The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[eots]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.


Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[SAYIT]

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

the investigation was run by a handful of people wtf are you babbling about

Yeah, just like a handful of peeps was all that was needed to pull off your version of 9/11. Each of the institutions listed above contributed to the NIST study.
Careful, Princess, your ignorant slip is showing again.

 

[eots]

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

the investigation was run by a handful of people wtf are you babbling about

Yeah, just like a handful of peeps were all that was needed to pull off your version of 9/11. Each of the institutions listed above contributed to the NIST study.
Careful, Princess, your ignorant slip is showing again.

contributed does not mean they approve of the investigation Dr Quintero
was listed as a contributor even though he was damning the report and its procedure

 

[SAYIT]

Has already been addressed. Read the links I provided regarding aluminum.

Your links have already been addressed. Read the link I provided from Jefferson Labs regarding alloys and melting temps. The bottom line? There is no hard evidence of molten steel at GZ. None. You may want to ditch this thread and start one with real facts.

Bullshit, why don't you ditch yourself from the thread, as you are doing the same thing as the other threads, and ignoring the links and what they have to say.
Again keeping with the threads intention, what does NIST have to say about all of this?
Their testing? If you want to ignore what the threads intention is then by all means get the fuck out.

You said you wanted to focus on the NIST report, right? Well it doesn't mention molten steel which you brought into the discussion so unless you now want to change the focus of this thread you're gonna hafta admit that there is no hard evidence of molten steel. Frankly I see no reason to move on until you do.

 

[SAYIT]

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmirch

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Sorry Killa, but you have once again shot yourself in the foot. The first interview on that web site is with a Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret). I'm guessing he is first 'cause he's their heavy hitter. Anyway his answer to the first question is all that is needed to dismiss the your source of "proof":

Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?

General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 Architects and Engineers:

No evidence of explosives were found and your last "expert" James Quintierre said he had no doubt there were no explosives. I think your "experts" need to get on the same page.

 

[SAYIT]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.


Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

No evidence of explosives was found.

 

[daws101]

how could you rule this: "By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally misleading... you shit head...

Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.

lol...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

thanks eot's for presenting smoking gun evidence that you post half truth and out and out lies...
QUESTION: what did not happen in that Chinese hotel fire that make it a false comparison to the twin towers?
answer: no planes hit the hotel and the fire fighters were on scene in seconds....

 

[daws101]

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmirch

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

besmirch lolollol! what next the glove slap?
another non credible twoofer site...

 

[daws101]

that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

the investigation was run by a handful of people wtf are you babbling about

for any one who may not know ...when eots is getting his ass handed to him he accuses other posters of babbling.

 

[eots]

Sorry killa, but you have once again shot yourself in the foot. The first interview on that web site is with a major general albert stubblebine, u.s. Army (ret). I'm guessing he is first 'cause he's their heavy hitter. Anyway his answer to the first question is all that is needed to dismiss the your source of "proof":

Interviewer: Ok. So on september the 11th, in 2001, what hit the pentagon?

General stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but i do know, from the photographs that i have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

dwain deets, ms physics, ms eng – former director, aerospace projects, nasa dryden flight research center. before this appointment, he served as director, research engineering division at dryden. recipient of the nasa exceptional service award and the presidential meritorious rank award in the senior executive service (1988). Selected presenter of the wright brothers lectureship in aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the american institute of aeronautics and astronautics (aiaa) (1986). Included in "who's who in science and engineering" 1993 - 2000. former chairman of the aerospace control and guidance systems committee of the society of automotive engineers. Former member, aiaa committee on society and aerospace technology. 37 year nasa career.
Statement in support of architects and engineers petition:


"the many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the world trade center]." world trade center building 7 demolished on 9/11? | ae911truth


signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 architects and engineers:

no evidence of explosives were found and your last "expert" james quintierre said he had no doubt there were no explosives. I think your "experts" need to get on the same page. :d

he never said no doubt...he said "most likely in his opinion " and they are on the same page..as they both call for an evidence based fact driven re-investigation

 

[eots]

That is correct!
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one.
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.

the investigation was run by a handful of people wtf are you babbling about

for any one who may not know ...when eots is getting his ass handed to him he accuses other posters of babbling.

