revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

They're there:
www.aia.org

Just do a search on THEIR website for "911" or "World Trade Center"!Maybe them there guilty conspiracy bitches done hidden them there secrets.

Is "American Institute of Architects" the same group as "Architects Institute of America"?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Dunno. Please post link. Google did return anything for "Architects Institute of America".

My bad it is [url"http://www.aia.org/about/index.htm]american institute of architecture![/url] you can't have looked that hard, or must have minimal information about these scientists, to be asking me for a link. You can't have read this thread, there is a huge amount of information, If you look.

Here is a request from scientists and architects to explain some missing information that is necessary to obtain a credible result, NIST break thier own rules and many others, unexplained and without an explanation a reasonable calculation is not obtainable.

NIST has one prognosis and a weak one at that.

These guys just want some answers, not pointing the finger just pointing out fundamental problems with the prognosis that was produced.

It is the blatant disregard to the requests and significance of them that implicates the official conspiracy theory as bogus...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Dunno. Please post link. Google did return anything for "Architects Institute of America".

My bad it is american institute of architecture! you can't have looked that hard, or must have minimal information about these scientists, to be asking me for a link, you can't have read this thread, there is a huge amount of information, If you look.

Here is a request from scientists and architects to explain some missing information that is necessary to obtain a credible result, they break thier own rules and many others, unexplained and without which a reasonable calculation is not obtainable.

NIST has one prognosis and a weak one at that.

These guys just want some answers, not pointing the finger just pointing out fundamental problems with the prognosis that was produced.

It is the blatant disregard to the requests and significance of them that implicates the official conspiracy theory as bogus...

I did find the American Institute of Architects, but not Architects Institute Of America.
So some want answers to questions they have. That means absolutely nothing since that is the norm for any disaster. They aslo wanted answers for what happened when a walkway collapsed in a hotel and killed several people, when a bridge collapsed and fell into a river (that happened more than once) and many other events. To single out their request for the Trade Centers as being some kind of sign of a conspiracy is totally ludicrous.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mike_forsythe 0]

Quote

And you don't acknowlegde the thermate

You are wrong again as I addressed it in your original thread.

Quote

what kind of investigation does not look at all possibilities?

Again this type statement shows what you don't know or have the education, experience or knowledge of Rescue response, recovery and post investigation as they are all separate disciplines in which it is very clear that you know nothing about.

Quote

Yet we have guys liike you caliming to be experts

Wrong again. I am not claiming I am an expert, I am stating it as fact. I have testified in the court system as an accepted expert, I am an instructor at the State Fire College, I am an engineer with over 20 years experience so what are your credentials to question me?

Quote

so did you test the 'hot spots'

yes

Quote

can you tell us what NIST couldn't or should i say, wouldn't?

No as I don't know what they said.

Quote

Did you test what you wanted or what you were told?

Neither, here you go again showing what you don't know. The response teams operate under SOPR's and only they determine what we do. They apply to all events so there is no "do whatever you want". That would be something that an uneducated person would ask.

I have no idea what NEST did or what data they used as it not only has nothing to do with what we do but it would be after the fact of our response.

What do you want to know about the hot spots, can you be any more vague? For me to discuss the data that we had you would have to go get an education and about 10 years experience in order to understand it. That is unless you really want to try and convince us with your knowledge of thermal pressure, trauma and chemical tissue destruction.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I did find the American Institute of Architects, but not Architects Institute Of America.
So some want answers to questions they have. That means absolutely nothing since that is the norm for any disaster. They aslo wanted answers for what happened when a walkway collapsed in a hotel and killed several people, when a bridge collapsed and fell into a river (that happened more than once) and many other events. To single out their request for the Trade Centers as being some kind of sign of a conspiracy is totally ludicrous.

So they are requesting why thie calculations of the NIST failed to comply with thier own strict guidelines as well as others, how there is photographic evidence that the basis for thier calculations is false, and if accounted for would render the whole report, wrong!

You find this to be ludicrous, how?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[normiss 806]

The fact that they want to review some calculations equates to what government conspiracy and cover-up again please?

[mnealtx 0]

Re: AIA - was there supposed to be something on their website that supports your view?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

Quote
what kind of investigation does not look at all possibilities?
Again this type statement shows what you don't know or have the education, experience or knowledge of Rescue response, recovery and post investigation as they are all separate disciplines in which it is very clear that you know nothing about.

I started highlighting the key points but it seems the whole piece is valid. I challenge you to read it and answer what the NIST have faid to; if you are so involved and have such great knowledge of the investgation;

- 1 -
VIA Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and e-mail (richard.kayser@nist.gov)
Dr. Richard F. Kayser
Deputy Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000
RE: Information Quality Request #07-06
Dear Dr. Kayser,
The enclosed Request for Correction (the “Request”) was submitted to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) on April 12, 2007 by Bob
McIlvaine, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for
9/11 Truth and Justice (referred to herein collectively as the “Requesters”) under Section
515 of Public Law 106-554, the Data Quality Act, the Office of Management and
Budget’s government-wide Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, and
NIST’s “Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism.”
NIST responded to the Request by way of a letter dated September 27, 2007 from
Ms. Catherine S. Fletcher (the “Response”), a copy of which is enclosed herewith. While
the Requesters appreciate the time and effort NIST personnel put into the Response, some
troubling issues remain outstanding. This letter constitutes an appeal of the decisions
handed down in the Response, and asks NIST, through its Deputy Director, to reconsider
its position on the issues raised in the Request. The particular issues raised in the
Request, and addressed in the Response, will be considered in detail below in the order
they were addressed in the Request and the Response. However, the Deputy Director is
cordially invited to read through the entire original Request (enclosed herewith for your
convenience) in detail, because it raises serious issues with the WTC Report that have not
been adequately addressed by the NIST personnel in charge of responding to it. The
entire original Request is incorporated herein by reference, as if fully set out herein.
A. Rejection of the Less Severe Damage Estimates
In the Response, NIST indicated that it has issued an erratum to the WTC Report.
This erratum removed one of the false justifications relied upon by NIST for rejecting the
less severe damage case, namely the justification that “the towers would not have
collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” However, the other false
justification still remains in the WTC Report.
In order to continue rejecting the less severe damage estimate, NIST inexplicably
continues to rely on the “key observable” that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit
the side opposite to impact … in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and
videos of the impact event.” This “key observable” should not be relied upon to make
- 2 -
any conclusions regarding the simulations for the simple reason that NIST admits in the
Response that “uncertainties in the configuration of the building interior on the floors of
impact … [influenced] the modeling results.” As a result “none of the damage scenarios
resulted in landing gear debris exiting the opposite face of the WTC 1 model.” In sum,
NIST relies on a “key observable” in rejecting the less severe damage case, while at the
same time admitting that its own computer models are unable to accurately represent this
“key observable.” In the Response, NIST has done absolutely nothing to overcome the
argument that either all of the computer models should be accepted or all should be
rejected based on this “key observable,” because none of the damage simulations resulted
in this “key observable” occurring. The Requesters, therefore, again respectfully request
that NIST revise the WTC Report so that only legitimate justifications are relied upon
when accepting or rejecting a particular computer simulation.
Furthermore, the erratum makes no mention of the other justification NIST relies
on in the Response for rejecting the less severe damage case, namely the “shifting of
building contents due to the aircraft impact.” NIST’s reliance on this justification is
puzzling, to be sure, in light of NIST’s statement elsewhere in the WTC Report that “no
visible information could be obtained for the extent of damage to the interior of the
towers, including the structural system (floors and core columns), partition walls, and
interior building contents.” (See NCSTAR 1-2 (pp iv, xxxix)) NIST must explain how its
reliance on “shifting of building contents due to the aircraft impact” as a “key
observable” can be reconciled with its statement that NIST had “no visible information”
regarding damage to the “interior building contents.” The Requesters, therefore, again
respectfully request that NIST address their concerns about the rejection of the less
severe damage estimate without relying on false justifications (especially justifications
that are contradicted by NIST’s own statements elsewhere in the WTC Report) and
provide the American people with the truth about why the less severe case was rejected.
It is clear to Requesters that the only justification NIST can rely upon for rejecting
the less severe damage case is that the Towers would not have collapsed. Such reasoning
is clearly circular and unscientific in that it assumes what has to be proved, and is in
violation of the DQA, the NIST IQS and the OMB Guidelines governing scientific
information and influential scientific information. Requesters also ask NIST and its
Deputy Director to reconsider the analysis and requests contained in Section V.A. of their
original Request because the Response does little to even attempt to refute what is
contained therein.
B. NIST Computer Simulations
In the original Request, the Requesters questioned NIST’s “pruning” of the
analysis tree in Figure 9-2 to produce the “pruned” Figure 9-3. In its Response, NIST
claims that the “pruned” analysis tree in Figure 9-3 “resulted from an orthogonal factorial
design of experiments [OFD or DOE] analysis to identify the most influential
parameters.” However, this new statement is contrary to the description of the OFD in
the WTC Report.
- 3 -
The orthogonal factorial DOE (OFD) used by NIST was intended to reduce the
number of factors (or parameters), not the number of levels. As stated in NCSTAR 1-6,
p. 290, “The OFD approach allowed for the identification of influential parameters (i.e.
factors) that reduced the number of analysis runs in the global” experiments. With
specific regard to the damage estimates, NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 5 (cited in the Response),
states that an “experimental design approach, using the method of orthogonal factorial
design was used to determine the parameters that had the greatest effect on the
estimated damage.” (See NCSTAR 1-6, p. 121) However, the less severe (-), base (0),
and more severe cases (+) are descriptions of the levels used in NIST’s experiments, not
parameters, and NIST makes no mention that OFD was used to exclude specific damage
levels (cases). Instead, NIST states that it relied solely on “key observations” in deciding
whether to exclude a particular damage case.1 (See Id.) The stark contrast between an
OFD, which determines “influential parameters,” and exclusion of damage cases (levels)
based on “key observables,” could not be more apparent. NIST has not explained why
the less severe or base levels (cases) were fully excluded once the desired factors (or
parameters) had been established by NIST’s OFD screening experiments. In a valid
DOE, all levels should have been included in the final global analysis, including those
represented by the less severe and base cases for any given set of factors. NIST’s
statement that it relied on its OFD analysis for excluding the less severe and base case
damage estimates flies directly in the face of the description of the OFD process
contained in the WTC Report.
The OFD approach used by NIST in the WTC Report has other serious problems.
First, NIST’s use of a Plackett-Burman design was not appropriate for the purpose of the
WTC Report. NCSTAR 1-2B describes the reporting of the DOE analysis of subcomponents.
NIST used a Plackett-Burman design to screen out non-influential factors
(or parameters) prior to conducting their global analyses. This was not appropriate for
NIST’s purposes, because a Plackett-Burman DOE assumes that interactions between
factors are negligible. Not only was the validation of that assumption not reported but,
for the factors analyzed, it is not likely to be valid. In order for these analyses to be
useful under the DQA and related information quality guidelines, NIST must show the
American public how this assumption is valid for all factors involved.
Second, the main and interaction effects for each factor were not reported.
Although NIST reported graphically the main effects of some experiments used in the
sub-component DOE analyses, the actual values for main effects were not reported. And
as stated above, interaction effects were not calculated and were inappropriately assumed
to be zero or negligible. Without these values, and a determination of resolution,
independent qualified members of the public cannot establish the validity of the
experiments.
Third, the magnitude used for each factor (or parameter) was not consistent in the
sub-component analyses. When varying the magnitude of most factors, the minimum
1 The Requesters have shown in the original Request, and in Section A above, how NIST’s reliance on
what it calls “key observables” in rejecting these damage cases is also scientifically untenable and in
violation of the DQA.
- 4 -
values and maximum values were set equidistant from the baseline values. However, for
the engine-core column impact analysis, the maximum “strain rate” was set ten times
higher than the baseline value, at 1000% instead of 190% as would be expected in
relation to the varying of other factors (See NCSTAR 1-2B, pp 178-180). For this and
other reasons, NIST’s treatment of “strain rate” in these virtual experiments is dubious,
and the logic behind the selection of different magnitudes for the factors in NIST’s
screening DOE is questionable.
Fourth, the public cannot understand NIST’s selection of factors in the DOE. It
appears that the responses for each experiment were judged simply by whether or not
they resulted in maximal damage to the building and components. On the other hand,
NIST suggests in the Response that the results were judged by comparison to
photographic evidence. These criteria are not in agreement. The public cannot verify
NIST’s comparison of experimental responses to photographic evidence without access
to all the photographic evidence and the logic used. Specifically, the WTC Report should
be revised to specifically include the photograph, photographs, and/or video still frames
NIST used to verify its DOE analysis. The DQA and related guidelines require this
revision because it will allow a qualified member of the public to perform an independent
reanalysis and verify NIST’s conclusions. Furthermore there is a need for NIST to
release all photographic and video evidence in its possession in order that the public may
have the opportunity to ensure that there are not other photos and videos which are
capable of a different interpretation. Without such full release there is no way that the
public can assure itself that NIST has not been selective in choosing its data.2
The Requesters, therefore, respectfully request reconsideration of all analysis and
requests made in Section V.B. of the original Request, and consideration of the points
made herein. Hand waving reliance on its OFD approach as a justification for excluding
damage levels is a clear violation of the DQA and related guidelines. As it stands, the
“pruning” of the less severe and base cases from the NIST computer simulation analysis
and from the WTC Report itself clearly violates OMB’s Guidelines and the NIST IQS
standards of objectivity. An unbiased, accurate, reliable report would include the results
of all of the computer simulations run, especially when the WTC Report already states
that the less severe and base impact damage cases fit reasonably well with the observed
damage. This is true because the objectivity standards for scientific information under
the NIST IQS require analytic results to be developed using sound statistical and research
methods. This is especially true in light of NIST’s dubious design of its DOE analysis
and its neglect of any interaction between factors considered.
Furthermore, the “pruning” of the less severe and bases cases from the WTC
Report analysis violates the OMB Guidelines and NIST IQS as they govern “influential
scientific information” and analytic results related thereto. The OMB Guidelines require
such transparency about data and methods “that an independent reanalysis could be
undertaken by a qualified member of the public.” See 67 F.R. 8460. By “pruning” the
less severe and base cases from its detailed analysis, no member of the public can look at
2 This appeal letter is not a Freedom of Information Act request, and should not be treated as such.
- 5 -
the data and determine whether airplane impact damage plus the resulting fires alone
resulted in the building collapse.
The Requesters are not the only members of the public that question NIST’s
computer simulations. An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends
support to the Requesters’ concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. This
article states, in relevant part:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to
show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers
despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has
learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to
validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST]
investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss
at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National
Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. ‘NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify
any errors in the modeling will be lost,’ he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted
enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models.
‘By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,’ he
said. ‘The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits,
and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and
judgment calls.’
Parker, Dave (2005). "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New
Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005. (emphasis added)
Moreover, the “pruning” actually confuses the public into believing that all of the
“pruned” levels lead to building collapse. The WTC Report should be revised to cure this
clear bias. In sum, it is impossible for a qualified member of the public to read the WTC
Report, undertake “an independent reanalysis,” and come to the same conclusion as
NIST, which is a clear violation of applicable information quality standards as detailed in
the original Request. The appropriate action for NIST to take is to display the full set of
pathways unpruned and to clearly mark those which do not result in collapse. This would
allow the public to have a means to observe, at that point in the study, that collapse solely
due to impact damage and fire is a matter of probability rather than a foregone conclusion
to be merely explained.
C. Information in Figure 9-3 Violates the OMB and NIST IQS Objectivity
Standards
- 6 -
In its Response, NIST blithely states that the “isolated core model was used by
NIST to inform its global analysis by analyzing this particular building subsystem” and
the fact that the severe damage cases would not converge on a solution did not present
any problem for NIST’s analysis. Requesters again submit that NIST’s use of the base
case damage scenario for the isolated core models, which in turn “informed” its global
models, is a clear violation of the DQA, NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines. First, the fact
that the more severe damage cases would not converge is clear evidence that NIST was
biased towards finding that the most possible damage to the core columns occurred
because the damage estimates were set too high. Second, Figure 9-3 indicates that the
base damage case was “pruned” from the analysis, yet the Response readily admits that
the base damage cases were used to “inform” the global analysis. Requesters respectfully
request that these two positions be reconciled with an appropriate revision to the WTC
Report, and a clear explanation for NIST’s justification for “pruning” a damage estimate
which still “informed” its global analysis.
In the Response, NIST treats Requesters’ second request for correction with even
less analysis or explanation. The specific point made by Requesters, namely that “[n]o
columns buckled in either Case C or Case D” for WTC2, was not even addressed by
NIST in the Response. (See NCSTAR 1-6 p.192) Instead, NIST provides nothing but
conclusory statements that merely repeat the incorrect statements contained in the WTC
Report. Requesters hereby request and demand that NIST explain how “significant core
weakening” was “necessary to initiate building collapse” in light of the WTC Report’s
finding that “[n]o columns buckled in either Case C or Case D” for WTC2. (See
NCSTAR 1-6 p.322) A reconciliation of these statements is necessary to bring the WTC
Report in line with the strictures of the DQA, NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines as they
relate to objectivity and utility.
Because none of the points raised by Requesters in Section V.C. of the original
Request have been adequately addressed by NIST, Requesters hereby request
reconsideration of and a more detailed response to the same.
D. Floor Sagging
In the original Request, the Requesters demonstrated that the results of NIST’s
physical tests of floor assemblies were vastly different than the computer models
ultimately relied upon by NIST in its analysis. In the Response, NIST states “it is not
possible to compare the floor sagging observed during the ASTM E119 tests with the
floor sagging calculated by the analysis models. The ASTM E119 furnace profile is not
representative of real fire condition. In addition the specimens had been fireproofed
which prevented the steel from heating as quickly as it would in an unprotected condition
as was modeled based on the estimated damage to the fireproofing due to debris impact.
Finally, deflection of the floor assemblies undergoing the ASTM E119 testing was
limited to prevent damage to the instrumentation. Visual data of the WTC Towers
confirmed significant floor sagging at several locations in the towers.”
- 7 -
The biggest problem with NIST’s response to this point can be summarized as
follows: Why did NIST perform the floor tests if the results were, by design, not going to
be used in the subsequent analyses? Why did NIST officials pay Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) approximately $250,000 of the American public’s tax dollars to
perform these tests? Will UL or NIST be refunding this money to the taxpayers since the
factors NIST claims make these results unusable were knowable beforehand? NIST must
justify its performance of these physical tests in some meaningful way in order to satisfy
the DQA, NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines. In the alternative, NIST may admit that the
real reason it did not want to use these results is that they did not support NIST’s
predetermined conclusions.
Moreover, NIST’s May 2003 progress report on the WTC Report paints a
somewhat different picture around these physical tests: “NIST intends to carry out testing
to assess the fire rating and behavior of a typical fireproofed floor assembly under the fire
conditions prescribed in ASTM E 119. In addition, information contained in this report
(e.g., on fireproofing material and thickness, and fire rating) will be used in conducting
the ASTM E 119 tests and to analyze thermal-structural response of the WTC towers.”
Apparently sometime between May 2003 and the time the final WTC Report was issued,
NIST decided it would not use the ASTM E119 “to analyze the thermal-structural
response of the WTC Towers.” Why was this decision made? Why was the American
public made to wait for these physical test results from UL if they would never actually
be used “to analyze thermal structural response of the WTC towers”? On the other hand,
if NIST did use the results of these physical tests in some meaningful way, this fact
should be detailed in the report.
Even more important, though, is the fact that there are several reasons why the
results of these physical tests actually are informative and should have been used by
NIST to determine whether the Towers would have collapsed by fire alone. First, the
floor assembly test specimens were not representative of the actual WTC floor conditions
not because they had too much fireproofing, but because they had too little. The test
performed by UL included four test specimens with “as built” fireproofing thickness of
0.75 inches on two specimens and further limited “as specified” fireproofing thickness of
0.5 inches on the others. No test specimen had fireproofing to represent the “as
impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60, p 241.
Second, one specimen used in the physical tests had virtually no fireproofing
applied. Specimen number 4 had no fireproofing applied to either the underside of the
metal deck, or the bridging trusses. (See NCSTAR 1-6, p. 41, NCSTAR 1-6B p. 4)
Therefore NIST cannot argue that the ASTM E119 tests were meant to show how
important the fire proofing was in preventing building collapse. The fact that fireproofed
floor specimens survived the ASTM E119 tests does not imply that unfireproofed floor
specimens would not have survived similar tests. Physical tests should have been run
that approximated the conditions NIST thought applied to the floors during the actual
fire.
- 8 -
Third, NIST was not able to demonstrate or explain an intelligible mechanism for
“estimated damage to the fireproofing due to debris impact.” Ultimately, NIST made a
general assumption about fireproofing loss that either was not based on scientific results,
or for which the logic was not explained.
Fourth, the ASTM E119 furnace profile is not representative of the real WTC fire
condition because it involves longer and more severe fire times, not because it is less
severe. In NCSTAR 1-6 (pp. 322, 338) it is indicated that the fires took 55 to 60 minutes
to reach the south wall of WTC 1, leaving only about 45 minutes of fire time in the
failure zone. This fire time is much shorter than the fire times utilized in the ASTM E119
tests, and even test specimen 4, with nearly no fireproofing applied, met all test
requirements for 58 minutes.
Fifth, the visual data, which NIST used to confirm their assumption of floor
sagging, is not valid for that purpose. NCSTAR 1-6, p 312, shows an example of the
visual data NIST claims in support of floor sagging. If these photographs do, in fact,
show floor sagging, they simultaneously repudiate the idea of floor sagging as a
mechanism for pulling exterior columns inward, which is the main aspect of NIST’s
collapse initiation scenario. To pull these columns inward, the sagging must curve
inward, along the length of the floor panels, and the floor panels must remain connected
to the exterior walls. However, the photos indicated show what would be sagging along
the face of the building, requiring coordinated disconnection of the floors from the
exterior wall panels, resulting in a highly unlikely continuous curve of sagging across
many independent floor panels and connections. Such along-the-face sagging would not
provide an inward pull force to the exterior columns.
For these reasons, the Requesters request reconsideration of all of the analysis and
requests made in Section V.D. of the original Request, and consideration of the points
made above. The Requesters further request that NIST not respond with more cursory
argument and analysis, and that NIST actually address in detail the points raised by
Requesters. The DQA and related guidelines require NIST to disseminate accurate,
reliable, useful information, and in light of the foregoing, it has done no such thing with
regards to the WTC Report.
E. The WTC Steel Temperature
In the original Request, the Requesters challenged NIST’s computer model steel
temperatures of 700°C and higher in light of the WTC Report’s statement that NIST’s
physical tests on the recovered steel samples “show no evidence of exposure to
temperatures above 600°C for any significant time,” and “limited exposure if any above
250°C” (See NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli) (emphasis added). In the Response, NIST suggests
that the steel samples saved were intended only for “determining the quality of the steel
and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as
input to models of building performance.”
- 9 -
However, in NIST’s Progress Report of May, 2003 (p. 30), the analysis of
recovered steel was explained as a much more involved process, and the goals of the
intended analyses were much broader:
NIST has catalogued 235 pieces of World Trade Center steel as of March
28, 2003. This includes a database with photographic records and member
markings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount
of steel examined at the various salvage yards where the steel was sent as
the WTC site was cleared. In addition, NIST has examined additional
steel stored by the Port Authority at JFK airport and has transported 12
specimens to NIST. NIST believes that this collection of steel from the
WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the investigation.
The NIST analysis of recovered WTC steel includes:
• collection and cataloging of the structural steel;
• documenting failure mechanisms and damage based on visual
observations;
• determining the metallurgical and mechanical properties of steel,
weldments, and connections for use in analyzing baseline
structural performance, aircraft impact damage, and thermalstructural
response to the fires until collapse initiation;
• estimating the maximum temperature reached by available steel;
and
• comparing measured steel properties with applicable material
specifications.
The steel in NIST’s possession includes 28 perimeter column panels for
which locations have been identified in the towers, several from the
impact zones; and 11 core columns for which locations have been
identified in the towers, including two from the impact zones.”
NIST also has samples of core columns (wide flange and built-up box
columns) of two grades of steel. Ninety-nine percent of the core columns
were fabricated from these two grades of steel.
These statements from the May 2003 progress report were reaffirmed in the December
2003 progress report. (See NIST Special Publication 1000-4, available at
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf). Therein, NIST states that it “has in its
possession about 236 pieces of WTC Steel”. (See id at p.8) Additionally, “[r]egions of
impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation.”
(Id.) “NIST has samples of all 14 grades of steel used in the exterior column-spandrel
panels. It also has samples of two grades of steel used for the core columns (wide flange
and built-up box columns) that represent steel used to fabricate 99 percent of the core
columns. Most importantly, “NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC
- 10 -
Towers is adequate for purposes of the Investigation,” which included estimating the
maximum temperature reached by the steel. (See id.) (emphasis in original).
From these progress reports by NIST, as well as other facts, the Requesters can
understand the following:
1. Although the steel samples saved for testing were of limited quantity, an
“enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and
the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance in the
investigation.
2. Contrary to NIST’s current statement, “estimating the maximum temperature
reached by available steel” was stated to be a primary objective of the
investigation of the recovered steel samples. This stated objective was repeated in
NIST’s December 2003 progress report.
3. Contrary to NIST’s current statement, “documenting failure mechanisms and
damage based on visual observations” was a primary objective of the
investigation. This stated objective was repeated in NIST’s December 2003
progress report.
4. When this sifting and sorting of steel originally occurred, NIST believed “that this
collection of steel from the WTC towers [was] adequate for purposes of the
investigation.”
5. In NIST’s December 2003 progress report (p. 8), it was stated that “Regions of
impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the
Investigation.” This means that in December 2003 it appears that NIST believed
it had adequate samples of steel available to perform physical tests and
“estimat[e] the maximum temperature reached by available steel.”
Furthermore, the Response also states that “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 250 °C.”
NIST’s response here is not satisfactory for the following reasons:
1. It is clear, from NIST’s earlier progress reports, that the steel samples used in the
steel temperature analyses were taken from a much larger sample, and represented
those areas of the buildings which had experienced significant fire and damage.
2. NIST has not shown any evidence that the steel available to the investigation team
was of a “small sample size”. In fact, the 11 core column samples saved could be
reasonably seen as representing as much as 23% of the total (47) core columns.
Without a detailed explanation from NIST as to how the samples were saved from
- 11 -
the larger amount examined, and how the calculation of 1% was performed, the
public cannot validate NIST’s new claim that the samples were insufficient to
accomplish the original stated objectives, including the maximum steel
temperature determination.
3. As with NIST’s new statements about the floor tests, noted above, the Requesters
must now ask – Why did NIST perform the steel temperature tests, including the
paint deformation test and the tests of steel microstructure, if the results would not
be used in the final analyses? Will the American public be refunded the money
spent on these tests?
4. The paint deformation test that NIST performed, and that resulted in the 250 °C
value discussed, appears to be a measure of the surface temperature of the steel
samples tested. NIST provides no explanation for how such a surface temperature
result could have been extrapolated to provide meaningful data about the
temperature of large masses of core columns, floor assemblies and exterior
columns in the WTC towers. In order to validate NIST’s new claim that the test
results cannot be extrapolated to provide meaningful information, the details of
the intended extrapolation protocol must be provided for public use. Indeed, it is
difficult to imagine how a surface temperature of 250°C could be extrapolated in
such a way that the inner temperature of the steel could ever have been greater
than 250°C.
5. In November of 2004, one of the Requesters sent a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of
NIST, asking for information on the steel temperature tests performed, and the
conclusions drawn from the results of those tests. This letter was never answered,
but the October 2004 NIST WTC presentation, on which the letter was based,
repeatedly stated that large quantities of the steel in the towers had “softened”.
After receiving this letter, NIST delayed their report and removed the word
“softened” from throughout their descriptions of the collapse initiation sequences.
These facts indicate that NIST did not have any plan for extrapolating the results
of steel temperature tests, and have never had a scientific basis for the claims
made in the NIST WTC report about steel temperatures.
Finally, at the time of “collapse initiation” in the WTC Report, even NIST’s own
computer models challenge its collapse theory. In the Response is the statement “... the
analytical models of the fire growth and spread are consistent with the observable data for
the WTC towers.” Similarly in the WTC Report, after fire tests had been conducted and
after comparing the results with modeling we read: “The quality of the simulations was
deemed satisfactory.” (page xlii) Inspection of the temperature charts in NIST NCSTAR
1-5 (p. 112-127) reveals that, for WTC 1, the core areas of stories 92 to 99 (which spans
the plane impact area and within which is the presumed collapse initiation region) had
cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30- and 45-
minute readings, yet collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time
the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100°C to 600°C.
Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than
- 12 -
150°C. If the temperature of the columns was still rising at the time of collapse, the
column temperature would have been no higher than the environment temperature and
the steel would obviously be far too strong to collapse. If the temperature of the columns
was falling at the time of collapse, the columns had already survived the period when the
steel was hottest. In this case, given that steel regains strength as it cools, it is clear that
core collapse due to heat had become impossible.
The charts depicting the temperature of the columns (p. 144-157) confirm that the
steel had become too cold to collapse. The highest core column temperatures are shown
for stories 95, 96 and 97. On these floors the highest column temperatures were achieved
at about 50 minutes and cooling occurred thereafter. We also see the perimeter columns
were cool at collapse: most of the perimeter and core columns are depicted in blue and
green, indicating temperatures ranging from 150°C to 350°C. At these temperatures the
column steel would have from about 80% to 90% of its normal yield strength, according
to the NIST chart (NIST NCSTAR 1-3, P. 111). At this strength, given the built in safety
factor, approximately every second column could be removed and the tower would still
stand. The hat truss and most of the perimeter, including four corners, were intact,
forming a rigid structure, which would prevent the core from leaning, thus all core
columns would have to give way simultaneously for collapse to occur. Clearly some
additional factor was necessary to bring about collapse.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Requesters hereby request reconsideration of
the analysis and requests made in Section V.E. of the original Request. NIST has not
adequately explained why it believes its physical steel temperature tests are essentially
irrelevant. Again, why go to the trouble of physically testing the steel temperature if the
results would not ultimately be used in the WTC Report’s analysis? It is abundantly clear
that NIST must reconcile the results of its physical tests with its computer models if it
hopes to comply with the DQA and related guidelines with regards to objectivity and
especially utility.
F. The Goal of the WTC Report and Its Overall Analysis
In the original Request, the Requesters questioned NIST’s decision to halt its
analysis at the point it calls “collapse initiation.” NIST’s response to this valid point is
the clearest demonstration yet of the utter bankruptcy of the WTC Report. Specifically,
in the Response NIST claimed that it was not required to analyze the entire collapse of
the Twin Towers because “Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available
evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the
towers.” However, following this logic to its ultimate conclusion, NIST’s detailed
analysis of collapse initiation was completely unnecessary because it is also clear from
the available evidence that collapse initiated. The relevant question in both cases is:
Why? NIST is required under the NCST Act, and under general moral principles as the
official investigatory body, to provide a coherent, scientific explanation of why collapse
initiated, and why the lower structure provided so little resistance to the collapse.
Instead, NIST provided the American public a 10,000-page report analyzing collapse
initiation, and then stops there because the available visual evidence allegedly shows us
- 13 -
everything we need to know about what happened after collapse initiation. That position
is completely untenable and NIST should abandon it immediately if it hopes to salvage
any shred of credibility.
As noted in the original Request, NIST was under a mandate by the NCST Act to
“establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” See 15 U.S.C. §
7301(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, one of the specific goals stated in the WTC Report was to
“Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of
the aircraft.” (NCSTAR 1, p. xxxv) Confusingly, in the Response, NIST states that “it
did not analyze the collapse of the towers,” and that it is “unable to provide a full
explanation of the total collapse.” There could not be any clearer evidence that NIST has
failed to live up to its duties under the NCST Act, and failed to satisfy its stated goal of
determining “why and how” the buildings collapsed. NIST admits that it didn’t even try
to analyze the collapse of the towers, and that it is “unable” to explain the total collapses
to the American people.
NIST also claims that its report is useful because “codes and standards
organizations have already begun taking action to adopt changes to building and fire
codes and standards that respond directly to the NIST recommendations.” However, a
review of the information available at
http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm reveals that most of the
proposed building codes have in fact been rejected by the standards community. The fact
that NIST has been able to ram through a handful of code changes reflects more on the
influence its name carries than on the utility of its report. More importantly, NIST’s
building code recommendations are actually harmful to the building community because
they are based on extremely flawed science, as amply demonstrated in the original
Request and this appeal letter. Unnecessarily onerous building codes inhibit growth
because they make projects needlessly more expensive. NIST should withdraw all of its
recommended building codes until it can produce a report that is not fundamentally
flawed in so many respects.
The Requesters also cited numerous testimonies from firefighters and other first
responders that indicate the presence of explosions during the building collapses. NIST
writes off this testimony with the conclusory allegation that “taken as a whole” the
firefighter interviews did not indicate that explosives played a role in the collapses. The
Requesters wonder how many firefighters reporting explosions it would have taken for
NIST to seriously consider the explosive demolition hypothesis for the collapses.
NIST has also refused to test for the presence of explosive residue because “such
tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.” However, as discussed in detail in the
Request and in this document, NIST conducted many tests that were “not necessarily
conclusive.” Examples of such allegedly inconclusive tests are the physical steel
temperature tests and the physical fire resistance tests. Clearly NIST thought these
physical temperature and fire resistance tests, at the very least, might have been
instructive on some aspect of the collapses. Why then would NIST not conduct a very
simple lab test for the presence of explosive residue, even assuming the test would not
- 14 -
necessarily have been conclusive? More importantly, though, it is difficult to imagine a
scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive. If explosive
residues are found in WTC debris, there is an extremely high likelihood that explosives
were in fact used. Consider that Materials Engineering, Inc. has this to say about its
thermite residue tests:
When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce
a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds
are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common
elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also
contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine
and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire,
many are also left behind in the residue. ...
MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute
traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The
results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute
certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating
the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.
(See http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html) (emphasis added)
Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive
explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly
unpersuasive.
Moreover, NIST must reconcile its statement that it found “no corroborating
evidence to suggest that explosives were used” with its statement that it did not test for
explosive residue which, if found, would suggest explosives were used. This point was
clearly made in the original Request, but was ignored in NIST’s Response. The fact
therefore remains that it is extremely easy to “find no evidence” when one is not looking
for evidence.
Additionally, NIST must detail the initial evidence that would suggest that
explosives were used which it believes needs “corroborating” before an explosive
demolition hypothesis will be considered. If NIST meant to say it found “no evidence to
suggest that explosives were used” then it must revise its report accordingly. Stating that
NIST found “no corroborating evidence” suggests or implies that there exists a body of
initial evidence that needs further “corroboration.” NIST must detail this existing body
of evidence that needs further corroboration in order to comply with the DQA and related
guidelines.
Therefore, the Requesters request and demand that NIST provide the Requesters
and the American public with an adequate explanation, as they deserve, of the total and
complete destruction of the WTC Towers. This is the only way NIST can ever hope to
comply with the DQA, NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines. By stopping short, at the point
- 15 -
of collapse initiation, NIST has shirked its duty under the NCST Act of establishing the
likely technical cause or causes of collapse. The explanation would necessarily involve a
detailed examination of why and how the lower structure “was unable to resist the falling
mass of the upper stories of the towers.” Such an explanation is required under the DQA
and related guidelines.
G. Conclusion
Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns. We
look forward to receiving a substantive response to our appeal, wherein NIST
straightforwardly and completely addresses the serious scientific concerns raised in our
Request and this Appeal.
Very truly yours,
/s/James R. Gourley_____ 10/25/2007_____________
James R. Gourley, Esq. Date
Attorney
jrpatent@gmail.com
Bob McIlvaine
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
/s/Bob McIlvaine______________ 10/25/2007_____________
Bob McIlvaine Date
Dr. Steven Jones
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
/s/Steven Jones________________ 10/25/2007_____________
Dr. Steven Jones Date
- 16 -
Kevin Ryan
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
/s/Kevin Ryan_________________ 10/25/2007_____________
Kevin Ryan Date
Richard Gage, AIA Architect
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
/s/Richard Gage________________ 10/25/2007_____________
Richard Gage, AIA Architect Date
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
[CONTACT INFORMATION REDACTED]
/s/Frank Legge________________ 10/25/2007_____________
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Date
By: Frank Legge

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Yet we have guys liike you caliming to be experts, saying that computers and carpet can burn at temperatures not normally achievable in such conditions, you're self proclaimed experts say that moulten aluminium just above melting temperature is glowing orange and that organic material can freely mix with the moulten liquid.

For a start tell us about the hot spots?

What about the hundreds/thousands of gallons of JET fuel... doubt that shit burns very hot. Not to mention that it saturated multiple floors below those of impact.

You can heat steel to red hot (compromising it's structural integrity) in a typical camp fire.

Now take your computers, carpet, paper, cubicles, chairs, desks and everything else you'd find in a typical office building and soak it in jet fuel... If you don't think that can compromise a steel frame supporting millions of pounds your likely just stupid.

Oh yeah, and not to mention that the steel frame was already damaged by a jet plane smashing through it. How inconceivable....

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

The Archtects instiute of america, is not using good science?

What can you present from the AIA that supports your view? (N.b. A letter that has bee signed by one member of the AIA does not represent the position of the AIA)

Quote

I can't believe how you and mike and your mates can palm off other peoples expertise as crap when you are just SPG's your selves (self proclaimed Guru's).

And out come the funny names for anyone who disagrees with you! Yet more debating techniques straight out of the YEC propaganda book. What you don't seem to understand is that you are passing of as crap the expertise of every single person in a relevant field who agrees that the Towers were felled by theplanes. And there are way more on that side than on your side.

Quote

Now you are showing your arrogance, I know The USA is not the be all and end all.

But I have recently understood the gameplan of the Neo cons, it is world domination, in the form of military controll.

This may sound to many like a paranoid assumtion, but it is spelled out in [url"http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm]'This website', by those that are impicated in this conspiracy and everything adds up to the neo cons being cheating criminals, it is their greed that drives them but it is also thier grred that will convict them.

We have more problems than america and its foreign policies, but everywhere this american foregn policy is meddleing with the livlihoods of lives those it has no right to disrupt.

Congratulations, you've just validated my statement. You need your 9/11 conspiracy to be true because it's an integral part of the globally powerful neocon conspiracy that informs your whole outlook on the world.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I did find the American Institute of Architects, but not Architects Institute Of America.
So some want answers to questions they have. That means absolutely nothing since that is the norm for any disaster. They aslo wanted answers for what happened when a walkway collapsed in a hotel and killed several people, when a bridge collapsed and fell into a river (that happened more than once) and many other events. To single out their request for the Trade Centers as being some kind of sign of a conspiracy is totally ludicrous.

So they are requesting why thie calculations of the NIST failed to comply with thier own strict guidelines as well as others, how there is photographic evidence that the basis for thier calculations is false, and if accounted for would render the whole report, wrong!

You find this to be ludicrous, how?

WHERE is the photographic evidence? Either attach it to your post or add a link.
Whose calculations? From what data? Using what source?

You see, to just say they were wrong because you fault their data and calcs is not enough. You must give access to those you are trying to convince access to the very same data and calculation techniques so that the process can be repeated. It is what is known as "peer review" and is held to a very high standard in the scientific community. A much higher standard than any used by the "truthers".

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Date

Before i even started to read your lengthy post i first went to the end to see who wrote it.



Yeah, no bias at all there.

Excuse me if I tell you, without even reading a single paragraph, that you entire post is shit. Just plain, everyday, found-in-the-pasture-steaming shit.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Obama closed Gitmo when?

He hasn't, it was high on the adgenda for his campain, and this trial is a statement to his followers that he is being serious about changing the attitude of america.

Then why did you claim he did? (Post 217)

Quote

Closing Gitmo was his way of displaying his desire to expose these assholes, otherwise he could have just used the set up (gitmo0 for his own use, he is better than that.

