NIST report is just peachy. (excerpt)

[Rob Conn]

"The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were largely a result of the fact that terrorists
flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general
population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building
designs to consider aircraft impact. In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of such
magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so rapidly
and with little warning."

Cooked. - R.C.

[spooked911]

1. that's their line and they're sticking to it!

and never mind that the twin towers WERE designed to withstand an aircraft collision.

[pauldp]

2. Never mind that WTC7 didn't get hit by a plane ....

and came down ala controlled demo - from fires ...unlike any other steel structured building in history.

[philb]

3. I had read the other report and don't find much new here; still not

convinced though it is a possibility. I think the evidence says there wasn't any prolonged hot fires in WTC2.
And all of the witnesses and reports of explosions in the buildings aren't explained.
and the pictures seem to pretty clearly indicate massive explosions and cutter type explosions.
And the huge amount of pulverized materials into fine dust don't match pancake effect;
nor does the report explain the melted steel in the basement that was hot for 2 months. Gas fires simply could not have done that; no possibility.

So though the report makes for interesting reading and the explanations seem plausible. The report doesn't explain the evidence at the site.
And there was also a very obvious cover-up.

so more explanations needed.

But the case for LIHOP is well documented either way; and there's little practicle difference which was the case
http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html
http://www.flcv.com/offco175.html

[Rob Conn]

6. PhilB=FLCV

Yo man, I've asked and you haven't responded. Did you create this site, are you working for the person who did, or have your contributed? If you can't answer that question, I will never be able to take you seriously in the future. I have my favorite references as well. But I can be clear why they are my references. You have not been so clear. I'll be on your side if you can be clear about why this is your favorite reference. Please respond. - R.C.

[philb]

12. The FLCV site is kept up by someone in my family.

I have put articles on 9/11 on their FTP site. There are several people who contribute to the site, but I'm the only one doing stuff on 9/11. The basic site is home of the FLCV Florida Environmental Education page. But the FLCV organization has nothing to do with 9/11

I would think you would base your opinion on content and evidence, rather than worrying about whose FTP page an article might be on.

[Rob Conn]

14. Not which one, but only one...

There was no opinion. Just one source and no explanation. And now there is. I never said the site wasn't good, Thanks for the response. Its good to know when someone is connected to a reference that they so frequently source. It clears the air. Otherwise I get paranoid, and you appear to be the follower of some obscure 9/11 cult, or an intelligence agent. Now I see the project at hand. Keep up the good work. And for heaven's sake, make an intro page with links to all of your sites. Its easy, and it would make sharing your project much easier. - R.C.

[philb]

16. Good point. I'm fairly new to the web page thing. Lots I don't know

about HTML and web pages.

[philb]

4. Does anyone know the URL for the picture of people walking in WTC2

behind the hole the plane went through not long after the crash?
It was taken by someone in a building across from WTC2. I've seen it several times but don't have a record of it.

It shows the fires weren't very hot in WTC2 for long. Which is also supported by the firefighters radio conversation from the fire sites.

[petgoat]

18. url

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/breaking-news-photography/works/attack_5.html

[demodewd]

5. NIST

NIST ain't peachy...its the pits.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Fuel-laden

The fuel burned up in the first few minutes anyway and made no difference.

I think the NIST were given an impossible job - how can you estimate the temperature of a fire by looking at a picture of it? How can they know which bits of fireproofing were knocked off from where. How can they tell which core columns were damaged how badly?

My initial impression of the report (after skimming through it) is that it's poor, but that, in itself, doesn't prove the towers were demolished by explosives.

[philb]

17. What melted the huge steel beams at the WTC towers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x45167

Surely not gasoline fires. Jet engines are made of steel and withstand fuel burning in them quite well. The temperatures at WTC would have been much less. As noted by the experts.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. They didn't melt

The argument is not that they melted, but that they were weakened by the fire. I don't really know why jet fuel doesn't weaken a jet engine but can weaken steel beams in a building - I assume it has something to do with the size of the fire. The fire in a jet engine is small, whereas the fires in the WTC were quite large. The temperatures in the WTC should have been less, but it's kind of hard to tell how hot a fire is by looking at a picture of it (although it seems to me that the aluminium did not catch fire, because it burns a different colour and would have been highly visible).

