The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you obviously didn't understand why I claimed "excellent post" ... reading comprehension isn't your strong suit Bobby ...

    and still zero lack of evidence of controlled demolition as usual ... show me the physical evidence Bob ... you wanna run with nanotubes? ...



    off topic Bobby ... if you want to discuss scumbag lawyers, start another thread ... but this has nothing to do with 9/11 ... please don't derail ...
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My reading comprehension is just fine, YOU QUOTED what YOU claimed was an excellent post and the quote included the point about controlled demolition. Perhaps it's you who has writing comprehension and perhaps perception issues.

    I can't show anyone anything who refuses to acknowledge the mountains of evidence POSTED in this thread and several others. I don't need to "run" with anything, the massive amount of evidence speaks for itself. I didn't invent it. Nanotubes is just one of thousands of anomalies that requires further investigation, it's far from the only piece of evidence that the 3 towers were controlled demolitions. It may not even be evidence that the 3 towers were controlled demolitions but it does require further investigation, not outright dismissal as you insinuate. Even if you want to dismiss some of the evidence, the sum total of all the other evidence equals controlled demolition. Furthermore, the official claim is that the 3 towers were totally destroyed by planes, damage and fire in the case of the twin towers and simply fire in the case of WTC7. Yet there is no evidence or legitimate scientific proof that it's true. The burden of proof is on the US government and that has never happened. Given that no steel frame high rise has ever globally collapsed due to any of these events either prior to or after 9/11, yet such buildings have been fully destroyed via controlled demolition, common sense alone dictates that controlled demolition is the most likely cause and any other cause the least likely cause. And given that this happened not to just one building but 3 on the same day, the laws of probability alone dictate that any other cause other than controlled demolition is nearly infinitely impossible.

    Correct, my response was directed at your off topic response. So we're both guilty.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2020
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because I commented excellent post means that I agree with any or all of the content ... It was more commentary in that I like his style of writing and use of unique pop references ... I enjoy every laugh I can get and I wasn't laughing at him, I was laughing with him ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was nothing amusing about what he posted nor was he insinuating anything he wrote was meant for amusement purposes. Furthermore, nothing about this pandemic or 9/11 is amusing except to someone who has some major issues. Talk about reading comprehension, you are profoundly lost.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you speak for him? ... quite presumptuous no? ...
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Unlike you I fully understand what the post conveys. And also unlike you I fully understand the seriousness of the pandemic and 9/11. Your posts are incredibly insensitive to both issues. In fact you announced long ago you're only here to pursue your "hobby".
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears to me that the same groups who brought us 911 have also brought us the corona virus disaster. I guess they are brokers of disaster. ;)
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know about the same groups but I wouldn't be too shocked if the virus was a biological weapon. The major drawback to unleashing such a weapon would be that it also puts the perpetrators and their loved ones in danger.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Release of Landmark Report to Go Forward with Modified Plans Despite Coronavirus Pandemic

    Dear Friends,

    The Coronavirus pandemic is already having a huge impact on the work of AE911Truth.

    But despite the obstacles in front of us, the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on World Trade Center Building 7 will be released next week.

    The Coronavirus has meant that presentations, meetings with Congress, and the national conference where we planned to promote this report have all been cancelled or postponed.

    But we can’t let the fight to disseminate this report stop now. All plans that do not involve large gatherings will go forward. And we are pivoting to a more online strategy for promoting the report.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/653...h-modified-plans-despite-coronavirus-pandemic
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US government had no qualms about using depleted uranium warheads in Iraq, thereby imperiling its own troops from the dust from those rounds.

    The US government had no qualms about spraying Agent Orange all over Vietnam imperiling its troops there.

    The people who make these decisions place no value on human life.

