NIST EXPERIMENTS/SIMULATIONS

NIST EXPERIMENTS/SIMULATIONS

Before we look at NIST’s own experiments, first let’s look to determine if NIST followed the “Scientific Method”.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

————–
9/11 Skepticism: NIST floor test
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W37g_uLYNs

NIST’s own tests FAILED to weaken or melt steel similar to that in the WTC. So how did they come to their conclusions if their own tests failed by experiment?

—————-

CUBICAL TEST

NIST FOIA 09-42: Release #15 — 42A0019 — WTC CB P1 T1 NW Camera
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfk7QBC6uZM

In this video, NIST’s tests failed to destroy a single cubicle in a blazing 20 minute fire. Thousands like it would have been present in the towers.
———

GRAVITATIONAL LOAD

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September
11.” NIST, p. 143

“12.
Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes,there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers.”
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
———-

FIREPROOFING

NIST FOIA: Fireproofing Condition and Upgrade on the 85th Floor of WTC2 (Video 1 of 4)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnxOYOHM6hw

———

NIST THERMAL VISUALIZATION

9/11 Twin Towers Thermal Video – NIST culmulus release FEB 2011 Infraspection 5.avi
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJmdzVolkng
————
Attentats 11 septembre 2001 WTC 9/11 – NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 27 42A0189-G26D48 (entière)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWdTSohRoMs
———–
WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation
http://www.nce.co.uk/wtc-investigators-resist-call-for-collapse-visualisation/537313.article

“University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers ‘would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.’ NIST told NCEI that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.”
———
New Videos from NIST Cumulus Database Posted
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-06/new-videos-nist-cumulus-database-posted
———
September 11, 2001:
A Thermographer’s Experience at Ground Zero Carol Ciemiengo
http://www.irinfo.org/Articles/article_9_11_2001.html

“It finally occurred to me that I was still wearing both an infrared imager and a camcorder and should tape what was going on. I recorded for awhile, then decided to see if I could take a thermal image. Due to the heat I was not able to get a temperature or even a good image, but I snapped two thermograms from ground level anyway.

At about 8:59, I decided it was time for me to stop wasting time and get back to work. I knew it would be a long day for the firefighters, but I had a job to finish. I worked my way through the crowd and back inside the building and was told to meet Bob in the 2nd basement.”

NOTES: As you can see from the video footage, both Towers were already struck. Which means the time had to be after 9:03am when the ST was hit. Carol claims she stopped filming at 8:59am because she didn’t want to “waste time”. She had the shot of a century on top of the roof and she blew it by leaving.
———–
A Thermographer’s Experience at Ground Zero
by Carol Ciemiengo
Jersey Infrared Consultants
www.crono911.net/doc0/flirimg.pdf

“We got started around 8:40, going to the lobby level where we had left off the day before. The elevator doors opened and someone said, “Hey Bob, did you hear that?” Neither of us had heard anything, so we just chalked it up to a big truck going a little too fast. A common happening in New York – most people who spend any time there don’t even hear it. I distinctly remember looking at the clock in the lobby – it was 8:44 a.m. We went into an electrical closet and I scanned the open panels. Bob told me he was going to go check out the noise. I told him I was done scanning and was
curious too, so I’d go with him.”

“Still not comprehending what was going on, I got on the elevator and went downstairs. When I got there, everyone was gathered around the TV. They said the report was there had been an xplosion in the south tower. We watched, but from the vantage point of the newscast, we could not see it was a plane that had been flown into the tower. I didn’t find out for sure what had happened until much later.”

“As a thermographer, I felt compelled to add some thermographic images to my tape. In addition to the running tape, I snapped two more images: one of the north tower and one of the south. It did not occur to me, until someone said it later that day, these might be the only thermograms in the world of this event.”
———–
Attentats 11 septembre 2001 WTC 9/11 – NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 27 42A0189-G26D48 (entière)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWdTSohRoMs
————-

NOTES/QUESTIONS

Why couldn’t NIST just show us this thermal imaging for the actual collapses of both towers?

