NIST biggest tin-foil hat wearer of them all.

[W4d5Y]

Okay, I'm gonna edit this later on, I'm gonna try find the source of this, but from I read, the NIST believes the World Trade Centers couldn't have collapsed under the cicumstances described in the 9/11 comission report.
Well, after all, fires don't melt steel within less than one hour and fourty minutes.

Okay, here goes...I'm sorry for this.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

2. Intense fires lasted only minutes

The NIST report states that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location." (NIST, 2005; p. 179.)

This is further corroborated by the fact that intense dark choking smoke was being emitted from the towers before they collapsed indicating the fires were oxygen starved and burning at low temperatures.

In addition NIST stated that of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250?C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ?C. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ?C. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

 

[Ennui]

I don't really keep up with all this 9/11 conspiracy crap, but is it not possible that the terrorists also put bombs in the buildings?

 

[W4d5Y]

well, then why did neither the comission report nor osama bin laden or any of his assets mention anything about that?
this smells like a cover up to me. *smells cover-up*
Isn't it obvious enough they're trying to hide something?

 

[Ennui]

As far as I can recall Osama never faxed the plans to the Pentagon after the attacks so maybe they just haven't found out about that part of the plan?

Also, if the commission report excluded it, it's probably because they know a lot more about it than you do and that you're wrong. If it was a coverup, they would probably not be retarded enough to just pretend it didn't happen if there would be evidence against it - they'd probably fabricate some terrorists who planted bombs in the buildings.

 

[W4d5Y]

Yeah, you can't give the government that credit, but figure...that they also were dumb enough not to place a covert operation in iraq to convince us of the impending danger posed by Saddam. But they didn't.
People can't always be all cunning and clever.

Anyway, Bin Laden's private television shows never mentioned anything about explosives at all at any point.

And after, it tears my mind apart, concidering Rodriguez' account that there were secondary explosions in the basements, although bombs wouldn't have been necessary there.
I know that this assumption (concerning the matter of the basements, not the matter of bombs itself, which is out of question) is rather implausible, but I think beyond any reasonable doubt that there were bombs in the towers.
After all, wtc 7 had its own "secondary explosions" and it's collapse it's sooo irrational, so I honestly don't care wether it has plausibility, as long as there's indication of something, plausibility is nothing that could reverse its occurance.

But anyway, picture the congress stating Al Quaeda (which is only a name of a computer file of bin laden's) had planted explosives at least in the cellar...
Then people would start asking questions, why nobody ever pointed this out, not even Al Quaeda (or however that oh-so dangerous group is called).

Also, there would be doubt how this could be accomplished, since explosives in the basements sound pretty familiar...*cough93cough*
The people would probably not buy that you could execute the same criminal plan twice in a row.
If somebody brakes into your house because you leave the window open, you learn.
Next time, you'll secure your window.
But it would be weird after all, if the burglar tried to execute the same plan again, although he could predict the window would be thoroughly secured by that time.

It's just like that fact that the criminal does not return to the crime scene, unless he's incredibly stupid.

Anyway, I don't think there's a way how Bin Laden's assets could have tricked the Stratosec with this twice.

 

[No Limit]

You took one sentence out of the NIST report which is hundreds of pages long and used it to say they believe in a conspiracy? For ****s sake people, go outside, get some fresh air. Whatever you have to do to stop posting this bullshit.

 

[W4d5Y]

Actually, I quoted five sentences, but I think this wasn't part of the *initial* report but a result from a later study they did on WTC-steel probes and testing entities.
Well, I honestly don't ****ing think this is quoting out of context, unless of course the other hundreds of pages all said "steel melts at 250 degrees steel melts at 250 degrees eric is a fag steel melts at 250 degrees".
But I reckon this is not the case, so you are comitting a prejudice here, because you think conspiracy theorists are all single amateur-physicians who think no planes hit the world trade center.

 

[Tyguy]

He's right!

*watches loose change again with pants around ankles*

:hmph:

 

[No Limit]

Actually, I quoted five sentences, but I think this wasn't part of the *initial* report but a result from a later study they did on WTC-steel probes and testing entities.
Well, I honestly don't ****ing think this is quoting out of context, unless of course the other hundreds of pages all said "steel melts at 250 degrees steel melts at 250 degrees eric is a fag steel melts at 250 degrees".

