NIST Finds Total Collapse Of Twin Towers From Gravity Alone Is Unexplainable

NIST Finds Global Collapse Of Twin Towers From Gravity Alone Is Unexplainable

Instead of trying to model the global collapse of two buildings through their greatest path of resistance at nearly free fall speeds via gravity alone, NIST simply surrendered the problem instead of relying on physics because it was too chaotic. The computer models were too complex apparently. In the field of structural engineering, nearly every problem has a solution except this one because of chaos.

However, physics will tell you that a item can not fall through other objects that provide resistance as if it were falling through air with zero resistance.

That is interesting in itself, but if computers can't do it, shouldn't physics be able to do it? So I would challenge NIST to skip the computer models and provide us with the evidence and the calculations displaying the global collapse. But critics will argue that NIST wasn't tasked with this goal so it remains an open ended question. I'm not an engineer by any means but a 10,000 page report and millions of dollars and the recommendation is "more fireproofing"? Perhaps if NIST modeled the global collapse it could have actually assisted engineers in the construction of high rise steel buildings.

In a recent letter that can be read here to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page government funded scientific study can provide the public with theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC tower to fall through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics. The problem with NIST is that they refuse to study the event through an explainable phenomenon that is commonly associated with terrorists attacks and satisfies the laws of physics. That excuse can be defined as explosive devices that assisted in the global collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Kevin Ryan stated it best regarding the fastest news from NIST,

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."
"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.

Tweaking is actually a good way

to model a collapse sequence. However, one must then examine the tweaks to see if they have any basis in reality. That's where the rub is. Even a tweaked computer model that is consistent with some data does not necessarily correspond with reality. One must have enough physical evidence to eliminate other possibilities.