[graphixtech]

8. NIST Rebuttal questions

New 911Truth NIST rebuttal questions handout available here
(double sided):
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm

Three basic questions from the flyer:

• Was John Skilling, the building’s structural engineer, wrong
when he said in 1993 that even if the towers were struck and
filled with jet fuel fires “the building structure would still be
there”?

• Why did NIST ignore all the witness testimony regarding
bombs and explosions in the towers and refuse to test any
steel for explosives residue?

• Were the WTC steel components tested for fire resistance
according to the existing NYC code (3 hours for columns,
2 hours for floors) prior to WTC construction?



“We’ve gotten used to politicians lying, but we’re not
used to scientists and engineers lying to us, especially
when the lies support a cover-up called ‘progressive
global collapse’.”
– Underwriter Laboratories whistleblower, Kevin Ryan

[philb]

9. WTC3 - evidence against the "pancake theory"

WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch3.htm

3.5 Recommendations

WTC 3 should be studied further to understand how it resisted progressive collapse.

The response of WTC 3 to the September 11 events is complex and noteworthy. WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3. Figure 3-6 shows large portions of the prefabricated assemblies from WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3.

Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.

The second loading event was the collapse of WTC 1. Debris from WTC 1 fell along the entire length of the hotel. Lower floors at the southwest end of WTC 3 survived although they suffered extensive damage. The remaining portions of the building after both collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are shown in Figure 3-8.

An FDNY fire company was in the building during the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and survived. The firefighters were near the top of the building in the process of making sure that there were no civilians present in the building, when the south tower collapsed. Firefighter Heinz Kothe is quoted as saying, "We had no idea what had happened. It just rocked the building. It blew the door to the stairwell open, and it blew the guys up near the door halfway down a flight of stairs. I got knocked down to the landing. The building shook like buildings just don't shake." Subsequently, the firefighters were in the lower portion of the southwest corner of the building when the north tower collapsed (Court 2001).

The Chief Engineer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), Frank Lombardi, was in the lobby of WTC 3 with other Port Authority executives during the collapse of WTC 2. They survived the collapse and were eventually able to leave the building (Rubin and Tuchman 2001).

[Rob Conn]

10. Excellent contribution

And its not from the ususal source. ;) This info is yet another reason to doubt that WTC7, one of the most strongly built structures in the city, would likely not have come down due to little impact from debris, and small fires. It was built so strongly that they didn't think it unsafe to put a huge tank of deisel in the basement right above a large electrical substation for the city. There could have been no assumption that any fire, no matter how big, could bring down the building. And they obviously had good reason to make this assumption. As to WTC1 and 2, buildings don't explode due to structural failure. Concrete and drywall are not pulverized into dust due to structural failure. The core columns could never have been shattered all the way to the ground floor, in convenient truck sized pieces, due to an impact at the 90th, and the collapse of the building. Once again, this isn't rocket science, well most of it anywhay. The big contradictions will stand until addressed by those who support the official story. Until then, no scientific report can be cooked well enough to counter these issues without directly referring to them. The big questions remain. - R.C.

[philb]

11. Is NIST really suggesting this was caused by a pancake effect?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

Its pretty obvious there is some type of huge explosive force when the towers started to explode and disintegrate- I don't think you could call that a collapse.

[Rob Conn]

13. A couple nuggets of joy from the NIST

"There is far greater knowledge of how fires influence structures in 2005 than there was in the 1960s. The analysis tools available to calculate the response of structures to fires are also far better now than they were when the WTC towers were designed and built."

"The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multifloor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."

"Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued."

I've been reading the report. Its quite overly general at times, and not very revealing. I recommend a skim. This official report perfectly confirms the previous official story, and does not directly address any of the concerns raised by the skeptical community. They have ignored certain anomalies. I just can't wait for the WTC7 report to follow. - R.C.

P.S. Told ya so!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x44601

[philb]

15. Witnesses on impacted floors- fires not very hot

TOO HOT FOR JET FUEL

It has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here.

Another reason that we know the fires were not serious enough to cause structural failure, is that witnesses tell us this. The impact floors of the south tower were 78-84. Here are a few words from some of the witnesses:

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower:


The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway


Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby:


We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.


Ling Young was in her 78th floor office:


Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes...


The official story claims that temperatures, exceeding 800 degrees Celsius, were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away.

YOU BE THE JUDGE

Lets examine some video footage of these explosions. A few of these downloads may take a while, but are worth it if you are not yet convinced…
http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html