[Ron 10]

Quote

i would prefer this thread to remain scientific

OK, I have an uncle that spent well over 6 mths at the site. He is an engineer by trade, and was there as an engineer.

I asked him flat out and he told me that it was the planes that brought the towers down.

Now he *could* be one of the hundreds that were paid off to keep their mouths shut.... But I doubt it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhys 0]

Quote

OK, I have an uncle that spent well over 6 mths at the site. He is an engineer by trade, and was there as an engineer.

I asked him flat out and he told me that it was the planes that brought the towers down.

Now he *could* be one of the hundreds that were paid off to keep their mouths shut.... But I doubt it.

So being there makes you an expert?

He had information on 'all aspects' for the incident.

of course he thinks it was the planes that made them come down, that is the poular belief, If he believes anything else peole like you and all the other sheep in here would mock him, nobody like being mocked, do they. Thus is what makes the official story so powerful, it take your liberty and spits it in your face.

Try rading what is been written.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

What about the hundreds/thousands of gallons of JET fuel... doubt that shit burns very hot. Not to mention that it saturated multiple floors below those of impact.

So (according to NIST) the jet fuel makes a massive explosion on initial impact, a significant amount exits the buildings (more so in one than the other), the fire heats and weakens the structure after heating the core columns for some time and then still has enough enrgy to burn at such temeratures for weeks in a oxygen starved environment.

Did I mention It also fell towards the ground at virtually free fall speed which would have distributed the fuel and exhausted its potentioal.

you guys must have majic jet fuel. everlasting jet fuel?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

of course he thinks it was the planes that made them come down, that is the poular belief, If he believes anything else peole like you and all the other sheep in here would mock him, nobody like being mocked, do they. Thus is what makes the official story so powerful, it take your liberty and spits it in your face.

Try rading what is been written.

So, when are you going to show where all the explosives were planted?

You know - the ones that NOBODY in the building saw.

The ones that those untrained pilots had to avoid, while simultaneously putting the planes into a specific floor.

The ones that COULDN'T be set off by the explosion of the planes, or by the burning jet fuel, but yet be set off in perfect sequence after that.

The ones that somehow took out a building from the top down, when demolitions experts take buildings down from the bottom up.

The ones that somehow produced NO SEISMIC SIGNATURE.

You know - those ones.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

I have to go and do 8 skydives now (work) so i'll answer your questions after work,

I suggest you actually read it, as it is what you are arguing against.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,006]

>and then still has enough enrgy to burn at such temeratures for weeks in
>a oxygen starved environment.

Energy has nothing to do with it. If you limit the amount of oxygen that gets to a fire, combustion slows down and it can burn for a long time. There are some underground fires (dumps, coal mines etc) that have burned for _decades_ not just weeks. Just with trash and coal; no need for "majic" fuel.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Did I mention It also fell towards the ground at virtually free fall speed which would have distributed the fuel and exhausted its potentioal.

I hope you are not talking about potential energy. I really, really, REALLY hope you are not talking about POTENTIAL ENERGY.

Ever been to an ox roast? One where coals are readied and then the ox carcass placed into the pit, covered with coals and then dirt? The coals are almost completely starved of oxygen yet they burn for another 24-48 hours hot enough to completely cook a large mammal.
Steel need not get very hot to lose a significant amount of strength. A simple campfire of wood reaches temps hot enough to melt aluminum (like beer cans). This is well within the phase transformation range of ferritic metals. Confine the fire within a building and the temps skyrocket.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DJL 235]

Quote

If he believes anything else peole like you and all the other sheep in here would mock him...

I don't want to stretch your metaphor too much but doesn't the phrase "being sheep" describe a group of people who are doing/believing what others see as obvious stupidity?

Quote

Try rading what is been written.

But I won't insult your intelligence...

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

of course he thinks it was the planes that made them come down, that is the poular belief, If he believes anything else peole like you and all the other sheep in here would mock him, nobody like being mocked, do they. Thus is what makes the official story so powerful, it take your liberty and spits it in your face.

Oh, beautiful.

So you can discount the expertise of anyone and everyone who agrees with the official story because they wouldn't like to be mocked? But you can support anyone who disagrees with the official story because they are standing up for your liberty!

That's a real unbiased system you got there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Did I mention It also fell towards the ground at virtually free fall speed

Exactly how much slower than freefall acceleration should it have fallen? All you can say is that it should have been slower than it was, but you can't say how much slower. Do you think it should have noticeably paused at each floor? What do your truther engineer experts say, they should have an estimate based upon analysis, not just an assumption because it doesn't seem right.

Also, are you ready to accept that not only were conservatives guilty of the conspiracy, but even Bush's political adversaries must at least be in on the cover up?

You got nothing.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

So you can discount the expertise of anyone and everyone who agrees with the official story because they wouldn't like to be mocked? But you can support anyone who disagrees with the official story because they are standing up for your liberty!

look, i've been drinking and had a long day, so I don't want to spend much time but I'm going to answer a couple of questions, ths is one of them. the rest i'll do after the weekend.

This oje is a no brainer.

The oficial story still is yet to prove its hypothesis.

it's last rendition was only released on my birthday 20/11/08 or 11/20/08 for america.

they break thier own rules, falsify physics and fail to include known variables and manipulate the result to thier desire.

The lenglthy post above from the scientists that oppose the nist report, have clearly pointed these faults out, and have asked for answers to theses anomolies.uys have no hypothesis to work with.

These questions are not conspiracy theories, the official hypothesis is the conspiracy.

These guys just want the investigation to be done by the book, it has not ben and any conclusion made form the infirmation is not official.


To answer your question in a shorter form I will reply;

I disregard anyones opinion that refuses to see the nist report was compiled by using unusual, and non-standard protocol.

The failure to question those that can make false conclusions is immoral.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Energy has nothing to do with it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix