The NIST report, start to finish

Hello there!
I am a 'debunker', that is I am a nasty evil man who gets paid huge amounts of money to funnel a whole team of people's thoughts into this here forum.

Or in reality, I'm just some dude from Manchester in the UK. I post here in my spare time because I have always been a fan of debate, of science, and 911 was the defining moment of my young generation. I was in college at the time it occurred, and the full gravity of it wasn't realised until I got home and it had all ended.

Since that day many have sought to understand the process behind the attack, the damage and the collapse, not least of all NIST. However, NIST comes under more criticism than anyone else, as they are apparently part of the government!!!!.

The biggest problem with criticising NIST is that their report is 10,000 pages long, and not many people can really be bothered to read through that much technical mumbo-jumbo. For this reason they resort to webpages which have apparently summarised the report, but as these websites are usually opinionated, their summaries will be quite biased towards whichever side they belong to.

This thread exists so that collaboratively we can go through the NIST report from start to finish and satisfy people's objections / prove that NISTs theory is plausible and in fact probable.

I would really appreciate it if this thread took a very well regulated form. I will post a sequence of things I believe the NIST report proved, and I will challenge anyone who thinks they didn't to detail their problems with the theory. I ask that we stay on one single topic until that is resolved, as the vast majority of discussions on this site move from topic to topic without people being able to agree on any of them.

To that end, here are the first topics, quoted from the 'engineer cuts steel' thread:

• WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  
• These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  
• Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  
• Insulation damage was very likely

Please detail any and all complaints with these points, and we can discuss then in a calm and civilised manner. Cheers!

Originally posted by exponent

This thread exists so that collaboratively we can go through the NIST report from start to finish and satisfy people's objections / prove that NISTs theory is plausible and in fact probable....Please detail any and all complaints with these points, and we can discuss then in a calm and civilised manner. Cheers!

I must say, that for all of the talk of biased webpages and all, your proposed justification for this thread is somewhat perplexing.

I, for one, am not interested in proving that NIST's theory is plausible or as you say in fact probable. Furthermore, if you really want to prove its probability, you should start by convincing actual engineers and architects that it is in fact, plausible. Frankly, no amount of "proving" will be sufficient to overcome my common sense that at the very least the complete, symmetrical and immediate collapse of WTC 7 was obviously not due to any method of destruction that does not include explosives, period. I will not muck up your thread anymore than this and good luck.

I have most definitely NOT read the entire NIST NCSTAR1 report. I think people that try are crazy.

But I downloaded the entire report and burned it to DVD three years ago. I used to have it on my hard drive. That makes it a LOT FASTER to search.

But as a simple point, where does the NCSTAR1 report specify the total amount of concrete in the towers? It specifies the total for the steel in THREE PLACES. They say "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". So why don't they do that for the concrete?

Now if you search the Internet you will find many places which say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete along with the 200,000 tons of steel, but the NIST report does not say that either. The NCSTAR1 report does specify two types of concrete used in the towers, 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft, therefore there can be considerable variation in the tonnage depending on how much of each type was used. But it still comes to more than 300,000 tons of concrete PER BUILDING. Now there are lots of places that say the building was short on concrete and there is controversy about how much concrete was in the core. But there had to be a lot in the basements to make that building withstand the wind so it is really curious that we never hear that.

There are a lot of GOVERNMENT LOYALISTS in the world who will bend over backwards to say THE GOVERNMENT is correct about almost anything. And there are plenty of nitwit conspiracy theorists who will say the government is lying about almost anything. But the United States is the nation that put men on the Moon and that involved Newtonian physics.

The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about any government, any race or any religion.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about anything!

9/11 involves Newtonian physics. The United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years for not getting this resolved in NINE YEARS. You can't build a 1360 foot skyscraper and have it withstand 100 mph winds and not figure out how to distribute the steel and concrete. The NIST even admits in one report that in order to analyze the south tower impact they need distribution of weight information.

So where is it?

ROFL

psik

Originally posted by exponent
To that end, here are the first topics, quoted from the 'engineer cuts steel' thread:

• WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  
• These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  
• Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  
• Insulation damage was very likely

That is actually HYSTERICALLY FUNNY!!!

The south tower came down less than one hour after impact. Obviously the steel at the 81st level of the south tower had to be thick enough and strong enough to support another 29 stories of the building. Steel is a good conductor of heat though some say it is a poor conductor just because copper and silver are better. Subjective words are SO SCIENTIFIC.

But why don't we know the TONS of STEEL that were on every level within ten stories of the impact points? What is so difficult about that for the nation that put men on the Moon?

psik

Originally posted by budaruskie
I must say, that for all of the talk of biased webpages and all, your proposed justification for this thread is somewhat perplexing.

Oh I am certainly not 'unbiased', because I have read the evidence available from both sides, and I have found NISTs theory to be significantly more supported.

I, for one, am not interested in proving that NIST's theory is plausible or as you say in fact probable.

If you don't have any specific criticisms of NIST, i'm interested in on what grounds you disagree with them. That is after all the point of this thread, to bring out the specific objections to specific sections of the NIST report, and determine if they are genuine / inaccurate etc.

Furthermore, if you really want to prove its probability, you should start by convincing actual engineers and architects that it is in fact, plausible.

For what purpose? Only tiny quantities of engineers or scientists in the relevant field even express doubts, those that do have rarely put forward a formal argument. In my field, I have only heard of ridicule of conspiracy theories from anyone with any experience.

Frankly, no amount of "proving" will be sufficient to overcome my common sense that at the very least the complete, symmetrical and immediate collapse of WTC 7 was obviously not due to any method of destruction that does not include explosives, period. I will not muck up your thread anymore than this and good luck.

This seems a little odd to me, you'd never be willing to change your beliefs? No matter what evidence was presented?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But as a simple point, where does the NCSTAR1 report specify the total amount of concrete in the towers? It specifies the total for the steel in THREE PLACES. They say "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". So why don't they do that for the concrete?

I'm not sure it is in NCSTAR 1, probably in 1-1 or 1-2, i'm pretty sure they specify the concrete load in psf. This should be sufficient.

The south tower came down less than one hour after impact. Obviously the steel at the 81st level of the south tower had to be thick enough and strong enough to support another 29 stories of the building.

Indeed they were, but that doesn't change the facts I posted above, do you have any specific criticism?

Originally posted by exponent

I'm not sure it is in NCSTAR 1, probably in 1-1 or 1-2, i'm pretty sure they specify the concrete load in psf. This should be sufficient.

You have demonstrated your brilliance already.

NCSTAR1 refers to all 50-some sub-reports not just one. The whole 10,000 pages is NCSTAR1.

psf is pounds per square foot

That is the specification for the PRESSURE the concrete could withstand not a specification of the QUANTITY OF CONCRETE.

I would conclude that you don't understand what is in the NCSTAR1 report from that.

psik

This is a debte for people with the relevant background. Everybody who isnt an architect is much better served to seek the counself of professionals, as I did. The debate on who did it is more important at this point imo. Would the only critics of the official conspiracy theory be kids on the internet, as it is the case with the apollo 11 moonlanding debate, I wouldnt even be here. Yet the critics are educated people with expertise on the related fields.

With that being said it does not take an architect to figure out that something is off if an supposedly investigative body was not even able to muster the funds and energy to test for explosives and accelerants after what has been a TERRORIST ATTACK with deaths in the thousands. If your house burns down and you want insurance money the investigation is going to be more throughrough.

I think Cassius hit the nail on the head. My greatest concern with the NIST report is with it's thoroughness. When someone says it's the probable scenario, my first thought is "how probable?" Which then leads me to look into how thorough their investigation was.

Actually, they did test for explosives at Ground Zero. It is referenced in the NIST report (addendum to WTC7 final report) and the official investigation was done by the FBI.It was eventually called PENTTBOM.

The NIST report is very long but there are several key parts anyone who is investigating the 9/11 events should read as well as the commission report. It is very thorough and as stated before, has nobel prize winners among their researchers as well as 1000's of published academics. Not people who 'pay' to be published.

The OP has a rough ride ahead of him but good luck.

Originally posted by esdad71
has nobel prize winners among their researchers

And the person to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 was the man in charge of a country that had at least 3 on-going wars at the moment.

Conclusion: What's your point?

When a plane crashes during a storm do they test for explosives?
When two ships collide do they test for explosives?

There reaches a point where some facts are so irrefutable that obscure tests are just stupid. You might as well criticize the medical examiners because they didn’t perform AIDs tests on the remains of the passengers.

Originally posted by samkent
When a plane crashes during a storm do they test for explosives?
When two ships collide do they test for explosives?

There reaches a point where some facts are so irrefutable that obscure tests are just stupid. You might as well criticize the medical examiners because they didn’t perform AIDs tests on the remains of the passengers.

What part of "It was a terrorist attack" did you miss??

What's a terrorists weapon of choice for mass killings and destruction?

Your examples are pure BS.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You have demonstrated your brilliance already.

NCSTAR1 refers to all 50-some sub-reports not just one. The whole 10,000 pages is NCSTAR1.

On the contrary, there is actually a report called NCSTAR 1: wtc.nist.gov...

I was just making sure, not trying to insult you!

psf is pounds per square foot

That is the specification for the PRESSURE the concrete could withstand not a specification of the QUANTITY OF CONCRETE.

I'm fairly sure there's a tally of imposed load and concrete is listed there. I would be happy to look it up for you at a later date, but I want to focus on the first 4 things listed before then.

edit: I did a quick check and found what I was looking for. NCSTAR 1-1A, page 43 (pdf):


It's not quite as simple as that, but floor areas are relatively easy to work out and so total concrete mass per level should be. You will also need to check the mechanical floors and hat trusses, as there were some deviations here.

Originally posted by NIcon
I think Cassius hit the nail on the head. My greatest concern with the NIST report is with it's thoroughness. When someone says it's the probable scenario, my first thought is "how probable?" Which then leads me to look into how thorough their investigation was.

That's a good attitude to have, there's no denying that there are plenty of places where NIST were not as thorough as people would like, or they didn't conduct certain tests etc.

My intention with this thread is to try and come to a consensus on what parts of the NIST report can actually be used. Most people on the conspiracy side seem to want to throw the whole thing out completely and denounce it as a sham, but if it were so obvious then there would be no end of uproar. If NISTs fire tests truly did use invalid criteria for example, there are thousands of professionals who would easily be able to show it.

This is why I am trying to go in order and specifically from one point to another, as these topics never usually focus on anything specific for more than a few posts.

reply to post by Nutter


We are not talking about peace, we are talking about physics so what is your point?

www.nist.gov...

As far as the president, I think he uses his to roll blunts...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You have demonstrated your brilliance already.

NCSTAR1 refers to all 50-some sub-reports not just one. The whole 10,000 pages is NCSTAR1.

On the contrary, there is actually a report called NCSTAR 1: wtc.nist.gov...

I was just making sure, not trying to insult you!

Here is a list of the entire report.
They all start off NISTNCSTAR1.

NISTNCSTAR1-1A_AppendixesA&B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1A_AppendixesC-G.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1C_Appendixes.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1D.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1E.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1F.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1G.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1H.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1I.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-2A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-2B_AppendixA.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3D.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3E.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-4A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-4B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-4C.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-4D.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxD-G.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxH-M.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5B_AppxD-G.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5F.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5G.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-7A.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-7B.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-8_AppendixesA-LFinal.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

It's not quite as simple as that, but floor areas are relatively easy to work out and so total concrete mass per level should be. You will also need to check the mechanical floors and hat trusses, as there were some deviations here.

My point was if they could give a total for the steel and other people have totals for concrete why doesn't the NCSTAR1 report have it? Why should we need to do all of that calculating. They had 3 years and $20,000,000 and they couldn't tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. Doesn't every level of every skyscraper in the world have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?

So why can't we find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER? There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Here is a list of the entire report.
They all start off NISTNCSTAR1.

We all know! I don't know why you're thinking this is some sort of personal insult, it's not!

I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same report, how the heck was I to know whether you were referring to the collection of reports, or the individual report?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Cool, you can cut and paste. Why are you berating the guy? How about you do what he is asking and like adults, we try to talk out the key points. You already admitted to not reading it so why are you saying it is bs.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point was if they could give a total for the steel and other people have totals for concrete why doesn't the NCSTAR1 report have it? Why should we need to do all of that calculating. They had 3 years and $20,000,000 and they couldn't tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. Doesn't every level of every skyscraper in the world have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?

Certainly, but here's the reason why, and I really want to make sure you don't take this the wrong way:

It's none of your business.

Now that's not me saying that, i'm not trying to insult you, but the fact of the matter is that these are private buildings owned by private companies, the design and construction of their buildings is private to them. They have no obligation to release it to the public, as they will have paid an awful lot of money from an architect for that.

Now, I am sure NIST could have totalled it up if they had wanted to, but that's neither here nor there. If they listed every single fact they gathered in detail the report would be 40,000 pages long and you still probably wouldn't read it.

I know it's not an ideal situation to have to do the calculations by hand, but enough information appears to be there, certainly to get to the level of accuracy that a non professional group will be able to simulate.