Did you know that even NIST cannot explain the collapses of the Twin Towers?

Question

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees C.

Answer 1

What the hell is the relation to military in this question

Answer 2

Oh? The fire didn't rage for 15 minutes and was never hot enough to weaken the steel jet fuel burns at best at about 536 degrees F. Steel isn't : compromised at this temperature. This is only half the temperature needed to weaken the steel even if it was applied directly. It is wrong to believe that all the steel was affected evenly even if the temperature was hot enough. Also understand that the fire would only be affecting one side of the steel. The planes created structural damage in on part of one side of the building and the fire was mostly burning toward one side of the structure. The weakening of the structure would be mostly on one side. Therefor the major weakening would happen toward one side and this would mean an uneven damage to the building. It is most apparent then that if there were to be a collapse it would begin on one side of the building and the damaged part would fall sideways. This is true of both towers. The buildings could not pancake. Most bizarre was the collapse of Building 7. Completely unprecedented. Look at the huge damage to the terror attack took on that building in Oklahoma. One whole side was blown yet the rest of the structure stayed with no hint of falling. Incredible damage was rendered - much more so than the damage to the World Trade Center buildings. Not one of these buildings should collapse into itself but all three did. Judging by the black smoke the fire was not burning well so the temperature was well below 536 degrees F. If the Building 7 would collapse so easily then why don't other buildings collapse in the same manner. Three impossibilities all in one day and all in the same place - couldn't happen. If you watch the films available you would barely see a shudder when the planes hit. These were not easy buildings to bring down. These buildings were built to withstand a plane hitting them and they did. Building 7 collapsed into itself also. Sure the building was damaged apparently by a big girder and there were small fires. Nothing at all damaging enough to cause a collapse and, most certainly, not to collapse in the way it shown on video. There has been some opinion that the fuel was spread evenly throughout the floor. Not possible. The floor was divided by walls. The fuel, such as it was, could not be distributed all over the floor. In any case the fuel would be constricted to the area the plane broke through. The buildings were all seriously damaged but not enough to cause collapse. If there were to be any type of collapse they would need to tilt sideways and the whole building would not collapse. Building 7 was never damaged enough to collapse. In no way could Building 7 collapse let alone so wonderfully as it was shown to do.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, the things you say about NIST are simply not true.

If you skip the Prisonplanet article (which is full of untruths) & go to the NIST pdf letter, it's clear that NIST is standing behind its explanation that the jets alone collapsed the towers.

The quote "unable to provide complete explanation" is taken out of context. It simply means NIST didn't analyze the fall itself. They just analyzed the stresses up to the point where collapse began, which is all you want. They proved the jets caused the collapse. After that, they didn't analyze "how" and "where" the towers fell, partly becuase it doesn't matter & partly because the event is too chaotic to model after falling begins. That's what they meant by "not complete analysis"--they didn't compute where the pieces went. Who cares?

Hence, the quote from NIST doesn't mean anything significant.

Also, each section of the NIST letter ends with your "request to change [NIST's position] is denied," after NIST explains why. It's really an amazing put-down of the conspiracy theorists, who then say the letter supports their position!

That anyone could use the NIST letter as "proof" that NIST doesn't know why the towers collapsed is unbelievable.

The following facts are still true. NIST has not retracted them:

1. NIST clearly says the towers collapsed from the jets & the jets alone. See:

See “Impact to collapse” (narrated by the chief NIST investigator):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Also see NIST's explanation of the collapse at

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Steel is seriously weakened at 500 deg C, and a lot of it reached 800 deg C. The hottests pieces reached 1100 deg C. See the above NIST website. (in the pdf NIST letter, NIST is talking about a 1 % sample of the CORE columns. The lateral supports got a lot hotter)
=============================
2. Every single published article on the collapse has stated how it occurred from the jets. See :

-- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
It’s useful to see the investigation team & their credentials at: http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

-- Scientific American. See
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

--FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm

--NIST (National Institute on Science and Technology):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

-- Popular Mechanics published a huge article attacking the conspiracy nuts using over 300 renowned experts in http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

-- World experts in demolition have attacked the 9-11 conspiracy theory

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

--PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-- Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html), and others

-- Columbia University has permanent seismographic recorders that was running on 9/11 which clearly show no explosives during the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, or of WTC7 . See page 2 of
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

The “American Society of Civil Engineers” & the “Structural Engineering Institute” (both are non-governmental) investigated the Pentagon crash. Their report is called "The Pentagon Performance Report" & it’s at:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Technical article on the cause of the collapse:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,2166832,00.html

Answer 4

Can someone tell me how any organization could render an accurate scientific study of a 110-story building when it's been reduced to a crater of scattered, tangled debris? NIST is being honest: they really can't provide an explanation for the collapse.

It's like performing an autopsy on a cow when it's sitting on a freezer-section shelf with the words "80/20, Ground, USDA" on it.

Here's a better question: Have you really asked yourself why it's so important for you to join the ranks of those that argue the moon landing was filmed?

Answer 5

the fire was starved of oxygen in the towers. What convinced me the most of a possible controlled demolition was the collapse of building 7.

The damage and the fires (especially on the high floors) is not enough to make a building that tall to collapse. Don't you think a building like that would be built to support more than its own wieght?

The victims' families will never see justice because people refuse to look at evidence and how biased the 911 Commission came to such a conclusion.

Answer 6

Yeah because they're trying to prove something that can't be explained the way we were told it happened. I think it's so funny that people are saying tin foil hat when then there is nothing crazier than 19 wacky highjackers trained on flight simulators.

Also, check out examples of government sponsored terrorism before 9/11 "010725alexjoneswarns911b"
http://www.archive.org/details/911_44

Answer 7

Instead of devoting yourself to the perverted obsession of 'proving' the 9-1-1 conspiracy, at least examine the truth ==>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html and ==>http://www.debunking911.com/

Answer 8

They have been saying this all along. It is just that the corporate owned media NEWS and Bush administration keeps trying to thwart the studies. You keep hearing about the money making "Popular Mechanics" magazine's study, but it is so full of holes it isn't even funny! All you have to do is look at the video to see the truth about the "Planes" being the reason it came down to see that it was a BS excuse!

Thanks for the great article!

Answer 9

Another Conspiracy Theory rant.

Obviously you have no understanding with regards the law of GRAVITY.

Answer 10

I can't figure this one out either. Maybe someone can figure out where the government hides the hurricain machine and explain to the public why the President turned it loose on New Orleans. Haven't you conspiracy theorist rode this horse long enough? Get over it.