A Peer-Reviewed Professional Publication

[jtfanclub]

Why, indeed, would the NIST fail to test for thermite

You know what thermite is, right?

 

Thermite is a mix of aluminum and iron oxide.

 

In an open flame, steel doesn't tend to melt. It tends to burn. Burnt steel is mostly iron oxide. Take the body of the plane (mostly aluminum), pour it (aluminum melts at 660 degrees celsius, even these guys admit the fire was around 1000 degrees) over iron oxide, set it on fire, and you get a thermite reaction. Not as good as if the aluminum was powdered, but still darn spectactular. It also explains the oddly colored glowing stuff, how the fire got hot enough to destroy the steel structure, and so on and so forth.

 

Why don't they test for thermite? Because they'd be guaranteed to get a positive.

The fact that they don't mention once the properties of the hull of the plane is enough for me to dismiss these guys as wackos.

 

P.S. Why did the building collapse the way it did? Because it was designed to collapse that way from the start. If they hadn't designed it that way, it would be impossible to demolish without risking everybody in a half mile radius.

 

P.P.S. Building 7 is a red herring. It contained an enormous amout of secret stuff, so I'm sure it was rigged to self-destruct. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to imagine why it would collapse like that.

That's rather a remarkable conclusion - I assume you did not bother to read the article as you seem to already know what it says?

 

Strange, the NIST does not agree with your conclusions.

I don't know where you get your facts - but the NIST disputes your claims.

The NIST admits they cannot explain the collapse - why is it a problem finding an explanation?

 

Perhaps you could publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - even a low-to-mid end one. I'm sure such conclusive proof would be welcomed.

*I* have quite an imagination? 15 seconds?

 

The NIST disputes my claims?

 

No, some group of wackos claims the NIST disputes my claims. The NIST had no trouble showing how the fire maintained temperatures of about 500 degrees C.

 

It doesn't turn into a 'gob of thermite'. And a 500C fire is more than enough to ignite it. It explains why they didn't test for thermite- it would have tested positive. It also explains the strange color blobs and the tiny amount of melted steel (steel doesn't melt at 500 degrees, but it will have structural damage). In other words, it explains everything the wackos think is unexplainable.

 

It was not what caused the towers to collapse. If you want to know about that, try reading:

 

\http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

 

which explains it in exacting detail, including the computer model that matches what happened.

 

Yes, I read the nut case article, that claims to 'agree' with the report above says. You might try reading it yourself- I have. Hopefully you'll come to a very different conclusion than they did.

[Al_U_Card]

Your url is no good. Got another? Thanks

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, there's an initial backwards slash there you need to take out. Not sure why it does that sometimes.

[Winstonm]

jt:

 

I only got a blank, white page, even after removing the backslash, so I found an NIST fact sheet. A couple of points. (emphasis added)

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

 

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

 

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

 

 

 

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

 

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

 

These two points are the real basis of contention. As you see, the NIST states that tests and "sophisticated computer simiulations" were done to the point the towers began to collapse.

Then they conclude that, "the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

 

The problem is, they offer no proof of the claim made in the second point - and physicists outside the NIST claim the law of conversation of momentum makes the NIST claim invalid.

 

The calculations and the computer model used by the NIST should be made available for validation of their finding.

[Winstonm]

I've seen a lot of discussion that the beams "failed" based the intense heat. However, the failure mode didn't result in a nice clear slice. Rather, the beams got soft because of high levels of heat and then buckled (some may even have been torn)

 

I haven't seen any analysis that indicates that anyone found locations where the beams were deliberately cut.

 

Yes, that is the claim, that the intense fires caused the steel to weaken. There are two problems the NIST found with that conclusion. In their own tests, steel did not weaken even after 2 hours of higher temperatures than the real fire could have created. This led to a conclusion that the fireproofing must have been blown off by the the impacts.

