Why would I question that official explanation? Afterall they are professional engineers and I am not and we should trust their work. However, there would be no need to criticize, question, or debunk a report if it were a complete, error-free analysis, correct?
However, there have been many sites and engineers that have already begun to question the NIST Report.
NIST Critique
NIST-New Standard Of Deception
NIST FAQ Debunked!
Vermont Engineer Questions NIST report
NIST In Violation Of The Data Quality Act
Critique of Official Collapse Theories
New Civil Engineer Calls For Release Of Computer Models
Many people fail to realize the NIST did not explain how the initiation of collapse led to the global collapse of the building. They failed to examine their primary purpose! How could they do this? How can this help future engineers construct structures with first and foremost the safety of its occupants as a priority? Why would the NIST not release their computer models to the engineering community? Whose interests are they serving? Shouldn't the safety of current and future steel framed high rise buildings be of the utmost importance?
For the layman, ask yourself, how does gravity take this:
and turn it into this?
and this...oh and the top part of the Tower leaning to its side, didn't end up on the street. It turned to dust and debris on the way down! Gravity is really amazing.
Gravity did this too!
Ahh the power of gravity. It truly is one of the most destructive forces on Earth.
Perhaps if the NIST would have listened to the head structural engineer of the WTC Towers regarding explosives, Jeffery Skilling, they might have tested for this hypothesis and arrived at an explanation for the total collapse of the towers.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Apparently gravity became substantially more powerful after Mr. Skilling's death because the NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
----
Do the orders still stand?
5 comments:
Great Post. Need to read carefully when I can fit it in.
Thanks, BG. I was a little bored today, so I threw it togther.
Swing. you realy need to do some reading on the subject of physics and large structures, This will get you started. you do have a clue on how gravity act on the scale of the WTC.
Galileo on Scaling
People have this distorted view as to the strength of the WTC Towers, How could something with support columns so huge fall so easily and fast? This warped view is very common with the people in the 911 truth movement who do not understanding the physics of large scale structures and conversely buy all sorts of conspiracy theorist conceptions involving explosives and some even believing in building melting death rays from space. Some have even gone as far as making models of the towers out of various materials to try and replicate the collapse not realizing the scaling problem would make them useless tests.
Galileo addressed this misconception long ago in a lectures on scaling. Addressing the idea that imperfections in the material not size would make large scale object weaker he said
Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness.
Basically he is saying what we all know, The bigger they are the harder thy fall. It’s impossible to build two similar structures of the same material, but of different sizes and have them proportionately strong. The mater that makes up steel will be the same irregardless of the amount, the atomic bond is the same big or small.
He goes on.
And to make sure that we understand each other, I say that if we take a wooden rod of a certain length and size, fitted, say, into a wall at right angles, i. e., parallel to the horizon, it may be reduced to such a length that it will just support itself; so that if a hair’s breadth be added to its length it will break under its own weight and will be the only rod of the kind in the world.* Thus if, for instance, its length be a hundred times its breadth, you will not be able to find another rod whose length is also a hundred times its breadth and which, like the former, is just able to sustain its own weight and no more: all the larger ones will break while all the shorter ones will be strong enough to support something more than their own weight. And this which I have said about the ability to support itself must be understood to apply also to other tests; so that if a piece of scantling will carry the weight of ten similar to itself, a beam having the same proportions will not be able to support ten similar beams.
Your perceptions of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC. You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to you is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail. You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger BUT you would be wrong.
The WTC were a delicate balancing act the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports, the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you have to now add strength to hold this extra weight. But on the other hand you build with eye towards lightness and depend on a clever distribution of loads rather then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.
The WTC achieved its strength not by over engineering but by a clever design that made optimum use of a center core and an outer box wall design. Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire we all saw what happened, 911 would have been no surprise to Galileo.
Thanks, Truthy.
Now do you think Galileo would have agreed with Skilling on the design of his own building?
Also, can Galileo explain how gravity can propel large pieces of buildings up, out, and then down as viewed by all videos shown of the collapse?
Speaking of over engineering at the WTC complex, lets see what Mr. Skilling had to say:
Chief Engineer, John Skilling, as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964. "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Such figures matter because the design of the live load of the Towers exceeds their own weight. The News Record also stated "The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. [..] One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction."
In summary, according to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
From the WTC Richard Roth Telegram in response to a potential lawsuit released in 1964:
THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE.
THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE
I think Galileo would have viewed the event, listened to the people who suffered from the explosive devices that impacted the subbasement levels, read the comments from the head structural engineer and his staff about their own buildings, examined the blue prints of the building and concluded that something assisted gravity that day in the destruction of the towers.
That 'something' would have been explosive devices.
Thanks again for being civil.
To 911_truthiness
A model is easy to make. Just make the supports as weak as possible relative to the weight above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
Crushing supports requires energy. The falling mass slows down due to the loss of kinetic energy.
Post a Comment