The Official
Story
In
investigating these collapses the official NIST report, which can be viewed here: http://wtc.nist.gov/ we are told
the following:
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously
that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no
evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port
Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or
explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building
sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC
2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation"
"The collapse of the WTC towers was not
caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent
multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers
collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support
columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and
steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the
subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now
susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been
subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that
the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001"
"In summary, NIST found no
corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers
were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at
or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly
show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the
collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds
obscured the view"
Remarkable.
Notably, NIST did not
construct a computer simulation to prove their hypothesis, rather they
started with their conclusion by looking at videos and photographs of the
collapse and focused solely on the aircraft impacts and fires as the only
possible cause. Then
they simply back
engineered a computer model that matched their hypothesis in order to demonstrate it. The key word here
being 'demonstrate' - which is vastly different to prove. This is a similar
method to that used when constructing a fantasy animation!
This is let slip by
the lead investigator Shyam Sunder himself in a PBS slide show on
the WTC collapse in which he says:
"Using video and photographic evidence, we had to model how...." for several unknown factors. And later says that the models: "were validated ultimately on how the buildings actually collapsed using
videos"
So, the videos were used to create the model and then the model
was validated by the videos that were used to make it. Such
a method of "investigation" is simply presenting a hypothesis and then creating a
model that fits within it. However it seems that in order to make it work, the NIST
report itself slips up and tells us that various data was ignored as
being irrelevant.
Trying to ascertain how this procedure
may possibly be construed as actual science or a real investigation based
on evidence, lends a whole new meaning to the concepts.
And it gets worse...
Later in the same presentation, incredibly, we are told:
"When you heat
steel up - and particularly without fireproofing, the steel tends
to soften and lose strength and stiffness, it becomes very much like
play-dough"
Of course, and
as I'm sure anyone who has ever
used a stainless steel saucepan to cook with or who has cooked on a
Barbeque plate knows, this is just an out and out lie, even bordering into the realms of pure
fantasy. Or, if you have never used a stove or an old
style soldering iron in your life, simply ask any welders or engineers you may know,
how many have had to worry about the strength & stability of the project they are working
on. Or even just consider how often your metal combustion stove
has become like play-dough each winter. I have a friend with a pot-belly stove
that I have personally seen glow red hot. It has never lost one
bit of its structural integrity.
In the NIST report, we are also told absolutely nothing whatsoever
about why there was no central
core left standing. Nor was it explained why we saw no remains of floors
piled upon each other in the ruins.
You can view the entire official PBS Slide Presentation "From Impact
to Collapse" here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
In a part of the written report, NIST
themselves invalidate their own study by openly saying they simply didn’t
investigate all the evidence because it was "irrelevant" in explaining how the
buildings collapsed from fire or aircraft impact!
In one paragraph, as
mentioned above, we are told:
"NIST found no corroborating evidence
for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by
controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept.
11"
And they state the
reasons for this. They simply agree that kerosene based jet fuel does not burn
hot enough to melt steel and so any molten metal that was found is irrelevant to
their hypothesis:
"NIST....found no evidence that would
support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to
collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e.,
whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of
the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the
condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
When a question directed to the NIST
study included the statement: "The combination of thermite and
sulfur (called thermate) slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." NIST responded with: "NIST did not test for the residue of these
compounds in the steel."
In regards
to these significant amounts of yellow hot molten metal, some
of which was seen actually pouring from the building in at least one
location, (noticeably giving off a telltale wispy white smoke, yet another indication of
a thermite based compound) and also in regards to the molten metal found flowing beneath the ruins
(much of it still molten even 8 weeks after the collapse) NIST simply
maneuvers around the issue and again, resorts to false information and outright
lies:
"...a bright spot appeared at the top of a
window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on
the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted
approximately four seconds before subsiding."
As can been seen in a widely available
amateur video recording which can be viewed on google video here or downloaded as a small avi from our video page, this flow lasted a good
deal longer than 4 seconds.
How can NIST say that any remnants of molten metal are irrelevant
when studying the collapse? The ruins contained huge beams with what
appear to be typical, and even correctly angled, demolition cuts dripping with traces
of once molten metal. Such cuts are typical of linear shape charges such as
are used in controlled demolitions.
These are irrelevant?!?
The above column, photographed
among the World Trade Center ruins, has quite obviously been cut and molten
metal can be clearly seen to have once emanated from the vicinity of the
cut. How can such details be simply dismissed offhand
just because the result could not have been achieved with jet
grade kerosene?
Doesn't the simple fact that it
couldn't have been achieved with jet fuel, and yet the cut is there, quite
obviously indicate that something other that jet
fuel was used?
In the real world it is
reasonably sound to assume that if hard
physical evidence has to be ignored, manipulated or removed in order to make a
certain hypothesis work, then obviously the hypothesis is incorrect.
That is just simple common sense to most normal people but those at NIST
seem not to worry about such trivialities. But unfortunately
for NIST, simply dismissing such evidence as irrelevant does
not make the evidence just disappear.
Another inexplicable thing is that the ruins
of the World trade center were incredibly hot following the collapse, with temperatures
far exceeding anything possible from the short lived fires in the buildings,
or from anything that could have been due to friction caused by the
collapse. Fireman report that molten metal still flowed beneath the
ruins 6 weeks after the collapse even though the ruins had been constantly
hosed down, as documented in a short news clip that can be seen
on YouTube here.
Other firemen, such
as one interviewed in the documentary "911 Mysteries", report
that even 8 weeks after the collapse, the soles of workers boots were
melted and rendered useless after a few hours of walking across the
ruins.
NIST tells us the steel fatigued
because it was subjected to temperatures of 2500 degrees in the raging inferno
that ensued in the twin towers following the aircraft impact. They present
this remarkable figure without presenting one shred of evidence to explain how
such incredible temperatures could have been reached by the available fuel.
Jet grade Kerosene burns at 800 degrees and can only reach a
maximum temperature of 1350 degrees under perfect conditions. At such times it
will burn white a bluish white flame. An uncontrolled dirty fire can
only reach a maximum temperature of 1200 degrees and such fires burn with
red-orange flames such as were seen at the World Trade Center. Steel can never
reach temperatures hotter than those attained by the fuel being used to heat it
and the fires in the world trade center produced a lot of smoke and showed very
little flame, indicating they were burning inefficiently and were not
particularly hot.
So what could have caused such
tremendous and lingering heat? A building collapse and a brief fire 90 floors
above ground?
Huge twisted pieces of metal were also
recovered from the ruins, some bent into incredible and telltale
shapes. One truly remarkable find was a number of huge and evenly bent
steel girders. The consistent and even bending of the girders, coupled with
the lack of cracks or tears, gives every indication that they were bent in
a powerful explosion.
Typically
when steel is bent by pressure or force, cracks and rents would appear in
the steel along the outer curve while the inner curve would appear buckled
and uneven. Steel girders found perfectly and evenly bent such as this
indicate the steel was subject to enormous heat and pressure at
the same time such as can be found in a powerful explosive event. Anyone
who has ever attempted to bend structural steel, which is in fact quite
brittle, will know what I mean.
How did the NIST report deal with
such things as this perfectly bent metal and similar anomalies? Very
easily. They listed them as irrelevant and simply left them out of the
report.
In fact the list of inconsistencies, missing
details and pure "anti-science" that can be found in the
NIST report is almost too numerous to mention, so we will move
on.
