NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

I believe that there should be a new and through investigation into the events of 9/11. That said, I also believe that the collapse and destruction of the world trade center towers were unique in the history of the world. Since there was no precedent of an airliner striking a massive vertical man-made structure, the results of any aftermath, at that time, was left to imaginative conjecture and useless rhetoric. The events of 9/11 were one of a kind, in that, not only, did 2 airliners hit 2 skyscrapers, but both structures fell. Now, with any scientific experiment, the conclusion must be repeatable. Since both towers did collapse due to damage caused by aircraft (official reason), the evidence, and the theory that an airliner can collapse a building, was tested on 9/11. IF one building had collapsed and the not the other then there would be a complete and unbiased investigation. There are simply too many inconsistencies with the official report.
The destruction of the twin towers was a deliberate act of man. Let man judge man and let us rationalize those harrowing hours of hell.

Originally posted by SilentBob86
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....

My understanding is that when the buildings were designed, there were no code requirements to allow for impacts of any kind however, there may have been some consideration with design to allow for the impact of a plane up to a 727 as 767's did not exist at the time.
In addition, even though a building may have been designed on paper, to sustain an impact from a 727, it doesn't mean that is what happened in reality. Cost cuts impact everything and in addition, builders cut corners to make more money all the time. I see this happen every day so I know it happens. Many modern buildings aren't completely up to code at time of completion.

reply to post by sp00n1

I believe what was said, and stated earlier in this thread, was that the NIST model stopped at the point of collapse. That it was impossible to model the collapse itself due to the enormous amount of variables that had to have taken place.

reply to post by six


Wow... did you even read my comment???

I'm talking about the physical models!! And they couldnt even initiate a localized failure!!!

And the computer models stopped at collaspe initiation because of the ridiculous variables that they had to put into the computer to start it. And because the collapse looked absolutely nothing like what we saw on 9/11, in that it was not symmetric and they could not get it to progress!!!


Yea, a supercomputer used to model planetary collisions doesn't have the power to model a collapse... what?!?!

That's not really true at all spoon, you're simply over exhagerating the situation. Which is that there are too many unknown variables involved to know exactly what happened. Therefore different ones have to be tested to see what would cause such an event.

Liekwise there are far too many variables in the entire building collapse for any existing computer to be able to calculate. Not to mention that it would be completely pointless.

And more importantly, people such as yourself are ignoring everything BUT the computer testing. NIST on the other hand is using ALL evidence together to draw a conclusion instead of looking at only one thing at a time. And the point of isolating each piece of evidence is to help convince ones self that their pre-determined conclusions are true. You know, those ones about bombs going off. It's funny how people are so critical of this extensive testing done by NIST which is pretty conclusive. Yet these same people claiming bombs and explosives have absolutely no physical proof what so ever to back up any of these claims (as NIST has pointed out).

Funny, No CTers come up with the same kind of research to prove bombs brought down the buildings. The best we have is Jones, and his research is 1000 times more flawed. So it's funny that there are people here who blindly accept flawed research such as Jones, but then criticize people doing real research.

So, if you seem to thin that it's pretty simply for a computer to calculate every possible parameter of the actual collapse of the building itself (ignoring the absurdity that you think this has any relevance on the cause of the collapse) than why don't you do it? Why rely on some organization that you clearly think is a fraud? Let's see someone here step up to the bat and provide this proof?

reply to post by sp00n1

Why yes I did. Twice before posting and once to reread it before I posted now. Maybe you should read your own post. Nowhere in your post did you ever state ANYTHING about physical modeling. NOWHERE.

Originally posted by robert z
I would guess that if the physical models showed a collapse you would be the first to say that it is impossible to model the actual WTC buildings.

This is why I put little stock in the physical models. Trying to re-create the actual buildings and damage is a bit of a stretch.

All I can say is WOW. You do know that everything we know as physics has come from physical models right? Recreating the towers is a bit of a stretch. Jeez. This is the kind of logic we "truthers" are up against.

So Griff, why don't you jsut dispell it by creating a computer model that calculates every possible variable in the collapse of a 110 story building? Should be easy right since you're up against such idiocy, what's the problem? I mean since NIST and it's 100s of engineers are not competent as you guys, why don't you just do the work and prove everyone wrong?

Surely the collective genius at ae911.org should be able to easily do it right? Since it's so absurd to even think it's not possible. Why aren't any of you guys working on this easy task?

Originally posted by seanm
Calculate the kinetic energy of each block and report back

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

Try again.

How am I supposed to "calculate the kinetic energy" then? Try again yourself.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 10/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 10/18/2007 by Griff]

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

Try again.

You might actually want to read what you wrote then.

Originally posted by seanm
Indeed. Someone with your claimed background who is unable to calculate the kinetic energy of two masses, one 40,000 tons, the other 110,000 tons, falling 6 feet onto a structure never designed to take those loads must be much more than in awe.

Amazing.

If that is not freefall, then please explain the "falling 6 feet onto a structure" part. Thanks for trying.

Originally posted by snoopy
So Griff, why don't you jsut dispell it by creating a computer model that calculates every possible variable in the collapse of a 110 story building? Should be easy right since you're up against such idiocy, what's the problem? I mean since NIST and it's 100s of engineers are not competent as you guys, why don't you just do the work and prove everyone wrong?

Surely the collective genius at ae911.org should be able to easily do it right? Since it's so absurd to even think it's not possible. Why aren't any of you guys working on this easy task?

What a cop out. How can I when I don't have the structural drawings? I'm not paid to do it either. NIST is. Why can't their "competent" engineers do it? Give me a freakin break.

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

Brick walls never seem to amaze me. That's almost as bad as using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Originally posted by jfj123
Cost cuts impact everything and in addition, builders cut corners to make more money all the time. I see this happen every day so I know it happens. Many modern buildings aren't completely up to code at time of completion.

So, you're saying we live and work in death traps? Just curious.

reply to post by snoopy


Snoop
Did you see my earlier post regarding Dr. Quintere? He is the former Chief of the Fire Science Division at NIST and is among the most respected fire investigators in the world.

He says “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

Dr. Quintere does not support the CD theory but maintains the investigation does not answer the basic questions. I assume that you are not an expert in forensics, does'nt Dr. Quintere's conclusion at least give some rise to doubt your position??

I think we need to get to the truth, if possible, the truth will confirm or deny CT's or the OCT. Not having an answer is not the answer.

Originally posted by sp00n1
Yea, a supercomputer used to model planetary collisions doesn't have the power to model a collapse... what?!?!

My thoughts exactly. We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out how WTC 7 fell?

I just found something pretty interesting.

Dynamic buckling
If the load on the column is applied suddenly and then released, the column can sustain a load much higher than its static (slowly applied) buckling load. This can happen in a long, unsupported column (rod) used as a drop hammer. The duration of compression at the impact end is the time required for a stress wave to travel up the rod to the other (free) end and back down as a relief wave. Maximum buckling occurs near the impact end at a wavelength much shorter than the length of the rod, at a stress many times the buckling stress if the rod were a statically-loaded column. The critical condition for buckling amplitude to remain less than about 25 times the effective rod straightness imperfection at the buckle wavelength is

σL = ρc2h
where σ is the impact stress, L is the length of the rod, c is the elastic wave speed, and h is the smaller lateral dimension of a rectangular rod. Because the buckle wavelength depends only on σ and h, this same formula holds for thin cylindrical shells of thickness h.

Source: Lindberg, H. E., and Florence, A. L., Dynamic Pulse Buckling, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, pp. 11-56, 297-298.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by six
reply to post by sp00n1

 

Why yes I did. Twice before posting and once to reread it before I posted now. Maybe you should read your own post. Nowhere in your post did you ever state ANYTHING about physical modeling. NOWHERE.

Yes i did!! The post of mine that you replied to was in reply to a post from another forumer that was replying to, you guessed it, another post. Obviously you failed to follow the tree!

You can't jump into the middle of a conversation and claim that i did not state, on the record numerous times, that i was talking about a physical model of the collapse!

Originally posted by snoopy
That's not really true at all spoon, you're simply over exhagerating the situation.

No, that's not true! Your simply ignoring things that absolutely, unequivocally prove that you are entirely wrong!

Originally posted by snoopy
Liekwise there are far too many variables in the entire building collapse for any existing computer to be able to calculate.

No! Under laboratory conditions you can change the variables around, and guess what, "Experiment" with testing conditions. Under laboratory conditions, and through experimentation, it should actually be easy to reproduce what is supposedly a spontaneous event; one that occurred not once, not twice, but three times on the same day. And through experimentation, they should be able to determine exactly what happened... THEY CAN'T!!

And more importantly, people such as yourself are ignoring everything BUT the computer testing.

No! For the millionth and ten time, PHYSICAL MODELS!! PHYSICAL MODELS!!! PHYSICAL MODELS!!!!!!!

(in case you didnt catch it, the physical models stood up to conditions worse than on 9/11 for two hours before the test was called off and they then switched to a black box computer model that allowed them to input ridiculous science fiction variables. And they refused to release it for peer-review, unlike steven jones work which is actually peer-reviewed.)

[edit on 10/18/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by sp00n1

No! For the millionth and ten time, PHYSICAL MODELS!! PHYSICAL MODELS!!! PHYSICAL MODELS!!!!!!!

Do you have a link to the NIST reports on the physical models? I must have missed it if you already posted it somewhere.

Thanks!