You don't need steel to completely melt for it to lose most of its strength.

But I reckon this is not the case, so you are comitting a prejudice here, because you think conspiracy theorists are all single amateur-physicians who think no planes hit the world trade center.

Well you got the first part right, I think you are all wannabe structural engineers that will take a report from real structural engineers, take passages out of context, totally ignore the final conclusion of that report, and then pull out of your ass your own half baked theories that have absolutely no scientific back up. You people can not find a single structural engineer to back up anything you have said, so why do you keep repeating this bullshit when its pretty clear you have absolutely no f-cking clue as to what you are talking about.

And don't be so harsh, I don't know that all of you "truthers" deny planes hit the world trade center, but many of you do.

 

[No Limit]

LOL. Just found this searching for the melting point of steel:

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/2007/04/paging_dr_rosie.html

 

[Saturos]

He's right!

*watches loose change again with pants around ankles*

:hmph:

Michael Moore is a dick.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

If the US government wanted to fake/stage an attack, they would be able to do it without people noticing. They are smarter and richer than any of us. You really think they would make a mistake?
The USA did not cause 9/11. Deny it all you want, the above argument will always apply and applies for most conspiracy theories.

 

[W4d5Y]

You don't need steel to completely melt for it to lose most of its strength.

I doubt you could weak steel to that point, if you only have less than a third of the melting point temperature.
It was said that there was no indication by the NIST that there was sufficient heat to make the steel even lose half of its strength

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4W37g_uLYNs

I think you are all wannabe structural engineers that will take a report from real structural engineers, take passages out of context, totally ignore the final conclusion of that report, and then pull out of your ass your own half baked theories that have absolutely no scientific back up.

alright, let's figure again what the NIST report said: "The results established that this tpye of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11."
NIST, page 143

Much of a false quotation. Or did I forget to quote the big NOT in red big letters at the end?

I don't know that all of you "truthers" deny planes hit the world trade center, but many of you do.

now, that is, what I call an outright lie and insanely false accusation.

Apart from some esoteric hillbillies on youtube, none of which are professors of physics who teached at MIT and serve the scholars for 9/11 truth movement, ALL of the 9/11 investigation sites explicitly point out they do not wish to be related to nukes, direct energy weapons or even worse, NO-PLANERS. THEY JUST DON'T.

You people can not find a single structural engineer to back up anything you have said

ooooh clicky for 9/11 truth:
http://911proof.com/10.html
aaaaand some experts for your enjoyment here:
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
but wait, didn't I tell you the whole of NIST concluded they can't find out why the towers collapsed?

Here is the list of the people, who even you would find to be experts:
Frank W. Gayle
Richard J. Fields
William E. Luecke
Stephen B. Banovic
Timothy Foecke
Cristopher N. McCowan
Thomas A. Siewert
J. David McColskey

Now guess what? They WORK for NIST, THEY did the OFFICIAL report!
And what I quoted is an excerpt from their LATEST conclusions!
Now, I won't have to quote the whole 184 page report to tell you what they think: UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE DAY OF 9/11, THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE COLLAPSED. THAT'S WHAT THE NIST BELIEVES.

Are they crazy paranoids now, too??

[Note, that given they temperatures were below 600? degrees, now figure that this could not have melted aluminium, which melts at 660? celsius.
But what do we have here?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA

Either this is proof that the temperatures were in fact higher than 600? degrees and the NIST is incredibly wrong (again).
Or, if you are on the conspiracy theorists' side, it is another indication of a physical oddity concerning the matter of the towers.

My thoughts on this:
My take is, it's interesting this event happened right before the collapse.
I don't know wether a possible thermite charge would be placed in the outer edge of the tower's exterior trusses, the corner collumns would be weight-bearing then. (excuse me my possible grammar errors!:flame

Now, any other place would probably be out of the question, since the exterior trusses are structurally uninteresting, and the core collumns after all were the designated target of the plane, so any charges there could have set off too early, destructing the towers too quick and thereby sparking questions.
So, *maybe* corner collumns/trusses are even plausible.
But an intersting point is, that the temperatures, no matter how hot they could have gotten in the rest of the affected stories, probably was lowest in the impact zone itself, by the time the tower collapsed.
Why I believe this? Check this mother out:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html
scroll down a bit...yeah, nice and smooth...
And what do we have? A woman standing in the middle of the building's debris and scorched plane wreckage. But is it hot?
Nah, she neither looks burnt, nor does it seem to dangerous for her to rest her arm on one of the scorched collumns:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg

Now, picture this...The impact zone was the area that was heavily damaged, but since all the plane fuel exploded there, this area totally burnt out and while it was the worst affected by the plane, it would be the safest from the fires by the time of the collapse.

