NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Once again, his disagreements are a completely different case. What is happening here is someone has some legitimate issues which are a complete matter of opinion and people here are trying to use it as evidence of a cover up. This is completely dishonest of people to try and distort the doctors views. He has a good point, but it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's simply impossible to know the extent of the fire proofing that was removed. There is absolutely no way to measure this. However through the testing done by NIST it became clear that this is what happened because this is the scenario that was able to cause a collapse. Not bombs or explosives or any of that nonsense.

And again, if the actual process of the collapse itself (of which the cause was already proven) is so crucial, why aren't ae911.org doing the testing and computer simulations? The truth movement claims that these guys are so called experts. But then why is it these so called experts do nothing but poke holes which are going to be found in any research done by anyone ever instead of actually doing their own legitimate research?

Why is it they just complain about it not being done and at the same time doing absolutely nothing on their own other than claiming they can?

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

The builidngs were designed to take the impact of a 707. Also they were designed to take enormous wind loads.

NIST has stated the buildings were built beyond code.

www.nist.gov...

As reported today, the clarified original design wind load estimates all exceed those established by the New York City building code prior to 1968 (when the WTC towers were designed) and through 2001 (when the towers were destroyed). The values also are higher than those required by other selected building codes of the era, including the relevant national model building code.

Sunder also announced that the NIST investigation team has completed an independent analysis to determine the wind loads that would be appropriate for use in designing the towers in accordance with the current state of the art—rather than the building codes in effect in the 1960s. This is being done to better understand and assess the effects of successive changes in standards, codes and practices. These NIST “best estimate” wind load values—based on two sets of wind tunnel test data collected by independent laboratories in 2002 as part of industry studies (unrelated to the NIST investigation) and refined by NIST experts in wind science and engineering—are within 10 percent to 15 percent of the “most unfavorable” (maximum) wind load estimates used in the design of the WTC towers.


Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by sp00n1

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]

OK spoon, since you claim this is so simple and your explination for why computer physical models cannot calculate the complexities in such a large event, is to simply point out physical models exist...

Please demonstrate for us. Go do it! Go get a computer and create a physical model and show us the results. Or have aer911.org do it. These guys are smart right? What's the hold up? Physical models physical models!! Right? It should be easy right?

And BTW, no Jones has NEVER had his work peer reviewed. He had a bunch of other truthers including HIMSELF and look at it and called that peer reviewing. That's not a review, thats a con job. I also suggest you go re-read the report where you misunderstand their testing methods and instead assume that they did create a physical model and that it didn't work. Of course it's also explained in the VERY article that is being used to claim in this thread that NIST says they can't figure out how the building collapsed.

If that is not the utmost dishonesty than God help us all.

They can't model the collapse because they didnt have the computer power.

Considering that i have a degree in computer engineering, i think i know a thing or two about how they work.

The more complex the model is, the longer it takes to process. Even if it takes a few days (which today is practically unheard of) anything can still be modeled. You just have to wait...

Supercomputers are very valuable pieces of equipment, they dont just sit around being unused. They have a huge queue stacked waiting to go, on top of the dozens or so simultaneous processes that it are running at any one time. The amount of processor time for each process is determined by the priority settings.

Now, i know what important question you're probably not asking yourself right now, "How do they run simultaneous processes and send them to multiple logical cores?" Well, that is an excellent question, and a real engineering challenge too. The answer, vectoring!! You really need to read up on Seymour Cray

They were able to model how, millions of years ago, the earth collided with a proto-planet and ejected enough material to form the moon. Its a simulation that is ten to the ten times more complex than modeling the collapse of the WTC.

Watch;

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


The builidngs were designed to take the impact of a 707. Also they were designed to take enormous wind loads.

No they were NOT designed to take the impact of a 707. The designed and built the towers, then did some calculations to determine what it could handle. They estimated that it could withstand the impact of a 707 at slow speeds low on fuel and lost in the fog. And ironically the designers have been unable to find those calculations that they did. And they also didn't calculate for things such as the fireproofing being knocked off the steel trusses.

