NAVIGATION |
|
|
THE ALEX JONES
SHOW |
|
|
|
|
|
SERVICES |
|
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES |
|
|
|
SPECIAL REPORTS |
|
|
|
|
LINKS |
|
|
|
|
|
CONTACT |
|
|
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENTS
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition
only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed |
The National Institute for Standards and
Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall
collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive
scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled
demolition is the only means by which the buildings could
have come down.
In a recent letter (PDF
link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle
and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide
a full explanation of the total collapse."
A 10,000 page scientific study only offers
theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded
and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC
structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall
speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.
(Article continues below)
In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually
none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures
hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens
is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500
degrees, according to NIST itself.
"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what
it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of
several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett
of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this
preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests
that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter
than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes
took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a
direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so,
and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly
low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that
nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core
columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead
center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed
bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than
it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually
was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and
so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy
scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure
of a few floors."
"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors
to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure?
The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp
of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the
vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically
at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event,
but one necessary to explain why the Towers
would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the
top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact,
highly robust lower part of the building, straight through
the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have
fallen through thin air."
"Thus total free-fall
collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation"
scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening
is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building
suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes
Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden
freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the
late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END GAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement - Available first
to prison planet.tv members - Just 10 days to go! Click
here to subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2006, NIST
promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive
devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's
collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.
In August of this year, James Quintiere,
Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, called
for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of
the collapse of the twin towers.
Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were
"questionable", that they failed to follow standard
scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building
7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.
|
|
|