But how could it be plane debris?
This molten...something flows out of the fassade that flight 175 crashed into. In the corner located to the far left of the impact area.
If you imagine a blueprint of the affected stories, you can imagine how the plane enters the building, then obliterates into single pieces of debris, spreading over a triangular shape through the remainder of the building...

But this place, where the molten metal flows from is a location with the least probability of finding plane debris in.

And picture this; if they (the towers) should have been able to take the damage and remain standing after a less-than-two-hour-long-office-fire;
then how could it be possible to accept that a building like world trade center 7 could have collapsed, which took far far far less damage than one given single story of the impact zone of either of the towers, and couldn't have completely collapsed since the videos cleary show that no matter how bad it might have been hit, at least two thirds of the building were intact by the time it all miraculously came down, all of the perimeter collumns and trusses failing at the same time:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q
(I just learned there was an explosion 9 seconds before wtc 7 came down. Similiar accustic events occured before the collapse of the south tower (dunno know which fell first/was hit second, while it should be noted that one can speculate that these were just trusses failing), not to forget the extensive exlosive events having occured way below the impact area of the towers)

Anyway, half of the victims' families doubt the government's official version: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/aj_2006-07-07_clipped.mp3

So what does this tell us? Did they go crazy, too?

so does the 9/11 congressional comission itself:
http://911proof.com/6.html

And the conservatives:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/911-and-right.html

 

[Absinthe]

Get ****ed, mate.

 

[Saturos]

Get ****ed, mate.

The guy is just blowing steam just like everyone else here, just let him speak is mind.

 

[W4d5Y]

If the US government wanted to fake/stage an attack, they would be able to do it without people noticing. They are smarter and richer than any of us. You really think they would make a mistake?
The USA did not cause 9/11. Deny it all you want, the above argument will always apply and applies for most conspiracy theories.

There never is a perfect crime.
Given that basic assumption, we all have a reason to remain open-minded until a complete conclusion, based on ALL of the evidence given, can be drawn.

Reckon the US also couldn't keep the beans about the contra scandal, the "bay full of pigs thing" (>related to kennedy) AND last but not least,
OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

If the government couldn't keep its secrets about a secret paper that elaborated on blowing up airplanes as a red-flag excuse for going to war with cuba 40 years ago, then how many people would "notice" all the inadequacies regarding its official version of the events and the cover-up regarding suppression of serious intriguing points about the comission report?

Remember, people have already resigned from the comission over frustration of the dirty work they have to do:
http://911proof.com/7.html
(I think this was the correct link)

 

[Absinthe]

The guy is just blowing steam just like everyone else here, just let him speak is mind.

You too.

 

[Saturos]

You too.

I try to let people speak their minds, it's difficult sometimes, I know. Especially when they want to flame everyone for not agreeing with them.

 

[Absinthe]

There's agreeing to disagree over a point of view where both sides have some conceivable merit.

Then there's plain, willing ignorance.

So let's be straight. There is no evidence of a 9/11 plan based on ulterior motives. There is no evidence to suspect the US government as being a participant in the attack. Most 9/11 conspiracy theories and arguments have been refuted and/or debunked (9/11 Myths). And even if there are a few unanswered questions or unfilled blanks, in no way does this validate people making shit up in order to fill the gaps.

This isn't a debate. This is a farce; one that has run in circulation endlessly even though every topic reaches the same verdict: That 9/11 conspiracies are total crap and that everybody who takes part in coming up with or agreeing with them has exercised a severe lack of critical thinking and sanity. Opinions should not be a safe haven for retardation. I don't extend courtesy to people who argue that the moon landing was a hoax. I don't see what's any different here.

 

[Saturos]

There's agreeing to disagree over a point of view where both sides have some conceivable merit.

Then there's plain, willing ignorance.