In your dreams

 

[eots]

Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.

lol...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

thanks eot's for presenting smoking gun evidence that you post half truth and out and out lies...
QUESTION: what did not happen in that Chinese hotel fire that make it a false comparison to the twin towers?
answer: no planes hit the hotel and the fire fighters were on scene in seconds....

no plane hit building 7 loser and NIST determined damage was not a factor in the collapse...and there are several different burning skyscrapers in that video

 

[SAYIT]

dwain deets, ms physics, ms eng – former director, aerospace projects, nasa dryden flight research center. before this appointment, he served as director, research engineering division at dryden. recipient of the nasa exceptional service award and the presidential meritorious rank award in the senior executive service (1988). Selected presenter of the wright brothers lectureship in aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the american institute of aeronautics and astronautics (aiaa) (1986). Included in "who's who in science and engineering" 1993 - 2000. former chairman of the aerospace control and guidance systems committee of the society of automotive engineers. Former member, aiaa committee on society and aerospace technology. 37 year nasa career.
Statement in support of architects and engineers petition:


"the many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the world trade center]." world trade center building 7 demolished on 9/11? | ae911truth


signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 architects and engineers:

no evidence of explosives were found and your last "expert" james quintierre said he had no doubt there were no explosives. I think your "experts" need to get on the same page. :d

he never said no doubt...he said "most likely in his opinion " and they are on the same page..as they both call for an evidence based fact driven re-investigation

Really? That OpEdNews article you posted he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down."

 

[eots]

YES can you read ? "Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down."

 

[SAYIT]

YES can you read ? "Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down."

Hey, Quintierre is your source, Princess, and once you found out he dissed your juvenile 9/11 CT movement you dissed him. You can't have it both ways. if you're gonna use him as a credible opinion you're gonna hafta accept the fact that like most norms he thinks you're a flamin' loon. I know I do.

 

[eots]

he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation

 

[Gamolon]

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

I read your opening post a couple more times. The above statement is based on the fact that people supposedly saw molten steel. As I have said, there is no way to be 100% sure that what anyone is seeing is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum.

The whole point of your argument relies on this molten steel assumption, and an assumption it is.

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.

And many of those accredited experts also said "molten metal" because they were not sure what it was.

Again these were preliminary assumptions.

Right. Assumptions.

We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.

They got high enough to WEAKEN the steel didn't they? Steel starts to lose its strength at about 650C.

So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel,

Correct. At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? Especially steel under a load. Hence the article I linked previously regarding fire proofing.

and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself

If you are referring to Leslie Robertson, I have already shown you that it was the author's words, not Robertson's. Robertson was never quoted in that article.

and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden

Only by sight, no testing. Assumption at best.

So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.

See above.

Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel?

No. Melting steel and steel starting to lose its supportive capabilities are two different temperature ranges.

Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?

This confirms nothing. A huge pile of debris containing heat and fire within? So you have a hard time grasping why this would be so hot?

It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air can't reach 1500 deg. F.,

This temperature has nothing to do with what happened as you are basing this temp on the sight observations of molten steel and that there MUST have been enough heat to cause steel to become molten.

and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.

Couldn't have been thermite either then. Thermite burns quickly and would not have maintained those temps.

So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..

Right. Compare the temperature results to the temperature at which steel starts to weaken.

 

[SAYIT]

he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation

Really? That OpEdNews article you posted he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. You don't feel the dis?

 

[Gamolon]

So Mr. Jones,

Unless you can 100% prove that the molten substance was actually molten steel, your opening statement/argument falls flat on its face.

There was plenty of aluminum to be able to create that molten metal. That is a fact.

According to the following study, aluminum was the most found substance in their testing.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS Leachate

Your move.

 

[SAYIT]

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

I read your opening post a couple more times. The above statement is based on the fact that people supposedly saw molten steel. As I have said, there is no way to be 100% sure that what anyone is seeing is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum.

The whole point of your argument relies on this molten steel assumption, and an assumption it is.

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.

And many of those accredited experts also said "molten metal" because they were not sure what it was.


Right. Assumptions.


They got high enough to WEAKEN the steel didn't they? Steel starts to lose its strength at about 650C.


Correct. At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? Especially steel under a load. Hence the article I linked previously regarding fire proofing.


If you are referring to Leslie Robertson, I have already shown you that it was the author's words, not Robertson's. Robertson was never quoted in that article.


Only by sight, no testing. Assumption at best.


See above.


No. Melting steel and steel starting to lose its supportive capabilities are two different temperature ranges.


This confirms nothing. A huge pile of debris containing heat and fire within? So you have a hard time grasping why this would be so hot?


This temperature has nothing to do with what happened as you are basing this temp on the sight observations of molten steel and that there MUST have been enough heat to cause steel to become molten.

and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.

Couldn't have been thermite either then. Thermite burns quickly and would not have maintained those temps.

So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..

Right. Compare the temperature results to the temperature at which steel starts to weaken.

Again you exhibit the patience of Job.
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.