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
    The latest update on Dr. Hulsey's research is that the results will be delayed until later this year. There are apparently many technical hurdles to overcome to come up with something his team can confidently publish for peer review.

    Excerpt:

    We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

    Read the entire letter ...

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92355/wtc7_hulseystatement_20180327.pdf
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following is a recent debate between Tony Szamboti and Mick West. For those who are not familiar with these 2 people, Tony Szamboti is a structural engineer and a member of AE911Truth. He has thoroughly studied the NIST reports on the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 and has authored and co-authored several peer reviewed technical papers on the subject. Mick West is a self professed "debunker" who spends much of his time criticizing anyone and everyone who disagrees with the official 9/11 narrative and as most of those who fit that criteria, rarely or never questions any of it and defends virtually every minute detail of the narrative. I have to apologize but I am not familiar with West's professional background but I imagine he does have a fairly reasonable understanding of engineering. I'll let the viewers judge for themselves the debate points. It is helpful if one has an engineering or physics background in order to understand the finer technical details presented but not necessary. It is a long video over 1 hour 44 minutes but some may find it interesting and educational.

     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mick banned me from this thread:

    https://www.metabunk.org/use-of-sca...or-investigating-9-11-collapses.t3828/page-11

    even though the OP uses a model that I put on Youtube years ago. I have communicated with Szamboti a few times.

    I find it very amusing that the Eiffel Tower is in the background of that video. Look at how the IRON had to be distributed in that structure. It is wrought iron not steel, but obviously there is a lot more toward the bottom than the top. But since the Eiffel Tower got much thinner at the top it did not have the wind resistance issues of the WTC.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I take it because you didn't buy the official 9/11 narrative and refuse to go along with his program.

    I understand the design of the flexibility of the towers accounted for high wind loads.
     
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Specs say it was supposed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone posted that wind speed hit 100 mph six times during the life of the towers. I have not verified that anywhere yet.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either way the towers obviously withstood high winds during their existence. I personally saw the tower sway from the top of the other tower back in the day. They also withstood the alleged impact of the planes as well.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following video is 1 hour 19 minutes long. The first half examines the immense issues/contradictions with NIST's theory on the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11 and the second half examines the equally immense issues/contradictions with NIST's theory on the "collapse" of the twin towers on 9/11.

    A Critique of the NIST WTC Building Failure Reports and the Progressive Collapse Theory




    It is nearly 17 years since the event of 9/11 and we have still never had a legitimate investigation into the most significant terrorist attack on American soil in history. The US government has done everything in its power to coverup the facts about 9/11 and in the process provided us with illegitimate "investigations" that served to help with the coverup and disseminate a false official narrative. This false narrative has been and continues to be used as pretext to carry out a permanent "war on terror" that has caused the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and otherwise destroyed the lives of perhaps more than one million innocent people, a massive genocide and war crimes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    awwww ... no way! ... not only are we listening to a civil engineer, but they toss in some directive bites at around the 8 minute mark ... major troofer fail but I will keep watching just to mine more material for the audience ... brilliant!!!
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    a "small amount of debris" hit the tower ... yeah, ok dude ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A typical response of a detailed scientific analysis of the NIST "investigations" that took years and many appropriate experts to examine, uncover, analyze and summarize:

    You can't make this stuff up. Then, not only has the poster not bothered to review the entirety of the facts and ramifications presented in the video, but the poster admits he's only reviewing it for the purpose of posting additional irrelevant childish drivel to try to contradict hundreds of experts for the cognitive dissonant ("the audience"):

    All you're doing is embarrassing yourself Shiner but please continue (as long as you don't troll and remain on topic).
     
  11. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what took the towers down.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The debris field was provided in a detailed diagram by FEMA and its effect on WTC7 was explained by NIST in their report. It's their respective claims, you had nothing to do with it and your opinion is irrelevant.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be the purview of a legitimate investigation. The purpose of this thread is not to determine what caused the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, it is strictly what the title says, to expose NIST's criminal scam in detail.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,616
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A controlled demolition.
     
  15. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh' that's a good one.
    You ever work on a demo crew, no you did not.
    Do you know the magnitude of the job on an empty 20 story building, no you do not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let’s follow the facts and logic.

    NOTE: The use of the term “fully destroyed” for the purpose below means leaving almost nothing of any significance standing.

    1. There are only 2 possibilities. Either all 3 towers fully destroyed themselves naturally as a result of the events of 9/11 or all were fully destroyed artificially by other means. There is no third possibility. It’s also safe to say the method of destruction (natural or artificial) that occurred for one tower very likely occurred for all 3 towers but that is not conclusive.