It's not very honest to try to present these calculations as showing that the buildings were designed from the beginning to withstand the events that happened on 9/11. If this had been a 707 flying slow and low on fuel, then it would be a legitimate argument, even though it was *not* part of the actual design process.

reply to post by snoopy


NO!!!

Computer models are virtual, NOT PHYSICAL!!!

The actually built real-world, physical scale models!!

When they didnt get the results they worked so hard to produce, they then turned to computer models which they were able to manipulate in whatever way they wished. Since their computer models were so incredibly biased, they were never released for peer-review!

reply to post by sp00n1


The issue is that there is no way to calculate the exact locations of every content inside the building and calculate for the shift of contents inside the building from the impacts. There variables are virtually unlimited and even given the computing power to calculate the billions and billions of possibilities, of those trillions of possibilities, there is absolutely no way what so ever to simply guess which is correct. And more importantly, it would prove absolutely nothing. The initiation was proven so trying to perform the calculations on the actual fall is like trying to prove that its possible for someone to trip by performing calculations on gravity while saying that someone tripping over a board isn't proof enough of someone being able to fall otherwise.

And again and again I ask, why doesn't ae911.org simply do these computer models since it's so easy? Why do they need a group who they accuse as being part of a big cover up to do it? How does that even make any sense?

Originally posted by sp00n1

They were able to model how, millions of years ago, the earth collided with a proto-planet and ejected enough material to form the moon. Its a simulation that is ten to the ten times more complex than modeling the collapse of the WTC.

Watch;

Tell me again why I had to sit through 1:59 of the worst music track that was ever produced to watch a Saturday morning cartoon of the moon being made???

Seriously, how can you be sure that the modeling is not just curve fitting, i.e., creating the model to make sure it produces the desired result?

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by snoopy

 

NO!!!

Computer models are virtual, NOT PHYSICAL!!!

The actually built real-world, physical scale models!!

When they didnt get the results they worked so hard to produce, they then turned to computer models which they were able to manipulate in whatever way they wished. Since their computer models were so incredibly biased, they were never released for peer-review!

LOL! Thank you for your explanation of *what* a computer model is. I am sure there may be people here who don't understand the concept. And how about you show us the exact part where they turned to a computer model to manipulate whatever they wanted. How about a few quotes or references. Please point out the exact parts of bias.

And how about showing the exact part where the real world models failed. Of course we'll ignore the part where this was directly referenced to in the very document this article is about which directly contradicts your claims.

Originally posted by robert z
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!

Absolutely. There are a number of excerpts from the NIST report that mention it, and there's also some NIST videos.

I'll start with the video and ill be back in a few minutes with the NIST excerpts.

In this video, you'll need to fast forward to about 4:10. It has a number of the NIST excerpts and shows the failed, PHYSICAL, real-world scale models at about 5:45

Originally posted by snoopy
It's not very honest to try to present these calculations as showing that the buildings were designed from the beginning to withstand the events that happened on 9/11. If this had been a 707 flying slow and low on fuel, then it would be a legitimate argument, even though it was *not* part of the actual design process.

I have posted evdeince fropm NIST, i will be waiting for your evidence to debate it.

Here is more evidence that the builidngs could take the impact and keep standing.

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.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

Originally posted by robert z

Seriously, how can you be sure that the modeling is not just curve fitting, i.e., creating the model to make sure it produces the desired result?

You mean, like NIST's computer models?!?!?!?!?

Looking at the NIST NCSTAR 1 @
wtc.nist.gov...

The PDF is numbered differently than the reports actual paginations, so i am just going to give the PDF page numbers.

NIST's evidence of fire temperatures:

"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC.

