Presentation on theme: "The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for Deception Part II"— Presentation transcript:
1The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for Deception Part II Kevin RyanBoston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 TruthDecember 15th, 2007
2What do we know about 9/11?The official story of 9/11* was produced by the Bush Administration (after considerable resistance) with help from others who profit from the War on TerrorThis story changed dramatically over time, but never considered the possibility that Americans or foreign governments were involvedThis story is false*The 9/11 Commission Report + The NIST WTC Report
3Unprecedented Building Failures No tall building has ever suffered “global collapse” due to fire, but on 9/11, we’re told there were threeNo building exhibiting so many of the characteristics of demolition has ever NOT been a demolition99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts
4Questioning an Ever-changing Story As a manager for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I was fired for publicly questioning the government’s October 2004 draft report on the collapse of the WTC towersThat report, generated by NIST*, is only one of several conflicting WTC reports produced, and even it continues to changeAll the official WTC explanations have come from those profiting from the War on TerrorThe FEMA and NIST reports are direct products of the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush Science)*National Institute of Standards and Technology
5“Bush Science”The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals”Open letter from 12,000+ scientists, currently including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients“We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration”Union of Concerned Scientists“[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings”House Committee on Government Reform
6Early support for the official WTC story “Experts” said jet fuel fires melted the steelBBC (Chris Wise, etc.)Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel)NOVA video (Matthys Levy)Henry Koffman from USCTom Mackin from Univ. of IllinoisOsama Bin Laden -- “I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building…”Steel temperaturesSteel melts at ~ 1500 °CSteel softens, for purposes of forging, at ~ 1000 °CNIST found steel temperatures of WTC samples were ~ 250 °C
7WTC’s design engineerTower’s structural components were designed by John Skilling (Leslie Robertson worked for him)Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he considered plane crashes in his design.“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building… [But] the building structure would still be there.”Seattle Times, 2/27/1993
8The fire resistance of the towers The fireproofing''There is no reason for that product in a typical commercial environment to deteriorate,'' because “[the] product had been thoroughly tested and approved by Underwriters Laboratories.” James Verhalen, chairman of the company that manufactured the fireproofing, United States Mineral Products, in New York Times, December 14, 2001The steel components"The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." Underwriters Laboratories’ Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, in NY Times, April 15, 2002.
9Official investigations into the collapse of the WTC buildings ASCEFEMA (floor pancake theory)Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment”Report released May 2002Silverstein / Weidlinger (columns only)report released October 2002NISTFinal draft 10/04…Final, final draft 6/05First report 9/05…Responses to FAQs 8/06
10Different stories, but same people OKCDOD or BMSPFEMA WTC or Pent.Weidlinger or ColumnNISTPopular MechanicsGene CorleyXThornton-TomasettiLevy / WeidlingerMete SozenGreenhorne & O'MaraARUPPaul MlakarHughes AssociatesWilliam Baker / SOMJon MagnussonRyan BiggsSGHMark Loizeaux** Mark Loizeaux was hired to clean up the evidence
11The NIST WTC Report 42 sub-reports and total of 10,000 pages Published September 2005,but only for Twin TowersLike previous reports, focusedonly on fire-induced collapsehypothesisMany of the same authors asMay 2002 FEMA BPAT report
12FEMA authors become NIST authors FEMA Chapter 1 authorsTherese McAllister: co-author for NIST report 1-6John Gross: co-author for NIST report 1-6Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributorFEMA Chapter 2 authorsRonald Hamburger: see aboveWilliam Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom towerHarold Nelson: co-author for NIST report 1-5 and 1-7FEMA chapter 5 authors (WTC 7)Ramon Gilsanz: will be co-author for NIST report 1-6FHarold Nelson: see above
13Structure of NIST WTC Report One summary report: NCSTAR 1Eight main sub-reports:NCSTAR 1-1NCSTAR 1-2Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage AnalysisNCSTAR 1-3Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural SteelNCSTAR 1-4NCSTAR 1-5Reconstruction of the FiresNCSTAR 1-6Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse SequenceNCSTAR 1-7NCSTAR 1-8
15NIST’s primary goal and approach was… To determine “why and how WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft”“NIST adopted an approach that combined mathematical modeling, statistical and probability based analysis methods, laboratory experiments, and analysis of photographs and videos.”NCSTAR 1-6 p lxiv para3
16In other words, NIST… Assumed fire-induced “collapse” as a given Early progress reports and archive presentations make this clearEstimated interior damage using photographic evidence and computer experimentationPerformed physical tests to determine possible gas temperatures, actual steel temperatures, fireproofing loss, and floor assembly responsePlanned to support (pre-determined) conclusions with additional computer modeling
17What we ended up withDeceptively designed physical tests that failed to support the fire-induced “collapse” hypothesisLower level report findings that were fudged as they moved upwardOnly “collapse initiation sequences” given, and even those changed between final draft and final reportNo public access to computer models or the evidence collected at taxpayer expense
