The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for Deception Part II

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 10,000 pages Published September 2005, but only for Twin Towers Like previous reports, focused only on fire-induced collapse hypothesis Many of the same authors as May 2002 FEMA BPAT report

13. Structure of NIST WTC Report NCSTAR 1-1 NCSTAR 1-2 Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis NCSTAR 1-3 Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel NCSTAR 1-4 NCSTAR 1-5 Reconstruction of the Fires NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence NCSTAR 1-7 NCSTAR 1-8

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