The NIST Model for the Destruction of the WTC
(Please see update below)
As I understand it-- and please correct me if I am wrong here-- this is the basic model put forth by NIST to explain the demise of the WTC twin towers:
1) the airplane impacts break less than 20% of the outer and core tower structural columns.
2) the airplane debris knocks fireproofing off of the steel support structures such as the floor trusses that support the concrete floors.
3) jet fuel from the airplanes cause severe fires throughout the area of impact and eventually weaken, on one side of each tower, the core and outer support columns as well as the fireproof-less floor trusses on a floor section.
4) the floor support trusses give way, and a floor section on one side of the tower collapses
5) the collapsing floor does not break away from the outer and inner columns to which it is attached, but rather pulls them in the direction of the collapse. The outer columns are pulled inwards while one row of core columns is pulled away from the core. Note, photos and videos show the outer wall buckled in somewhat prior to "collapse". This buckling is more believable for the South tower than for the North tower.
6) the floor collapse pulling the outer and inner columns on one side of the tower weakened the core structure dramatically such that the entire upper part of the tower (about 30 stories for the South tower and about 15 stories for the North tower) tilted towards the side of the floor collapse and started falling down on the same side as the initial floor collapse.
7) this upper section of tower falling down on one side puts too much strain on the floors below and the floors below very rapidly gave way-- one by one-- leading to a global, symmetrical, progressive collapse for each tower.
Now, assuming a planes DID crash into the towers (and of course there is a great deal of doubt that Boeing 767s hit the towers), parts 1-4 of the NIST sequence are acceptable. I find it plausible that floor trusses holding up a 65 foot section of floor could be weakened by fire leading to floor collapse.
What I and others have a great deal of problem with is parts 5-7. To put it simply, these parts of the model are absurd.
There is NO evidence that the fires were hot enough to cause inner and outer structural columns to bow in towards the collapsed floor section. Further, to posit that a heavy floor section could pull and distort these structural columns, rather than simply break away from the brackets that held the floor to the heavy structural columns, is rather improbable.
But then to say that this one floor section, comprising at BEST, one sixth of the cross-sectional area of the tower, could cause the complete upper section of the tower to topple over is flat-out ridiculous. A partial collapse of the tower above the collapsed floor would be weakly plausible. But to say that the whole top section of the tower tilts as a whole and falls as a whole section-- flat-out absurd.
Finally, the idea that the upper section of the tower breaking off and falling down on ONE SIDE can drive a near free-fall global symmetrical collapse, is simply wand-waving covering up the fact of demolition. There is no precedent, no logic to explain the NIST model.
There are many reason to think the towers were demolished with explosives of some sort, and the evidence for explosive demolition of the towers is overwhelming. Of course, as I have pointed out before here, the case for nuclear demolition is quite compelling.
But it still is worth trying to understand what the official explanation for the destruction of the towers is, in order to point out simply how BAD it is.
UPDATE:
Two basic questions--
1) did I describe their model correctly? (again please let me know if I missed a key part of their model or if I made a mistake)
2) does the NIST model adequately explain what happened to the towers?
Non-9/11 skeptics/official story believers-- please chime in!
As I understand it-- and please correct me if I am wrong here-- this is the basic model put forth by NIST to explain the demise of the WTC twin towers:
1) the airplane impacts break less than 20% of the outer and core tower structural columns.
2) the airplane debris knocks fireproofing off of the steel support structures such as the floor trusses that support the concrete floors.
3) jet fuel from the airplanes cause severe fires throughout the area of impact and eventually weaken, on one side of each tower, the core and outer support columns as well as the fireproof-less floor trusses on a floor section.
4) the floor support trusses give way, and a floor section on one side of the tower collapses
5) the collapsing floor does not break away from the outer and inner columns to which it is attached, but rather pulls them in the direction of the collapse. The outer columns are pulled inwards while one row of core columns is pulled away from the core. Note, photos and videos show the outer wall buckled in somewhat prior to "collapse". This buckling is more believable for the South tower than for the North tower.