    The perpetrators of 911 had no problems at all detonating nuclear devices in NYC, poisoning all the first responders and more with nuclear effects. Those perps happily kill humans.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I understand these criminals don't value human life. However, they might be able to protect themselves from harm for any of the above but they personally can't escape a pandemic, so they would be endangering their own lives in the process.
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps they see it as a calculated risk? Perhaps they are aware of things (drugs) that could immunize or otherwise protect themselves?
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anything is possible, perhaps they already developed the vaccine and were immunized prior to unleashing the virus, who knows? I remember once reading about a conspiracy theory about how the Illuminati (I think) wanted to wipe out 2/3 of the world's population because there are way too many people on the planet using up its resources. All speculative. In any case, this is off topic. I will be posting a link to Hulsey's final report when it's released.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTC 7 Not Destroyed by Fire, Concludes Final University of Alaska Fairbanks Report

    The destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to the much-anticipated final report issued today by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

    The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.

    “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

    skipping ...

    AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days. “The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse,” said Gage.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/656...s-final-university-of-alaska-fairbanks-report

    Final Report

    I will post comments once I have a chance to read the entire report.
     
    ProVox and Eleuthera like this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please see link below for the PDF file containing public comments. Mine is included and from a quick scan it looks as though the typo I found in the draft report was corrected in the final report.

    Public Comments
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why are these comments all anonymous? ...
     
  17. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    For the same reason your comments are anonymous .... or will you be posting your real name and address anytime soon? What a stupid question!
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This one is mine so I know the comments are genuine:

    It is critically important that it be presented in meticulous scientific detail to the rest of the world. Please note that Page 73 of the PDF contains a typo: Whereas NIST asserted that the differential westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 was 5.5 inches and later revised its calculation to 6.25 inches, we found that the westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66). I believe that should be Figure 2.65 as there is no Figure 2.66 in the draft report.

    What actually happened is Figure 2.66 did not appear in the Draft Report but was included in the Final Report.

    But I'm still as anonymous as you if that's your biggest concern. Some of the comments obviously come from Mick West and/or his lapdogs.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a comment worth posting:

    I have a masters in architectural engineering from MIT. I'm unwilling to reveal my identity out of fear of losing my job (sorry, I have a family to feed). It is my belief that nearly all engineers are aware that WTC7 was brought down using some form of controlled demolition technology. The vast majority of us simply keep quiet out of fear of repercussions. I hold this belief for two reasons: 1. All of my colleagues with whom I have an especially close relationship have confided in me their understanding that WTC7 was demolished using some form of controlled demolition technology. 2. Only a very rudimentary understanding of physics or building engineering is required to see that WTC7 was demolished using some form of controlled demolition technology. I would like to sincerely thank AE911Truth and Prof. Hulsey & his team for their courage and hard work. Despite my unwillingness to reveal my identity, I will continue to make anonymous annual monetary contributions. Thank you

    It's what I've been saying for years. No one needs to be a rocket scientist to see what's so obvious. It occurred to me that WTC7 was a controlled demolition the first time I saw the video, well before I ever heard of Dr. Leroy Hulsey or AE911Truth.


    From an article posted on 9/9/19:

    A solid majority of Americans who watch the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on video don’t buy the government’s story that fires brought it down, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

    After viewing video footage of the controversial building collapse from four different angles, 52% of Americans who participated in the survey are either sure or suspect it was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to 21% who are sure or suspect it was caused by ordinary fires. A sizable 27% say they don’t know.

    By a similar margin, 51% who see the collapse say they are more inclined to believe the critics who argue that only the use of explosives in a controlled demolition can account for Building 7’s collapse, versus 20% who say they are more inclined to believe the government’s conclusion that fires caused the collapse. (To define “critics,” the survey references a group of 3,000 architects and engineers who have disputed the government’s report as well as researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who performed computer modeling of Building 7’s collapse and also concluded that fires could not have caused the collapse).

    https://www.ae911truth.org/yougov

     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok I've read the Final Report in its entirety. So first a disclaimer. I do not have the proper background nor am I qualified to properly critique Hulsey's Final Report, it is well above my pay grade. I understand Richard Gage and Roland Angle will hold a live virtual presentation today at 4:00 PM ET to outline the findings contained in the final report. These gentlemen are fully qualified though. That does not mean that I didn't understand a good deal of the report. Based on my layman opinion I found it quite thorough and I also believe it did address a good deal of the peer reviewers' comments, if not all of them (but please don't take my word for that since I only reviewed a sampling of these). So I'm just going to post the following from the report:

    4.7 Summary and Conclusion

    In summary, several findings were made from the analyses above:

    1. Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.

    2. The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore, the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column 79 would trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event.

    3. Even if we assume the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 could lead to the failure of the next row of core columns, the hypothetical failure of Columns 76 to 81 would overload the exterior columns around the southeast corner of the building, rather than overloading the next row of core columns to the west, which would result in the building tipping to the southeast and not in a straight-down collapse.

    4. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.

    It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

    Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.


    So based on the underlined, Hulsey found several scenarios that could have produced the observed global failure of WTC7 (ALL include the near simultaneous removal of all the columns at any floor from 16 on down) and NO scenario other than that even though many other types of simulations were attempted, including and especially some of NIST's claims.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
    ProVox likes this.
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For those who want to review the video presentation:

     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So based on peer reviewed scientific research and many other factors, several things are clear.

    1. The NIST investigation, subsequent findings and conclusions were fraudulent. This is indisputable given the deliberate omission of structural components and fudging and invention of data to try to reach a predetermined conclusion.

    2. The NIST investigation, subsequent findings and conclusions were meant to cover up the fact that at least WTC7 was a planned controlled demolition. This is especially true since any effort to conduct an investigation on the most likely cause of the demise of WTC7 was avoided under false pretext in favor of the least likely cause.

    3. The controlled demolition of WTC7 was planned several weeks or months prior to 9/11/01 since obviously it is impossible to plan and rig a 47 story steel frame tower for controlled demolition while it's on fire in less than one day.

    4. The planning and rigging of WTC7 for controlled demolition could not possibly have been accomplished by the same group officially accused of planning 9/11 for a multitude of reasons, especially given the type of tenants that occupied WTC7 (several US government entities, including Secret Service and CIA).

    5. Given all the above and many other factors including other evidence and eyewitness claims, these strongly suggest that with regard to the twin towers, the same issues (#1 and #2 above) apply to NIST and that the twin towers were also controlled demolitions. Further investigation is required to confirm that.

    6. Also given all the above and much, much more, it is critically important that a legitimate investigation into all aspects of the 9/11 crime be conducted by a completely unbiased entity. The conclusions reached by Hulsey's team completely destroy the official narrative in its entirety since no mention of any possibility (in fact plain denial) and no effort has ever been officially made to investigate for controlled demolition and potential perpetrators.

    According to AE911Truth a "request for corrections" will be demanded based on the Hulsey team's research, findings and conclusions which will challenge NIST to correct their "flaws". Unfortunately for NIST, that will not be possible absent a 100% restart in their "investigation" which will also require a new team of experts since the old one has already been exposed as either grossly incompetent or criminally fraudulent or both.
     
    Eleuthera and ProVox like this.
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you have any links to who has peer reviewed this report? ... and what are the many other factors? ...
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interview with Roland Angle and Leroy Hulsey. Unfortunately due to the pandemic all schools are currently either closed or operating under multiple restrictions. If and when things go back to what can be characterized as reasonably normal circumstances, as discussed, the NIST report and the Hulsey report can be used by engineering students and other academics for a study on forensic engineering.

     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No names of any public commenters have been published, not even mine. The report itself lists that it was peer reviewed by Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D, Chartered Consulting Engineer Analytical Service Company and Robert Korol, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering McMaster University.

    They are listed in detail in this thread beginning with post #1 and many others in this section of the forum.
     

Share This Page