    2. It has been conclusively proven and settled that a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition can fully destroy any structure, including a steel framed high rise tower. In some cases in an accelerating straight down manner and even free fall or near free fall.

    3. It has also been shown that a poorly planned and/or poorly executed controlled demolition will fail to fully destroy a structure but may partially destroy it.

    4. The only known method of fully destroying a building just like a controlled demolition is of course a controlled demolition. And conversely there is no known method of fully destroying a building just like a controlled demolition other than a controlled demolition. Not by experiment and not by computer model.

    5. It has never been proven by experiment or computer model that a steel framed high rise tower can be fully destroyed by plane crash, damage and/or fire. Furthermore, it has never occurred that these events (including earthquake and missile attack) have ever fully destroyed any steel framed high rise tower either before or following 9/11.

    6. The Cardington and Broadgate office fire experiments have shown that a deliberately loaded and exaggerated fire did not cause a steel framed structure to collapse.

    7. Taking all the above into consideration, in the event a building is fully destroyed, given the probability, the most likely reason is controlled demolition and the least likely reason is the building fully destroyed itself naturally as a result of some other event.

    8. And last but not least, it is proven that the NIST “investigation” into the “collapse” of the twin towers and WTC7 was unscientific, based on concocted data for the purpose of yielding a preconceived conclusion and therefore fraudulent.

    NOTE: Nothing above is a substitute for or intended to be a substitute for a legitimate investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and WTC7 on 9/11. Furthermore, nothing above conclusively proves or is intended to conclusively prove what actually happened to those 3 towers on 9/11.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Summarizing the findings of many experts who have conducted extensive research on NIST's WTC7 report, at 36:00 of the video, the following is claimed:

    All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions.

    1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.

    2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.

    3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.

    4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.

    5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.

    6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.

    7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.

    8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.

    9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.

    10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.

    11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.


    Please note that the very first post in this thread makes note of many of these false/concocted NIST assumptions. One does not have to be an engineer or even understand physics to be fully aware of the implications raised by the above. All these findings are evidence of criminal fraud perpetrated by those responsible at NIST.
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    can you source the experts Bob? ...sorry, but I can't let you off this easy ...

    both you and I KNOW that you believe that WTC7 was "destroyed" by CD ... do you have even a whisper of evidence or are you going to continue this absurd premise of negative evidence? ...

    I want to see a puff of smoke or a sound of an explosion coming from 7 ...

    nobody knows wtf happened in 7 ... bad foundation probably compromised by the 1 and 2 collapses ... who gives a **** what hacks at NIST say? ...

    you're grasping at straws Bob ... could be the plastic straws that everybody is bitching about right now ...
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already long done, all over this thread. Do you have anything legitimate (preferably sourced) that can contradict or bring into question (that you agree with and can show why you support it) anything presented in the video? This discussion is not about the experts, it's about their findings.

    Unless and until anyone can scientifically prove otherwise, the evidence and logic (as already described) dictates that CD is the most likely cause for all 3 WTC towers and that anything else is the least likely cause. The default position in a legitimate investigation should first be neutrality followed by the most likely cause and definitely not the least likely cause. Regardless, I (and anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence, hopefully you too) require incontrovertible proof no matter what I believe, that is not debatable.

    The evidence is not mine and the preponderance of evidence (as shown throughout this thread) indicates that the 3 towers were not fully destroyed as a natural consequence of the events of 9/11. That leaves only one other possibility.

    None of that is relevant to this discussion. However, as an aside, there is a video posted numerous times in this section of the forum of a loud explosion coming from WTC7 just prior to its destruction.

    I do and so do many, many others. What NIST published as a result of their "investigation" is the official US government position (a large portion of the OCT). If you don't care you should not be posting in this thread because that's what it's all about. The purpose of this thread is to expose the fact that no legitimate investigation was ever conducted into the destruction of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11 in order to try to achieve the objective of having one done. It is not to prove anything about what actually happened to the 3 towers on 9/11. This has already been well stated throughout this thread, pay attention.

    Sorry but your opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion or the facts. I keep telling you 9/11 is not about me but you constantly insist you want to divert any and all discussions on the subject to try to make it about me. Read this again for comprehension:

     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,616
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never held elected office either, but I've read and seen enough to know that power corrupts.

    Does one need to be a submariner to understand how things work? Does one need to be a detective to connect dots?

    What are you trying to say?
     

Share This Page