The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is about exposing NIST with regard to 9/11.

    NIST's column 79 probable collapse initiation theory holds that, for the first time in history, thermal expansion due to normal office fires is responsible for initiating the global collapse of WTC7 in seconds. Shyam Sunder said that (even though it's the first time ever recorded in human history), the OBVIOUS stares you in the face. And he said that about 6 years after he said NIST couldn't get a handle on building 7.

    The first discussion is about those "missing" components and false data central to NIST's column 79 probable collapse initiation theory. The following videos and articles explain in detail how those "missing" components, when included, per original Frankel drawings, render NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory impossible. Please note that NIST was not tasked with concocting theories, they were tasked with the investigation. But that's a subject for a different discussion.

    Each of these videos run between 4 - 7+ minutes. Try to watch them in the order listed.

    Shear Ignorance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQI6gOw9y-c
    NIST and WTC7 The Expanding Lie - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALvTbskML0E
    Tangled Webs NIST and WTC7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QufHsr7MY_s
    NIST and WTC7 maladmiNISTration - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRjm6JeHDU
    WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM

    A technical article called MaladmiNISTration - http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/822-maladministration.html

    A letter from Dr. William F. Pepper which includes a detailed technical discussion - http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
     
  2. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More false claims against the NIST claiming fraud. This tactic is really just to mask the fact that 9/11 truth cannot disprove the NIST's conclusions. Instead of trying to disprove the NIST, which they can't, 9/11 truth has to resort to attacking the credibility of the NIST, which it fails to do.

    The true aims of the NIST's report:

    The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
    •improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
    •improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
    •revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
    •improved public safety.

    Bob's first paragraph is just another argument from incredulity, therefore of no use. The second paragraph lies regarding the impossibility of the collapse scenario owing to the omissions, and the videos are just more of the same.

    The so-called technical article labelled Maladministration is just laughable, and Pepper's nothing more than a failed crank.

    This dead horse has bee beaten so badly that it is mutilated beyond recognition.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some highlights from the above article:

    We further noted that NIST said that the 5.5” expansion was the maximum possible expansion. This is because any additional heating would soften the beam, leading to sagging rather than any greater pushing. [I will get into ARUP's contradictory theory that column 79 failed as a result of sagging, as opposed to NIST's theory of thermal expansion at a later time]

    Thus NIST’s claim of an 11” beam seat and the maximum push of 5.5” were inextricably interwoven. Both had to be true for NIST's explanation to work. When NIST was notified last year about the seat width discrepancy, they issued an erratum document admitting this error in June 2012.

    ...

    However, in that same document they went on to say that they had also spotted another error, and added another paragraph to their erratum document. They claimed that a ‘typographical error’ had been made and that the 5.5" distance should have been 6.25". Apparently they had transposed two figures, said to be axial and lateral expansion figures, and this new erratum document simply reversed them.

    With the beam seat confirmed at 12” wide and the newly required sideways movement 6.25”, they nevertheless stood by their original theory.

    We suspect that the original error was caused by NIST carelessly confusing column 81 with column 79. Seen below is their admission that they commingled C81 and C79 modeling data.

    ...

    Yet another careless error by NIST was found. While discussing how we should raise this subject with NIST, a member of our team made another startling discovery which moved the entire debate into new territory. Upon close examination of the connection between Column 79 and the girder – a connection that NIST claimed failed – he spotted another steel element in the drawing that had not been previously mentioned. “Stiffener plates” were specified at the end of the girder and welded in place to both sides of the web and to the bottom flange.

    NIST’s failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST’s motives.

    ...

    On October 25, 2013, NIST replied to questions about the failure to include the stiffeners in many figures in the final WTC 7 report. They did acknowledge that they had consulted Frankel shop drawing #9114, but claimed:

    “The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.”


    Everyone needs to judge for themselves, "mistakes" or "deliberate". Either way it renders their column 79 collapse initiation theory impossible. So we're left with a Final Report on WTC7 that's complete trash and still no legitimate investigation. Multiple "mistakes" means gross incompetence (for a team of highly qualified engineers), "deliberate" means scientific fraud and criminal fraud due to the nature of their investigation.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skipping the irrelevant.

    The above are the goals of the NIST WTC "investigation", NIST's true aims are only known by those who were responsible for the "investigation" and the report(s), so the above is deceptively written, as is what's omitted from the above. This is what NIST was tasked with as published by NIST in an FAQ:

    What are the goals of NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center disaster?

    The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation will serve as the basis for:

    * improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
    * improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
    * revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
    * improved public safety.

    What are the main objectives of the investigation?

    The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:

    * why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
    * why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response);
    * the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and
    * which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.


    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.cfm
     
  5. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Utter Bullcrap.

    My quote was taken from the NIST's site. Look under 'goals of the report' and you will get it. No deception, as falsely claimed, just a fact. Truther fail yet again.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said NIST's published goals were its "true aims". How do you know that? Were you working at NIST at the time on that project? You left out NIST's primary objectives, which followed its stated goals in the FAQ, why is that? If you're going to make an unsupported (and false) claim about NIST's published goals that they were its "true aims", then NIST's primary objectives should also be its "true aims", no? If not, why not?

    So was mine, the exact same place you took them from. It says nothing about NIST's "true aims", you made that up.

    I did, I posted it, same as you. What is there that you believe I don't "get"? The "true aims"? That's not there, you invented that and posted it as if it was.

    The deception is yours, by claiming those were NIST's "true aims" and omitting NIST's primary objectives. That's a FACT, I didn't make that up. "Truther" has nothing to do with anything, it's YOU who posted a deceptive claim and I (Bob) who caught you on it. There's no one else involved in this discussion ... so far.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Semantic bullsh*t games unworthy of a response. 'True aims', 'goals' whatever. Rant on. :roll:

    You can't prove your accusations, and you know you can't prove your accusations, therefore you need to vent, I get it.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why did you respond then?

    They are not one and the same, conflating the two is deceptive. You know you did that deliberately to try to defend NIST.

    IMO NIST's true aims were to pretend they investigated the collapse of the 3 towers to support the preconceived OCT on a technical basis. So they published what sounded like a detailed technical report but it falls apart miserably upon closer inspection. NIST released some data that exposed their shenanigans only because they were compelled to by FOIA law. However, they did what they could to hide the rest of the data, likely because they knew it would just further expose their scam.

    So far it seems that's what you're doing, probably because you know you've been caught in your own BS attempt to deceive. Sorry to say you're not very good at it. Most of your posts are filled with childish name calling and other insults (see above "rant"). That tactic doesn't work very well with adults who know better.

    I don't need to prove anything, the facts speak for themselves. Anyone can judge for themselves based on the facts, once they're aware of the facts.

    As for you, you tried to redefine NIST's goals as "true aims" and posted it as if that's what NIST posted and excluded NIST's stated primary objectives, which NIST did not make a legitimate attempt to fulfill.

    As for NIST, they admitted to some of their "errors" (as they called them) only after they were exposed. So they've been accused and owned up to just some of their "errors", the rest were ignored and they admitted they stood by their theory despite the fact that their theory is an impossibility when the errors are corrected. This is scientific fraud no matter how much you try to defend NIST.

    Not exactly, I need to expose NIST's fraud because many have no idea to what extent NIST has scammed us with their 9/11 "investigation". That's why I started this thread. The first discussion I started exposes only some of the fraud, there is quite a bit more which I will post in parts after this discussion is exhausted. Educating people about 9/11 is extremely important. I've spent the last 12 years educating myself so I can pass on what I know.

    I believe you've spent the last number of years defending the OCT and only defending the OCT in every 9/11 discussion, am I correct?
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To move on with this segment of the discussion, the above is a detailed account of how and why NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory is impossible when the correct data and structural components are applied. I have not come across any technical paper/discussion that shows any of the above is in error.

    Dr. William Pepper's letter contains the following:

    After the discovery of these omissions, the group of engineers who discovered them pressed for nearly two years to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. They were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official (not a professional engineer) finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly (from an engineering standpoint) said they were not necessary to consider.

    So NIST acknowledged/admitted omitting critical structural components, claimed through a public relations official that they were "not necessary to consider" but never provided any detailed technical analysis explaining why they weren't necessary.

