The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for Deception Part II

1. The NIST WTC Report: A New Standard for DeceptionPart II Kevin Ryan Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth December 15th, 2007

2. What do we know about 9/11? • The official story of 9/11* was produced by the Bush Administration (after considerable resistance) with help from others who profit from the War on Terror • This story changed dramatically over time, but never considered the possibility that Americans or foreign governments were involved • This story is false *The 9/11 Commission Report + The NIST WTC Report

3. Unprecedented Building Failures • No tall building has ever suffered “global collapse” due to fire, but on 9/11, we’re told there were three • No building exhibiting so many of the characteristics of demolition has ever NOT been a demolition • 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts

4. Questioning an Ever-changing Story • As a manager for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I was fired for publicly questioning the government’s October 2004 draft report on the collapse of the WTC towers • That report, generated by NIST*, is only one of several conflicting WTC reports produced, and even it continues to change • All the official WTC explanations have come from those profiting from the War on Terror • The FEMA and NIST reports are direct products of the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush Science) *National Institute of Standards and Technology

5. “Bush Science” • The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals” Open letter from 12,000+ scientists, currently including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients • “We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration” Union of Concerned Scientists • “[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings” House Committee on Government Reform

6. Early support for the official WTC story • “Experts” said jet fuel fires melted the steel • BBC (Chris Wise, etc.) • Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel) • NOVA video (Matthys Levy) • Henry Koffman from USC • Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois • Osama Bin Laden -- “I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building…” • Steel temperatures • Steel melts at ~ 1500 °C • Steel softens, for purposes of forging, at ~ 1000 °C • NIST found steel temperatures of WTC samples were ~ 250 °C

7. WTC’s design engineer • Tower’s structural components were designed by John Skilling (Leslie Robertson worked for him) • Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he considered plane crashes in his design. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building… [But] the building structure would still be there.” Seattle Times, 2/27/1993

8. The fire resistance of the towers • The fireproofing • ''There is no reason for that product in a typical commercial environment to deteriorate,'' because “[the] product had been thoroughly tested and approved by Underwriters Laboratories.” James Verhalen, chairman of the company that manufactured the fireproofing, United States Mineral Products, in New York Times, December 14, 2001 • The steel components • "The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." Underwriters Laboratories’ Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, in NY Times, April 15, 2002.

9. Official investigations into the collapse of the WTC buildings • ASCE • FEMA (floor pancake theory) • Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment” • Report released May 2002 • Silverstein / Weidlinger (columns only) • report released October 2002 • NIST • Final draft 10/04…Final, final draft 6/05 • First report 9/05…Responses to FAQs 8/06

10. Different stories, but same people

11. The NIST WTC Report • 42 sub-reports and total of 10,000 pages • Published September 2005, but only for Twin Towers • Like previous reports, focused only on fire-induced collapse hypothesis • Many of the same authors as May 2002 FEMA BPAT report

12. FEMA authors become NIST authors • FEMA Chapter 1 authors • Therese McAllister: co-author for NIST report 1-6 • John Gross: co-author for NIST report 1-6 • Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor • FEMA Chapter 2 authors • Ronald Hamburger: see above • William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom tower • Harold Nelson: co-author for NIST report 1-5 and 1-7 • FEMA chapter 5 authors (WTC 7) • Ramon Gilsanz: will beco-author for NIST report 1-6F • Harold Nelson: see above

13. NCSTAR 1-1 NCSTAR 1-2 Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis NCSTAR 1-3 Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel NCSTAR 1-4 NCSTAR 1-5 Reconstruction of the Fires NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence NCSTAR 1-7 NCSTAR 1-8 Structure of NIST WTC Report • One summary report: NCSTAR 1 • Eight main sub-reports:

14. Many low level reports

15. NIST’s primary goal and approach was… • To determine “why and how WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft” • “NIST adopted an approach that combined mathematical modeling, statistical and probability based analysis methods, laboratory experiments, and analysis of photographs and videos.” NCSTAR 1-6 p lxiv para3

16. In other words, NIST… • Assumed fire-induced “collapse” as a given • Early progress reports and archive presentations make this clear • Estimated interior damage using photographic evidence and computer experimentation • Performed physical tests to determine possible gas temperatures, actual steel temperatures, fireproofing loss, and floor assembly response • Planned to support (pre-determined) conclusions with additional computer modeling

17. What we ended up with • Deceptively designed physical tests that failed to support the fire-induced “collapse” hypothesis • Lower level report findings that were fudged as they moved upward • Only “collapse initiation sequences” given, and even those changed between final draft and final report • No public access to computer models or the evidence collected at taxpayer expense

18. The physical tests – gas temperaturesNCSTAR 1-5C, NCSTAR 1-5E • Single workstation burn tests • Multiple workstation burn tests • Directed to use two to four times the known average amount of hydrocarbon fuel • Used “over-ventilation”, meaning an excess of Oxygen despite the fact that the WTC fires were clearly Oxygen starved and ventilation limited • Determined maximum Heat Release Rates (HRRs) that were later mis-used to suggest more thermal energy than was available

19. The physical tests – steel temperaturesNCSTAR 1-3C, NCSTAR 1-3E • NIST’s stated goal - to “estimate the maximum temperature reached by available steel”* • NIST accomplished this by selecting steel samples from an “enormous amount” of steel, and by emphasizing “regions of impact and fire damage” in the selection process.* • Paint deformation test • Only 3 out of 170 WTC samples reached a temperature of 250 °C. • Steel microstructure test • None of the WTC steel samples reached a temperature of 600 °C. *NIST Progress Report May 2003

20. The physical tests – floor failure?NCSTAR 1-6B • Underwriters Laboratories contracted to perform fire resistance tests of floor assembly models • Two models had “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 in, one had “as specified” fireproofing of 0.5 in, and one had essentially no fireproofing. • Twice the known WTC floor load applied • After two hours in the furnace, none of them collapsed, and there was minimal sagging

21. The physical tests – fireproofing loss?NCSTAR 1-6A (appendix C) • As of June 2005, in the final draft report, there were no test results provided to establish fireproofing loss, let alone that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged” • Sept 2005 final report included a 12 page appendix describing a shotgun test performed by NIST • This shotgun test, which included 15 total blasts at non-representative samples in a plywood box, disproved the claim because the energy requirements were too high

22. The computer tests – impact damageNCSTAR 1-2B • Virtual tests of damage consisted of DOE analysis of subassemblies impacted by wings and engines • Wrong experimental design used • Maximum damage was favored response • Levels chosen to favor elimination of certain parameters • Incorrectly used to eliminate levels (-1, 0, +1) as well as parameters • Results produced suggest two engines took out 6 core columns in WTC 1, while one engine took out 10 core columns in WTC 2 • Global analyses did not use DOE, but simply eliminated less severe (-1) and base (0) cases without justification

23. The computer tests – fire and temperaturesNCSTAR 1-5F, NCSTAR 1-5G • Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) • Heat Release Rates (HRRs) input from workstation burn tests • All office furnishing rubblized • Aircraft was considered combustible • Windows eliminated after set time point • Used to suggest high gas temperatures throughout building • Fire Structure Interface (FSI) • Set steel thermal conductivity to zero • Used to suggest high steel temperatures

24. The computer tests – global responseNCSTAR 1-6D, NCSTAR 1-6E • “locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated” • “pull-in forces were applied in some locations where the full floor analyses did not predict the development of such behavior” • “sagging of floors in such a wide range over fire floors was not predicted by the full floor model analyses” • With the thermally equivalent 2.2 in. of fireproofing intact on the south trusses, these trusses did not heat appreciably, and the floors did not sag. (NCSTAR 1-6, p 215) • “Higher temperatures resulted in more outward bowing of columns, and thus larger pull-in forces were required to overcome this outward bowing” • NIST/SGH simply applied fictitious pull-in forces “based on observations from the photographs and videos”

25. NIST’s final, computer-based story 1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns” 2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%) 3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged 4. High temperatures “weakened” columns and floors 5. Some floors began to sag 6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle 7. Instability spread around entire building “Global collapse ensued”

26. 1. How many columns were severed? • NIST now admits only a small percentage of columns were severed • 14% in WTC1 • 15% in WTC2 • Original design claims said one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction”, so we know the buildings could withstand more than 25% column loss without a problem. Quote from Engineering News-Record, 1964

27. 2. How much load was re-distributed? • NIST says loads on some columns were decreased (as much as 20%) and other loads were increased (up to 25%). What about failure zone? • Original design claims were that, “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs”, these columns should have supported the extra load and much, much more Quote from Engineering News-Record, 1964 • So far, no reason to even suspect collapse

28. 3. Fireproofing widely dislodged? “The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” -- NIST

29. 3. NIST must have done extensive testing to prove fireproofing was widely dislodged! • No, they performed a last minute shotgun test on non-representative samples in a plywood box • No evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into thousands of shotgun blasts • Shotgun test actually proved fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged because the energy was simply not available

30. How much fuel was available? • Buildings managed to 20 Kg/m2 fire load (i.e. office furnishings) • How much jet fuel was available to feed the fires? • Planes impacted with 10,000 gallons total, by all accounts • FEMA says 1/3 exploded in fireball, 1/3 flowed away and 1/3 remained to feed the fires • What did NIST say about how much remained to feed the fires? • NCSTAR 1-5F says 3,500 gallons, the same as FEMA predicted* • NCSTAR 1 suggests 7,000 gallons in summary of report • NCSTAR 1 says 10,000 gallons in other sections • Meaning the fireballs we saw did not consume any jet fuel * “No evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate”, NCSTAR 1-5F, pg 56

31. 4. How hot could the steel have become? • NIST now says that the gas temperatures in the WTC towers were as high as 1000 °C. • But gas temperatures are not steel temperatures. • The highest steel temperatures referenced in the (current) NIST report are 760 °C. • But physical testing indicates steel temperatures of 250 °C. • Thermodynamic calculations, based on amount of available fuel, give a maximum steel temperature of about 300 °C.

32. Temperatures in perspective (°C) 750 degree difference 75 degree difference

33. How long did fires last in failure zones? • NIST says… “The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.” (NCSTAR 1-6, section 9.4.3 and section 10.9.4) Only about 45 min!

34. 5. Some floors began to sag? • Only very slight sagging is visible in NIST photos from UL tests (and no collapse) • After 45 minutes in high temp furnace, all four test models sagged only about 3 inches in the middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at all • NIST’s computer turned this into dramatic 42 inch sagging, with joists bending downward severely

35. 6. How did the sagging floors pull exterior columns inward causing them to buckle? • Over 30 columns would have to be pulled in, resulting in complete failure, in order to begin challenging design claim. • What new force did a few inches of floor deck sagging apply to those 30+ columns? • NIST did not perform tests to prove inward buckling via sagging floors. This pivotal argument is supported only by a highly manipulated, and ultimately absurd, computer model. NIST’s “enhanced” photo suggesting bowing just before failure.

36. Manipulated and disconnectedNCSTAR 1-6, p115 • “An exterior wall section (9 columns wide and 9 floors high) was found to bow inward when floor connections applied an inward force.” (computer result for one case out of nine) • NIST’s computer model had to… • double the height of the inward pull zone • strip of ALL the fireproofing • exaggerate temperatures (1300 F) • then apply these temps for 90 minutes to produce even a hint of inward bowing from fire. • But first- the floors had to be disconnected. Where does the inward pull come from !?!

37. 7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter? • Buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. How fast would instability have to spread first? How much of the ~10 sec fall time could be spared? • Perimeter of building was 832 feet. If complete in 0.5 seconds, speed of “instability spread” would have been >1100 mph (Mach 1.5) • “A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable warning signs, namely, large deformations.” Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press

38. NIST’s collapse initiation sequence: What would objective scientists have found? 1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact 2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity 3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged 4. Steel could not have softened/weakened at the temps found 5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed minimal sagging of floors 6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward 7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free-fall

39. NIST’s computer story is Bush Science • The parameters NIST originally considered “realistic” were discarded because computer results “did not compare to observed events.” • “More severe” parameters were substituted until animations gave the desired result • Public has no access to NIST’s computer model or to the thousands of photographs and video segments supposedly used

40. “Global collapse ensued?” • What about resistance of floors below? If these floors each caused hesitation of only half a second, an extra 40 seconds would be needed. • What about the observed “squibs”? (No more pancaking!) • What about the molten metal observed pouring from the building and the pools of molten metal in the rubble of both Towers and WTC 7? • What about the intergranular melting and sulfidation found on the steel by earlier investigations?

41. The NIST WTC report is false because… • NIST did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed, and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step • NIST reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing • NIST omitted or distorted many important facts • Original design claims and John Skilling’s analysis • Resistance from building structure below • WTC 1 antenna moving first • Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks • Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions • Sulfidation of the steel

42. NIST’s FAQ responses – Aug 2006 • Why didn’t NIST consider demolition? • No answer, but in retrospect they say demolitions start from the bottom • Where did the “squibs” come from? • Compressed air, but not pancaking • Did UL test the steel for fire resistance? • Not for six hours • Where does the molten metal come from? • This is irrelevant, but it may have been Aluminum from the plane or it may have been caused by the duration of the fires in the pile • Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? • No

43. What other blind eyes did NIST turn? • Fireproofing upgrades in 1999, 2000 NCSTAR 1-6, p 20

44. Request for Correction, April 2007 • Coordinated by attorney James Gourley • Requestors Doyle, Gage, Jones, Legge, McIlvaine, Ryan • Response received from NIST in September 2007 • Appeal sent back to NIST in October 2007 • All found at www.Journal0f911Studies.com

45. WTC 7 was a 47 story building not hit by a planeIt fell in 6.5 seconds

46. NIST preliminary remarks on WTC 7April – June 2005 • Suggests that the failure of one column might have led to the near free-fall collapse • Photographic evidence shows little damage and a few fires but no photos of south face • If extensive damage existed, it would have been asymmetrically limited to south face

47. What was the debris pattern? • Other buildings were hit by debris, but no fires resulted, and none of them collapsed • The buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 suffered little or no damage until WTC 7 fell • What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer massive damage to the foundation, and extensive fires, as a result of the debris from the towers? ?

48. Steel from WTC 7

49. Conclusion • The current NIST WTC report is the last in a string of false official explanations for the destruction of the World Trade Center • NIST and other investigators intentionally avoided demolition as an explanation, and ignored the substantial evidence in support of that hypothesis • Our government has asked us to accept obvious falsehood as the standard for scientific truth • Knowing the fire-induced “collapse” hypothesis is false, we must put an end to the 9/11 Wars, and reclaim our country