9/11

Here you go:

Official 9/11 Report Shattered by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth White Paper
_________________________________________________________________

Once again:

“NIST has provided no justification whatsoever for allowing its computer simulations to heat the steel to temperatures well above 600°C when its own physical tests reveal that little, if any, of the steel inside the WTC ever reached 600°C.”

Do you disagree with this statement? And if so, why?
_________________________________________________________________

Also:

8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL

Technical Statement: At one point, NIST admitted that only 0.25% to 0.50 % of the steel from the Twin Towers was saved for analysis. Later, NIST claimed that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis. At another time, NIST mentioned that Dr. John Gross was in the salvage yards and was involved in the selection of pieces of steel to save.

The NIST WTC Tower and WTC 7 reports do not explain why so little steel was saved and, incredibly, in the case of the Twin Towers, was dismissive when forced to admit that the steel saved from the buildings did not show that it had experienced high temperatures, by contending that “the sample size was not sufficient to be representative.” Why didn’t Dr. Gross save a sufficient sample size? The space required to store the steel would have been insignificant relative to the massive and historic issues to be resolved.

Official 9/11 Report Shattered by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth White Paper

 

Typing "Technical Statement", colon followed by copy and pasted bunch of horsehit. Doesnt make it a technical statement

 

But Truth White Paper. Sounds legit.
Paper is generally white.

 

Okey dokey, just had time to have a quick look at the actual paper.

Chapter 3: freefall of wtc 7 not explained

Are you freakin kidding me? How dumb are they, thats dated 2014, so they made it 13 years......none of them checkin how long the collapse actually takes, or what free fall should be

Oh, my, god

 

Ok, I got you now.

So temperature in the tests on the office workstations got up to 800 - 1000 degrees centigrade in both the physical experiment and the computer modelling, ignore that, take the temperature from the test on the floor systems that were covered in fire proofing, even though some of that fire proofing would have been knocked off in the actual event, then somehow say 600C in that test, they shouldnt have used in computer modelling, even though other physical tests show the temp getting up to 1000C....or something

That statement you copy and pasted is nonsensical


And they recieved the response to the request in 2007. So these lies have been up on their website for 11 years. And they cant really change it becuase if the office fires were 1000C, then what have they got?

along with a cropped copy of the request letter, I am going to assume is cropped because at least one guy involved wanted his name not associated with it becuase he finally worked out what Eulers critical load formula was and wanted someone to actually employ him






Nists response is here:http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf



You are adding to peoples understanding of truthers. So far we have the crazy magic concrete fairy dust, recycling concrete proves the buildings didnt fall down, the junior high version of newtons 3rd law, the photo of the hat truss in your moms backyard, the 1930s looking photo that shows they have to build the floors up with the core columns so they dont fall down, the photo of the steel join with every but the joint twisted like fook, the 767 that turns into a C-130 becuase it goes through a shadow in one video out of 63, still not realising 360+40 ft still isnt freefall, pretending becuase there was no office furniture wedged between the elevator shafts fire cant spread, pretending the columns damaged initially by the aircraft were the only ones that were damaged 102 minutes later, FDNY interviews 500 firefighters which NIST had access to, but 3 youtube videos you saw prove big bangs are loud noises, steel with fire proofing doesnt bend as much as steel without it....

....did I miss anything?

Oh, yeah, the part where you tell me how fast it should have taken, or where the collapse should have stopped......how much weight/force the bottom of the building should be able to handle.... you know, since its been like 17 yrs and all

 

I know that you think that this answered the question of whether or not you disagree with the statement:

“NIST has provided no justification whatsoever for allowing its computer simulations to heat the steel to temperatures well above 600°C when its own physical tests reveal that little, if any, of the steel inside the WTC ever reached 600°C.”

But it doesn't.

Now just answer that question, and then we can get to the matter of what NIST's fire tests showed. But before you answer, you should probably keep in mind that the NIST has already admitted to not knowing the extent of the fire beyond a few meters inside the Tower, and that their estimates are based on analysis of the steel.

About that, they said this:

"While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250C."

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.

From the NIST:

Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)


Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

• • Had very little fuel
  • Was far from any source of fresh air
  • Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
  • Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos

Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

​

 

Dude, anyone thats heated up a pizza in their oven knows what 200C feels like. The fires couldnt have gotten 3 times that much?

And why on earth did you post that pic? Red means 1000C, and thats not straight after impact, thats 15 mins after.

And again with the core columns? They aint going to stand up by themselves anyway

 

Yes, those core columns were ready to collapse at any second. It's surprising that the floors could even keep them upright.

 

How hot was the core area?

And I've asked you twice now to cite something that proves that the core structure couldn't stand on its own. Did you hold this view even before you learned what the core structure looked like just a few weeks ago, or is this a new revelation you've had?

 

Well, you just posted a photo for everyone to see that:




A) Has the middle of the building, the core columns, lower than the 600C you have (on behalf of asshat911truth.org) been crapping on about the last couple pages

B) Has the floor trusses at 1000C , the red part

Dude, are you serious? This is what it all comes down to. The other 99% sitting around waiting for the penny to drop with how many....probably dozens of truthers left

 

That was the NIST's simulation. But as they've admitted before, they really don't know what was going on fire-wise beyond a few meters into the Tower. The point is that even in their simulation, they have the core not hot enough to be compromised.

Now reconcile that with there statement here:

Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces.

You see the problem there?
___________________________________________________________________________

NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

• NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

• Even significant workstation fires would fail to support the theory that fire significantly weakened the critical core columns, since “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2)

• As shown in Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-8 (NCSTAR 1-5 p53 & 56), the tests were conducted with no limit to ventilation. However, NIST’s FDS computer simulation found that the WTC fires, at least in WTC 1, “were generally ventilation limited.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p183) On an airtight floor, NIST calculates that “only about 2 percent of the combustibles would have burned” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para3) and, if instantaneously ignited, would have burned out “in about 2 min.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para4) “Since the fires burned longer than this and since they thus consumed far more of the combustibles, the rate at which fresh air became available played a major role in determining the duration of the fires.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para5) Although the airplane impacts caused large apertures on one side of the buildings, this alone would not allow for moving ventilation. How much ventilation was allowed by broken windows in other locations? How far above the 2%/2min. burn-out threshold did the increased ventilation and office-furniture fires take the “ventilation-limited” fires? Based upon this series of tests, it is very difficult to tell.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

 

There are probably more "truthers" i.e. intelligent people than there have ever been. The number has only grown since more and more people have realized how preposterous the official story is. And Donald Trump is the president, if you want to get technical about how smart the American public is.

 

VG's been asked to prove that 99% of the population "gets it," but he's failed to show anything like a poll that will support his bullshit statistic. However, there are polls that show his bullshit to be . . . well, bullshit.

 

Granted, most people think their government are a bunch of good guys, so they'll believe anything it tells them to believe. I'm sure most people "got it" when the CIA was still in denial about MK Ultra too. "No way...that's too outlandish..."

 

Theres polls up to about 2007, after that, dont think anyone gives a shit

 

If the time frame is such a problem to you do you still have a problem with politicians referencing 9/11 in their speeches? 'Cause they still do.

 

World wide poll in 2008, just off wikipedia

 

Good on ya, Germany! Right up there in the top 5.

 

Lowest on the dont knows, so Germans know everything. Bet you the results are similar for every german poll. Ov corse I know zee ansar

 

I Lol'd at Egypt. Israel.
The minority population of skinheads in Germany must be the 1% for us lol.