The time of this video is 9:18 am. 30 minutes after the first impact, 15 minutes after the second impact.
WTC 1 (North Tower) Collapsed at near free fall @ 10:28am (hit by AA11 @ 8:46)
WTC 2 (South Tower) Collapsed at near free fall @ 9:59am (hit by UA175 @ 9:03)

Group Thread Post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/permalink/10151295868121782
—————–

WTC 7 THERMAL FIRES

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports
http://truthphalanx.com/sarns-alt/
————-
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports – Part 2 of 5
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/faqs/767-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2-of-5.html

————
Why did NIST decide WTC steel could not conduct heat?

Why did NIST decide WTC steel could not conduct heat?

“While it did pursue some initial real-world experimentation (which should be discussed in turn), NIST built its conclusions on the collapse primarily on the basis of computer models.

It follows their conclusions can only be as good as those models.

Let me explain first how a predictive computer model works. It’s virtual reality. If you are building a model to predict anything from the stock market to building collapses you are essentially telling a computer a set of rules that enable it to construct a real-world simulation of your money markets or your building. The most important thing to understand is the result you get is only as reliable as the data you input, because computers are quick but not smart.”

“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

“The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

“Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
————–

NIST WTC 7 SIMULATION

“NIST used detailed data describing the building and it’s contents to create the most complex computer simulation of a structured collapse ever made.” – NIST

NIST WTC7 Collapse Simulation Versus Real-Time Demolition Comparison 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHuFm7lE4gE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUQ0xnt1iBs
————–
They don’t match up. Period!

———–
wtc7 simulation overlaid over Camera No. 3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1EZqXqezXY

———–
WTC 7 Test – NIST Sim vs Realtime Sync
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHuFm7lE4gE
———–
WTC7 NIST model doesn’t compare
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX3Dg2jAnHQ
———–
9/11: WTC 7 Collapse (NIST FOIA, CBS video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo
———–
9/11 WTC 7 Demolition, collapse overlay on top of original building
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfn18ROJh-c

———-

————-

“JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY”

When NIST was asked to release the data for their “complex computer simulation” NIST refused stating that it might “Jeopardize public safety”. I think not releasing the data could jeopardize public safety to anyone inside a high rise building.

———–
NIST 9/11 – Disclosure Might Jeopardize Public Safety
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QkftUPsBk
———-
“NIST has refused to release the computer model input data in response to FOIA requests, claiming that its release would “jeopardize public safety.””
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/362-gross-negligence-denistifying-the-destruction-of-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html
————

“We are however, withholding 74,777 files (approximately 80% of all responsive records). The
NlST Director determined that the release of these data mightjeopardize public safety.”
www.governmentattic.org/4docs/NIST-Tracking-09-11_09-48_2008-2010.pdf
————–

————-
FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

“Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.”

————–
WTC 7 NIST MODEL Vs. VIDEO
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
———–
NIST WTC7 Global Collapse Simulation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8

————
NIST WTC7 Collapse Simulation Versus Real-Time Demolition
Comparison 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUQ0xnt1iBs
————
NIST WTC7 Collapse Simulation Versus Real-Time Demolition
Comparison 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqLbQ8Lx6Ds
————

NOTES/QUESTIONS

1) Why won’t NIST release the data used for their Simulation?
2) Why does the simulation look nothing like the actual collapse?
3) Why did NIST only investigate the initiation of collapse and not the entire building?

PRETZEL OR CINNATWIST?

————–

WTC SIMULATIONS

“… NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.”
– Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse (PDF 4.8 Mb) (p. 43)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
—————

OTHER SIMULATIONS

Impact Simulations:
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_james_fe_070626_purdue_9_2f11_simulati.htm
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=71
————
Why Trial Attorneys Need to Know Computer “Animations” vs. “Simulations” for Evidence
http://cogentlegal.com/blog/2011/05/computer-animations-vs-simulations-for-evidence/
———-
World Trade Center 7 Collapse Simulation – Blender Fracture Case Study
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSlIFXw3EGg
—————