 

I am not arguing that the NIST model does not explain the start of collapse - what I am stating is that NIST had to make unproven assumptions and then expand their models beyond what their own studies suggested in order to make their hypothesis workable (There are many good creitiques of the NIST's methodology if you care to read about it)

 

And then this hypothesis only leads to collapse initiiation - the NIST only makes an unproven and dispruted claim to explain the freefall collapse speed.

 

Maybe the NIST's models are right - if they are then what is the problem with allowing that information to be validated independently?

[jtfanclub]

jt:

 

I only got a blank, white page, even after removing the backslash, so I found an NIST fact sheet.

Huh, it comes up for me even on another system.

 

You can get to this, right?

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

-Important links, right side side, look for "final reports".

 

These two points are the real basis of contention.  As you see, the NIST states that tests and "sophisticated computer simiulations" were done to the point the towers began to collapse.

Then they conclude that, "the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

 

The problem is, they offer no proof of the claim made in the second point - and physicists outside the NIST claim the law of conversation of momentum makes the NIST claim invalid.

 

The calculations and the computer model used by the NIST should be made available for validation of their finding.

 

First off, I think you're very confused about what a computer simulation is. It's not a cute little thing you buy for $19.95. Just running that sim probably would take Deep Blue days, not to mention the days or weeks before simply to input the data. What exactly is it that you would expect them to hand over?

 

On WTC 1, the antenna truss was all that was keeping it up by the time the exterior of the building collapsed (you could "see" the floors collapse minutes before that, expelling air out the side of the building). Once the floors went, the truss shattered. What did NOT happen, and the NIST says this over and over, is that the antenna broke the floor below it, which broke the floor below it, and so on, which is what these 'phycisists' claimed. At the time the exterior fell, it was a hollow shell, and it all collapsed simultaneously, or close enough not to matter.

 

But your real problem here is thinking that the NIST has "prove" this to you. If you think the NIST is bogus, then there's no "proof" they could possibly offer that could satisfy you. If, for example, they tested for explosives and found none, you'd just claim they faked it. The idea that they did a simulation and that you could look at it and, yep, you could tell whether they put in the million pieces of data correctly is laughable.

 

If you think they're real, well, read the reports. They're pretty convincing.

[mike777]

jt:

 

I only got a blank, white page, even after removing the backslash, so I found an NIST fact sheet.

Huh, it comes up for me even on another system.

 

You can get to this, right?

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

-Important links, right side side, look for "final reports".

 

These two points are the real basis of contention.   As you see, the NIST states that tests and "sophisticated computer simiulations" were done to the point the towers began to collapse.

Then they conclude that, "the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

 

The problem is, they offer no proof of the claim made in the second point - and physicists outside the NIST claim the law of conversation of momentum makes the NIST claim invalid.

 

The calculations and the computer model used by the NIST should be made available for validation of their finding.

 

First off, I think you're very confused about what a computer simulation is. It's not a cute little thing you buy for $19.95. Just running that sim probably would take Deep Blue days, not to mention the days or weeks before simply to input the data. What exactly is it that you would expect them to hand over?

 

On WTC 1, the antenna truss was all that was keeping it up by the time the exterior of the building collapsed (you could "see" the floors collapse minutes before that, expelling air out the side of the building). Once the floors went, the truss shattered. What did NOT happen, and the NIST says this over and over, is that the antenna broke the floor below it, which broke the floor below it, and so on, which is what these 'phycisists' claimed. At the time the exterior fell, it was a hollow shell, and it all collapsed simultaneously, or close enough not to matter.

 

But your real problem here is thinking that the NIST has "prove" this to you. If you think the NIST is bogus, then there's no "proof" they could possibly offer that could satisfy you. If, for example, they tested for explosives and found none, you'd just claim they faked it. The idea that they did a simulation and that you could look at it and, yep, you could tell whether they put in the million pieces of data correctly is laughable.

 

If you think they're real, well, read the reports. They're pretty convincing.

 

"At the time the exterior fell, it was a hollow shell, and it all collapsed simultaneously, or close enough not to matter."