So let's be straight. There is no evidence of a 9/11 plan based on ulterior motives. There is no evidence to suspect the US government as being a participant in the attack. Most 9/11 conspiracy theories and arguments have been refuted and/or debunked (9/11 Myths). And even if there are a few unanswered questions or unfilled blanks, in no way does this validate people making shit up in order to fill the gaps.

This isn't a debate. This is a farce; one that has run in circulation endlessly even though every topic reaches the same verdict: That 9/11 conspiracies are total crap and that everybody who takes part in coming up with or agreeing with them has exercised a severe lack of critical thinking and sanity. Opinions should not be a safe haven for retardation. I don't extend courtesy to people who argue that the moon landing was a hoax. I don't see what's any different here.

I can understand your point there Absinthe. At least you I can agree with on something. There is definitely not enough evidence to back up any sort of conspiracy in 9/11.

 

[Tyguy]

Everyones a ****ing engineer after watching these videos...Do you really think that all these experts are involved in this plot to deceive the American public? Or is it the fact that they have degrees and know what they are talking about?

Find something else to label a conspiracy

 

[Sulkdodds]

Is it just me or is the thread title disigenuous?

The news story presented by the OP is the opposite of what the OP claims, really.

A new study into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers has been released that correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the theory that intense fires weakened the structure and initiated "global collapse". Much like the NIST report however, it is fatally flawed.

Come on! Journalism, people? The first paragraph of a hard news story should tell you all you need to know on a basic level. And hey, this first paragraph tells us everything: a new study has appeared that agrees with the two year old NIST study - but Prisonplanet finds it flawed!!!

Find a better source saying that NIST has come to new conclusions. I want it unambiguously in black and white. From NIST themselves would be nice.

 

[W4d5Y]

Don't give popular mechanics too much credit. They are using the pancake collapse theory to explain the collapse of the towers, while the ones responsible for this theory already retracted it...the NIST itself.

And yes, there sure is a whole lot that can be debunked. But think about strawmen arguments:
If everything the newsstations report is, that there actually is something like a movement suggesting no planes crashed into the towers, then of course the whole truth movement is discredited at once.

I know 911myths very well and I have watched parts of screw loose change, and I really like people, who find the truth, because by correcting false assumptions, we support the idea of trying to seek the truth.

But not even 911myths does explain, why it took the FBI so long to clear the mystery plane thing up, and why it initially edited testimony about that matter.
What the e-4b plane was about, why it was in the air and why that was covered up.

-If there is nothing to hide, then they would have nothing to hide! But they do anyway!-

Why was the C-130, that accompaigned flight 77 on its final approach to the pentagon flying in its radar shadow, flying a few hundred feet over it, not as if it was following, but guiding that plane into its target...

Also, once the FBI had come up with an explanation for this plane flying around, why was it the only plane that had (officially) been able to intercept any of the flights? (Remember, there was a white, unmarked plane with engines located at its tail-section over the flight 93 crash site)

And the FBI even tells us, one and the same plane witness both the crash of flight 77 and then the crash of 93, while 93 was, given the material available, probably shot down, and the plane that flew in the range of its crash site was also not a C-130 cargo plane (or a C-130 electronic warfare plane??) but something more akin to a lear-jet, while it hasn't yet been identified as such by anyone who saw it.

So, what they also lied to us about, regarding aeronautic anti-terrorism, is, that planes still can be tracked by radar, even with its transponders off.
And the government's account soon was, that they could only guess which route the planes exactely took, because they had no idea.

This claim has been refuted by a professional air-traffic controller, who himself believes, the planes could never have reached their destinations, if somebody hadn't hindered NORAD's work.

So why was it exactely that day that they had operation global guardian running, huh?
A live-fly wargame involving real airplanes as part of an air defense scenario.

It was officially reported that "blips", artificially inserted planes into air-traffic controllers' radarscreens, still were being cleansed from the radar screens until hours into the whole incident.

And you were also lied to about the planes because Cheney had flight 77 tracked on radar for at least 50 miles before it hit the pentagon.

This becomes obvious by Traffic minister Norman Mineta's account before the 9/11 comission.
Of course this wasn't implemented into the report, because it contradicts the official account, which is of course true.

No worries about all the fallacies concerning the timeline, the comission's concideration of taking legal actions because of the false statements NORAD and the FAA offered.