6) the floor collapse pulling the outer and inner columns on one side of the tower weakened the core structure dramatically such that the entire upper part of the tower (about 30 stories for the South tower and about 15 stories for the North tower) tilted towards the side of the floor collapse and started falling down on the same side as the initial floor collapse.
7) this upper section of tower falling down on one side puts too much strain on the floors below and the floors below very rapidly gave way-- one by one-- leading to a global, symmetrical, progressive collapse for each tower.
Now, assuming a planes DID crash into the towers (and of course there is a great deal of doubt that Boeing 767s hit the towers), parts 1-4 of the NIST sequence are acceptable. I find it plausible that floor trusses holding up a 65 foot section of floor could be weakened by fire leading to floor collapse.
What I and others have a great deal of problem with is parts 5-7. To put it simply, these parts of the model are absurd.
There is NO evidence that the fires were hot enough to cause inner and outer structural columns to bow in towards the collapsed floor section. Further, to posit that a heavy floor section could pull and distort these structural columns, rather than simply break away from the brackets that held the floor to the heavy structural columns, is rather improbable.
But then to say that this one floor section, comprising at BEST, one sixth of the cross-sectional area of the tower, could cause the complete upper section of the tower to topple over is flat-out ridiculous. A partial collapse of the tower above the collapsed floor would be weakly plausible. But to say that the whole top section of the tower tilts as a whole and falls as a whole section-- flat-out absurd.
Finally, the idea that the upper section of the tower breaking off and falling down on ONE SIDE can drive a near free-fall global symmetrical collapse, is simply wand-waving covering up the fact of demolition. There is no precedent, no logic to explain the NIST model.
There are many reason to think the towers were demolished with explosives of some sort, and the evidence for explosive demolition of the towers is overwhelming. Of course, as I have pointed out before here, the case for nuclear demolition is quite compelling.
But it still is worth trying to understand what the official explanation for the destruction of the towers is, in order to point out simply how BAD it is.
UPDATE:
Two basic questions--
1) did I describe their model correctly? (again please let me know if I missed a key part of their model or if I made a mistake)
2) does the NIST model adequately explain what happened to the towers?
Non-9/11 skeptics/official story believers-- please chime in!
posted by spooked at 8:30 AM
20 Comments:
poofery! at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second...
You have problems with the model? Fine. Just provide your professional credentials why what you say should carry the appearance of legitimacy and *I'LL* carry your water.
What's that? You don't have *any* qualifications in engineering? You only have the somewhat dubious and moronic claim to creating a chicken wire and bucket of kerosene elementary school contraption that you sent on fire and ended up with 2 results - 1) the World Trade Center, based on your "experiment", could not have fallen and 2) you got a picture of your foot on the Internet?
And we are supposed to believe you?
You are a fucking moron. AND the laughing stock of the Internet.
you have problems with spooked's credentials? fine. just provide your own professional credentials why what you say should carry the appearance of legitimacy.
you 1:41 are the fucking moron.
1:41 and his SPOOK friends can go eat a bowl of dicks...yes let's see the SPOOKS' credentials...
FUCK (!!!) the professionals and the credentials and FUCKING think for yourself.
Thank you.
I mean really-- is that SO MUCH to ask?
Think for yourself?
Does the NIST model make fucking sense or not?
Jesus H. Christ, what a bunch of wankers.
spooked, he was trying to get under your skin, and he succeeded, whoever he is, and whomever he works for, their goal is to destroy movements/activists by causing chaos and confrontation...it's all meant as a DISTRACTION...if you're too busy trying to defend yourself against their questions, you can't keep digging and researching...they're trying to prevent further research and eventual public awareness, "damage control"...who specializes in this? media, public relations, intelligence, counter-intelligence...SPOOKS and SHILLS...
the NIST report is indeed ridiculous.
it doesn't make sense as far as being physically possible but it makes perfect sense when put into the context of supporting the bushco admin.
