Thursday, November 24, 2005

Compromised Science and Snake Oil

Compromised Science and Snake Oil
A short critique of the NIST final report of the WTC Towers
Stanley Tesse

Late October NIST quietly released a final report about the two WTC towers. A report on the WTC 7 collapse has been postponed indefinitely. Not even a draft report has been released yet but NIST promises a "separate report" later. It is now 2005, going on 2006. Casual mention of the report release did not make it in most Mainstream Media. Do you find this strange for one of the largest public safety events in history where close to 3000 people perished? Do you feel safe being in a hi-rise building? Do you remember how much attention the Mainstream Media gave in the days following 9-11? And what about months afterwards when "official" theories were debated? And what about the attention given to "debunking" 9-11 conspiracy theories? I rememeber well.

In the final report NIST's theory about the cause of the tower collapses is centered around 3 things: 1) plane impact; 2) fire; and 3) removal of fireproofing. NIST says it was a combination of all 3 that caused the unexplainable, its "global collapse" theory. NIST states "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined affects of aircraft damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."

Let us look at this. NIST never quantifies how much each of these 3 variables contributed to its "global collapse" theory. It is left up the reader to guess. Say what? What good is a $16 Million 300 page report if it does not provide basic information about the collapse? The report states as its first objective "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the inital impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." After 3 years of study, NIST is unable to succinctly quantify its findings? The best it can do is say "a little of this and a little of that and POOF!", the buildings came down like magic? I find that hard to believe.

But we can figure this out for ourselves, thanks to the hard work of independant researchers. Recently, independant researchers have analyzed NIST data and found that a 767 impact only damaged on average about 7% of each floor, 94-98, in the North Tower. This means that the tower could have handled multiple plane crashes before failing. The redundancy in the building design was excellent. We only know this today, but for the past 3 years the Mainstream Media and government pushed disinformation and we believed something else.

Independant researchers have also analyzed NIST data and found that it was impossible for fire to cause significant weakening of the structure in the North Tower. At the time of collapse, only 24% of the floors 94-98 were on fire. The first floor to collapse, floor 97, only had 13% of its area on fire. No widespread fires existed. Fires only lasted about 30-45 minutes and then burned out. The steel frame was acting as a giant heatsink. Fire was unable to heat columns to high temperatures. We only know this today, but for the past 3 years the Mainstream Media and government pushed disinformation and we believed something else.

Add 7% damage from the 767 and 13% weakening by fire. It has been calculated that 75% of the columns had to fail to make floor 97 collapse. How does less than 20% castatrophic damage to a floor cause near instantaneous and symmetrical collapse? It does not. You do not need a wall of degrees to be an expert in common sense.

Knowing that Americans have common sense and can put 2+2 together when they turn off their corporate controlled TVs, NIST felt compelled to insert this statement multiple times in the final report:

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

It should be pointed out that before the final report a few weeks ago, NIST has never indicated that it ever considered alternate theories other than variations of the offical story. NIST has produced zero documents evidencing that it duplicated independant research to confirm findings and observations. Or that it did follow up with its own tests, such as re-analyze the WTC steel with a new focus on detecting explosive signatures such as residue. So is NIST saying that because it did not look, it found nothing? Is that scientific?

NIST asserts that removal of fire proofing was the catalyst cause of collapse, otherwise the tower would have remained standing. NIST presents two theories to prove its speculation about damaged fire proofing. There is the so-called "pellet theory" where building material somehow turned into "pellets" and flew with enough force to sandblast fire proofing from steel. NIST fails to explain how so much debris could be moving with such force. It fails to point out that debris was only moving in one direction and so would have only affected a portion of the surface area of the beams, columms, an whatever else was covered. At least 50% of the fire proofing would remain if this "pellet theory" was credible.

The other theory is the so-called "jolt theory" where the jolt from the 767 impact was so great it made fireproofing simply fall off the steel like broken plaster. NIST asserts that an impacting 767 created 100g. The Port Authority measured the insulation bond strength and found that it took 20-730g to dislodge fire proofing. On average, it took 375g to dislodge fire proofing. If this 20-730g range had even distribution then only 11% of the fire proofing of an area was removed by the plane impact. If the range represented the typical bell-curve, then even less fire-proofing would have been removed.

Later in the report NIST quantifies its findings- somewhat. NIST states "Insulation was damaged from the impact area to the south perimeter wall, primarily through the middle one-third to one-half of the core width." This means that the swath of damaged fireproofing was less than 1/5 the width of the building, or 20%. That is not much floor area affected, meaning not a whole lot of fire proofing was damaged or even removed.

So now we have 7% damage by a 767, 13% weakening by fire, and 20% fire proofing missing. Fires did not last longer than about 45 minutes. These figures are all derived from NIST's own data. How is this a recipe for a near simultaneous, symmetrical collapse of the North Tower? How could modeling software come to such a conclusion when plugged in with the numbers? How could the reasonable scientist come to such a conclusion? The numbers simply do not add up.

So after $16 Million and 3 years, the government still has not provided a credible explanation of the WTC collapse. Mainstream Media and the government are peddlers in lockstep and compromised science is the snake oil. Are you buying?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home