No worries why the CIA would interfer with the transmission of data about two of the 19 hijackers before 9/11 among the fbi.

Of coooouuuurse it was all clean as a baby's silk bottom.

Oh, what kind of intelligence, one way or other, do the americans have if you can't get the FBI to observe Zacarias Moussaoui after you warn you supervisors 70 ****ing times about his interest to fly a plane into the world trade center.


Why were jets scrambled in Langley, Virginia, if Andrews Air Force Base (I think edwards is the testing range at the west coast, is it?) had three F-16s at its conveniance?
Something that was later covered up by deleting a certain phrase on its own website, that entry is now only visible on an internet archive.


I think, even after reading all of 911myths, and even after watching all of screw loose change, I will never give up the idea that all this stuff points to a conspiracy.

 

[kirovman]

I will never give up the idea that all this stuff points to a conspiracy.

The earthquake in Peru was caused by the feds wanting to slightly irritate kathaksung's undead wife.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

http://www.debunking911.com/

 

[Nemesis6]

The earthquake in Peru was caused by the feds wanting to slightly irritate kathaksung's undead wife.

Hold on, she was alive when she was traveling to Peru and she made it back safely as far as I remember?

Yeah, sorry, I'm starting to find his posts just too hilarious to pass up. They're really great stories if you can get into them.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, after all, fires don't melt steel within less than one hour and fourty minutes.

Burning that constant and with so much to BURN, the steel will most certainly expand or change shape under the pressure of holding up so many metric tons.

That expansion alone could've destabilized the structure enough for a collaspe.

 

[W4d5Y]

I doubt that, because for structural integrity to vanish, the integrity of the steel would've had to be compromised as well, which cannot happen with temperatures less than 600? degrees Celsius.
What really tears my brains apart is the fact, that with the second tower hit falling first, we see there had been dynamic damage...
Since the second tower had more weight to bear, its structure was first to fail.
So if somebody blew up the towers, he must have been pretty clever to decide which one was more likely to fail.

On the other hand, given that explosives were located in the towers, they probably were in place to damage the overall structure, to aid the later collapse, not to destruct the building in place. Picturing somebody would have blown up all of the *potential* explosives at once, the towers were more likely to collapse sooner, drawing too much attention on possible physical fallacies (which already exist), as would the massive explosive event created...
//edit: This also is another reason why I seriously doubt terrorists could be the source for explosive devices, which has been a futile claim made by debunkers, desperately seeking to find a reason why such thoughts ought to be skeptic about.

So apart from firefighters being thrown upwards stairs by explosive events below them and the burning tower section and other firefighters witnessing flashes as the towers failed, the thermite discussion is really exciting.

Dr. Steven Jones pointed out that the massive temperature pools located in the rubble of 1, 2 and 7 in the aftermath of 9/11 were consistant with the employment of thermite in their destruction.

Now, the funny thing is that since the NIST alleges the fires went out after twenty minutes and never were capable of even melting aluminium, how did those temperatures get there after the collapse?
(I heard a pretty interesting explanation from some debunker regarding the use of water to cool that rubble down and some odd exothermic chemical reaction, yet I cannot remember that one right.)

So what intrigues me about that famous thermite-video is, that this flowing metal stream comes out of the side of the building which was hit by the plane...
So the usual debunkers' attempt was, to explain that this more likely than molten steel was molten aluminium from the plane, since it has a lower melting point (660.3? Celsius).

Now two things, according to the NIST, there wasn't enough heat for any metal to melt at all, also, even if NIST was wrong about their conclusions regarding the fires, we all agree that since this molten stream of metal flows out of the side which the plane hit in, this side is less likely to have any aluminium debris.
In fact, on the stories which were affected by the plane's impact, this corner has the least probability of any other place in that area to feature plane debris.

Picture the impact, the plane comes in, fuel explodes, it obliterates into thousand pieces of debris, spreading in the back of the building, facing the impact zone.

I'm done here so far, I'll other stuff later. But please, you should read the longer entry on the first page again, it is all explained there.


Question remains, why is this stuff there if it is not supposed to be?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I doubt that, because for structural integrity to vanish, the integrity of the steel would've had to be compromised as well, which cannot happen with temperatures less than 600? degrees Celsius.

Oh really and did you climb the tower with a Thermometer in hand to rate it yourself? Or where you the Unibomber?