Until I saw the NIST "FAQ" response to the WTC demolition accusations, I never quite realized how incredibly vulnerable the US government is, in terms of the WTC official collapse story.
Granted, the govt is highly vulnerable on many points of the official 9/11 story (such as the flight 93 "crash"), but it is the WTC collapses which are best documented in terms of pictures and videos, plus there is much known about how the structures were built. Thus, the WTC collapses are most susceptible to rigorous analysis.
What is clear from the NIST analysis is they simply have no coherent explanation for the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
Apart from my short critique of NIST's demolition rebuttal, there are several good critiques of the NIST page collected at 9/11 blogger. Jim Hoffman also has a good, very long, detailed critique.
I especially like Robert Rice's essay, where he calls the NIST theory the "foot of god" theory. He makes several critical points and effectively drives home how simply ridiculous the govt's explanation is.
For once, in a long time, I actually feel optimistic that the 9/11 hoax will finally be blown open for the world to see.
Monday, September 4, 2006
NIST Admits the South WTC Tower Collapsed at the Rate of Free-Fall in a Vacuum
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)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Otherwise, this list of answers to "frequently asked questions" is a huge doughy load of crap.
For instance:
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:Well, there's some logic for ya!
--the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
--the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
The extent of their evidence that it was not controlled demolition is that the collapses started where the initial impacts were AND by the timing of something they could only estimate (extent of damage and time of fires).
That's really weak.
Here is some lawyerly wording:
"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."
Got that? There was no evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors AS the top building sections...began their downward movement ...
But was there evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors RIGHT AFTER the top building sections began their downward movement???
Also, was there evidence of explosions RIGHT BEFORE the top building sections began their downward movement???
Why only "AS the top building sections...began their downward movement"???
(Well, you know the answer)
Not to mention that their lawyerly statement also leaves room for explosions at, or above, "the impact and fire floors as the top building sections ... began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."
But basically, NIST says that there was column damage and there were fires, and shit happened-- and it wasn't pancaking but they don't know WHAT happened except that things fell fast.
Debunking the Debunkers of the Debunkers of the Official Collapse Story
Regarding this page: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
About the "hanging floor slab" shown in the picture at the top--
1) what is the evidence that this is actually a floor slab as opposed to some pipes that fell from the ceiling?
2) how exactly does a stiff concrete floor slab bow and bend and sag in the middle from heat?
I don't think concrete can BEND, so that explanation of the floor sagging is simply crap.
Then they write about NIST:
Jeez. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The worse part is NIST does not even bother to model how the buildings completely collapsed! Nor do they explain the near free-fall collapse times.
Now it is possible that the towers had a very severe flaw in their construction (that is still unknown) that made them completely disintegrate at near free-fall speed. But why isn't there more urgency to figure out the flaw?
Of course the most likely explanation is that the towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives. Demolition is the only theory that easily explains the features of the collapses.
* Fireproofing stripped off columns that are already broken doesn't count-- for what should be obvious reasons.
About the "hanging floor slab" shown in the picture at the top--
1) what is the evidence that this is actually a floor slab as opposed to some pipes that fell from the ceiling?
2) how exactly does a stiff concrete floor slab bow and bend and sag in the middle from heat?
I don't think concrete can BEND, so that explanation of the floor sagging is simply crap.
Then they write about NIST:
They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence.Um, couldn't the explanation also be that their first hypothesis was a total joke and was laughed at by so-called conspiracy theorists? Does any one think that people who bought and steadfastly supported the official story worried about the NIST model? It was the conspiracy theorists and real scientists who made them change their model.
Ironically, Professor Jones has changed his paper yet the conspiracy theorist [sic] don't cast doubt on whether his paper is correct.That is simply not true, plenty of conspiracy theorists have problems with Jones' theories, particularly the thermite theory.
Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground.The few core columns that survive then miraculously turn to dust at the end of the WTC1 collapse is hardly proof of pancaking, and actually suggests some strange unofficial event occurred.
If the building didn't pancake what happened to the trusses? Assuming they didn't just fly away it's obvious they fell straight down.This is a total non-sequitor that proves nothing.
More evidence of pancaking is on ground zero. [a picture of a debris pile is shown]A pile of debris is NOT proof of pancaking. A huge pile of debris could also occur from demolition, obviously.
Jeez. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived).What is the hard evidence that insulation was stripped off of intact columns by plane debris? There is none!* It's a completely ad hoc argument. Yet their whole collapse theory rests on it! In all honesty, what is a more unsupported theory: that the towers were brought down by demolition or that fires brought down the buildings because the insulation was "stripped" off the columns?
For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favor and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest. There is incredible detailed which support each of the reports below.I've looked over those reports. There are LOTS and LOTS of pretty pictures and models-- but VERY LITTLE hard data or calculations or analysis. I guess it makes people who want to believe the official story feel good, like NIST did some work. But in temrs of science, the NIST reports are sorely lacking.
The worse part is NIST does not even bother to model how the buildings completely collapsed! Nor do they explain the near free-fall collapse times.
Now it is possible that the towers had a very severe flaw in their construction (that is still unknown) that made them completely disintegrate at near free-fall speed. But why isn't there more urgency to figure out the flaw?
Of course the most likely explanation is that the towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives. Demolition is the only theory that easily explains the features of the collapses.
* Fireproofing stripped off columns that are already broken doesn't count-- for what should be obvious reasons.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Jeff Strahl, Mechanical Engineer
Believes the WTC was brought down by demolition.
He brings up the interesting concept of the "resistance paradox":
The fact that the towers collapsed top to bottom, where the only thing that appears to drive the collapse is a huge cloud of dust, is by itself strong proof that the collapses were not simple pancaking events.
POSTSCRIPT: It's also quite striking that there is no official modeling of the complete collapse sequence. I mean, three huge buildings go *poof*, and all NIST does is model the fires?
He brings up the interesting concept of the "resistance paradox":
Interesting that you note the towers disintegrating, but do not note, or pretend to not note, the contradiction between the lower portions offering no resistance to the falling debris if you wish to explain the short collapse time, vs the top portions disintegrating as if encountering massive resistance. So, which is it, Mr Partridge? Did the lower portions offer zero resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?
The fact that the towers collapsed top to bottom, where the only thing that appears to drive the collapse is a huge cloud of dust, is by itself strong proof that the collapses were not simple pancaking events.
POSTSCRIPT: It's also quite striking that there is no official modeling of the complete collapse sequence. I mean, three huge buildings go *poof*, and all NIST does is model the fires?
Response to "A critical analysis of the collapses of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint", Part 1
The PDF document can be found here.
This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "Implosionworld.com" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.
A few preface remarks:
First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".
Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?
Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.
Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.
Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.
Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure
Now to the main assertions:
I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.
They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes
I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings
I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.
The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.
This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.
Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."
This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.
This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.
This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.
This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "Implosionworld.com" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.
A few preface remarks:
First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".
Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?
Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.
Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.
Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.
Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure
Now to the main assertions:
Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".
I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.
They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes
I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings
Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".
I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.
The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.
Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.
This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.
Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."
This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.
This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.
This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
