Wednesday, 17 October 2007

National Institute for Standards and Technology Admits it is Unable to Explain the Total Collapse Of the Twin Towers

In a recent letter 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.

The NIST letter is a joke. They claim the observable data supports their findings but this is clearly not true. Some of the data, cited in their own report, actually contradicts their claims. They claim fire temperatures reached 1000 degrees Celsius, and caused the floors to sag helping to collapse the buildings. This claim is contradicted in their report by data which shows the fires were weak and could have only reached up to 600 degrees. They are making stuff up. In the letter they simply declare that there is nothing wrong with their study and there is no need to change it.

In summary we have information on record against the NIST claims that clearly show:
there was no sign of 1000 degree fires,
no sign of excessive floor sagging,
no evidence of severe damage to the building's core structure,
that there were plenty of witnesses to large explosions in the lower levels of the Towers,
and that the NIST computer simulations of the building damage must remain in question since they refuse to release their modelling data.

The original NIST Report, that the recent letter defends, is an out and out fraud. As Kevin Barrett from Scholar for 911 Truth points out:

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon."

No comments: