New WTC report (bolsters the case more for LIHOPers than MIHOPers)

[cynatnite]

I snipped a few parts from one of the summaries concerning what caused the fall of the towers. At the web site there is a lot of infomation. The reports which are .pdf files also include pictures and diagrams.

Before anyone just shoves it aside because of the '.gov' in the URL address it would be nice if those who seek facts take the time to go through the abundance of information.

I have been reading it off and on. I'm about halfway through and I've got to say it is thorough and explains a great deal. It answers many questions for me.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largelydetermined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

[LARED]

1. Please explain

How does the new NIST report bolster the case for LIHOP vs MIHOP?

[cynatnite]

2. I think it does

I've read through quite a bit of it so far, and while I'm only a layperson it seems like the case for MIHOP was weakened. I thought the case for MIHOP was weak anyway, but I'm an LIHOPer. I find that to be far more convincing.

[spooked911]

3. MIHOP does not refer to the twin towers being blown up by demolition,

I think it refers more to controlling the hijackers, the hijackings and movements of the planes.

That being said, it doesn't sound like there is anything new here-- this is the same basic idea they've had for a while, and their model is not infeasible but you wish they would at least address the idea that bombs were used.

However, the big change is now they were saying the core was severely damaged in the south tower-- by the plane that almost went all the way through. They are saying the plane in the south tower damaged the core more than the plane that hit the north tower. This really defies common sense, and I think they have changed their model simply to give a reason why the south tower collapsed first.

And even if you accept the idea that the floors collapsed and strained the core, which I think is feasible, it is not at all clear how this will initiate the rapid and volcanic progressive collapse that ensued and brought down the buildings. The fact is, below where the floors were hit, the core was completely intact and strong and I don't understand why it didn't hold up better.

[cynatnite]

4. The way I've read it so far

Is that there was considerable core damage and I attibute to them coming down from one of many factors.

Passenger planes haven't been used in this way before so I would imagine there were unexpected results.

[spooked911]

6. They don't know how much core damage there was-- all they can do is guess

and they simply will NOT address the idea that explosives were used-- so they have every incentive to inflate how much damage there was to the core.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[philb]

8. I had read the other report and don't find much new here; still not

convinced though it is a possibility. I think the evidence says there wasn't any prolonged hot fires in WTC2.
And all of the witnesses and reports of explosions in the buildings aren't explained.
and the pictures seem to pretty clearly indicate massive explosions and cutter type explosions.
And the huge amount of pulverized materials into fine dust don't match pancake effect;
nor does the report explain the melted steel in the basement that was hot for 2 months. Gas fires simply could not have done that; no possibility.

So though the report makes for interesting reading and the explanations seem plausible. The report doesn't explain the evidence at the site.
And there was also a very obvious cover-up.

so more explanations needed.

[philb]

9. Either way the case for LIHOP is well documented; and no signif. differenc

http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html
http://www.flcv.com/offco175.html

[Rob Conn]

7. No LIHOP/MIHOP

Please read my latest post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x44775

We are really trying not to divide this community into two competing camps. The two camps that are important are those who accept the official story, and those who do not. Please refrain from using these designations, unless you plan to define them very well, and suggest what purpose they serve. Thanks. - R.C.

[cynatnite]

11. Good advice I will take

That was never my intention. I thought maybe I was being close-minded about MIHOP and even though it took a while, I finally sat down and started looking into it.

I know what I think about it and probably won't change my mind unless something comes along that I have to reconsider. I don't expect others to change their mind based on this report. I did wonder if some were dismissing it out of hand, though.

I will be more careful in the future.

[Rob Conn]

12. "Won't change my mind"

You already have changed your mind. Don't stop now. You couldn't possibly be an expert, so I think an open mind will suit you well at this point. Don't expect not to change your mind. It will prevent your growth. Something bigger than you is happening here, and only a part of you will be able to access the significance. Prepare to reconsider.

Keep in mind that it is possible to create logical scenarios that have nothing to do with reality. Stories pervade that fall far from the source. We must strive to see what is most reasonable amidst the many plausable fantasies. And thankfully this isn't rocket science. We ARE able to see the truth. It's like an old familiar friend.

Ask a question, I'll change your mind. Now is the time. - R.C.

[philb]

15. Do you think this could have been caused by "pancake effect" ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

Its pretty obvious there is some type of huge explosive force when the towers started to explode and disintegrate- I don't think you could call that a collapse.

Also what is NIST suggesting melted the huge steel beams that stayed hot for 2 months? Obviously not gasoline.

[philb]

10. Does anyone know the URL for the picture of people walking in WTC2

behind the hole the plane went through not long after the crash?
It was taken by someone in a building across from WTC2. I've seen it several times but don't have a record of it.

[undeterred]

13. This is the only picture I have seen

You can clearly see a woman standing on the right, I think there might be someone lying on the floor on the left. Its horrifying. There are other versions of the picture where less has been cropped but these are the only people in the shot.

[philb]

14. Thanks! Thats the one I had in mind. What is the URL??

Doesn't seem that there was a very hot fire going on where the plane entered does it?

[undeterred]

16. Both pictures are on this page

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1hole1.html

The person in the picture may have been trying to get some air, get away from the heat of the fire, or getting ready to jump. Not much fire where she is though, that's for sure.

Caption says: In this photograph of the North Tower impact hole, several people can be seen standing in the hole, looking out.

I only see one person standing.

[spooked911]

17. There is another shot of this hole that has a guy also standing on

the left hand side of the hole.

[spooked911]

18. Three Hundred and Forty Three NYFD firefighters died in the collapses

How likely is it that, if the collapses were predictable, THAT THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE FIREFIGHTERS would have no idea that the towers were going to collapse?

In other words, how is it that SO MANY firefighters were taken by surprise by the collapse-- if the collapses of these buildings were expected????

(Granted many of these men may have been bravely doing their jobs regardless of the risk-- but would the NYFD really risk THAT MANY MEN????)