    So if there exists any technical paper/analysis that can show that anything in the above videos/papers is incorrect or that supports NIST's claim that these inclusions/corrections are unnecessary to consider, please post it here so readers can examine it for themselves. Anyone?
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So quiet in this thread, no takers so far. I'll give it a bit more time before I move on to the next technical discussion exposing NIST's blatant fraud. Unless and until someone can successfully show the above, the videos stand as a technical expose that NIST deliberately omitted/manipulated data to try to support their preconceived theory that fire alone (via thermal expansion which caused the failure of column 79) was responsible for the global destruction of WTC7.

    For additional support of this technical discussion, I'm re-posting an interview with Tony Szamboti, who describes ARUP's theory. To refresh, ARUP arrived at its theory using structural components that NIST deliberately omitted and changed the theoretical initiating cause of the WTC7 collapse as a result. By doing that, ARUP adds proof that NIST omitted these components and shows that NIST's theory is not valid. So they are another professional engineering entity that disagree with NIST's theory. Note that ARUP's theory is also unproven and faulty, but that's a different discussion. This thread is about NIST, not ARUP.

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/114219

    The following is a transcript of the interview complete with diagrams:

    http://themindrenewed.com/transcripts/884-int-067t

    Note the discussion for the above can be found in this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/456693-tony-szamboti-discusses-his-wtc7-discovery.html
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first discussion shows in no uncertain terms and in full detail how and why when the correct data is applied to NIST's WTC7 probable collapse initiation (NIST's own words) theory (the failure of column 79 due to thermal expansion), the theory becomes impossible. I have asked for any member to provide any technical paper that supports or contradicts anything presented in this discussion but so far, nothing other than personal opinion from the usual contrarian using the usual choice words.

    What was not included in the discussion is that the fires were actually out more than one hour prior to the collapse at the site in question. So even if NIST's theory had some merit, the collapse should have taken place more than an hour earlier than it did. So once again, NIST had to manufacture data, this time about the temperatures required for its thermal expansion theory to work.

    The following is taken from a 5 part series written by Chris Sarns, it's called Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports - Magical Thermal Expansion.

    Some excerpts (using NIST's WTC7 Report) ...

    NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation..

    NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS).

    ...

    To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.

    NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

    ...

    NIST assumes that it took an hour and a half for the fires, started by burning debris from WTC 1, - 350 feet away - to develop into a 2MW (megawatt) fire.

    NIST applied the arbitrarily increased temperature for 4 hours of heating, starting at noon.

    ...

    In their scenario, the damage and the collapse would have occurred at 4:00 p.m.


    http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...xposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2-of-5.html
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,201
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Any time I want a good laugh alz I gotta do is stop by poser central singing the agency tune.


    [​IMG]

    9 out of 10 posers agree, that full disclosure of exactly how those buildings failed so building engineers in the future do not make the same mistake endangers public safety.

    I'm glad future engineers will now be able to make the same mistakes [cough] to protect us.




     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well anyway, some more tidbits in case some readers would rather a summary than click on the link provided.

    NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 5.392 inches at 600o C.

    NIST stated that the floor beams in the northeast section of Floor 13 did not exceed 600o C.

    Without loss of length due to sagging, at 600o C, the floor beams would have expanded 5.517 inches which is why they said that the seat was only 11 inches wide in the final report. But NIST did not take sag into consideration which would have shortened the beams by 1/8 inch to 5.392 inches at 600o C which is not enough to cause failure even if the seat were only 11 inches wide.

    In admitting that the seat was 12 inches wide, NIST has admitted that thermal expansion could not have caused the girder to fail and therefore their hypothesis fails.

    Note that the maximum expansion is 5.728 inches at 654o C because loss due to sagging exceeds elongation due to thermal expansion after that.

    As shown in the graph, structural steel sags as temperature rises, decreasing its length and negating the thermal expansion that NIST blames for the collapse of WTC 7

    NIST ignored its own finding:

    "Temperatures were uniform (within 1°C) across the bottom flange and web, but the top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees because the slab acted as a heat sink." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 391 [pdf p. 53]

    Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.

    NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012, pursuant to a FOIA request. They can be downloaded here (use the link):

    9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.

    NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle.

    The flange stiffeners are on the Frankel drawings, but not on the NIST drawings in the final report.


    So again, this is open for discussion. I'm not an expert on this but I can read English very well, especially things like "NIST admits". And common sense says that when they admit to "mistakes", some of them characterized as "game changers" but won't bother to go back and fix the mistakes and re-investigate and refuse to release additional data based on intellectually insulting pretext, they are committing fraud, plain and simple.
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I cannot believe how f**king stupid that post was, and a groupie gave you as like!. What did it have to do with my point? Nothing.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're probably right. Your points from what I gather from your posts are:

    laughable, failed crank, dead horse, Utter Bullcrap, Truther fail, Semantic bullsh*t games unworthy of a response and f**king stupid.

    If I missed one or two, my apologies but I don't quite understand how any of your points have anything to do with the topic of this thread. To remind you, this thread is called "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory". It contains highly detailed facts explained in technical terms that exposes NIST's scam. The source of some of these facts are NIST's own admissions and come from NIST's official publications. I don't see anything in the list of your points that has anything to do with this thread.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll just respond to what I want to respond to and skip the usual silliness.

    That's correct, it's not my job to prove to anyone "intent to defraud", that's up to those who learn and know the facts to determine for themselves. For me it's not only intentional, it's scientific and criminal fraud, the facts speak for themselves. But certainly I'm not a court of law.

    As to this particular discussion, you are free to agree with or disagree with anything that's been posted of course. If you do disagree with anything that's been posted, it would help if you took a stab at explaining in detail what it is you disagree with and why, rather than just say so (using the usual choice words) and insult and name call. None of that helps explain anything. It's absolutely worthless and makes you sound immature.

    For example, you say:

    So please explain how and why NIST's quotes have been "misrepresented" (in coherent factual detail, if you possibly can) and are therefore dishonest. Please try to stick to the subject and leave out the name calling and insults. Thanks.
     
  17. DoctorSmith

    DoctorSmith Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I can understand that engineers have their very detailed account of how a building structure should react to certain forces.
    Just MY opinion on this is that its common sense, that is a single point of failure creating a "cascade failure" resulting in
    what we all saw WTC7 do, is absolutely out of the question, there are a million other failure modes that could have been seen.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and the NIST reports do not take any of that into consideration. A true natural collapse due to fire, planes or both, if it's even possible in a steel frame high rise, should look like large and small pieces of the building dropping off at various times and colliding with other portions of the building still standing. The nature of fire is that it burns in one area and moves on to the next area. NIST explains that in WTC7, fire burned for no more than about 20 minutes in one area, then moved on. At least that part makes sense.

    That's correct, WTC7 dropped mostly in one piece. The various videos show 3 walls, the roof line and a good portion of what's on the roof (the West Penthouse) falling together. A single point of failure could not possibly cause that.

    Based on the above described observation and calculations as to rate of fall and known failures similar to WTC7, there is only one logical possibility that makes the most sense, CD.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At this point in the discussion, it has been clearly shown in technical detail that NIST's "probable collapse initiation theory" (NIST's own words) has no basis in reality once the correct data is applied to the theory. It has also been shown, through NIST's own documents/letters, that NIST admits to critical "mistakes" and that NIST stands by its theory regardless of these "mistakes". The following is paper titled "Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study", written by John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) - Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Wayne H. Coste, PE, IEEE and Michael R. Smith, IEEE - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA. While it's mainly about the twin towers, there is a section of the paper called "Ethical Violations by NIST - A Case Study" and within that section is the following that applies equally to NIST and its Final Report on the collapse of WTC7:

    In any scientific investigation, use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim is an ethical violation whose severity can depend on the circumstances. For events that involve great loss of life and property, and that may represent a criminal act, or a systemic problem that may occur again unless dealt with honestly and correctly, omission and misrepresentation become synonymous with “criminal negligence.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines criminal negligence in this way [17]:

    Criminal Negligence: “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.”


    http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_030714.pdf
     
  20. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,358
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never understood why if the government wanted to fake a terrorist attack to take down the Twin Towers, why no just fake a bomb inside them. Why go with such a complicated plot involving airliners? The bomb idea would have made more sense since and first attack against the Twin Towers was with a bomb and faking a bomb using a bomb is much easier than faking an airliner strike using a bomb.
     

Share This Page