Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
1. The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for DeceptionPart II Kevin Ryan
Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth
December 15th, 2007
8. The fire resistance of the towers The fireproofing
''There is no reason for that product in a typical commercial environment to deteriorate,'' because ?[the] product had been thoroughly tested and approved by Underwriters Laboratories.? James Verhalen, chairman of the company that manufactured the fireproofing, United States Mineral Products, in New York Times, December 14, 2001
The steel components
"The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." Underwriters Laboratories? Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, in NY Times, April 15, 2002.
11. The NIST WTC Report 42 sub-reports and total of
Published September 2005,
but only for Twin Towers
Like previous reports, focused
only on fire-induced collapse
Many of the same authors as
May 2002 FEMA BPAT report
13. Structure of NIST WTC Report NCSTAR 1-1
Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel NCSTAR 1-4
Reconstruction of the Fires
Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence
14. Many low level reports
15. NIST?s primary goal and approach was? To determine ?why and how WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft?
?NIST adopted an approach that combined mathematical modeling, statistical and probability based analysis methods, laboratory experiments, and analysis of photographs and videos.?
NCSTAR 1-6 p lxiv para3
16. In other words, NIST? Assumed fire-induced ?collapse? as a given
Early progress reports and archive presentations make this clear
Estimated interior damage using photographic evidence and computer experimentation
Performed physical tests to determine possible gas temperatures, actual steel temperatures, fireproofing loss, and floor assembly response
Planned to support (pre-determined) conclusions with additional computer modeling
17. What we ended up with Deceptively designed physical tests that failed to support the fire-induced ?collapse? hypothesis
Lower level report findings that were fudged as they moved upward
Only ?collapse initiation sequences? given, and even those changed between final draft and final report
No public access to computer models or the evidence collected at taxpayer expense
18. The physical tests ? gas temperaturesNCSTAR 1-5C, NCSTAR 1-5E Single workstation burn tests
Multiple workstation burn tests
Directed to use two to four times the known average amount of hydrocarbon fuel
Used ?over-ventilation?, meaning an excess of Oxygen despite the fact that the WTC fires were clearly Oxygen starved and ventilation limited
Determined maximum Heat Release Rates (HRRs) that were later mis-used to suggest more thermal energy than was available
19. The physical tests ? steel temperaturesNCSTAR 1-3C, NCSTAR 1-3E NIST?s stated goal - to ?estimate the maximum temperature reached by available steel?*
NIST accomplished this by selecting steel samples from an ?enormous amount? of steel, and by emphasizing ?regions of impact and fire damage? in the selection process.*
Paint deformation test
Only 3 out of 170 WTC samples reached a temperature of 250 ?C.
Steel microstructure test
None of the WTC steel samples reached a temperature of 600 ?C.
*NIST Progress Report May 2003
20. The physical tests ? floor failure?NCSTAR 1-6B Underwriters Laboratories contracted to perform fire resistance tests of floor assembly models
Two models had ?as built? fireproofing of 0.75 in, one had ?as specified? fireproofing of 0.5 in, and one had essentially no fireproofing.
Twice the known WTC floor load applied
After two hours in the furnace, none of them collapsed, and there was minimal sagging
21. The physical tests ? fireproofing loss?NCSTAR 1-6A (appendix C) As of June 2005, in the final draft report, there were no test results provided to establish fireproofing loss, let alone that the fireproofing was ?widely dislodged?
Sept 2005 final report included a 12 page appendix describing a shotgun test performed by NIST
This shotgun test, which included 15 total blasts at non-representative samples in a plywood box, disproved the claim because the energy requirements were too high
22. The computer tests ? impact damageNCSTAR 1-2B Virtual tests of damage consisted of DOE analysis of subassemblies impacted by wings and engines
Wrong experimental design used
Maximum damage was favored response
Levels chosen to favor elimination of certain parameters
Incorrectly used to eliminate levels (-1, 0, +1) as well as parameters
Results produced suggest two engines took out 6 core columns in WTC 1, while one engine took out 10 core columns in WTC 2
Global analyses did not use DOE, but simply eliminated less severe (-1) and base (0) cases without justification
23. The computer tests ? fire and temperaturesNCSTAR 1-5F, NCSTAR 1-5G Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)
Heat Release Rates (HRRs) input from workstation burn tests
All office furnishing rubblized
Aircraft was considered combustible
Windows eliminated after set time point
Used to suggest high gas temperatures throughout building
Fire Structure Interface (FSI)
Set steel thermal conductivity to zero
Used to suggest high steel temperatures
24. The computer tests ? global responseNCSTAR 1-6D, NCSTAR 1-6E ?locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated?
?pull-in forces were applied in some locations where the full floor analyses did not predict the development of such behavior?
?sagging of floors in such a wide range over fire floors was not predicted by the full floor model analyses?
With the thermally equivalent 2.2 in. of fireproofing intact on the south trusses, these trusses did not heat appreciably, and the floors did not sag. (NCSTAR 1-6, p 215)
?Higher temperatures resulted in more outward bowing of columns, and thus larger pull-in forces were required to overcome this outward bowing?
NIST/SGH simply applied fictitious pull-in forces ?based on observations from the photographs and videos?
30. How much fuel was available? Buildings managed to 20 Kg/m2 fire load (i.e. office furnishings)
How much jet fuel was available to feed the fires?
Planes impacted with 10,000 gallons total, by all accounts
FEMA says 1/3 exploded in fireball, 1/3 flowed away and 1/3 remained to feed the fires
What did NIST say about how much remained to feed the fires?
NCSTAR 1-5F says 3,500 gallons, the same as FEMA predicted*
NCSTAR 1 suggests 7,000 gallons in summary of report
NCSTAR 1 says 10,000 gallons in other sections
Meaning the fireballs we saw did not consume any jet fuel
43. What other blind eyes did NIST turn? Fireproofing upgrades
in 1999, 2000
44. Request for Correction, April 2007 Coordinated by attorney James Gourley
Requestors Doyle, Gage, Jones, Legge, McIlvaine, Ryan
Response received from NIST in September 2007
Appeal sent back to NIST in October 2007
All found at www.Journal0f911Studies.com
45. WTC 7 was a 47 story building not hit by a planeIt fell in 6.5 seconds
46. NIST preliminary remarks on WTC 7April ? June 2005
47. What was the debris pattern? Other buildings were hit by debris, but no fires resulted, and none of them collapsed
The buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 suffered little or no damage until WTC 7 fell
What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer massive damage to the foundation, and extensive fires, as a result of the debris from the towers?
48. Steel from WTC 7
49. Conclusion The current NIST WTC report is the last in a string of false official explanations for the destruction of the World Trade Center
NIST and other investigators intentionally avoided demolition as an explanation, and ignored the substantial evidence in support of that hypothesis
Our government has asked us to accept obvious falsehood as the standard for scientific truth
Knowing the fire-induced ?collapse? hypothesis is false, we must put an end to the 9/11 Wars, and reclaim our country