NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

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 how NIST's models were?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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...

...would have kept standing if not for the damage to the fireproofing and the subsequent fires.

Ok, so I watched the video about the physical modeling. It showed that they heated steel for two hours. But the problem was they did not put the weight of the WTCs on top of the heated steel, so I really have no idea what this proves.

Originally posted by robert z
Ok, so I watched the video about the physical modeling. It showed that they heated steel for two hours. But the problem was they did not put the weight of the WTCs on top of the heated steel, so I really have no idea what this proves.

Yes, just too bad that a lot of evidence suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel needed to cause the collaspe.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


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]

Yes, most everyone except truthers know the planes were the cause of the collapse. Even NIST, and that's even explained not only in the NIST source you provided, but in the letter being used to mislead people in this thread as misquoting NIST as saying they don't know what caused the collapse. NIST has said it 1000 times and backed it up with extensive testing. Far more testing an research than anyone else has ever done, especially those at ae911.org.

The buildings DID withstand the impact, but if you read the report you would know that the cause we the result of the impact damage as well as the fires caused by the plane impacts. Had those planes not hit those buildings, then the damage and fires which caused the collapse would not have resulted in the building collapsing.

Are you going to claim that NIST is saying that the buildings would have collapsed without the impacts of the planes? Let's be clear here with what exactly you are trying to say here. Are you going to claim that the fires had nothing to do with the plane impacts? Are you claiming that the damage had nothing to do with the plane impacts?

Originally posted by snoopy
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.

I ment the money allocated to NIST to do the research needed. Your post is very disingeneous.

BTW, I knew you would focus on that.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, just too bad that a lot of evidence suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel needed to cause the collaspe.

Which evidence would that be? Because NIST has provided plenty o evidence that shows it most certainly did burn long enough and hot enough. They provided the physical and computer testing to show it as well as the mathematics behind it.

Originally posted by snoopy
The buildings DID withstand the impact, but if you read the report you would know that the cause we the result of the impact damage as well as the fires caused by the plane impacts. Had those planes not hit those buildings, then the damage and fires which caused the collapse would not have resulted in the building collapsing.

If the cause was a result of the impact damage, what damage was there to the south tower where the plane went in at a angle trhough the side of the building.

Maybe you can explain how a thin aluinum airframe would have done a lot of damage to heavy steel beams.

Also NIST and FEMA state the buildings would have kept standing with the impacts alone.

Also a lot of evidnece suggest that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Originally posted by snoopy
They provided the physical and computer testing to show it as well as the mathematics behind it.

Really? Can you link me to it? Thanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


If the cause was a result of the impact damage, what damage was there to the south tower where the plane went in at a angle trhough the side of the building.

Maybe you can explain how a thin aluinum airframe would have done a lot of damage to heavy steel beams.

Also NIST and FEMA state the buildings would have kept standing with the impacts alone.

Also a lot of evidnece suggest that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Well, the real explanation in detail is in the NIST report. There is also the Perdue modeling which gives a good perspective on how it works. The answer to your question is velocity. A very simple principle. The same way a that a paper playing card can slice through wood in a tornado.

And yes the buildings *would* have stood with just the impacts alone. And NIST claims the cause of the collapse was a *combination* of the structural damage AND the fires. neither of which could cause the collapse on their own, but combined were able to.

Again, what is this evidence that it didn't burn long enough or hot enough to weaken steel?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
They provided the physical and computer testing to show it as well as the mathematics behind it.

Really? Can you link me to it? Thanks.

It was in the link you provided. It's a large PDF file though for the full content on the NIST web site.

Originally posted by snoopy
There is also the Perdue modeling which gives a good perspective on how it works.

And yes the buildings *would* have stood with just the impacts alone. And NIST claims the cause of the collapse was a *combination* of the structural damage AND the fires. neither of which could cause the collapse on their own, but combined were able to.

Again, what is this evidence that it didn't burn long enough or hot enough to weaken steel?

1. The Purdue animation also shows how the planes are shreded to pieces as soon as the hit the builidngs, not being able to cause a lot of damage.

2. How could it have been a combination of structural damage and fires if NIST stated the building withstood the impacts?

3. OK, here is a list of evidence to suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough.

A. Firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the south tower only reported small isolated fires, not the large amount of fuel running down catching the floors on fire in a big inferno (according to the official story)

B. None of the firechief there beleived the towers woudl collaspe. they wer only worried about the uppoer floors about the fires collapsing if the fires would have burned for several more hours (which they didn't)

C. Most photos and videos show the fires burning out well before the towers collasped. No flames comming out windows which would be the sign of a big fire/inferno.

Originally posted by Griff
Can you be more specific other than...it's in there? Thanks again.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Actually I confused you with Ultima

But here is a link: wtc.nist.gov...

Which has links to the many PDFs and the NIST report which do discuss the testing. It's the same reports people here have been using to claim their testing proved their own claims wrong. The same one that people here keep referring to in saying how they switched from a physical model to a computer model.

Also, in the very article that this thread is referring to also refers directly to the physical models they used to simulate the trusses it is shown.

Originally posted by Griff
Can you be more specific other than...it's in there? Thanks again.

Originally posted by snoopy
Also, in the very article that this thread is referring to also refers directly to the physical models they used to simulate the trusses it is shown.

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.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima...Two small pockets of fire on a mechanical floor does not mean that the floors above were not burning to beat the band. There is video after video showing the fires rageing above the 78th floor. Big enough to create a huge INFLOW of air feeding the fires. You keep bringing this up. Two small pockets of fire on a floor that is uninhabited is irrelevent. If that was the only floor on fire, then yes you would have a very good argument there. But it was not. The fires on that floor are insignificant. Look up my good man...Look up. As for the JP8 running...who knows..maybe the elevator shafts ..I dont know...Nor do you or anyone else here because we were not there.

Originally posted by six

Ultima...Two small pockets of fire on a mechanical floor does not mean that the floors above were not burning to beat the band. There is video after video showing the fires rageing above the 78th floor. Big enough to create a huge INFLOW of air feeding the fires. You keep bringing this up. Two small pockets of fire on a floor that is uninhabited is irrelevent. If that was the only floor on fire, then yes you would have a very good argument there. But it was not. The fires on that floor are insignificant. Look up my good man...Look up. As for the JP8 running...who knows..maybe the elevator shafts ..I dont know...Nor do you or anyone else here because we were not there.

But what happened to the large quanity of jet fuel that was supposed to be ruinning down the floors? (according to the official story)

But the large fires burnt out, they did not last long as shown by videos and photos.

9/11 commission reported isolated fires 10 minutes after the impact.

Airliners do not use JP8, thats mil spec.

Originally posted by robert z

Ok, so I watched the video about the physical modeling. It showed that they heated steel for two hours. But the problem was they did not put the weight of the WTCs on top of the heated steel, so I really have no idea what this proves.

Yes, they did. They used a massive concrete slab on top of the testing assemblies to simulate the load. On one of the four assemblies, the gravity load was four times what the real working load was.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Griff
Can you be more specific other than...it's in there? Thanks again.

"It's in there! Here, dig through a thousand pages!! It's in there, i can prove it! But i wont show you where!!"


I've looked extensively at that NIST garbage. The math is not there! The models were not released nor were they peer reviewed.

It's funny how the debunkers dont even look at the evidence they continue to cite. Especially the part where the physical models withstood four times the gravity load and 2-3 times the temperature that was seen on 9/11.

Originally posted by snoopy

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.

This is not true.

WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper
Page 1.


Remaining pages can be found at:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

See also:
Interview with John Skilling after 1993. bombings
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

[edit on 18-10-2007 by TrueOrFalse]