• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Frank Greening Refuted Easily

NIST fails to address its basic task.



NIST's Investigation

It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. If the problems with FEMA's investigation ennumerated in the Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center earn it the description of a farce, then the conduct of NIST's investigation earn it the description of a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
  • NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question its investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
  • NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomylous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
  • NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study [SIZE=-1] 1 [/SIZE] This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
  • NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
Click to expand...

http://www.911review.com/coverup/wtcinquiry.html


The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to "[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." [3] These questions are not answered for simple reasons:
Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.
Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out "[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse." [5]
Click to expand...

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
 
Where, in what document, or by whom, prior to beginning their investigation, were NIST "tasked" to do any of what you have listed? Show me where anyone or any rule or any angenda was posted that includes the list you have posted, prior to the beginning of the NIST investigation.


They cannot fail at what they were not asked/told to do...get that through your skull, and restate that...

"NIST failed to address the following concerns..."

TAM
 
What better way to observe April Fools Day than by gratuitously bumping old 4321rekeeShturT threads?
 
T.A.M. said:
Where, in what document, or by whom, prior to beginning their investigation, were NIST "tasked" to do any of what you have listed? Show me where anyone or any rule or any angenda was posted that includes the list you have posted, prior to the beginning of the NIST investigation.


They cannot fail at what they were not asked/told to do...get that through your skull, and restate that...

"NIST failed to address the following concerns..."

TAM
Click to expand...

So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?
 
pagan said:
So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?
Click to expand...
They were, and they did. They were not tasked with studying the actual collapse after initiation.
 
pagan said:
So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?
Click to expand...

At this moment the argument is not over what NIST should have been asked to do...

Your statement was that NIST had failed to address its basic task. I am merely correcting you, because what then follows on your list of what you feel was there "basic task" is a list of things that you and other truthers WANT addressed, not what NIST was actually TASKED to do.

just correct yourself, say you were wrong, and restate it as...

"NIST failed to address the following important (to you) issues or points:"

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
At this moment the argument is not over what NIST should have been asked to do...

Your statement was that NIST had failed to address its basic task. I am merely correcting you, because what then follows on your list of what you feel was there "basic task" is a list of things that you and other truthers WANT addressed, not what NIST was actually TASKED to do.

just correct yourself, say you were wrong, and restate it as...

"NIST failed to address the following important (to you) issues or points:"

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?
 
pagan said:
Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?
Click to expand...

They did what there were tasked to do--find out why the towers fell. They did that.
To summarize:
A massive aircraft struck each tower at high velocity, damaging structural members and fire-protectant coating on the structure of the towers. The fuel load of the aircraft created a large fireball and fuel-fed fires, some of which exited the structure. The remaining fuel initiated massive fires, which over time weakened structural members of both the floors and vertical support, induced buckling in the vertical supports of the tower.
The combination of heat and buckling caused stresses in the remaining members to exceed yield strength, causing additional failure, at which time the released energy above the failures exceeded the supporting capability of the structure below the failure.
 
From NISTNCSTAR 1-1:

The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:

To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.

To serve as the basis for:
- Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used;
- Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
- Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
- Improve public safety.
Click to expand...

Now if there were any area that at all relates to the collapse itself, it would be the first point, and they addressed this, by stating that once the collapse initiated, the collapse itself was inevitable, and therefore, nothing would be gained, with respect to NISTs goals, from studying the collapse itself.

TAM:)
 
pagan said:
Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can answer me this, pagan (or nagap; frankly, that seems to suit you better):

You've got to be about the zillionth Troother who's complained that NIST "didn't study the collapse." Hardly original. But why do you care? Apparently you think that everything NIST did conclude is all wrong, lies, or "disinfo" anyway.

Supposing they did make some model of the collapse dynamics after the point of no return. Would that really make you happy? Or, as I suspect, it would just be one more chapter that you would ignore?

Even when you people complain, you make no sense.
 
I asked this question of Truthseeker and tellingly never got an answer.

Mr.D said:
Suppose some independant entity (ie, person or institution) that you trust does exactly what you propose - builds a computer model and runs a computer simulation from point where the NIST report leaves off. And suppose that simulation is run forward in time and demonstrates "global collapse."

Would you change your mind?
Click to expand...

How about you, pagan?
 
Mr.D said:
I asked this question of Truthseeker and tellingly never got an answer
Click to expand...

I don't recall that question from you, I will answer it.

I absolutely think that a computer model of the towers should be built, and released to the public. I have called for that repeatedly, and have repeatedly called for the release of the blueprints. Recently someone "leaked" floorplans to Jones, but as I understand it, these were not complete structural drawings, and are not sufficient to build an accurate model. According to Jim Hoffman, they are sufficient to settle once and for all that the core structures were abundantly braced, so perhaps RMackey can go argue with Hoffman about that, and RMackey can continue to pretend that the main floor structures were the only horizontal bracing for the cores.

Now, let's deconstruct your question. Would the model show "global collapse"? That assumes that a "collapse" occurred. I don't accept that assumption, or that use of the word "collapse". The correct scientific question is: Can the model duplictate the important observations?

So in addition to having the structural drawings and using them to build a model, we would also have to agree on the observations we are trying to duplicate. How much of the building contents was rendered into dust? How much mass landed outside the footprint? Etc.

So I will state an ammended question:

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.
Click to expand...


Two problems, you do not seem to trust anyone who actually has the skill set to create an accurate model.

And two, there will be no mushroom cloud in the simulation since there was NO mushroom cloud at the original site. Nothing in any of your videos has ever shown a mushroom cloud. Ever. Stop using this term incorrectly, as it does nothing to help your argument.
 
Recently someone "leaked" floorplans to Jones, but as I understand it, these were not complete structural drawings, and are not sufficient to build an accurate model.
Click to expand...
and as it turns out 911research.com has had floorplans based directly on those blueprints for quite some time, so it wasnt really new info, lol


If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?
Click to expand...
could elaborate on what you mean by the bolded part? do you want the modeling software itself released to the public so you cna run your own models, or just a video of the modeled events?

i ask because it would be very easy for you to simply say a video was faked, but your home computer wouldnt come anywhere close to being able to model the WTC collapse, so what are you hoping to get?

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.
Click to expand...
as much as id liek to see you eat 11,000+ pages of heavyweight paper half of what you want to see never happened
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.
Click to expand...



You do realize your model would require simulating the entire tower, all its contents, and the sourrounding atmosphere, at a near-atomic or possibly even atomic level, to produce simulations of all those effects? And do it accurately?

And since I'm assuming you'd also want to see the "toasted cars" and "round holes", we'd have to do an equal level of simulation for all the surrounding buildings and parking areas.

Do you really think any computer in existence could run such a simulation? Do you really think any computer you could ever buy for home use could do the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom