May 4, 2007

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:

In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.[1]

Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true.  I am writing this list in order to help remedy this situation.  All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up.  Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are.  I have provided the footnotes to prove it. 

I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:

#10.  Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.[2] 

#9.  This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3] 

#8.  They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.[4]

#7.   They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5] 

#6.  Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6] 

#5.  Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.[7]

#4.  They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.[8]

#3.  Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]

#2.  Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theorythey do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began![10]

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1.  Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”![11]

This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.


[2] This is NIST’s theory in their own words: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

Taken from: NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers”  page 4.

Therefore, the NIST theory is a “fireproofing theory”.  If the fireproofing was not removed the buildings would not have collapsed according to NIST.

Plane damage was therefore mostly insignificant:

Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).

Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California:said “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001. 

See also: Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference.  June 4, 2006. See also:

Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

[3]  No steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history according to the New York Times:

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

[4]  Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:
It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”

In other words, the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where they were struck with the shotgun blast.  Their own photos clearly show that the shotgun blasts removed little fireproofing, disproving their theory.

taken from:

See also:

Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference.  June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests.

[5]  Eyewitness testimony:

David Ray Griffin, Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories,

[6] As Seen from in NIST’s FAQ:

How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[6]

NIST responds:

…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics]  The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”

Jim Hoffman explains why this is impossible:

“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:

Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.

Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, agrees [see page 28]:

“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”

[7]  Here are NIST’s own test results:

Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)

Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.

NIST found that there was no floor collapse.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

See here:

and here:

[8] “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.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[9]  What data did NIST use for these computer models?  We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.

This does not prove their predetermined conclusion so they change their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:

The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”

NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.

NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports.  Does this ‘evidence prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to fool around with?

NIST also revealed:

“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. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[10]  NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.

The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began.  Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started.

[11] I can’t believe they actually stated this on the record!  NIST truly sets a new standard for absurdity. 

NIST: “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant
to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.”  From:

NIST is trying to say that the molten steel was created after the building collapse.  How do they know that the steel melted after collapse?  What has NIST done to prove this theory?  Nothing.  Why isn’t molten steel previously observed in the FEMA report and eyewitness testimony not mentioned anywhere in a 10, 000 page report?