 

 

I may have misunderstood what you said here but are you saying:

1) The inside of the building(towers), floors, stairs fell to the ground over several minutes while the outside walls stood up and then

2) the outside walls fell?

3) In other words the insides(floors, stairs, etc) did not hit and bring down the outside walls?

4) I do not know anything about this building 7 , I assume this is building that was not hit by the planes and debri or the earthquake from the towers made building seven collapse?

[jtfanclub]

At the time the exterior fell, it was a hollow shell, and it all collapsed simultaneously, or close enough not to matter."

 

 

I may have misunderstood what you said here but are you saying:

1) The inside of the building(towers), floors, stairs fell to the ground over several minutes while the outside walls stood up and then

2) the outside walls fell?

3) In other words the insides(floors, stairs, etc) did not hit and bring down the outside walls?

4) I do not know anything about this building 7 , I assume this is building that was not hit by the planes and debri or the earthquake from the towers made building seven collapse?

What happened from my reading (and again, it's worth reading yourself) is...

 

There is a "hat truss", or antenna truss, networked throughout the building, designed to distribute the weight of the antenna throughout the floors and on the ground itself, instead of just on the upper floors.

 

1. The inside of the building, floors, and stairs fell first. The outer wall was being held up only by the hat truss.

 

2. At some point as the floors collapsed, the truss was overloaded, since it wasn't designed to keep up the exterior building. The truss broke throughout the building.

 

3. The walls collapsed inward. This was by deliberate design, so that when the building was demolished the rubble would be spread over a minimal area. The 'natural' thing for walls to do in this case would be to stand up until wind, or ground shock, or something above hit them, at which point they'd fall randomly. Obviously, that would be very undesirable for a building that tall, so the walls were built so that when all side supports were gone (the floors, interior walls, and truss) were gone they would collapse inward on their own.

 

4. The antenna, no longer held up by anything, broke through the roof and fell to the ground pretty much straight down.

 

There was a delay of maybe a minute or two between the start of step 1 and the end of step 3. Step 4 actually started a little before the end of step 3. But at the point that the antenna was falling, the walls were already falling as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe. I would find it suprising if the CIA didn't have the building rigged because, well, they're the CIA, and they'd be afraid of terrorists taking it over or some such nonsense. It did have enormous amounts of kerosene being stored there, which didn't help. It's not hard to imagine that combination going up because of ground shock and debris. Or for all I know that was CIA procedure- if you have to evacuate the building, blow it up!

 

There is a separate report in there on building 7. I haven't read it. If I did, maybe I would be convinced that the CIA's paranoia didn't end up biting them in the ass for the 4037th time.

[Al_U_Card]

I have a question. The remaining floors of the "upper sections". What happened to them? Why didn't we see a "cherry on the sundae" with those 15 or 20 floors more or less sitting atop the rubble pile?

[jtfanclub]

I have a question. The remaining floors of the "upper sections". What happened to them? Why didn't we see a "cherry on the sundae" with those 15 or 20 floors more or less sitting atop the rubble pile?

Well, for the interior floors, let's go through what was keeping them up.

 

1) Giant support poles on the interior of the building. A number of these were sheared off when the plane hit. Others were damaged by the fire. They were fairly worthless by the time the buildings collapsed.

 

2) The interior walls. When these fell through on the lower floors, they no longer supported the upper floors.

 

3) The floors were attached to the exterior walls by the hat truss*. When the hat truss went, the interior floors collapsed all the way up. Then the walls bowed in, then the antenna dropped.

 

So once the interior was gone, it didn't matter where the fire had been.

 

*The NIST is really really REALLY clear that the reason that the buildings fell was NOT because the floors were attached to the hat truss and not to the exterior walls. I mean, they actually have a separate statement just to insist on that. Looked to me like they'd been getting a lot of flak on that.

[Al_U_Card]

Based on my perusal of what is out there, the only thing that I can say is that there is a lot of controversy and doubt. We are sure that the buildings took damage from impact and fire. We saw the buildings collapse. We observed how the rubble looked on the way down and once totally on the ground.

 

It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to come up with a plausible description for this destruction that doesn't raise more questions than it answers. It has been almost 7 years and there is still controversy.

[luke warm]

Based on my perusal of what is out there, the only thing that I can say is that there is a lot of controversy and doubt. We are sure that the buildings took damage from impact and fire. We saw the buildings collapse. We observed how the rubble looked on the way down and once totally on the ground.

 

It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to come up with a plausible description for this destruction that doesn't raise more questions than it answers. It has been almost 7 years and there is still controversy.

i still don't understand, al... what other explanation is being put forth, that the usa set it all up (planes included)? people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

[Winstonm]

Based on my perusal of what is out there, the only thing that I can say is that there is a lot of controversy and doubt.  We are sure that the buildings took damage from impact and fire.  We saw the buildings collapse.  We observed how the rubble looked on the way down and once totally on the ground. 

 

It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to come up with a plausible description for this destruction that doesn't raise more questions than it answers.  It has been almost 7 years and there is still controversy.

i still don't understand, al... what other explanation is being put forth, that the usa set it all up (planes included)? people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

No one here is claiming conspiracy - as that is not a proven.

 

The question here is did the NIST scientifically validate their assumptions, and if so, what then is the problem with having those assumptions ratified by an independent outside scientific body?

[Al_U_Card]

Based on my perusal of what is out there, the only thing that I can say is that there is a lot of controversy and doubt.  We are sure that the buildings took damage from impact and fire.  We saw the buildings collapse.  We observed how the rubble looked on the way down and once totally on the ground. 

 

It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to come up with a plausible description for this destruction that doesn't raise more questions than it answers.  It has been almost 7 years and there is still controversy.

i still don't understand, al... what other explanation is being put forth, that the usa set it all up (planes included)? people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

NIST did not undertake their investigation in a vacuum. They knew all about the hypotheses. They supposedly had access to all information as well as being able to conduct some investigations on their own. They appear to have been somewhat timid as well as being guided to certain approaches. Too many alternatives supposedly. The answers that they provided did not answer all the pertinent questions.

[Winstonm]

1) Giant support poles on the interior of the building. A number of these were sheared off when the plane hit. Others were damaged by the fire. They were fairly worthless by the time the buildings collapsed.

 

My understanding is the NIST said the buildings were stable after the collisions, and the fires were not hot enought to melt steel. The NIST claim is that the steel weakened, causing the floors to sag, putting inward pressure on the outside walls.

 

 

2) The interior walls. When these fell through on the lower floors, they no longer supported the upper floors.

I've never seen this claim nor mathematical evidence that it possibly could have occured - not that I could understand the math.

 

3) The floors were attached to the exterior walls by the hat truss*. When the hat truss went, the interior floors collapsed all the way up. Then the walls bowed in, then the antenna dropped.

I understand this is the theory, that the steel softened, causing the floors to sag, putting pressure on these trusses, which failed, and that pulled the extrerior walls inwards.

 

Seems this theory is not universally accepted - however it could be better accepted if an independent verification could be done.

 

The reasons for the continued clamor for independent investigagtion are many and varied, but here are a couple of the main ones:

 

The NIST itself reported the exitence of a "white hot flame inside the building" yet never explained this phenomenon, leaving it as a unsolved mystery, while others suggest that a "white hot flame" is what is produced by thermite ignition. If thermite is a satisfactory answer, but it wasn't thermite, then what was it?

 

There were also hot spots and molten metal found after the collapses, yet the NIST itself found the heat never reached the point to melt steel. Thermite, or one ot its derivatives such as thermate, could indeed account for these extremely high temperatures and the molten metal. The NIST does not explain this.

 

The critique of the NIST report is that it cherry-picks data to fit its hypothesis but does not bother to explain other observable data that is not explained by the hpyothesis.

 

The main point the critics make is that the demolition hypothesis explains all the observable data, without cherry-picking.