I didn't think you had any qualifications worth a bucket full of horse shit to lend any sort of legitimacy to your questioning ANY report, much less one put together by a professional organization with.
Reading the responses from your toe-sucking/subservient/compliant supporters is almost as much fun as reading the bullshit on this disinfo blog, though!
Com'on guys! Lets have another round of "Spooky is the Greatest!!" What I REALLY want to see if the elbowing and fighting from them to see who can suck your toes first.
way to go @12:10!
a masterful distraction from the simple fact that the NIST report not only does not reflect what actually happened but would not even be physically possible.
qualifications! what are yours?
You don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing, and while we're cursing and swearing, you don't need to be a gynecologist to be able to tell a cunt from an arsehole (and your second anonymous commenter was both). So how come you need an engineering qualification to make judgements about whether physical phenomenna have contradicted Newtons laws of gravity and motion, the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. A decent high-school physics text book will tell you everything you need to know.
If 9/11 was not an inside job, the insiders would have proved it by now. And the reason why they haven't done that is because it is impossible to prove a lie true. So now we are at the eyeball-to-eyeball staring stage.
Spooked, you are doing a great job just by running this site and saking questions. Keep up the questions. Keep serving as a good role model for the rest of us. And let's all keep staring the perpetrators and their suporters in the eye until they blink, break ranks, and reveal the details of their consipracy a slice at a time. Have we got anything better to do with our leisure hours?
This is a much more attractive war that the once they have got planning for us all to fight against the Third World.
Xlnt points made by greywolf.
The laws of physics are immutable and speak for themselves.
I agree: good job Spooked!
and kudos for not pandering to nonsense influence - from either side.
"""the airplane debris knocks fireproofing off of the steel support structures such as the floor trusses that support the concrete floors."""
fireproofing...what exactly does that entail?
does this insist that there was actually a real fire in one of the WTCs?
edna cintron begs to differ!
Anon at 4:28 pm - are you in truth Spooky in a different costume? I ask that because I can't believe there are TWO people on this earth who are that fucking stupid.
There sure were a whole lot of Edna's around a few floors up, peeking out from the flames that WERE burning. There sure were a whole lot of Edna's peeking out from other floors where fire WAS burning.
I don't ever suppose you've ever seen a fire inspector on the scene of a fire after it burned out. I suppose if you HAD you'd claim, as the stupid fucking moron you are, that there was actually no fire there because "Look! Someone is standing where a "fire" was supposed to have been!"
You stupid shit-for-brains get funnier every day.
hey anon @ 9:24!
do you want to retract this?:
"""There sure were a whole lot of Edna's around a few floors up, peeking out from the flames that WERE burning."""
so your claim is that there were people standing in a fire?
what kind of shoes must they have been wearing?
"""I don't ever suppose you've ever seen a fire inspector on the scene of a fire after it burned out."""
so the fire where edna was standing was burned out yet according to NIST it was hot enough where the "planes" hit to warp the steel and cause a "global collapse"?
and why did this "collapse" entail the entire tower being rendered into powder at the rate of 11 floors per second?
and why didn't NIST address that?
i think it is YOU who are the stupid shit for brains.
Please, no violent threats here.
spooked, these people are paid to protect the PERPS, so they are COMPLICIT...they've threatened you and Fred several times...they deserve all the pain headed their way...
threatening to suck your toes hardly constitutes a violent threat!
ha ha!
anon@3:55, whatever duuudddeee...
i'm gonna keep researching...none of your bullshit scares me AT ALL...i know where to look, how to look, what to look for, and how to inform the public, so it's only a matter of time...cheers matey...tell your spook friends i said hello... :)
dude, @3:55 was pure sarcasm!
it is obvious to me what is what and i am on the side of total exposure.
Post a Comment
<< Home