New NIST Report on the WTC Collapses
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has put out a new report on the collpase of the WTC towers on 9/11.
I looked at a couple of the reports, and there are a lot of fancy diagrams. There are also some interesting pictures of the collapse I hadn't seen before. They also claim they have several thousand pieces of the WTC steel that they have examined, interestingly.
Their new story seems to be that the towers collapsed due to:
1) the aircraft damaging the steel supports of the building, and
2) the fires from the planes weakening the steel beams and causing the supporting structure to lose integrity, and that
3) this was no fault of the design of the building or the fireproofing.
Certainly, this seems to make more sense than simply the old theory that the plane fuel caused extreme fires that weakened the floor trusses causing a catastrophic and cascading collapse of the floors. And this may well explain why the top thirty floors of the south tower eventually started to buckle on one side, and this large piece of building actually broke off and started to fall.
NIST has fancy diagrams showing the temperatures on the impacted floors of the towers, and some spots show heating over 800 degrees. It is not clear how they got this data. I can only assume they modeled it somehow, and clearly this analysis can be taken with a grain of salt.
What NIST fails to explain, and really nobody can explain either, in the absence of controlled demolition, the complete disintegration of each tower into fine dust each in the time frame of in 10-15 seconds. Most peculiarly (I have posted on this before) is how on the south tower, the upper section of thirty floors simply disintegrates after it breaks off. You would think that there wouldn't be any great gravitational pull causing this section to collapse on itself, since it was in freefall! And it has always been strange how both towers collapse at an almost freefall rate, when you might expect the lower, non-fire damaged floors to give at least SOME resistance.
It is nice, I guess, to see the government change its story to a more reasonable model.
Now I wonder if they've tested any of those pieces of steel for traces of explosives....
I looked at a couple of the reports, and there are a lot of fancy diagrams. There are also some interesting pictures of the collapse I hadn't seen before. They also claim they have several thousand pieces of the WTC steel that they have examined, interestingly.
Their new story seems to be that the towers collapsed due to:
1) the aircraft damaging the steel supports of the building, and
2) the fires from the planes weakening the steel beams and causing the supporting structure to lose integrity, and that
3) this was no fault of the design of the building or the fireproofing.
Certainly, this seems to make more sense than simply the old theory that the plane fuel caused extreme fires that weakened the floor trusses causing a catastrophic and cascading collapse of the floors. And this may well explain why the top thirty floors of the south tower eventually started to buckle on one side, and this large piece of building actually broke off and started to fall.
NIST has fancy diagrams showing the temperatures on the impacted floors of the towers, and some spots show heating over 800 degrees. It is not clear how they got this data. I can only assume they modeled it somehow, and clearly this analysis can be taken with a grain of salt.
What NIST fails to explain, and really nobody can explain either, in the absence of controlled demolition, the complete disintegration of each tower into fine dust each in the time frame of in 10-15 seconds. Most peculiarly (I have posted on this before) is how on the south tower, the upper section of thirty floors simply disintegrates after it breaks off. You would think that there wouldn't be any great gravitational pull causing this section to collapse on itself, since it was in freefall! And it has always been strange how both towers collapse at an almost freefall rate, when you might expect the lower, non-fire damaged floors to give at least SOME resistance.
It is nice, I guess, to see the government change its story to a more reasonable model.
Now I wonder if they've tested any of those pieces of steel for traces of explosives....
posted by spooked at 11:05 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for pointing out this "new" NIST report to me, Spooked. It was good for a thousand smirks, plus those images (within the PDF file) to which you referred.
See, no matter how believable an explanation anyone ever comes up with, there is no getting around the fact that the towers simply fell too rapidly for them to have collapsed "gravitationally", which is what we've been told/sold.
It takes more than 9 seconds to free-fall from the towers' former height. IN A VACUUM! It take 10+ seconds to free-fall form that height near sea-level (in air).
On the bottom of page 305 (322[!] PDF) of the 9/11 Omission Report, it says that the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
Remember, we've been told that the collapse began way up high in the damaged impact zone, and proceeded to collapse through dozens and dozens of supposedly-undamaged floors below, in a time so brief that the supposedly-undamaged floors below offered no more resistance to the collapse than air (nevermind that a moment earlier, the supposedly-undamaged floors below had been strong and sturdy enough to support the tower for 30 years, something air could never do).
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel (+ concrete) resistance is thousands of times greater than air resistance.
Clearly, the towers had their 'legs' taken out from under them. (Less clear is that some secret weapon was used to dissociate most of the towers' contents, but you can take that to the bank, too.)
Clearly, "hijackers with boxcutters" could not have been responsible for this.
Having studied both physics and the boeing.com web site, I can assure you that hijackers were neither necessary nor sufficient to account for what happened on 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home