As part of our season marking the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 “terrorist attacks”, OffG is going to be highlighting some of the research papers and scientific studies done over the years.
These studies have been key in pointing out logical flaws and impossible physics used to support the official narrative.
Our first paper is “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”, which was first published in 2008.
Authored by five key names in the 9/11 truth movement, Steve Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley, this paper collates all the statements from both FEMA and NIST that actually agree with the so-called “conspiracy theorists”, and highlights the holes in the official story. Holes that the government experts admit exist.
We’ll post the 14 points summarised, and then embed the whole paper below.
*
1. WTC 7’s collapse is unresolved
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
FEMA, World Trade Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and recommendations, Report FEMA 403, May 2002.
2. WTC 1&2 withstood the jet impact, as they were designed to
The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…”
FEMA, World Trade Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and recommendations, Report FEMA 403, May 2002.
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”
“Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers”, NIST, September 2005.
3. “Pancake Theory” Not Supported by the evidence
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”
NIST federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, FAQ, August 30, 2006. [Online]
4. Load-bearing structures were nowhere near their limits
The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes […] The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact….the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”
“The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007
5. Buildings collapsed “essentially in free-fall”
Q: “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”
A: …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”
NIST federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, FAQ, August 30, 2006. [Online]
6. Trusses passed fire endurance tests
“NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] 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” “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers”, NIST, September 2005.
7. Fires burnt for a “short duration”
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” […] “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.“Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers”, NIST, September 2005.
8. fires were not hot enough to melt steel
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” NIST federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, FAQ, August 30, 2006. [Online].
9. Most of the WTC steel evidence was destroyed
“NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered. […] The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”
Federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster: Steel inventory and identification, NIST, September 2005.
10. Unexplained unusually bright flames and glowing liquid present
An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”
“Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers”, NIST, September 2005.
“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 am, a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.NIST federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, FAQ, August 30, 2006. [Online]
11. Steel shows evidence of very high temperatures and sulfidation
Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure […] Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)…The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation […] The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”
FEMA, World Trade Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and recommendations, Report FEMA 403, May 2002.
12. NIST tweaked their computer models until they obtained the results they wanted
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted…”
“Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers”, NIST, September 2005.
13. No explanation for the total collapse of the buildings
This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”
CS Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007
14. NIST never looked for explosive residue
Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite residues?A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
NIST federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, FAQ, August 30, 2006. [Online]
*
There you have it, the “official narrative” condemned with words from the authors’ own hands.
Government experts admit that the twin towers were designed to withstand impacts from jets, and did so, and that the weight-bearing structures of WTC 1&2 were loaded to, at most 50% of their capacity before the impacts of the planes.
They admit that the fires burnt for only 15 minutes and that the trusses passed fire endurance tests eight times longer than that. They admit these fires were never hot enough to melt steel, and yet they admit there were unusually bright flames, molten metal and evidence of incredibly high temperatures and sulfidation of the steel.
They admit the evidence does not support the initial “pancake theory” of collapse and that they have no full explanation of the complete collapse of the twin towers, which they admit happened at near-freefall speed. They even admit that their explanation of WTC7’s collapse “has only a low probability of occurrence”.
They admit that despite this lack of explanation, and witness testimony of molten steel and explosions, they never tested the WTC steel for explosive residue.
And they admit the government removed and destroyed the vast majority of the steel evidence.
Does anything else really need to be said?