18The physical tests – gas temperatures NCSTAR 1-5C, NCSTAR 1-5E Single workstation burn testsMultiple workstation burn testsDirected to use two to four times the known average amount of hydrocarbon fuelUsed “over-ventilation”, meaning an excess of Oxygen despite the fact that the WTC fires were clearly Oxygen starved and ventilation limitedDetermined maximum Heat Release Rates (HRRs) that were later mis-used to suggest more thermal energy than was available
19The physical tests – steel temperatures NCSTAR 1-3C, NCSTAR 1-3E NIST’s stated goal - to “estimate the maximum temperature reached by available steel”*NIST accomplished this by selecting steel samples from an “enormous amount” of steel, and by emphasizing “regions of impact and fire damage” in the selection process.*Paint deformation testOnly 3 out of 170 WTC samples reached a temperature of 250 °C.Steel microstructure testNone of the WTC steel samples reached a temperature of 600 °C.*NIST Progress Report May 2003
20The physical tests – floor failure? NCSTAR 1-6B Underwriters Laboratories contracted to perform fire resistance tests of floor assembly modelsTwo models had “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 in, one had “as specified” fireproofing of 0.5 in, and one had essentially no fireproofing.Twice the known WTC floor load appliedAfter two hours in the furnace, none of them collapsed, and there was minimal sagging
21The physical tests – fireproofing loss? NCSTAR 1-6A (appendix C) As of June 2005, in the final draft report, there were no test results provided to establish fireproofing loss, let alone that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged”Sept 2005 final report included a 12 page appendix describing a shotgun test performed by NISTThis shotgun test, which included 15 total blasts at non-representative samples in a plywood box, disproved the claim because the energy requirements were too high
22The computer tests – impact damage NCSTAR 1-2B Virtual tests of damage consisted of DOE analysis of subassemblies impacted by wings and enginesWrong experimental design usedMaximum damage was favored responseLevels chosen to favor elimination of certain parametersIncorrectly used to eliminate levels (-1, 0, +1) as well as parametersResults produced suggest two engines took out 6 core columns in WTC 1, while one engine took out 10 core columns in WTC 2Global analyses did not use DOE, but simply eliminated less severe (-1) and base (0) cases without justification
23The computer tests – fire and temperatures NCSTAR 1-5F, NCSTAR 1-5G Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)Heat Release Rates (HRRs) input from workstation burn testsAll office furnishing rubblizedAircraft was considered combustibleWindows eliminated after set time pointUsed to suggest high gas temperatures throughout buildingFire Structure Interface (FSI)Set steel thermal conductivity to zeroUsed to suggest high steel temperatures
24The computer tests – global response NCSTAR 1-6D, NCSTAR 1-6E “locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated”“pull-in forces were applied in some locations where the full floor analyses did not predict the development of such behavior”“sagging of floors in such a wide range over fire floors was not predicted by the full floor model analyses”With the thermally equivalent 2.2 in. of fireproofing intact on the south trusses, these trusses did not heat appreciably, and the floors did not sag. (NCSTAR 1-6, p 215)“Higher temperatures resulted in more outward bowing of columns, and thus larger pull-in forces were required to overcome this outward bowing”NIST/SGH simply applied fictitious pull-in forces “based on observations from the photographs and videos”
25NIST’s final, computer-based story 1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged4. High temperatures “weakened” columns and floors5. Some floors began to sag6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle7. Instability spread around entire building“Global collapse ensued”
261. How many columns were severed? NIST now admits only a small percentage of columns were severed14% in WTC115% in WTC2Original design claims said one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction”, so we know the buildings could withstand more than 25% column loss without a problem.Quote from Engineering News-Record, 1964
272. How much load was re-distributed? NIST says loads on some columns were decreased (as much as 20%) and other loads were increased (up to 25%). What about failure zone?Original design claims were that, “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs”, these columns should have supported the extra load and much, much moreQuote from Engineering News-Record, 1964So far, no reason to even suspect collapse
283. Fireproofing widely dislodged? “The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” -- NIST
293. NIST must have done extensive testing to prove fireproofing was widely dislodged! No, they performed a last minute shotgun test on non-representative samples in a plywood boxNo evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into thousands of shotgun blastsShotgun test actually proved fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged because the energy was simply not available
30How much fuel was available? Buildings managed to 20 Kg/m2 fire load (i.e. office furnishings)How much jet fuel was available to feed the fires?Planes impacted with 10,000 gallons total, by all accountsFEMA says 1/3 exploded in fireball, 1/3 flowed away and 1/3 remained to feed the firesWhat did NIST say about how much remained to feed the fires?NCSTAR 1-5F says 3,500 gallons, the same as FEMA predicted*NCSTAR 1 suggests 7,000 gallons in summary of reportNCSTAR 1 says 10,000 gallons in other sectionsMeaning the fireballs we saw did not consume any jet fuel* “No evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate”, NCSTAR 1-5F, pg 56
314. How hot could the steel have become? NIST now says that the gas temperatures in the WTC towers were as high as 1000 °C.But gas temperatures are not steel temperatures.The highest steel temperatures referenced in the (current) NIST report are 760 °C.But physical testing indicates steel temperatures of 250 °C.Thermodynamic calculations, based on amount of available fuel, give a maximum steel temperature of about 300 °C.
32Temperatures in perspective (°C) 750 degree difference75 degree difference
33How long did fires last in failure zones? NIST says…“The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.”(NCSTAR 1-6, section and section )Only about 45 min!
345. Some floors began to sag? Only very slight sagging is visible in NIST photos from UL tests (and no collapse)After 45 minutes in high temp furnace, all four test models sagged only about 3 inches in the middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at allNIST’s computer turned this into dramatic 42 inch sagging, with joists bending downward severely
356. How did the sagging floors pull exterior columns inward causing them to buckle? Over 30 columns would have to be pulled in, resulting in complete failure, in order to begin challenging design claim.What new force did a few inches of floor deck sagging apply to those 30+ columns?NIST did not perform tests to prove inward buckling via sagging floors. This pivotal argument is supported only by a highly manipulated, and ultimately absurd, computer model.NIST’s “enhanced” photo suggesting bowing just before failure.
36Manipulated and disconnected NCSTAR 1-6, p115 “An exterior wall section (9 columns wide and 9 floors high) was found to bow inward when floor connections applied an inward force.”(computer result for one case out of nine)NIST’s computer model had to…double the height of the inward pull zonestrip of ALL the fireproofingexaggerate temperatures (1300 F)then apply these temps for 90 minutes to produce even a hint of inward bowing from fire.But first - the floors had to be disconnected. Where does the inward pull come from !?!
377. Instability spread around entire building perimeter? Buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. How fast would instability have to spread first? How much of the ~10 sec fall time could be spared?Perimeter of building was 832 feet. If complete in 0.5 seconds, speed of “instability spread” would have been >1100 mph (Mach 1.5)“A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable warning signs, namely, large deformations.”Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press
38NIST’s collapse initiation sequence: What would objective scientists have found? 1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged4. Steel could not have softened/weakened at the temps found5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed minimal sagging of floors6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free-fall
39NIST’s computer story is Bush Science The parameters NIST originally considered “realistic” were discarded because computer results “did not compare to observed events.”“More severe” parameters were substituted until animations gave the desired resultPublic has no access to NIST’s computer model or to the thousands of photographs and video segments supposedly used
40“Global collapse ensued?” What about resistance of floors below? If these floors each caused hesitation of only half a second, an extra 40 seconds would be needed.What about the observed “squibs”? (No more pancaking!)What about the molten metal observed pouring from the building and the pools of molten metal in the rubble of both Towers and WTC 7? What about the intergranular melting and sulfidation found on the steel by earlier investigations?
41The NIST WTC report is false because… NIST did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed, and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every stepNIST reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testingNIST omitted or distorted many important factsOriginal design claims and John Skilling’s analysisResistance from building structure belowWTC 1 antenna moving firstPools of molten metal lingering for weeksNumerous eyewitness testimonies about explosionsSulfidation of the steel
42NIST’s FAQ responses – Aug 2006 Why didn’t NIST consider demolition?No answer, but in retrospect they say demolitions start from the bottomWhere did the “squibs” come from?Compressed air, but not pancakingDid UL test the steel for fire resistance?Not for six hoursWhere does the molten metal come from?This is irrelevant, but it may have been Aluminum from the planeor it may have been caused by the duration of the fires in the pileWas the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?No
43What other blind eyes did NIST turn? Fireproofing upgradesin 1999, 2000NCSTAR 1-6, p 20
44Request for Correction, April 2007 Coordinated by attorney James GourleyRequestors Doyle, Gage, Jones, Legge, McIlvaine, RyanResponse received from NIST in September 2007Appeal sent back to NIST in October 2007All found at
45WTC 7 was a 47 story building not hit by a plane It fell in 6 WTC 7 was a 47 story building not hit by a plane It fell in 6.5 seconds
46NIST preliminary remarks on WTC 7 April – June 2005 Suggests that the failure of one column might have led to the near free-fall collapsePhotographic evidence shows little damage and a few fires but no photos of south faceIf extensive damage existed, it would have been asymmetrically limited to south face
47What was the debris pattern? Other buildings were hit by debris, but no fires resulted, and none of them collapsedThe buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 suffered little or no damage until WTC 7 fellWhat are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer massive damage to the foundation, and extensive fires, as a result of the debris from the towers??
49ConclusionThe current NIST WTC report is the last in a string of false official explanations for the destruction of the World Trade CenterNIST and other investigators intentionally avoided demolition as an explanation, and ignored the substantial evidence in support of that hypothesisOur government has asked us to accept obvious falsehood as the standard for scientific truthKnowing the fire-induced “collapse” hypothesis is false, we must put an end to the 9/11 Wars, and reclaim our country