[Winstonm]

people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

 

 

Maybe someone can help me, here, but I understand that Occam's razor has to apply to all known facts and data - not simply the ones that fit a hypothesis.

 

what other explanation is being put forth

 

None at this point, other than the alternate hypothesis that demolition fits all the known facts and data, and thus should be investigated as a potential cause - if it fits the facts, it should be ruled out by evidence and not discarded as implausible.

 

Note, that if demolition did not fit all the observable facts, then it would become an implausible explanation.

[Al_U_Card]

AS you say, Occam's razor says that if it looks like a demo, sounds like a demo and acts like a demo....it must be a demo.

[luke warm]

None at this point, other than the alternate hypothesis that demolition fits all the known facts and data, and thus should be investigated as a potential cause - if it fits the facts, it should be ruled out by evidence and not discarded as implausible.

 

Note, that if demolition did not fit all the observable facts, then it would become an implausible explanation.

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

[helene_t]

people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

Interesting question.

 

When one is facing a choice between two models accounting for a phenomena, and both fit the data, it would be awkward if one had to assume some mixture of the two models, say model A with probability 50% and model B with probability 50%. Here, it is advisable to chose the simpler model as long as no data are available that can support one model and reject the other.

 

When it comes to economical/legal decisions, the situation is different. We cannot say "we assume the suspect is guilty because that's the simpler explanation". We have to deal with uncertainty.

 

However, the simpler theory is often the same one as the theory that is a priori most likely. So if "guilty" is simpler than "innocent", and both theories fit the data, "guilty" will generally also be more likely I think.

 

So I wouldn't say the Occam's razor applies here, strictly speaking, but at some philosophical level the analogy is probably apt.

 

Just some random thoughts from a scientist with some amateur interest in philosophy. I'm sure a lot of philosophers have addressed this issue.

[Al_U_Card]

Surely, the system would not allow for a guilty verdict based solely on circumstantial evidence? :o That could only be possible philosophically, of course. <_<

[hotShot]

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

 

Inside the building it could have bounced against the next intact floor or ceiling or it could have rotated somehow or hit some important structure full speed.

The temperature the fire could reach depends strongly on the airflow, the way the kerosene leaked out of the tank etc.

 

These missing informations are made to input parameters of the simulation model and their setting changes the results.

[jtfanclub]

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

 

I read through the report and I find no inconsistencies or anything that requires more explanation beyond what I've given here. And I'm more than a little tired of "but it was in a peer reviewed publication!".

 

Could I believe that, for example, the NIST was protecting the builder from lawsuits regarding substandard steel or poor design? Sure. Do I see any evidence whatsoever that somebody planted explosives in order to make the buildings fall? Nope.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how anybody else could "find" this evidence either.

 

We often try to find conspiracy in tragedy, whether it's an assasination, a car accident, or the towers being crashed into by a plane. The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

[Al_U_Card]

Or we could just ask the CSI writers to figure it out. They usually can come up with all the details and in record time too!!!

 

Seriously, if sections of floor were collapsing and this caused the booming sounds or if the violent reactions of the walls in the lobby were due to pressure waves transmitted through the structure by the core columns at plane impact.....then why not be able to show how....? The buildings were made in Manhatten. They knew that they wouldn't last forever. Their construction in terms of height and composition was perhaps shoddy or well-designed. It all depends on their purpose.

 

Mr. Silverstein made one hell of a purchase. 15 million to 7 Billion in 9 months.(plus six years, with interest? including court time) That beats Hil-Billie's record from Whitewater....

 

Where's that coffee that I am smelling? ;)

[Al_U_Card]

This is a good quick resumé of the collapses.

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4GINcwsjCAw&feature=related

 

I really like the clarity. Especially the first tower and the steel "beam" that gets ejected from the core and plummets down well ahead of the descending "crush-down" phase of collapse. The appearance and status of the "spire" is also interesting.

[luke warm]

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

i'm pretty sure you're right... he says he's not thinking conspiracy, but i honestly don't see how that's possible if he thinks there was, in addition to the planes, demolition