9/11: SIMPLE PHYSICS

NIST Fraud

9/11: SIMPLE PHYSICS
© Willy Whitten 2018

-- “Molten steel…like you were in a foundry” — firemen 9/11

NIST Fraud:

WTC Disaster Study – The specific objectives were:
[1] Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/world-trade-center-disaster-study

NIST was mandated to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed” –They FAILED to do so
And they admitted it!

NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”–Catherine S. Fletcher, Chief Management and Organization Division, NIST Sept. 27, 2007

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”–NIST
“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” BUT the “focus” of the investigation is NOT the “goal” of the investigation as stated in their own words: “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”
This is spurious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of rational argumentation on the part of NIST.

NIST did not provide a full explanation as to why the WTC Towers collapsed. NIST modeled their CGI cartoons to the point that the building was “poised for collapse”, and left it at that, a glaring example of circular reasoning.
This is scientific fraud and nothing less.
. . . . . .
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel – divide that by number of floors, we have about 1,000 tons of steel per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) at 8:46 am, impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 approached from the southwest, over New York Harbor, and crashed into the South Tower (WTC 2) southern facade at 9:03 am between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
. . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by simple math:
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) Planes impacted a span of 93rd and 99th floors. So the upper section would be about 16 floors. Multiply 16 x 5,000 = 80,000 tons verses 420,000 tons of remaining undamaged floors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by common sense
One can not presume that a cohesive block of intact material can exist acting as a pile driver can fall through the center of the buildings, when we can see with our own eyes that there is that amount of crushed and fragmented material blown horizontally beyond the frame of the buildings in all of the imagery available of the destruction of WTC 1&2.

I have already shown how elementary Newtonian physics precludes the possibility of a gravity driven collapse:
All progressive collapse theories defy Newtonian physics:

Focusing on the acceleration created by the Earth's gravitation field, the quantity symbolized by →g g → (vector) can have its value calculated as 9.8m/s2 9.8 m / s 2 through Newton's equations.

All three of Newton’s laws of motion are applied in accordance to that of gravity. Galileo had determined the acceleration due to gravity (g) of all objects near the surface of Earth in the early 1600s as g=9.8ms2.

In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it.

In the second law, the force on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration.

Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Applying this principle to the collapse of the WTC Towers, it proves that the upper portion could only destroy the lower portion by the equal amount of the floors; That is if 12 floors are crushing the floors beneath them they can crush no more than 12 stories below. Simple physics.
What is the work done in ‘crushing’? It is smashing and destroying a material and objects. Equal and opposite crushing is crushing from above and equal crushing from below. ‘Crush up–Crush down’.
The material crushed in the interaction is equal. Therefore there is no material left to crush down after it is exhausted itself against the crush up.

Cardington fire test data British Steel

** Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.

Cardington fire test data British Steel carried out four fire tests on the Cardington frame between 1995 and 1997. An additional two test were carried out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). These test underpin much of the modern science of structural fire engineering in steel framed buildings with composite steel deck floors The first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m² to 340m² with fire loadings provided by gas, wooden cribs and standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not.

Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.

The full set of data from the four British Steel tests is to be found in this article. Descriptions of the tests and guidance on how to interpret the data can be found by following the link here. Data from the two fire test carried out by the BRE can be found by following the link here. Data on a subsequent, stand alone test conducted by BRE can be found here.

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Cardington_fire_test_data

Now all that is needed to fulfill my original assertion is physical proof of explosive material:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Abstract:
“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”

. . . . . .
INERTIA

For those who still fail to grasp Newton’s Third Law of Motion, I am going to attempt one more time to make it clear.
I will be pointing out the term “INERTIA” and why, when MOTION comes into play on an inert object, terms of description must change.

When the buildings are standing with no motion in play, they are said to be INERT. So the term used to describe the structure in this state is that the structure below is “HOLDING UP” the structure above..
When motion comes into play the structure below is now “PUSHING UP” because we are now speaking to ACTION.

Taking the North Tower as our example, having been struck by the airplane at about the 93rd floor, we will have the upper 17 stories falling down on the lower 93 floors. Because of the terms of inertia we now describe this ACTION as “PUSHING DOWN”

Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion is, for every force there is an equal and opposite force. Thus the 17 floors pushing down on the 93 floors below are met with the force of those floors pushing up against them.
According to this equation of 17 to 93, only 17 floors of that 93 could be crushed in an equal and opposite reaction, leaving 76 intact floors standing.

The same principles would apply to the South Tower.
A total global collapse of either tower would have been impossible.
. . . . . .
The Missing Jolt
Now, so far in my exposition of the simple physics of the WTC towers destruction, I have shown that if once initiated, the tower collapse would be arrested at a specific point due to Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.
At this point I am going to address the insurmountable problem of the assertion of a gravity driven collapse; that being the lack off proof of INITIATION in the first place.
I had begun my critique of the official collapse scenario with what I call the ‘NIST Fraud’, wherein I show that NIST asserts collapse initiation without proof of such.

I will begin here with the analogy often given by NIST supporters of a hammer being dropped on a plate of glass. In that simple analogy it is asserted that a hammer dropped from some unspecified distance above a plate of glass, that it is obvious that the hammer would shatter the glass.
The insurmountable problem with this assertion is that at the point of impact there would be a sudden jolt as the hammer hits the surface of the glass.

This problem is insurmountable because the collapse curve calculated for the collapse reveals no sudden jolt.

I will now turn to the April 22, 2009 paper by Graeme MacQueen & Tony Szamboti titled ‘The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
The paper begins with:
“In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

As the paper notes: “The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.”

The Necessary Jolt:
“As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be apowerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic…
Testing for Deceleration:
If a jolt occurred there would have been high short-term deceleration of the upper block. Why not simply check for this deceleration? It is not difficult. We will:

• examine a video clip of the North Tower’s collapse
• find a point on the upper block of the North Tower, the progress of which can be
observed and measured in the early stages of the collapse
• plot the progress of this point on a graph
• check for evidence of deceleration
……
We have shown the curve starting upward again after the impact, on the generous assumption that the impacting object (the upper block) is now free to accelerate. We have also only charted what the effect on the velocity would have been for an initiating impulse between the first two floors to collide.
The measurements of the roof’s actual fall do not show any abrupt negative change in velocity,
so it appears that there was no impulse and thus no amplified load. It seems that Dr. Bazant was simply theorizing that there had to be one to make sense of the collapse in a natural way. It is also important to note here that Dr. Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. [8] The actual stiffness, calculated here using the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C) [19][20] This error caused Dr. Bazant to significantly overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the impulse or jolt, which he claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block…

Conclusions:
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.”

Read entire paper:
Documenting the Destruction of Physical Evidence at the World Trade Center
Ted Walter, Tony Szamboti, and Dennis McMahon April 11, 2018

The decision to destroy the physical evidence
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton:

“Officials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added for emphasis]

However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:
See entire article at:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/446-documenting-the-destruction-of-physical-evidence-at-the-world-trade-center

. . . . . .
~Willy Whitten 3/4/2018
\\][//