Problems with NiST NCSTAR-1 and companion reports

[Steve Gardner]

I am going to reproduce a post made by the excellent 'Valhall' over at the Above Top Secret (ATS) forum in a thread entitled, "9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence."

It elegantly demonstrates the problem a lot of people have with the official NIST report into the colapses of WTC1 and 2.

(Note: reformatted slightly for clarity)

I'm going to ask you to consider the following methodology and logic flow and then I ask you to answer the following question: Do you believe based on the following logic-flow that the U.S. taxpayers got what they paid for considering the NIST work/report cost over $16 million?

****************************

Assumption: The buildings started collapsing due to the combined damage of the plane impact and the fires.

Objective: Create a model that proves assumption to be correct.

Step 1: Model building.

Step 2: Model plane.

Step 3: Model three scenarios of plane damage - least damage, moderate damage, severe damage.

Step 4: Does each of the damage models create external building damage that matches photographic and video evidence of the day?

Answer: NONE OF THEM DO.

Then: Keep all of them.

Step 5: Least damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.

Result: No collapse initiation.

Step 6: Least damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.

Result: No collapse initiation.

Step 7: Reject least damage model and state in report "due to the fact it didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation."

Step 8: Moderate damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.

Result: No collapse initiation.

Step 9: Moderate damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.

Result: No collapse intiation

Step 10: Reject moderate damage model and state in report "due to the fact it didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation."

Step 11: Severe damage model added with fire temperatures based on tests of recovered steel.

Result: No collapse initiation.

Step 12: Severe damage model with cranked up temperatures with no data to support.

Result: Collapse initiation -WE HAVE A WINNER!

Step 13: Receive letter from families of 911 asking please publish lesser damage models because rejecting them based solely on the fact they didn't back your initial objective (see above) isn't ethical.

Step 14: CHANGE WORDING IN REPORT - remove statement concerning why least damage model and moderate damage model was rejected: "due to the fact they didn't match external damage on building and it didn't result in failure initiation." and replace with "due to the fact they didn't match external damage on building" - even though your own report states the severe damage model didn't match external damage on building either.

Step 15: Also throw in the nonsensical excuse that the least damage model and moderate damage model didn't "match the damage to the contents and interior of the building"...because we all know you know exactly what damage happened to the contents of the building - because you're official and you say so.

Just let me know if you're okay with paying $16 million for that.