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."
Thank you, all, for your fine answers to the current troll's attempts to spread his paranoia. It may not have made any impression on him, conspiracy theorists being uncommonly impervious to reality, but at least you sent him whimpering back to his Gollum cave.
A very nice non-answer.
You have been repeatedly corrected when you have posted inaccurate statements, and gove on to repeat those statements over and over again. What am I supposed to make of that?
Bump for later
Please summarize your architectural and/or civil engineering credentials, and give a detailed explanation of why it's suspicious. Said explanation should not refer to your own erroneous claims that have been corrected.
After Khobar Towers and other assorted bombings involving American military and other personnel in the ME you actually believe that it would be hard to imagine that people actually hate us that much?.....are you serious? I also like the one about the NORAD excercise being a bonus......gimme a break!
What's more likely? That our government, which can't do much of anything right or prevent its secrets from leaked, orchestrated an elaborate illusion? Do you really think everyone involved (and it would have had to involve hundreds if not thousands) performed their jobs to perfection, and then has managed to keep their mouths shut?
Or is it more likely that a small group of terrorists used physical violence to comandeer aircraft and fly them into buildings?
Do you really believe the former is more likely? Or are you just so full of hatred for this country and/or the current government that you will accept such absurd scenarios as fact rather than accept what is patently obvious to anyone with two eyes and a brain?
I really don't understand your ilk. What you and your fever-swamp buddies on the web are propagating is damaging to this country, especially at a time when we need to unite against the threat of terrorism, and frankly it really pi##es me off.
I'll need a couple of hardy tools (hot/cold cuts, nail header, monkey tool, ect..), swage block, some tongs in various sizes, fire tools.
These will not only be cheaper to build, but are excellent "beginners" projects as well. I was a jet engine mechanic in the Marine Corps and did some machining work after I got off active duty. I kinda miss working with steel in my current tech related engineering occupation.
At first, it'll probably be a few projects for around my home. Fireplace poker set, decorative iron work, easy stuff. I'll take it from there, but I'd like to get to a point where I was good enough to sell some of my work at fairs and flea markets.
So how do you explain bin Laden and al-Qa'ida?
I'm sure the guys at work will be fascinated by your answer. They'd be thrilled to know that there is no AQ, and we can all go home early.
The only real wonder is that it stayed up as long as it did...
Yes, I'm serious. Did you predict that Islamists would use fully-fueled widebody jets as manned cruise missiles before 9/11/01? If not, then shut the f*** up.
I also like the one about the NORAD excercise being a bonus......gimme a break!
Do you have any idea how the military works, aside from reading Sergeant Rock comic books and watching B-grade movies?
Please summarize your architectural and/or civil engineering credentials, and give a detailed explanation of why it's suspicious. Said explanation should not refer to your own erroneous claims that have been corrected.
So explain to us how it all went down. Were the planes flying into buildings an illusion? Give us a step-by-step analysis of what happened instead of just repeatedly asking questions. You obviously don't care enough about the truth to read the replies to your questions, so why waste our time?
No, actually, the NIST study analyzed the actual blueprints and modeled the stresses expected from aircraft impacts and checkpointed them against the known data.
This provides detailed insights into the stresses resulting from an aircraft impact and the weak points in the design, allowing recommendations for future construction.
Any idiot can overdesign; the art is to make get the best value for our construction bucks by making future designs that can avoid pitfalls without busting the budget.
No......things just don't happen.....you seem to be well versed here so what happened with regards to WTC'93 and the circumstances surrounding a fedgov plant within that group?
What was the velocity of the fall in ft/sec, so that we can compare it to other falling objects?
And you are not far off in suggesting that all of the weight bearing columns failed close together in time- that's the official version.
Anyone that thinks the US government would have staged an attack that killed thousands of Americans is a nut case.
Actually it didn't come down within 10 seconds of the collapse of the two main towers. Building number 7 was next to the two main towers, and it had fires raging inside the entire day and it collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11.
Home heating oil burns at about the same temp as does Jet Fuel.
Here's what happens to structural steel when exposed to 12000 gallons of it burning under Interstate 95 in 2004.
Put a couple hundred thousand tons above it and what would be left of the bridge?
I'm sure they did, and I didn't mean to dismiss their work. I was just being sarcastic about people (like the conspiracy theorist on this thread) who, despite all the evidence (including that of their own eyes), need to have the obvious proven to them. Guess I could have made that point more clearly.
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.