The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for Deception Part II. Kevin Ryan Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth December 15 th , 2007. What do we know about 9/11?.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for DeceptionPart II
Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth
December 15th, 2007
What do we know about 9/11?
*The 9/11 Commission Report + The NIST WTC Report
Unprecedented Building Failures
Questioning an Ever-changing Story
*National Institute of Standards and Technology
Open letter from 12,000+ scientists, currently including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients
Union of Concerned Scientists
House Committee on Government Reform
Early support for the official WTC story
WTC’s design engineer
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building… [But] the building structure would still be there.”
Seattle Times, 2/27/1993
Official investigations into the collapse of the WTC buildings
Different stories, but same people
but only for Twin Towers
only on fire-induced collapse
May 2002 FEMA BPAT report
FEMA authors become NIST authors
Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
Reconstruction of the Fires
Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence
NCSTAR 1-6 p lxiv para3
*NIST Progress Report May 2003
NIST’s final, computer-based story
1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged
4. High temperatures “weakened” columns and floors
5. Some floors began to sag
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle
7. Instability spread around entire building
“Global collapse ensued”
1. How many columns were severed?
Quote from Engineering News-Record, 1964
2. How much load was re-distributed?
Quote from Engineering News-Record, 1964
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?
“The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” -- NIST
3. NIST must have done extensive testing to prove fireproofing was widely dislodged!
* “No evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate”, NCSTAR 1-5F, pg 56
4. How hot could the steel have become?
Temperatures in perspective (°C)
750 degree difference
75 degree difference
How long did fires last in failure zones?
“The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.”
(NCSTAR 1-6, section 9.4.3 and section 10.9.4)
Only about 45 min!
5. Some floors began to sag?
6. How did the sagging floors pull exterior columns inward causing them to buckle?
NIST’s “enhanced” photo suggesting bowing just before failure.
Manipulated and disconnectedNCSTAR 1-6, p115
(computer result for one case out of nine)
7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter?
Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press
NIST’s collapse initiation sequence: What would objective scientists have found?
1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact
2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity
3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged
4. Steel could not have softened/weakened at the temps found
5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed minimal sagging of floors
6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward
7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free-fall
NIST’s computer story is Bush Science
“Global collapse ensued?”
The NIST WTC report is false because…
NIST’s FAQ responses – Aug 2006
or it may have been caused by the duration of the fires in the pile
in 1999, 2000
NCSTAR 1-6, p 20