Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NIST Refutes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
EE Times ^ | 08/30/2006 | George Leopold

Posted on 08/30/2006 12:57:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway

The government is taking the unusual step of responding to conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Gaithersberg, Md.), which investigated the causes of the collapse of the twin towers, said Wednesday (Aug. 30) that it has posted a "fact sheet" addressing alternatve theories about the fires and collapse. Several academics have put forth a "controlled demolition" and missile attack hypotheses for the destruction of the towers.

NIST concluded after a three-year building and fire safety investigation that the towers collapsed after being hit by separate, fuel-laden aircraft flown by terrorists. The impacts severed and damaged support columns, dislodging fireproofing insulation and dispersing jet fuel over multiple floors of each tower.

The resulting fire, which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees C, weakened floors and columns, causing upper floors to collapse after sagging and pulling inward on 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," NIST concluded.

NIST's probe rejected claims that upper floors "pancaked" on top of lower floors, causing the collapses. Other investigations pointed to huge amounts of office supplies, especially paper, as a source of fuel that significantly raised the temperature of tower fires beyond those that jet fuel would normally burn outside of an aircraft engine combustion chamber.

"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." NIST concluded.

Far more controversial are theories about explosions inside the towers. Conspiracy theorists postulate that puffs of smoke seen at the time of each collapse are evidence of a controlled demolition. Critics of the official probe also cited seismic data they claim showed evidence of explosions just before each tower collapsed. Other theories alleged missiles were fired at the doomed towers.

While both NIST and the 9/11 Commission have dismissed these theories, U.S. officials have been compelled to address allegations widely disseminated on the Internet.

"NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the [World Trade Center] collapses," the agency said in a statement. "However, the WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911; 911conspiracy; bush; conspiracies; fifthanniversary; moveon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-277 next last
To: streetpreacher

What is this supposed to prove? So the Pentagon ran a drill simulating an accident, and Condi Rice said they didn't expect an attack. Um, ok. Am I supposed to now be convinced there is a conspiracy?


161 posted on 08/30/2006 4:13:01 PM PDT by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
White hot, or sparking, heat is also the welding heat at around 2800 degrees depending on the alloy. It is indeed just under the oxidation, or burning, heat for most steels. Yellow is better, but the metal is very plastic and is harder to control. A light orange is what you are pretty much looking for.

Now try and convince you average conspiracy nut about the inherent logic in your last sentence there. They are completely blind to it.

162 posted on 08/30/2006 4:13:55 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core.

Why no mention of the 47 central steel columns that were the main support for each tower?



163 posted on 08/30/2006 4:16:03 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: VegasCowboy
Of course not. It does prove that our government has not been on the up and up regarding perceived threats and it's just one more piece that doesn't add up.

At some point, critical faculties have to kick in and cause one to ask questions. Which is all I am really doing...

Question: Did Lyndon Johnson lie to us about the Gulf of Tonkin? Did Nixon lie about the bombings of Cambodia?

Have you read the declassified report, "Operation Northwoods" signed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer and submitted to the Secretary of Defense McNamara seeking a green light for false flag acts of terrorism against the American people in order to justify an invasion of Cuba (one of the scenarios involved the shooting down of an American airliner off the coast of Cuba)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Governments do these things. Power corrupts. America is no exception to the rule. We're a long way from the Constitutional Republic of our forefathers.
164 posted on 08/30/2006 4:26:12 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Rocko

LOL. Talk about denying reality...


165 posted on 08/30/2006 4:27:14 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

How in the hell do you think our government could pull this off? I find it outstanding that anyone gives them that much credit. Do you think they blew up the levies in NO too???

Of course power corrupts. But this would have been in the works before the Bush Admin, meaning two administrations were involved. You have to believe a lot of far-fetched things to go down the road you have traveled. And don't tell me you are just "asking questions." That's a cop out. Either you can support your theories with facts or you cannot.


166 posted on 08/30/2006 4:31:33 PM PDT by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
Talk about denying reality

Hey pot, meet kettle.
167 posted on 08/30/2006 4:33:17 PM PDT by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher; Incorrigible; sauropod
Faulty premise #1.

#7, a 47-story building was not "shielded by WTC 5 and 6", because those were only 9 or 10-story buildings (which did not utterly collapse because, being long low structures, there wasn't enough weight pressing down from above to cause them to. But they were pretty much completely destroyed anyway because the debris punched gigantic holes through them from ceiling to sub-basements, and then commenced the buildings burning).

Remember the debris formed an umbrella shape as the tower fell? Very easy to reach #7 across the narrow street separating it from the plaza. If you see an overhead diagram of the complex, you will see that #7 was trapezoid-shaped. The debris pretty much took off one lower corner of the building on the short side of the trapezoid. Meaning that gravity was working on all the floors above it (more than were above the strike zone in Tower 2), without enough support to counteract. This is why it eventually collapsed bottom-up, instead of top-down like the towers. The damage was at the bottom of the building not the top.

Faulty premise #2.

There were not "minor fires on two floors". There were huge fires and they burned for hours. Firemen were never sent into #7 because the building was making funny structural noises from the get-go, and they were pretty sure it was coming down. It wasn't worth the risk, so they let it burn.

I confess I don't understand the significance of the squibs or why you guys focus on them so. Smoke goes up. If a smoky building collapses, it's going to expell the smoke through any openings on its way down. You expect the "squibs" to look like they're racing DOWN a falling building or something? I really don't get it.

168 posted on 08/30/2006 4:42:38 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: american spirit

So, in other words, you have absolutely no qualifications as a professional architect or a civil engineer, but you are undoubtedly smarter than all of them put together, and know far more about their profession than they do.


169 posted on 08/30/2006 4:42:46 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

Pardon me for not going any further than your "The page cannot be found" link.


170 posted on 08/30/2006 4:44:12 PM PDT by Rocko (Lamont is gonna be pounded like a cheap cutlet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
What are yours?

I'm not the one making assertions that the building was destroyed in a certain manner, you are. So, what are your qualifications as an architect or as a civil engineer for evaluating the circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse?

171 posted on 08/30/2006 4:44:58 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: js1138

They weighed about as much as an equivalent volume of solid balsa wood.


172 posted on 08/30/2006 4:46:35 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

Not that I'm finding your "Bush Conspiracy" arguments credible....


173 posted on 08/30/2006 4:47:11 PM PDT by Rocko (Lamont is gonna be pounded like a cheap cutlet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: VegasCowboy

What questions? All of your so-called questions are non-critical and of no substance? I could care less "how the government could pull this off?" Who could answer that? It's opinion masked as a serious question. Are you kidding me?

I'm tempted to just reply "Whatever"...


174 posted on 08/30/2006 4:55:23 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
So, let's hear it straight from you. Who was responsible for the collapse of the towers? Bush? The "Israeli Lobby"? The Jolly Green Giant?
175 posted on 08/30/2006 4:56:29 PM PDT by Rocko (Lamont is gonna be pounded like a cheap cutlet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
That was actually a very good reply and more in line at what I am looking for.

I must confess, however, that based on photographs I don't see the evidence of major fires throughout #7. Do you have any links or sources that I am not aware of?

As far as the squibs, they appear to be racing up before the collapse, at least based on the video I've seen. I could be wrong about that.

BTW, when the twin towers fell, the "squibs" are seen racing down the towers as the towers fell. It could be that it is just dust being propelled out of the building from the above collapsing floors.

That is why the squibs racing "up" #7 seem to be a different monster to me. What would explain that?

I'm still at a loss as to why the 9-11 Commission did not investigate this collapse.
176 posted on 08/30/2006 5:03:11 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
Ahem...

How do you know that's East over thattaway?

For all you know, it's South-Southwest.

You Bushbot.

/s :)

177 posted on 08/30/2006 5:03:26 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (104 days (counting up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rocko

Whatever...


178 posted on 08/30/2006 5:03:38 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

No LOL?


179 posted on 08/30/2006 5:06:51 PM PDT by Rocko (Lamont is gonna be pounded like a cheap cutlet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Rocko

Okay.


180 posted on 08/30/2006 5:07:43 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-277 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson