don't pancake into themselves, and even the trusses in the floors were independent of each other. I don't know why I keep saying this. No one can rebutt it because it's true, but no one wants to acknowledge it.

The top block of WTC 1 was 40,000 tons that came down as one piece on to the rest of the building.

Define "the rest of the building" in terms of contacts. What is contacting what, and how are you defining these masses? Where are you drawing the lines?

It fell 6 feet before meeting any resistance.

What did? A floor? A single floor's mass is not going to fail much, even if you get it behave as a single unit.

Have you ever had to do a free-body diagram? Do you realize you have to consider the geometry of the structure, that that's part of the equation?

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's circular reasoning.

Circular logic is like a circle, it has no holes! Except for the center...