9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity
Revision: July 6, 2007. Article and references revised.
In 2005, NIST released the results of their three year investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. I will show that the report uses deceptive and unscientific reasoning to reach untenable conclusions. To prove this, I will use NIST’s own statements and evidence to show their deceptive practices, and that their conclusions are unscientific and contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.
The NIST report is used to claim that the 9/11 official story is true. However, in order to judge whether something is true, we must examine its credibility.
Individuals and organizations possess credibility—but so do ideas and theories. I have previously made two arguments:
· The Bush administration lacks scientific credibility
· The 9/11 NIST report lacks scientific credibility
I offered evidence to support the first argument, which is independent from the second. I concluded that the NIST report uses the political method:
· Political Method: Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.
The focus of this essay is to examine the NIST report further. In doing so, it becomes clear that my previous analysis was actually too polite—the NIST report is an outrageous theory. What is an outrageous theory? David Ray Griffin explains this concept clearly:
“What distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts [i.e. like the scientific method] and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts [i.e. like the political method]. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”
9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan calls the NIST report “Bush science”. I propose the following definition:
· Bush science: an argument that employs the political method with almost no evidence to support it—a predetermined conclusion containing fabricated and practically non-existent evidence—or even contradictory evidence. It can be used to invent a new “scientific reality” where known laws of physics are inconvenient and therefore ignored. An outrageous theory—a theory contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.
Bush science possesses next to zero credibility. Indeed, it defies common sense. Bush science is so deceptive that it can only be considered a deliberate and intentional lie. It can consist of most or all of the following:
The NIST report consists of all of the above; therefore, it is Bush science. Consequently, it is not credible and should be rejected as a false explanation for why the WTC towers were completely destroyed. I will examine NIST’s own statements and “scientific” evidence to demonstrate this.
NIST’s official theory:
NIST’s three year, 20 million dollar study concluded that:
“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.”
According to NIST, the plane damage was mainly significant because of the “dislodged fireproofing”. Their theory consists of 7 points:
1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation fireproofing was widely dislodged
4. High temperatures softened columns and floors
5. Some floors began to sag
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle
7. Instability spread around entire building
NIST consistently uses “Bush science” to compromise all of their arguments.
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11; fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse. Many were convinced that this was the most obvious explanation. Unfortunately, not all of the evidence was known, therefore our conclusions were based on an incomplete examination of the evidence.
Scientists are trained to think differently. They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation. This approach results from using the Scientific Method. The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists. Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence:
· “Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”
· “I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didn’t know when it was going to happen.”
· “We all know what caused the collapse.”
How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11? These statements indicate that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any of the physical evidence. Was there another possible explanation for why the towers collapsed?
Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST. Even NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger’s first impression was that “[explosive] charges had been placed in the building.” 
News anchors and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasn’t this theory examined in the NIST report?
Peter Jennings of ABC News said: “anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down”
Dan Rather of CBS News said that the “collapse was reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down”
Structural Engineer Van Romero’s first impression was: “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”
The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires thus contradicting NIST’s predetermined theory. Building designer John Skilling states that “our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from a plane impact] would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
NIST was aware of this statement and ignored it—outrageously claiming that it was an anonymous view!
Credible individuals thought that controlled demolition was a reasonable hypothesis and that the building should have survived a plane crash and its jet fuel fires; among them the building designers—so why weren’t alternative hypothesis such as controlled demolition examined as part of the NIST study as even a remote possibility? Why was NIST so confident of their conclusions when the building designers stated that the buildings would survive exactly this kind of an event? NIST ignored the controlled demolition hypothesis and the claims of the building designers. The evidence indicates that NIST started with a predetermined conclusion, and did not consider alternative hypotheses.
Fabricating evidence is defined as inventing fake evidence; therefore it is not legitimate evidence to prove a theory. As an example, NIST uses a computer model to show that fire caused the WTC towers to fall—but we can’t see it. Can we trust this evidence? A computer simulation is not evidence if we can’t see it; therefore, it is a kind of fabricated evidence:
“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.”
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.”
Clearly, NIST ignores contradictory evidence. Since their original model did not prove their predetermined conclusion they had to fix 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’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports and photographic evidence. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to play 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.”
Is it not logical to assume that NIST would show us all the proof that supports their theory? Kevin Ryan argues that the NIST theory is largely based on this “evidence”. Evidence that no one can see is no evidence at all.
Unbelievably, NIST states [audaciously in a footnote!]:
“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.”
In other words: the report does not explain what happens after the “collapse” began. This shows that the NIST report essentially a “pre-collapse” theory. One would hope that the 20 million dollars used to fund the NIST study would be enough to attempt to answer how the 110 floor twin towers completely collapsed to the ground. The fact that NIST couldn’t find the room to provide a theory in a 43 volume, 10,000 page study is fatally suspect. This shows the unparalleled absurdity of the NIST report. The most fundamental question about 9/11 is why were the WTC towers completely destroyed and NIST does not attempt to answer it. And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation?
The NIST report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Absurdly, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete. More outrageously, NIST can’t even prove convincingly why the collapse began.
How can this report get published and accepted as the truth if it doesn’t even attempt to answer the most fundamental question about 9/11? Ignoring the most important questions leaves the most important evidence relating to those questions unexamined. As we shall see below, this fundamental flaw of the NIST report is incredibly significant because it allows the report to ignore evidence that is devastating to its hypothesis; the unbreakable law of physics known as conservation of momentum.
Having established that the study is essentially worthless as it evades the most central question about 9/11, NIST proceeds to ignore stunning evidence which reveals what actually happened.
Molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7. Jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel. Indeed, NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the [jet fuel] fires.” Therefore, logic dictates that something else melted the steel.
I’m not a structural engineer, but if the steel supporting a building melts wouldn’t you think that it is worth mentioning somewhere in a 10,000 page, 43 volume, 20 million dollar investigation? NIST doesn’t think so—they call molten steel “irrelevant to the investigation!” Bush science ignores relevant evidence of which this an outrageous example.
Further evidence that the NIST report is absurd is shown by the fact that a 10,000 page report can’t find the space to mention things found in other reports—even the New York Times reported that:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated.’”
What could cause this? Not jet fuel fires! Normal fires can’t even melt steel and evaporated steel requires temperatures almost twice as high as is needed to melt them. Of course, NIST doesn’t offer an explanation for this.
Destroying evidence is a way to ignore evidence. It’s worse than ignoring evidence—it’s a crime. NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel. We are forced to assume that they believed that this evidence was also “irrelevant” to the investigation.
It appears that some of the NIST structural engineers have a history of using Bush science in response to a “terrorist” attack. In an interesting coincidence, four of the NIST structural engineers co-wrote a report that was used to explain what happened in another event; they claimed a single truck bomb from a terrorist did this in 1995.
· 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)
· 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.”
NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not. This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.
NIST examines column loss from the planes as part of their theory. However, Kevin Ryan explains that “[NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.”
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.”
All of this evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should not have collapsed, yet NIST refuses to even consider alternative hypotheses. Science demands rejecting a theory if the evidence contradicts it; Bush science ignores contradictory evidence.
The NIST fire and structural damage hypothesis contradicts a laws of physics. From 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)?”
“…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.”
According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years can’t resist the momentum from the collapse even a little. NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speed—as if the bottom portion of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own “scientific reality.” You can’t ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory! Normally, (although not in Bush science) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved.
Jim Hoffman, who is critical of the NIST study states:
“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:
“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.”
It is clear that NIST didn’t even attempt to explain how the towers completely collapsed because they couldn't—they would have to make reference to conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their entire theory. This is a perfect example for why the NIST report is unscientific and is completely worthless. Breaking the laws of physics is a characteristic of Bush science.
Deceptive experiments can be used to invent fabricated evidence. NIST used this technique several times to “prove” their theory. One example of this is the computer simulation “evidence” already mentioned. Another computer simulation exaggerated data such as temperatures, fire durations (longer than the buildings stood on 9/11), and completely removed fireproofing just to show that this would cause “inward bowing from fire”—one of their main arguments. Another computer simulation pretended that damaged structural steel was the same as no steel at all. So much deception to prove so little.
NIST claims that fire-proofing was widely dislodged by the planes. This is a central argument of the NIST study. How did they prove this? They fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples. 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.”
NIST’s own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit. This deceptive experiment actually leads to evidence which contradicts one of the primary arguments of their theory! Unfortunately for NIST, there are no classes taught in Bush science. This example shows that on occasion, NIST can’t even prove their own theory with fake and misleading experiments!
Deceptive experiments usually lead to fabricated evidence, which is yet another characteristic of Bush science.
The NIST report in summary:
Predetermined conclusion contradicted by building designer claims, unreleased computer simulations, exaggerated computer data, contradictory steel testing results, contradicted laws of physics, contradicting fireproofing tests, contradictory eye-witness testimony and photographs ignored, deceptive experiments, relevant evidence ignored, destruction of relevant evidence, fabricated evidence, and the essential point of the investigation left unanswered—why did the World Trade Center towers completely collapse?
Does the NIST study prove anything besides the fact that there was fire and relatively minor structural damage in the WTC twin towers?
NIST’s theory is an outrageous theory—it is contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.
NIST doesn’t try to explain what happened after the towers began to collapse and it can’t even explain how the buildings started to collapse. WTC7 must have been even beyond NIST’s ability to use Bush science as they are not seemingly brave enough to tackle it. To this day they have not given us a clear explanation for what clearly looks like a controlled demolition.
It goes without saying that a new investigation should take place as well as a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for releasing this report. Who gave the final authorization for this report to be published?
As a consequence of this report, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and 9/11 Family members filed a request for correction to the NIST report. The flaws mentioned in this paper are clearly not the only ones. Rather than answering the important questions about the World Trade Center destruction on 9/11, the NIST report serves in Jim Hoffman’s words as a “$20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century.”
 This article is indebted to the critiques of the NIST report made by Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman. Read the following excellent articles on the NIST report:
 NIST’s theory is that fire is the main reason that the towers completely collapsed. Plane damage is cited in the NIST report as a minor factor for collapse in the study. Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California said after examining some of the steel from the World Trade Center that “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html
The plane is mostly significant in NIST’s theory because fireproofing was “widely dislodged” by the impact of the plane. The fires caused the steel to weaken. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests see NIST’s official Theory section in this essay.
 A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
 See Eyewitness Evidence Statements: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html and Physical Evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html Jet fuel fire is incapable of melting steel; therefore it can not explain this molten steel.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” from:
Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
 This statement by NIST investigator Shankar Nair was made in an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001. Commentary: By Shankar Nair “A humbling experience for skyscraper professionals In most dangerous situations, I still would rather be in a well- designed tall building.” Page 31.
 NIST investigator Gene Corely: Engineer: Impact showed World Trade Center's strength, St. Petersburg Times, 9/14/01 An incredible statement considering that the fire fighters didn’t expect this to happen. Also amazing considering that 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.
 Comment by NIST investigator Charles Thornton in the book: “Men of Steel: The Story of the Family That Built The World Trade Center” http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400049509
 News anchors know exactly what controlled demolition looks like—see footnote #20
 See here for more: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/jennings.html
 “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.
 For reference and debate on this quote see here: http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn41
 According to Kevin Ryan: “The real question here is, since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings? Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view?”
 Jim Hoffman describes the report as: “NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century”.
 NIST’s FAQ attempts to mildly answer criticism to this problem: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
 Fabricate: I define in this essay as “to concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.”
 Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
 Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. Google Video.
 This has to be the most embarrassing feature of the NIST report. It is indefensible on this point alone.
 Why is the NIST report 10,000 pages? Jim Hoffman explains: “NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety.” Kevin Ryan’s amusing suspicion about the length of the report: “They’ll never read all this”. See footnote #44.
 Jim Hoffman: “Yet the Report makes no attempt to explain how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize -- let alone explain -- the demolition-like features of the collapses, such as their explosiveness and nearly free-fall rapidity.”
 See here for multiple sources with evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html and Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
 See footnote #12 relating to Dr. Eagar’s comments on fire temperatures and steel.
 See here for pictures and comments from FEMA’s report mentioning the steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html. As Jim Hoffman indicates:
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform ‘limited metallurgical examination’ of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.1 The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’ The New York Times described this as ‘perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.’2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
 This molten steel was mentioned in other reports as documented, so how come the NIST report doesn’t mention it? http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
 Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.
 As Steven Jones explains: “The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.” Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse? page 23.
 As Eagar explained in footnote #12, you need 1500oC to melt steel. Steel evaporates at almost twice this at 2860oC.
 Steven Jones explains [Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse?]: “thermite variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures [to cause evaporated steel]. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.” Page 23
 This report appears to have used Bush science to explain the impossible. See here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
The engineers involved in both the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing: Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, Mete Sozen. This seems like an amazing coincidence as Kevin Ryan indicates: “The Murrah Building bombing has a number of parallels to the 9/11/01 attack. One is that the same engineers created reports supporting the official government explanation of the attack as the work of outsiders attacking the buildings from without. 9/11 whistleblower and researcher Kevin Ryan documents commonalities of the investigations in A New Standard For Deception.” See here for more information on the Oklahoma bombing: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html
 See here http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis and NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/
 See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests and NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/
 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032, 34:00. Also read official NIST report.
 See here for this information: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf page 22.
 Kevin Ryan: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#nisttheory for original source on building design claims:
"How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
 See the first point in the section of this essay: “Ignoring Evidence”
 See Kevin Ryan’s presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
 See section in this essay dealing with “Fabricated Evidence”.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032. See 47:00 and forward and NIST report.
 NIST states: “The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed.” (NIST page 98/152) see also here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html#enhancing Jim Hoffman explains: “Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity.”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 at 36:06 and the NIST study with photos of the shotgun blast tests.
 However, I’m confident that NIST could offer courses in this subject. This report could be submitted as a doctoral thesis in Bush science.
 See NIST’s Official Theory section in this paper. More comments by Kevin Ryan here: http://www.gatago.com/misc/emerg-services/27902058.html
 The FEMA report comically explains that: “the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. [i.e. we can’t explain why, but we can come up with an outrageous “conspiracy theory”.] Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added. We are still waiting 5 years later.
 Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report