NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

[StevenOtero]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

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. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support,"
writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "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," concludes Barrett.

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

[BrAinPaiNt]

[zrinkill]

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

Originally Posted by zrinkill

Yeah, great rebuttal.

[zrinkill]

Otero ...... all I can say is that there is no way I would live in a country that
I thought was killing their own people and trying to destroy the world.

If you really believe all that is going on ..... you should get out as quick as you can.


OH NOOO ....... THE FEDS JUST BROKE INTO MY HOUSE ........ ARGGGGGGGGG



.................................................. .................................................. ....

[zrinkill]

I am sorry Otero ..... I just realized you were a 17 year old college student.

You are thinking exactly like people your age think.

My apologies ..... I was about your age when I watched JFK for the first time and it made me believe all kinds of crazy things (which I later found out was untrue)

So keep up the fight young man ..... and come back in about 10 years to see if you feel the same way.

[Danny White]

This article appears to completely slant a report by the NIST that, in reality, confirms that the collapse due to the plane impact was scientifically possible.

The author of this article -- who is clearly an "A" hole nut job who wants to stir up crap and rile up people to make them think our government is murdering its citizens -- ham-fistedly takes a couple of phrases from the NIST completely out of context and crams them into his nut-job agenda.

What's more, it's not that difficult to find out the truth about what the NIST really found in their study. Just go to their official site. If you were really interested in the truth, rather than stirring the pot, you probably would have done this before posting this tripe.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm



I like Ron Paul, but it's junk like this that gives his movement and his supporters a bad name.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by otero1

Yeah, great rebuttal.

when you serve up a joke, you get a joke back.

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

I am sorry Otero ..... I just realized you were a 17 year old college student.

You are thinking exactly like people your age think.

My apologies ..... I was about your age when I watched JFK for the first time and it made me believe all kinds of crazy things (which I later found out was untrue)

So keep up the fight young man ..... and come back in about 10 years to see if you feel the same way.

I don't need your pity buddy.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by otero1

I don't need your pity buddy.

no room for it on the "everyone is out to get me" bus is there?

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by iceberg

no room for it on the "everyone is out to get me" bus is there?

No, not every single person is out to get me. Geez! Quit jumping to conclusions.

[Danny White]

Originally Posted by Danny White

This article appears to completely slant a report by the NIST that, in reality, confirms that the collapse due to the plane impact was scientifically possible.

The author of this article -- who is clearly an "A" hole nut job who wants to stir up crap and rile up people to make them think our government is murdering its citizens -- ham-fistedly takes a couple of phrases from the NIST completely out of context and crams them into his nut-job agenda.

What's more, it's not that difficult to find out the truth about what the NIST really found in their study. Just go to their official site. If you were really interested in the truth, rather than stirring the pot, you probably would have done this before posting this tripe.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm



[View Full Quote]I like Ron Paul, but it's junk like this that gives his movement and his supporters a bad name.

otero...

I find it interesting that you've completely ignored this post.

It confirms my suspicion that you're far more interested in stirring up trouble and advancing half-baked conspiracy theories than you are in really finding out the "truth."

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by Danny White

otero...

I find it interesting that you've completely ignored this post.

It confirms my suspicion that you're far more interested in stirring up trouble and advancing half-baked conspiracy theories than you are in really finding out the "truth."

If you haven't read in the off-topic zone. My grandfather is in the hospital w/ maybe 24hrs to live. I'm just on here wandering right now.

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by Danny White

This article appears to completely slant a report by the NIST that, in reality, confirms that the collapse due to the plane impact was scientifically possible.

The author of this article -- who is clearly an "A" hole nut job who wants to stir up crap and rile up people to make them think our government is murdering its citizens -- ham-fistedly takes a couple of phrases from the NIST completely out of context and crams them into his nut-job agenda.

What's more, it's not that difficult to find out the truth about what the NIST really found in their study. Just go to their official site. If you were really interested in the truth, rather than stirring the pot, you probably would have done this before posting this tripe.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm



[View Full Quote]I like Ron Paul, but it's junk like this that gives his movement and his supporters a bad name.

Once again, someone that disagrees with you is a nut job. That IS CLASSIC..

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by otero1

Once again, someone that disagrees with you is a nut job. That IS CLASSIC..

this coming from someone who says we can't see the facts.