Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports
Below is a series of
WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER
1.OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114
Technical Statement: NIST maintains that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire acting upon the 13th floor A2001 girder between columns 79 and 44 and the beams framing into it from the east. They said that the beams expanded by 5.5” (revised in June 2012 to 6.25”), broke the girder erection bolts, and pushed this girder off its column 79 seat. This girder fell to floor 12, which then precipitated a cascade of floor failures from floor 12 down to floor 5, and column 79 then became unsupported laterally causing it to buckle. It is then said that column 79's buckling caused the upper floors to cascade down, which started a chain reaction — a
The first omission concerns
References:
x Frankel Shop Drawing #9114 https://www.dropbox.com/s/r009pjr3qhduyjg/9114.TIF?dl=0
oGirder_A2001_Stiffeners_Plan_HL https://www.dropbox.com/s/jnt2f9i2vnm0wa3/Girder_A2001_Stiffeners_Plan.jpg?dl=0
oGirder_A2001_Stiffeners_Elevation_HL https://www.dropbox.com/s/uy7cehcn2saorh1/Girder_A2001_%20Stiffeners_Elevation.jpg?dl=0
2.OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM
Technical Statement: NIST omitted three lateral support beams from the exterior frame to the
References:
x Frankel Shop Drawing #3005 https://www.dropbox.com/s/qoikgin4l8x0yub/3005.TIF?dl=0
2
xFrankel Shop Drawing #3007 https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9n62mr3c1mdvqs/3007.TIF?dl=0
xFrankel Shop Drawing #9150 https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fne2vd75p0yjcy/9150.TIF?dl=0
xFrankel Erection Drawing #E12/13 https://www.dropbox.com/s/0rw4w6hc1ih8g2t/Erection_Drawing_1213.jpg?dl=0
3.WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT
Technical Statement: After initially denying it, NIST was ultimately forced into a public acknowledgement in their final report on WTC 7 that the building fell at full
References:
xNCSTAR
xNIST FAQ on WTC 7, updated 6/27/2012 http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
xPhysicist David Chandler’s analysis of the descent of WTC 7 in three parts
xNFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations
xPertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
4.VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL
Technical Statement: The exterior of the NIST WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations, as would be expected in a natural collapse, which are not observed in the video of the actual event. There is no attempt in the report to explain this discrepancy.
In footage of the actual collapse, the west penthouse of WTC 7, which spans nearly half the length of the roof, starts to fall
3
collapse situation at all. The west penthouse drop starting just prior to that of the exterior is also indicative of controlled demolition, where the interior columns are severed just a fraction of a second prior to the exterior, in order to create an inward pull on the exterior and keep the debris contained within the building’s footprint.
References:
•Videos from September 11, 2001, showing the collapse of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10
•NCSTAR
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
5.CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES
Technical Statement: In their WTC 7 FAQ, NIST claims to have investigated whether the building could have been brought down by controlled demolition and concluded that it was not. NIST says this even while admitting that they did not test for explosive residues in the rubble, after initially claiming that they “found no evidence of explosives or explosive residues” (while also making the simultaneous claim that no steel was saved from WTC 7 for analysis). Their conclusion is simply based on their claims that there were no sound levels measured which they feel would be indicative of the size of an explosion needed to destroy column 79 and that rigging the building in an undetected way would be difficult.
Belying the NIST argument that it would be difficult to rig WTC 7 without being detected, there was a secret retrofit of the Citibank Tower in New York City in 1978, due to an engineering error that could have allowed the building to topple in 70 mph winds. In that case, after the problem was realized, secrecy was maintained to keep building occupants
4
and nearby residents from panicking, though there was very little actual risk of danger. An evacuation plan for the building and surrounding area was drawn up, with the intent to implement it if high winds were imminent.
References:
•NIST FAQ on WTC 7, updated 6/27/2012 http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
•The Secret Retrofit of the Citibank Tower in 1978 http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/O_ekNosnieQ
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6X6ZbZ4H8w
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTglkuffB0E
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9ywmzewRQ
6.CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS
Technical Statement: NIST's draft WTC 7 report said, “Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 1 to 2 feet on center.” However, in
the final WTC 7 report, NIST says shear studs were not used on the girders. The significance here is that they claim the 13th floor A2001 girder was pushed off its seat at column 79 by
thermally expanded beams from the east side of the building. If shear studs had been used on the girders, it would have been impossible for the beams to push the girder off its seat with the column. No drawings are shown in the final report to substantiate this new claim.
In their WTC 7 model, NIST does not heat the concrete, only the steel. The implication is then made that the shear studs in the beams are broken due to differential expansion of the steel and concrete, allowing the beams to freely expand and force the now
References:
•See attached copy of NIST NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
5
7.REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS
Technical Statement: A registered structural engineer's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NIST for calculations and analysis substantiating the
References:
•The NIST letter refusing to release calculations and analysis substantiating the
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ALL THREE BUILDINGS
8.NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL
Technical Statement: At one point, NIST admitted that only 0.25% to 0.50 % of the steel from the Twin Towers was saved for analysis. Later, NIST claimed that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis. At another time, NIST mentioned that Dr. John Gross was in the salvage yards and was involved in the selection of pieces of steel to save.
The NIST WTC Tower and WTC 7 reports do not explain why so little steel was saved and, incredibly, in the case of the Twin Towers, was dismissive when forced to admit that the steel saved from the buildings did not show that it had experienced high temperatures, by contending that “the sample size was not sufficient to be representative.” Why didn’t Dr.
Gross save a sufficient sample size? The space required to store the steel would have been insignificant relative to the massive and historic issues to be resolved.
References:
•At 5:00 minutes into this video, Dr. John Gross says he was on the WTC site and in the steel yards early on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
9.IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could
6
have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.
References:
•FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study Appendix C http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film,9/11: Explosive
•Photo below of NIST WTC 7 report leader John Gross in steel yards with melted and eroded steel
10.INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION
Technical Statement: In their initial draft report on the three building collapses, NIST claims that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis. This is disconcerting, considering WTC 7 would have been the first
7
Alarmingly, in their final report on WTC 7 in November 2008, NIST makes no mention of the fact that no steel was saved from WTC 7 for analysis.
This is confusing, as we now know that Dr. John Gross was involved as early as October 2001 in selecting pieces of steel to save for the NIST investigations into the failures of all three buildings.
References:
•NIST NCSTAR
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
11.FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED
Technical Statement: The fire severity and durations shown in the NIST reports do not match the observations in the videos of all three skyscrapers. They are highly exaggerated. The actual fires, particularly in WTC 2, are nearly exhausted, with thick black smoke indicating cooler fires. The WTC 7 fires are few, small, and scattered. On floor 12, the location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.
References:
•NCSTAR
•E. Douglas, “The NIST WTC
•http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
12.NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS
Technical Statement: Dr. John Gross has denied that there is evidence of molten iron/steel in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings, despite numerous eyewitnesses testifying to this and despite the physical evidence of what have come to be called “meteorites,” which are made up of solidified slag from pools of molten iron and steel that were “flowing like lava,” according to firefighters. Again, the significance here is that the temperatures which can be achieved by diffuse flame hydrocarbon or office fires range from 600° to a maximum of 1,800° F, which is well below the 2,750° F initial melting temperature of steel and iron.
References:
8
•Video with John Gross claiming he knows of no one who saw molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9ywmzewRQ
13.REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE
Technical Statement: NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives, and their director of public relations is on record saying, “If you are going to test for something that is not there, you are wasting your time and the taxpayers’ money.” In the oral histories taken down in late 2001 and early 2002 from New York City emergency personnel, there are over 100 individuals who make comments about seeing, hearing, and experiencing explosions.
These oral histories were documented well before NIST started their WTC investigation in September 2002. This testimony should have caused the presumption that there was a good chance explosive residue would be found — and justified testing for it rather than the opposite. On what basis would NIST have presumed that there was little chance of explosive residue to be found and that it would be a waste of time and money?
NIST acknowledges in their response to a Request for Correction submitted by AE911Truth that they are “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” And yet NIST refused to consider the possibility that explosives could have been used to cause the collapses of the Twin Towers — though controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence.
References:
•J. Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Connecticut, January 29, 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20080430203236/http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546
•The September 11 records via The New York Times http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_f ull_01.html
•G. MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,”
Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2, pp.
•Request for Correction of the NIST WTC report http://stj911.org/actions/NIST_DQA_Petition.pdf
•NIST’s answer to the above Request for Correction http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.p df
•NIST August 2006 FAQ http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
•Dr. David Ray Griffin’s essay, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official
Account Cannot Be True” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6X6ZbZ4H8w
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTglkuffB0E
9
14.FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
Technical Statement: NIST and FEMA did not follow standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. This is covered in the National Fire Protection Association’s investigation standard NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, where it is clearly stated that looking for explosive residues and accelerants is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. NFPA 921 also states that if they are not tested for one should be prepared to explain why they weren’t.
NIST is often responsible for generating information from which the NFPA standards are written. Why would the NFPA standard not be followed in this case? NIST has not answered this question publicly.
References:
•National Fire Protection Association, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,” NFPA 921
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6X6ZbZ4H8w
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pydjc9aSU
THE TWIN TOWERS
15.STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED
Technical Statement: NIST claims that the aircraft impact debris in WTC 1 stripped the fireproofing materials from the floor truss assemblies — even on the opposite side of the building from the impact — to the point where the floor assembly steel was then vulnerable to fire. NIST attempted to validate this hypothesis with ballistic firing equipment, firing buckshot and shrapnel at steel plates and bars coated with SFRM (Sprayed on Fire Resistant Material). During the testing, the gun was fired at velocities of approximately 500 ft/s and produced damage to the SFRM, but at one point it misfired and produced a projectile velocity of just 102 ft/s (31 m/s), which resulted in no damage to the SFRM.
WTC 1 was impacted on the north side of the building. NIST claims that the fireproofing was stripped from the trusses on the south side, causing them to sag and pull the south face of the building inward, initiating the collapse. However, NIST’s own analysis of the aircraft’s deceleration, 0.40 seconds after impacting WTC 1 on the north face, shows the debris field moving at approximately 51 ft/s (15 m/s) as it enters the floor assembly area on the south side of the building. How can NIST justify the aircraft debris damaging the SFRM on the floor assembly steel on the south side of the building when their own testing and analyses seem to rule it out?
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
10
16.
Technical Statement: NIST’s own physical testing for actual steel temperatures on the 236 pieces they selected from the Twin Towers in the areas closest to the hottest fires showed that only three pieces had experienced temperatures above 250° C — a temperature where steel has not yet lost any strength. Of those three, none had experienced temperatures beyond 600° C, the point at which structural steel loses about half its strength. Note this critical zone in the graph below. NIST’s own physical evidence shows that the vast majority of the steel had not experienced temperatures where it lost any strength, though in the report NIST claims a large number of steel structural members would have been heated to temperatures of 700° C.
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
•Below, chart from Corus Construction showing steel strength at increased temperature compared to room temperature strength
17.TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL
Technical Statement: NIST hired Underwriter Laboratories to perform testing of the Twin Tower floor assemblies per ASTM E119 in a
References:
• NCSTAR
11
•NCSTAR
•Anonymous and F. Legge, “Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical
Adequacy,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 29, pp.
18.INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY
Technical Statement: The NIST report claims that the collapse of WTC 1 was initiated by the south exterior wall buckling. The report claims that this was due to “inward bowing” and buckling of the exterior columns — alleged to be caused by sagging of the floor trusses. However, the NIST computer model did not show this to occur with natural inputs and sagging floor trusses. To actually cause the perimeter column failure, an artificial lateral load of 5,000 lbs. had to be applied to each perimeter column from the outside of the building. In reality, there was of course no such force available.
NIST claims, in a circular argument, that this artificial lateral load was applied to the exterior columns in an attempt to match the observed inward bowing, even though their model could not produce it naturally with their theory of sagging trusses causing it. It is much more likely that the core columns, which would have been falling after their failure was caused by explosives or incendiaries, would have pulled on the trusses with great force, generating the observed inward bowing of the exterior columns to which the opposite end of the trusses were attached.
References:
•NCSTAR
19.COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE
Technical Statement: The analysis in the NIST WTC report for the columns of the east and west perimeter walls of WTC 1 shows that after a south wall failure, the additional loads on these columns increase their total stress to only about 30% of their yield strength. This amount of stress cannot cause failure. Although this is not stated specifically, it can be deduced, because NIST provides their
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
20.NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE
Technical Statement: The NIST WTC report acknowledges that it does not provide a
12
technical analysis of the structural behavior of the Twin Towers during the collapse itself. The report stops its analyses for both towers at the point of collapse initiation where the claim is made that “the tower was poised to collapse.” It simply suggests that “global collapse naturally followed” and then depends upon a paper written by Northwestern University civil engineering professor Zdenek Bazant for an explanation of how the collapse could continue (a complex study that was, interestingly, submitted just two days after 9/11/01).
However, Dr. Bazant starts his analysis after the upper section of the building has already fallen one story. Since NIST actually stopped their analysis at an alleged south exterior wall failure in WTC 1 and east exterior wall failure in WTC 2, prior to any “fall” at all, this leaves completely unexplained how these partial failures could have propagated across the building, to cause the collapses of the full upper sections of the buildings. In fact, what is seen in the videos is quite different from anything modeled, or claimed, by NIST. The videos show a “disintegration” of the initiating zone at the onset of each collapse. The upper 12- story section of the North Tower destroys itself in the first four seconds of the building’s collapse — almost in a telescoping internal implosion like a controlled explosive demolition
— such that it is not even available as a mass, after the initial four seconds of the “collapse,” to act as the “pile driver” propelling the rest of the building down to the ground, as is alleged by NIST and Bazant.
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•
21.WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES
Technical Statement: The NIST report claims that WTC 1 tilted 8° to the south and then began its descent. There is no analysis provided to back this assertion. Analyses of video by individual researchers have shown only a very small tilt of 1° or less prior to the descent of
the upper 12 stories, and only after at least a
must have failed simultaneously in order to allow the initial symmetrical descent at two- thirds of
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
13
•
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
22.NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED
Technical Statement: In his papers, Dr. Zdenek Bazant claims that an “amplified dynamic load” occurred at the impact between the Twin Towers' falling upper section and the structure below, and that this is what caused the reserve strength of the structure below to be overcome by the otherwise insufficient static load above. However, by definition, the generation of an amplified load requires a deceleration upon impact, and a velocity loss would be a necessary result of such deceleration.
Since Dr. Bazant’s first paper was written and published, the rate of fall of the upper section of WTC 1 has actually been measured by a number of individual researchers. Dr. Bazant initially neglected this simple analysis in his paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on Sept. 13, 2001, only two days after the event. These measurements all show that the upper section never decelerates and never experiences velocity loss. In fact, the upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates at approximately 64% of the rate of gravity. By contrast, building demolitions that use the Verinage technique, where gravity alone is used to demolish the structure below after a fall of a couple of stories instigated by mechanical means such as hydraulic rams breaking the columns, a clear deceleration and velocity loss is observed when the upper section impacts the lower.
All of Dr. Bazant’s papers use
Recent research using test results vs.the
14
The velocity graphs of the upper sections of both a building demolished by the Verinage technique and that of WTC 1 are shown below. Note the abrupt reduction of velocity in the natural force collapse using the Verinage demolition method on the
“removed” prior to impact. This can only be done by explosives — for which there is abundant evidence, as outlined in the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
References:
•NCSTAR
•Z. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center
•G. MacQueen and T. Szamboti, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST/Bazant
Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 24, pp.
•D. Chandler, “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,”
Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 28, pp.
•“9/11 – North Tower Acceleration,” David Chandler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28ds5sFvTG8
•Video: “What a
•
•T. Szamboti and R. Johns, “ASCE Journals refuse to correct fraudulent paper they published on
WTC collapses,” Letter in Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2014 http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf
•R.M. Korol and K.S. Sivakumaran, “Reassessing the Plastic Hinge Model for Energy Dissipation of Axially Loaded Columns,” Journal of Structures, Vol. 2014, Article ID 795257, 7 pages, February 2014 http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0eQ3_FUs0
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg
•Two velocity charts below
15
23.NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS
Technical Statement: NIST claims that the “upper section” of each of the Twin Towers crushed the lower section. However, video analysis clearly reveals that the upper section’s structure (above the point of jet plane impacts) disintegrated significantly prior to any crushing of the lower block. After this point some other set of forces must be destroying the buildings. A closer look at the videos reveals those sources to be a series of explosions racing down the corners of the building, under the zone of destruction, at a rate equal to about
References:
•NCSTAR
•
•Video: “Acceleration + Serendipity” by David Chandler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9M1iufUAVA
•Pertinent short clips from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0eQ3_FUs0
ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTglkuffB0E
16
24.COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL
Technical Statement: NIST calculates the DCR
References:
•NCSTAR
•NCSTAR
•Released core column cross sectional and material strength data http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/core_data/10
•Mass analysis of WTC 1 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
25.MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED
Technical Point: NIST has not adequately explained the
before its collapse. In a FAQ article, they claimed that it could have been aluminum. However, when it was explained to them that aluminum fluoresces as a silvery color, they postulated that the aluminum could have been mixed with organics to give it the yellow- orange glow. When physics professor Dr. Steven Jones performed an experiment by adding organics to molten aluminum, they did not mix. The organics consistently floated to the top, no matter how thoroughly they were mixed into the molten aluminum. The significance here is that the maximum temperatures which can be achieved by diffuse flame hydrocarbon (jet fuel or office fires) is in the range of 600° to a maximum of 1,800° F, well below the 2,750° F minimum melting temperature of steel or iron (which does fluoresce
17
There has been no further response from NIST on this issue.
References:
•Videos of molten metal pouring from the northeast corner of WTC two moments before collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMBTp27k_wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivXaOguXRA
•Question #21 in NIST WTC FAQ http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
•Pertinent short clip from the documentary film, 9/11: Explosive
18