"Observation of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the mechanical properties of the steel. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures of 600 ºC." (PDF pg 140)

NIST's sagging truss modeled temperatures of 700C:

"Single composite truss and concrete slab section. A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. Knuckle failure was found to occur mainly at the ends of the trusses and had little effect on the deflection of the floor subsystem. ....." (PDF 148)

NIST used very powerful spray burners that generated temperatures well above what their own evidence supports and what open air jet fuel is know to burn at. These spray burners are controlled burn atomizers that effectively mix jet fuel with air. These burners were used in hour-long test. How does NIST justify these models? How does the jet fuel in the WTC remain in a constant state of mist? Any mist present at the WTC would have burned almost instantly, leaving only open air puddles. These spray burner models are ridiculous.:

"The first series provided a measure of FDS to predict the thermal environment generated by a steady state fire. A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (PDF 173)

How does NIST justify these grossly exaggerated temperatures on the interior columns considering the interior had very little fuel, was distant from any sources of fresh air, and there is no evidence on any videos or photographs?

NIST conducted models based upon temperatures (over 600C) they had no evidence to support:

6.12.6

"Unlike the simulations of the aircraft impact and the fires, there was no evidence, photographic or other, for direct comparison with the FSI results." (PDF 191)

And even under these conditions;

"All four test assemblies were able to withstand fire conditions for 2 hours..."

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"

(PDF 193)

[edit on 10/18/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by sp00n1

Thanks!

Also, please provide a warning in future posts to turn speakers off when music warrants such action.

Originally posted by snoopy
It's simply impossible to know the extent of the fire proofing that was removed.

Something about the fireproofing.





Source: wtc.nist.gov...

Now, notice the gypsum that was protecting the fireproofing that we never hear of.

n why is it these so called experts do nothing but poke holes which are going to be found in any research done by anyone ever instead of actually doing their own legitimate research?

Send me the money, evidence (what lack of it they have) etc. and I can garantee we'd do more than NIST has.

it they just complain about it not being done and at the same time doing absolutely nothing on their own other than claiming they can?

No one ever claimed they can. We need a few things to do an analysis. For some reason, these things we need are under lock and key.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No Ultima, you are cherry picking. If you were to show the rest of the NIST report you would see their explanation. And once again, your "evidence" does not support your claim that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 and your implication that this means the buildings should not have collapsed, nor your implication that NIST themselves is admitting this. That's pretty dishonest.

I say, how about showing us those calculations they used during the design? I don't seem to see them in your NIST clipping. What they are saying is that the impact of the plane did not cause the structure to collapse, but that a combination fo the damage from the impact combined with the fires lead to the collapse initiation.

FEMA:

"The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact."

reply to post by Griff



Oh so it's money? They don't wan to expose the truth because they want money? Interesting. I guess it's only worth persuing the truth if it isn't a financial burden. I thought it was so simple no? I mean clearly they and a bunch of people on internet discussion board can figure it out without much effort. Yet they want money to do it.

Sounds a bit unfair to demand others pay for research that you insist upon.

Originally posted by snoopy
No Ultima, you are cherry picking. If you were to show the rest of the NIST report you would see their explanation.

I have posted evidence. I see no evidence to debate it. I see lots of talk but no evidence to debate the NIST statement that the builidng withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.


[edit on 18-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have posted evidence. I see no evidence to debate it. I see lots of talk but no evidence to debate the NIST statement that the builidng withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.


[edit on 18-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

LOL! The evidence would be the same source you used as your evidence, only without limiting it to a single paragraph that helps mislead people into thinking that paragraph is the complete story. Again, that's a misrepresentation of your source.

And more importantly, it does not address the claims you are making about the 707 and especially not the implications you are trying to make with it. Are you or are you not trying to imply that the design (even though the 707 issue was NOT part of the design) is evidence that the planes on 911 couldn't have caused the building to collapse?

The paragraph you posted is correct. The impact of the planes did not cause the collapse. And no one has ever claimed that. The source you use explains the cause of the collapse, which could not have occured without the planes.

Originally posted by snoopy
The paragraph you posted is correct. The impact of the planes did not cause the collapse. And no one has ever claimed that. The source you use explains the cause of the collapse, which could not have occured without the planes.

Yes, plenty of people still believe that planes caused the collaspe or helped cause the collapse. Which NIST and FEMA both state the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.



[edit on 18-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]