This is What it Looks Like for NIST to be Wrong About the WTC Collapses

How hot does the NIST theory say the steel had to get? Surely not 800 degrees Celsius for an hour? According to the UL burn tests, there is no way the fires got that hot for more than 15 minutes in any given spot. If the fire temps didn’t even get that hot for that long, there is no way the steel could have been heated by those fires to temps anywhere near what we see in Lab Test 2 (represented by the hot pink line).

This is What it Looks Like for NIST to be Wrong About the WTC Collapses

How hot does this 35ft assembly have to get in order to fail? To really grasp the significance of these temperatures, you must keep in mind that they measure the STEEL temperatures, not the open flame. These are NOT GAS temperatures. The temperatures required to get the steel to these temperatures in the lab tests FAR EXCEEDED any of the UL burn tests conducted.

The top graph represents a combination of the two graphs below which portray simulated steel temperatures of uninsulated (graph 1) and insulated steel (graph 2) as well as the Truss Section Burn Tests represented in the bottom graph.

Bare vs SFRM over time

Notice how the temperature scale for the above graphs are in Celsius and the scale below is in Fahrenheit. Now, why would a single paper, albeit with many authors, with a $20 million dollar budget use different temperature scales? Why not use all F or all C for everything? Or use both? For $20M, you’d think you could get both in all the studies.

Note also, the simulated data above uses a time scale in seconds, whereas the lab test below uses minutes. Fucking confusing if you’re not paying attention. These data deserve to be put side-by-side to see if the official theory, or at least the implications repeated ad nauseum are substantiated by the data.

Average temps over time

So I consolidated the data. It took a long time. I used rulers and an excel spreadsheet. It is not exact, but it’s pretty darn close. Bottom line? These mutherfuckers are trying to hide the fact that they have no explicit theory. And any theory they had would fall apart upon looking at the combination of lab data versus simulated data. Check it for yourself. The real world data, seen here in the UL lab tests which rebuilt 17ft and 35ft sections of the floor trusses, burned at far hotter temperatures for far longer than a simple Heat Induced Collapse Theory (HICT) could account for.

It doesn’t seem like much to ask to get all the data aligned. If that were the purpose. Sure, one can always chalk this up to the clusterfuck of a situation, the rush to get this paper published, the onset of public bloodlust, the push for war, true. But given the gravity of the attacks, why would the effort be anything less than 100% professional? Is that not why the top scientific administrators were given the responsibility to produce this report?

And yet.

And yet, given the task of producing graphs with time and temperature for steel failure–the lynchpin of the official theory of collapse–they use different metrics for representations of these data sets in both the simulations and the lab controlled settings. You’ve left me no choice but to call bullshit.

Bottom line: There’s no way fires caused by jet fuel caused the WTC towers to collapse. And the NIST report heads knew this. They deliberately obfuscated their data to hide this fact. Incompetence is no excuse in this case.


2 Responses to “This is What it Looks Like for NIST to be Wrong About the WTC Collapses”

  1. Fire doesn’t do much more than follow the fuel or go out. As far as I know there wasn’t any “fuel” “office furnishings” adjacent to the huge steel support columns.

    • Mike, you’re talking straight sense. UNLESS, unless there was some kind of other fuel source not recognized by the OCT. The red-gray chips are a contender for an incendiary/explosive hybrid-thermal bridge material.

      If the red-gray chip material was indeed lathered over the core structure, it would go a long way in explaining where it went when the buildings disintegrated.

      I still think the management of perception in the NIST report cannot be a matter of incompetence–there was too much riding on that perception. That is conjecture on my part, I admit. But damn if the composite graph doesn’t make the NIST theory look highly implausible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: