Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
by Sean Glazier
Dr Fetzer, I have to respond to this latest nonsense the NIST posted.
I am going to address the NIST fact sheet just put up at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
In it they simply are restating what they have already said in their original report which has shown to be false in the 9/11 research.
To deal with the collision argument they don't go into any mathematical proof of their claim they just essentially say the top floors were big and heavy, too much so for the lower floors and would not have provided any resistance to the fall. We will prove that to be false with the most simple momentum equations later on. But first let think about what they said and what it means.
Steel and cement don't make a decision to get out of they way and disintegrate because the big bad floors above decide they are going to come down so they better move or it's going to hurt! If a car hits a truck, the truck bumper doesn't decide suddenly that on-coming car is too heavy and that it better detach or get out of the way.
NIST seems to ignore the fact that the floors and columns that the upper floors were impacting were progressively sturdier than the floors above. They weighed more as well and would certainly provide more resistance than air would. To use the car accident analogy they are saying essentially that when a car hits a Semi Truck it is going to blow through the entire length of the truck when it hits it at 20 MPH? This is the lie they want you to buy, and they think by stating it twice that it must be true. And since they have stated it several times then it really, really must be true.
If the NIST wrote a bunch of papers saying “the earth was flat” and the government went on the air saying that anyone who disagreed was a terrorist or a “conspiracy theorist” ,would that make you believe the lie that the world is flat?
What is notably missing from the NIST response is proof of their assertions. They point to their previous papers which have numerous flaws pointed out by engineers and scholars of 9/11 truth movement.
The natural laws of physics dictate that all masses move the same way and obey the same laws no matter how large they are--with notable exceptions made for black holes because their mass is so great. But we are hardly talking about the stuff of Steven Hawking here.
Their answer to question 6 is especially funny:
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
Again because we say so, it must be true.
They do some "hand waving" talking about momentum but fail to provide any detail. They ignore the fact that the lower floors, that the upper floors collide into, have any mass at all. In other words, they would keep right on going plowing through all the floors as if they were not there. We will show that the floors and what they are made of isn't as important as their actual mass. And we will prove to the reader in a simple example that they just can't be ignored, but first let's see some real-world common sense using examples we can relate to.
Let scale up our car and truck collision example. What do you think would happen if a truck ran into a line of freight trains at 20 mph. Which is going come out of this accident on the short end of the stick? We have seen what happens when trucks get hit by trains and it usually doesn't go so well for the truck--does it? The truck is massive so why doesn't the freight train just move out of the way?
What happens to the trucks speed as it plows into the stationary train? You expect it to at least slow down right. But the government is claiming that in such a collision the truck would not slow down and that it would move through the train as if it was air.
Isn't this about as ridiculous as claiming the earth is flat? Does this make me a “conspiracy theorist” which is really just a code word for calling someone crazy or delusional?
Consider the remaining building has more than ten times the weight advantage over the falling top floors. Why would those floors and the massive 47-core columns decide that it wasn't worth the fight and move out of the way of the falling floors? This assertion is ridiculous on its face. Now bear with me and we'll consider a simple example collision.
The law of conservation of momentum says that the momentum before a collision is equal to the momentum after a collision. Well consider two balls on a frictionless surface to make the concept easy to illustrate. Think of it as two cars on very slippery ice if you like.
M1 will equal the mass of the first ball and M2 will equal the mass of the second ball. Like NIST said, momentum is mass times velocity M x V. Let's say, like a car collision, that after collision the two balls stick together. What I want to illustrate is what happens to the velocity after a collision with a non-moving mass. Our equation that balances the momentum before a collision and after the collision will look like this:
V1 is the initial speed of the first ball. V2 is the initial speed of the second ball which is zero since it is not moving. V3 is the final velocity after the collision when the two balls stick together and move as one. This is a very simple equation to illustrate what happens.
We now have:
Solving for V3 we get:
So looking at this equation, after we see a collision we expect the resulting speed to be some fraction of the initial speed. Let's say the masses are equal and for simple calculation that they = 1. Substituting values we get:
So with equal masses the resulting speed is one half of the original speed of the single mass before collision. In other word, the mass you collide into does matter and it is significant.
Now we are assuming a simple case to illustrate a point and we have not considered gravity acting on both masses but the principles remain the same. After the collision we expect the masses to be moving slower.
Also note that nowhere in here did we specify if the mass was made of. They could be pancakes or steel or rubber or chewing gum. What is relevant is only their mass and how heavy they are. In fact, you don't even have to know how heavy they are-- just how heavy one mass is in relation to the other!
Now let's look at the final speed if the second object is let's say nine times heaver than M1 (the Toyota hitting the truck scenario.)
The final speed is one tenth of what it started out. Notice that what matters is not the mass or what it is made of but how much larger the second mass is than the first mass. This is why the example of a Toyota hitting a truck applies just as well to a truck hitting a freight train as it does 10 + floors of a building hitting the lower 80+ floors. The rules and the application of momentum are the same. The laws of nature don't change.
When a Toyota slams into a tractor trailer truck do you need to know how heavy each one is and precisely what they were made of to know who is going to take the brunt of the impact? No of course not. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know who loses.
The inescapable truth of this means that when the upper floors hit the lower ones, that it could not have moved as fast as just moving through air as the NIST claims because the laws of nature *will not* permit it. This is why engineers such as my self can say the NIST assertions are just plain garbage.
Yes to do the exact momentum analysis is more complex and good estimations of what would happen have been done by Gordon Ross. If you really want to get into the detailed math you can at http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf. The principals of momentum are the same. He considers more factors such as how much each floors would resist before failing etc. In his paper he illustrates how the fall would stop after at most two floors--like one would expect with a car hitting a semi truck. The Truck doesn't simply move out of the way or disintegrate. Yeah you can do the detailed math to prove the obvious, but do we really need to?
NIST's assertions are so blatantly false, like saying “the earth is flat”, that even just a cursory understanding of collisions is enough to debunk their claims.
Now they can jump up and down, say them again, say them louder or put up commentators to attack the character of those pointing out the truth. The fact still remains that they are lying and are blatantly wrong. Why then are they trying so hard to convince the American people the equivalent of “the earth is flat”? That is another matter entirely.
The fact is from the observed collapse, that the NIST assertion that only gravitational forces acted upon the building after failure, is just a plain lie. It is impossible that their explanation is correct.
Now lets talk a bit about the fires:
It has been shown from their own studies that the fires were actually about 500 degrees Fahrenheit on the crash floors--not even 1000 degrees as they claim. Even then that would not have weakened the steel in that building enough to initiate collapse. Again these assertions are as blatantly false as saying “the earth is flat”, and just as easily proven wrong. The metallurgical study at NIST is at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf. Notice their own pictures show that the fire wasn't hot enough to burn off the cement paint on the columns let alone weaken the steel to the point of failure. Remember, this is their own analysis. Now how did low temperatures magically turn into temperatures high enough to weaken structural steel? Well it is one more example of trying to say “the Earth is Flat”.
Again NIST can hand wave, jump up and down all it wants to. The fact is that we know the temperature of the steel on the fire floors and it was nowhere near what would be needed to weaken the steel to make it fail--no if and or buts about it. And remember the actual load the steel could hold is far greater than the rated load. According to the designers, the core columns alone could hold more than nine times the weight of the building in a 100 mph hurricane force wind. It doesn't seem logical that they would fail so easily even when heated to 1000 degrees. Further, UL rated the steel to survive 2000 degree temperatures for hours and hours before weakening.
Again, rocket science isn't needed to know that temperatures reproducible in your kitchen oven are far below what it takes to weaken any steel, let alone structural steel certified and tested by UL to survive 2000 degrees for more hours with out weakening.
All one really needs to see through this is a little common sense and critical thinking. Again the question remains as to why the government is so desperate to have us believe that the Earth is Flat. I finish with a quote from Francis of Assisi: “All The Darkness in the world can not extinguish the light of a single Candle”.
Lead Software Engineer Cincom Systems