Jones Report?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Has this been dealt with somewhere here? (In this context that is)

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/071106_nist_report.html

I remember seeing a few of them here, but cant seem to find them (For instance point #3 "#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]").

Cheers,
S

 

[The Doc]

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.[2]

There's a big section on this in the 9/11 Mysteries guide.

Contrary to this claim, the NIST did show testing that clearly demonstrated that a 767 would widely dislodge the fireproofing during the aircraft impacts of 9/11.


http://patapsco.nist.gov/ImageGallery/details.cfm?imageid=109

“NIST research structural engineer Nicholas Carino describes laboratory tests used to estimate the amount of fireproofing that was dislodged from various structural elements within the WTC buildings when the aircraft were flown into them on Sept. 11. The specimens shown include steel bars and plates that have been coated with the same type and depth of sprayed fire-resistive material as was used in the WTC buildings.”

Section 1-6A of the NIST report into the collapse of the World Trade Center is 326 pages long. This whole section is dedicated to demonstrating that a 767 impact would widely dislodge the fireproofing in the towers. Perhaps the Joens report missed this section of the report:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf

In the WTC towers, where the debris fields were larger than the dimensions of steel components (i.e.. such as trusses, beams, and columns), these tests show that SFRM would have been dislodged from a wide range of debris sizes and speeds. The test results support the assumption that, within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC1 and WTC 2, the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.”

They are clearly mistaken in this thesis.


​

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3]

This has been debunked over and over.

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm


Whether or not such a thing has happened before is completely irrelevant to NIST's findings.

Never before has a building met the same conditions as the WTC buildings. Was NIST supposed to say "Hmmm... no building has ever collapsed due to fire... that means these buildings couldn't"? Of course not.


​

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.[4]

Over simplification.


​

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5]

Physical evidence > witness testimony.


​

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6]

I have no idea where they got that from.


​

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.[7]

The steel did perform well in the test. However, they also makes the false assertion that simply because the steel performed well in the test, the towers should not have collapsed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/wtc_fire_test.htm
“The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) plans to sponsor a fire test of a World Trade Center (WTC) tower floor system as part of its building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster. The test will be conducted under contract by Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, Illinois, on Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2004. The test of a typical WTC floor system and individual steel members will be conducted under the fire conditions prescribed in the ASTM E119 standard test”

As you can see, the NIST tested individual steel members and a typical floor system. What they fail to mention is what the NIST concluded from the results of these tests, which were included in their final collapse report.​

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“Based on this comprehensive investigation, 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 (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.”​

This point is also a gross oversimplification.


​

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.[8]

NIST conducted hundreds of interviews, reviewed thousands of photographs and videos, conducted metallurgical investigations, strength, heating and structural analysis, in addition to their computer simulation. The simulation was not designed to gather results, but rather to display them.

​

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]​

Evidence?

​

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began![10]​

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?​

NIST wasn't hired to do a floor-by-floor collapse analysis. NIST's job wasn't to satisfy conspiracy theorists either. They concluded why the towers collapsed. After that, all bets are off and the tower comes down due to the fact that the static lower structure cannot hold the dynamic falling upper structure.

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”![11]

There is no evidence that molten and evaporated steel was present at ground zero. Molten metal, sure. No analysis has been done to show that this metal was steel, and it the conditions at ground zero were sufficient to melt the aluminum facades covering the tower and the airliners inside.

I could expand on all those points, but I don't think they have enough substance to provide more than what I have
​

 

[The Doc]

This site appears to be under the delusion that NIST conducted an investigation to satisfy conspiracy theorists.

Why would eyewitnesses be needed to determined what happened to structural steel in areas of a building that were destroyed and burning.

 

[gumboot]

Evaporated steel?

That's a new one...

-Gumboot

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

This site appears to be under the delusion that NIST conducted an investigation to satisfy conspiracy theorists.

Why would eyewitnesses be needed to determined what happened to structural steel in areas of a building that were destroyed and burning.

I think they are claiming that eyewitnesses saw ummm bombs, explosions and molten steel all about and thus NIST should have spent a lot of time checking that because then they would surely find out that there were thermite and stuff all over the place.

This came up in a debate over at the other forum Im at, and I've decided to try to not let it pass. However truthers tend to slap pre-written webpages in my face, and then I've got a weeks worth of googling, reading and posting until I've got a proper response down.

*sigh*

And I know I've seen a reply to the "exaggerated data" claim somewhere here.

Tnx for your very well worked reply Doc, you gave more than I could ever ask for.

/S

 

[The Doc]

I think they are claiming that eyewitnesses saw ummm bombs, explosions and molten steel all about and thus NIST should have spent a lot of time checking that because then they would surely find out that there were thermite and stuff all over the place.

This came up in a debate over at the other forum Im at, and I've decided to try to not let it pass. However truthers tend to slap pre-written webpages in my face, and then I've got a weeks worth of googling, reading and posting until I've got a proper response down.

*sigh*

And I know I've seen a reply to the "exaggerated data" claim somewhere here.

Tnx for your very well worked reply Doc, you gave more than I could ever ask for.

/S

It's all elaborated on in the 9/11 Mysteries guide, due to the fact the film makes a lot of the same claims - so on friday you'll have a lot more to go with

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

It's all elaborated on in the 9/11 Mysteries guide, due to the fact the film makes a lot of the same claims - so on friday you'll have a lot more to go with

Is it due Friday! I've been waiting for it eagerly m8!


On #3, here is the claim

9] What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
​

This does not prove their predetermined conclusion so they change their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:​

“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”​

NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.​

NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to fool around with?
​

I know I've seen this posted here somewhere.

​

/S