The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain this one Bobby.

    How can Hulsey definitively say that fire did not cause the collapse yet all possibilities have not been explored?
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read the draft report you would know the answer to that. You would also understand why it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios.

    Did you ever question why NIST never investigated all possible scenarios, including CD? No, you just accepted their phony excuses without question.

    If you read what I posted, you would know the answer to that. The multi-gigs of data will be available within the next 2 weeks, Why does it matter to you, do you really anticipate doing the research yourself or are you just going to rely on Mick West? Have you ever questioned or criticized NIST for never allowing all their data, models and methodology to be available for public scrutiny? Of course not, you just gave these criminal phonies a pass. The hypocrisy oozes.

    If you read my posts or understood that Hulsey modeled the most likely reason WTC7 collapsed the way it did, you would know the answer to that question. NO fire can remove all the columns of any building simultaneously. Did you ever question why NIST arrived at their conclusion without examining all the possibilities? No, of course not.

    You still haven't answered my question, are you that terrified or perhaps the question is too complicated for you?

    But don't bother, I'm not that interested.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's ridiculous Bobby. You say it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios yet Hulsey says that fire could not have caused the collapse. Can't have it both ways. You can't state that your study completely rules out fire when you admit that you didn't study all scenarios.

    Did you ever question why Hulsey never investigated all possible scenarios as he admitted INCLUDING DC?

    Did you ever criticize Husley for not releasing his data with his report? Why is he waiting two weeks? That's two weeks LESS for people to look over his work.

    How do you know Hulsey used correct input data? He hasn't released it yet. What is there are mistakes? Why are you not questioning Hulsey's work? Why did he lie about making the study transparent during the four years the study took place? Did you ever question that?

    The hypocrisy oozes.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is that what Hulsey's model shows Bobby? You better take a closer look. All columns simultaneously being removed eh? Why does the west penthouse fall into the building without the the roof descending?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bobby, here is the claim made by Hulsey.
    Hulsey makes the global, all encompassing claim that FIRE did not cause the collapse yet in the same breath YOU state that it wasn't necessary to rule out all scenarios. Explain how someone can rule out something COMPLETELY without studying all scenarios.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you read the report, you would see the problem with Hulsey completely ruling out fire as a possible cause of collapse.

    Here is an excerpt from his report:
    See that Bobby? All they looked at and supposedly have shown was not possible was the HYPOTHETICAL failures alleged to have happened by NIST and the other firms.

    That's it.

    For Hulsey to COMPLETELY rule out fire as he did is an embarrassment.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not going to quote all your pathetic OCT groveling nonsense so I'll just make it a generic response, more or less.

    The only thing embarrassing is your own posts pretending you have any standing to criticize Hulsey and his work.

    Any fool with minimal intellectual capacity who has ever seen a CD would (or should) know that WTC7 was CD'd the first time he/she saw the video, it's not rocket science. Any fool who knows the least bit about CDs would know that to make a building such as WTC7 fail globally and drop into its footprint symmetrically at free fall would require that ALL its columns be removed simultaneously. Any fool with minimal logical capability would know that fire in a large steel frame high rise can never duplicate a CD. And any fool with minimal intellect should know that to try to model a global collapse of WTC7 in the manner seen in videos using fire (or fires) as the primary cause would likely require infinite (or nearly infinite) iterations and may never achieve such a result. OTOH one would likely not even need a computer to model what happened to WTC7 is the result of having all its columns removed simultaneously. In fact, there are real world modelS (plural emphasized) that have achieved that very same thing.

    I personally never needed Hulsey to tell me what happened to WTC7, I KNEW (I didn't just suspect) that WTC7 was control demolished the very first time I saw it on video, in 2004. All Hulsey did with his 4 year study is scientifically PROVE that NIST's hypothesis was not only impossible but also based on scientific fraud and PROVE that a computer model can be constructed such that it replicates the global collapse of WTC7.

    His draft paper will be peer reviewed and fully endorsed by the scientific community, perhaps with some tweaks. They are the ones who will sort this out and they are the ones who matter. Of that I'm fully confident because there is NO other valid scientific explanation. And that will become THE industry wide accepted standard. Are Hulsey's paper and methodology perfect? Perhaps not, but then again no one else has done anything close to what he's done and NIST's garbage is just that. The vast differences are that there is nothing valid out there that replicates or supports NIST's conclusions and there can never be because NIST denied public access. Hulsey's work, once the data is available, can be replicated all day long and confirmed. Even if let's just say it might take years to find the flaws, it will always be available for scrutiny. Peer review is actually not the end all, it is a starting point. That's why it's a standard that anyone can work from. So people such as Mick West, you and ALL other fanatical 9/11 "debunkers" can spin your wheels 24/7/365, you are all irrelevant and just a propaganda distraction.

    Instead of bitching and moaning, do the work and the modeling yourself and see if you can come up with a different result. I'm sure that will never happen because even if you had the expertise and the facilities, I'm 100% sure you won't be able to.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And what "fool" COMPLETELY ruled out fire? Thanks for reinforcing my point about Hulsey and his report.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking the wrong question, it should read "What fool wouldn't completely rule out fire?". Oh yeah NIST and you. Go back and read Hulsey's draft where he shows in no uncertain terms what didn't happen because of fire.

    You never had any point about Hulsey and his report, same with NIST and their report. You just keep embarrassing yourself trying to defend an impossibility and a massive fraud and keep pretending there's somehow an alternate reality where fire does the exact same thing as a controlled demolition.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.

    There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to

    publiccomment@AE911Truth.org.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    Hopefully if that deadline passes with no data available, the peer review deadline will be extended appropriately. IMO it should be extended regardless. The final published peer reviewed report will become the scientific standard for what most likely happened to WTC7 on 9/11 (that all columns were removed simultaneously, perhaps with the core columns first followed by the remaining columns a fraction of a second later), until proven otherwise*. The NIST report called the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (a hypothesis of a gravitational collapse caused by thermal expansion due to fire alone - peddled for almost 11 years as fact) will be scientifically invalidated in the process, until proven otherwise*. Whether that means the Hulsey hypothesis will also be officially accepted or not, we shall see. In the meantime, there's also an initiative to inform Congress:



    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/563...rs-urge-congress-to-reopen-9-11-investigation

    The scientific invalidation of the NIST WTC7 hypothesis will (or should) precipitate a scientific review/analysis of NIST's WTC1 and WTC2 hypothesis. An article on that subject was published in 1996 and has exceeded 1 million views. That number is by far the most widely read article in the Europhysics Journal.

    15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses
    https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

    https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

    * I anticipate that the only thing that might change as time passes is that Hulsey's final report will be edited to include additional detail and perhaps some corrections.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Volunteers from the local group DC911Truth showed up in great measure and did their part by delivering packages to all 535 members of Congress. The packages included a copy of the Bobby McIlvaine Act; a moving letter from Gioia; evidence “postcards” that concisely outline the explosive evidence regarding the destruction of the towers; and a one-page summary of the recent YouGov survey commissioned by AE911Truth, which found that a majority of Americans who see video of the collapse of Building 7 are certain or suspect it was due to a controlled demolition.

    On the final day of the visit, Steele delivered a packet to each member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (chaired by Cummings, whose office hosted a meeting) and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The packet included a cover letter (see below) from Gage, the abstract of the UAF report, and the one-page summary of the YouGov survey. Steele also gave the UAF abstract and the YouGov survey results to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who is the sole representative from Alaska.


    September 13, 2019
    Re: World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse Reports by NIST and UAF
    Dear Congressman Cummings:

    I am writing you today on behalf of more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling on the U.S. Congress to open a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

    In September 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the National Construction Safety Team Act, which mandated the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to investigate and determine the most likely technical cause of these three building failures. NIST conducted its investigation over the next six years, releasing its report on the Twin Towers in 2005 and its report on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in 2008.

    Sadly, it has become apparent to the thousands of professionals who have signed our petition, as well as to countless experts in other technical fields, that NIST conducted its investigation based on the pre‑determined conclusion that all three failures were due primarily to fire. Along the way, NIST ignored, dismissed, and denied the overwhelming evidence contradicting that conclusion.

    As part of our effort to establish the truth about these three building failures, we have funded a four-year computer modeling study of the collapse of WTC 7 by engineers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The draft report of this study was released on September 3, 2019. The final report will be published by the end of the year, after a two-‐‑month public comment period.

    We respectfully ask that you, as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, read the draft report. Then, following the release of the final report, we ask that you do everything in your power to have the Committee on Oversight and Reform investigate the profound discrepancies between the NIST findings and UAF findings — and hold NIST and its lead investigators accountable. Pending the outcome of your investigation, we also ask you to consider introducing the obby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act, which would establish a select committee to reinvestigate the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers (see AE911Truth.org/justice).

    Enclosed you will find the abstract of the UAF WTC 7 report. You may download the full report at http://ine.uaf.edu or at https://AE911Truth.org/wtc7. If you have any questions, please contact me directly.

    Sincerely yours,
    Richard Gage, AIA
    Founder and President


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/574...11truth-take-to-the-halls-of-congress-on-9-11
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UAF, AE911Truth Release All Data from WTC 7 Study — Time for NIST to Do the Same

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to announce the release of all input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during the University of Alaska Fairbanks World Trade Center Building 7 study.

    All of the data can be downloaded in a ZIP file at either AE911Truth.org/wtc7 or ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.

    Because the release of these files was delayed by two weeks, the deadline for the public comment period has been moved from November 1 to November 15, 2019.

    Help Ensure an Open and Transparent Scientific Process Regarding WTC 7


    The files contained in this download will enable any person with the requisite software tools to examine and replicate all of the computer analyses performed during this study.

    Unfortunately, while the UAF research team has made all of its data available to the public, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has so far refused to practice the same level of transparency regarding its taxpayer-funded investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.

    In 2009, then-NIST Director Patrick Gallagher issued a “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information” stating that the disclosure of certain information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation “might jeopardize public safety.” Since then, NIST has cited this public safety exemption as grounds for withholding key portions of its modeling data and other information from members of the public — including from licensed engineers, whose foremost duty is to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

    In response to one engineer’s appeal of NIST’s decision to withhold this information, the U.S. Department of Commerce subsequently claimed that, if released, the withheld information “might provide instruction to groups and individuals that wish to learn how to simulate building collapse and devise ways to destroy buildings.”

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which represents thousands of professionals who are tasked with ensuring the public’s safety, vigorously objects to the withholding of any information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation. It should be clear to all observers that the risk of anyone using this information to devise ways to destroy buildings is infinitesimal to zero and that the withholding of this information has merely served to prevent the public from scrutinizing the analyses performed by NIST.

    We therefore encourage every member of the public who cares about ensuring an open and transparent scientific process regarding the collapse of WTC 7 to email NIST Director Walter Copan at walter.copan@nist.gov and respectfully ask him to annul the 2009 “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information.” This simple action would allow NIST to disclose any information related to its WTC 7 investigation that members of the public request in the future.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/591...from-wtc-7-study-time-for-nist-to-do-the-same

    So we are a step closer to getting the scientific community to face the facts and accept the industry wide standard truth that the NIST report on WTC7 is not valid. And that the only possible cause of the global destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 at free fall and near free fall is the near simultaneous failure of every column which of course could never have been caused by fire. It is up to NIST or anyone, to try to legitimately refute this reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While we await expert review, analysis and comments (peer review) of Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft report that scientifically proves that the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 is severely defective and the resulting hypothesis is impossible, yet another scientific/mathematical analysis of the collapse of the North Tower has been presented that also requires expert review, analysis and comments.

    New Paper on WTC ‘Collapses’ Adds to Literature Refuting Progressive Collapse Theory

    Few people know that the official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction relies entirely on just four journal papers. All four papers were coauthored by Northwestern University engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant, and all four were published in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics between 2002 and 2011 (Bažant submitted the first paper a mere two days after 9/11). 1 2 3 4

    This may come as a surprise to many people, since one would assume that the government itself fully investigated the Twin Towers’ destruction and offered a complete theory explaining these catastrophic building failures. But that assumption is wide of the mark.

    As it happens, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) limited the scope of its investigation to “the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse.” Stunningly, NIST admitted that it conducted “little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” and that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” 5 6

    In other words, the government did not explain how the tops of the Twin Towers were able to crush through the enormous steel structures below them “essentially in free fall.”7 The only analysis ever produced in support of this notion was by Bažant and his various coauthors.

    This past September, the most recent paper refuting Bažant’s theory was presented by German mathematician and physicist Ansgar Schneider at the annual congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) in New York City. Schneider’s paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe,” can now be found in the conference proceedings and is also available for free on arXiv, the e-print server of the Cornell University Library.8

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.10801.pdf

    Complementing earlier research, Schneider’s paper offers a new and unique approach to falsifying Bažant’s theory. Previous papers showed that Bažant hugely underestimated the ability of WTC 1’s lower section to resist the fall of the upper section and pointed out that there would have been a large, observable deceleration of the upper section’s downward movement — which there was not — if it had impacted the intact lower section. 9 10 11

    Schneider’s approach is to assume that Bažant’s mathematical model of a progressive collapse is valid. Then, by plugging into the model the actual data related to the fall of the upper section, he calculates the upward resistance provided by the lower section.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Schneider finds that, from 4.6 seconds until 7.7 seconds into the collapse, the computed upward resistance of the lower section is so great that the collapse would have been arrested if the upward resistance were consistent throughout the vertical length of the building.

    Yet Schneider also finds that the upward resistance during the first 4.6 seconds and after 7.7 seconds is almost as low as one-tenth of the possible average upward resistance over the vertical length of the building — specifically, 66 meganewtons versus 500 meganewtons. This finding is consistent with David Chandler’s estimate that, based on the upper section accelerating constantly at 64% of free fall for the first four seconds of the collapse, “close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated.”12

    Schneider thus arrives at the question: What mechanism so dramatically reduced the resistance of the building structure at the beginning and the end of the collapse? The obvious answer, in light of all of the evidence ignored by NIST but known to the public for many years, is that explosives and incendiaries were used to destroy the structure.

    Regrettably, Schneider was not allowed to give his presentation at the 2019 IABSE Congress in the format he would have hoped. In August, he was denied entry to the United States because his two previous trips to Iran to teach courses and speak at math conferences made him ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program available to most Europeans — and then he was denied a normal visa, despite having an invitation from IABSE.

    Unable to attend the conference in person, Schneider recorded a 15-minute presentation that the organizers kindly played at his session. A revised version of that presentation is available below.



    Schneider and AE911Truth are grateful to the many people who donated so that he could register for the 2019 IABSE Congress, which enabled him to present this important paper and have it published in the conference proceedings.

    (click the link below for references)

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/604...terature-refuting-progressive-collapse-theory
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI, the deadline for the pubic comment period for Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft paper on WTC7 ended yesterday. According to Roland Angle who claims to have read the comments, he believes that the Hulsey study will stand unchallenged. It does not mean however that no one can ever challenge it past the deadline, that is open ended indefinitely. What it does mean is that once Dr. Hulsey publishes the final report, it will be the de facto scientific/industry wide accepted standard hypothesis for the destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 unless and until proven otherwise. And it will completely invalidate the official NIST report on the "collapse" of WTC7, as well as the Weidlinger and ARUP studies.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what that means is that it will be entered into evidence in multiple 9/11 lawsuits. Which also means the Defendants would have to challenge the findings of Hulsey’s study in order to mount any kind of serious defense in those respective lawsuits.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  16. ProVox

    ProVox Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    May I join your discussion? I have only just found this Forum.

    9/11 is a subject that really raised my interest when I found out about WTC 7 and like many that saw that for the first time, the similarity between that collapse and a controlled demolition was at least highly suspicious as the whole official story of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was based around impact by aircraft, structural damage and fires ...... and these were missing from the WTC 7 scenario.

    This may already have been covered previously and if so I apologise. But going back to the Twin Towers, whilst the controlled demolition theory can never be proved as all the evidence was destroyed, the evidence already exists that says without any doubt at all that WTC 1 was definitely NOT brought down through fires weakening columns to the point of failure.

    I watched the following video and noted something I had not noticed before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys

    At 00.22 there is camera ‘shake’. It is not violent and lasts for maybe ½ second. Immediately after this ‘shake’ the smoke pouring from the tower significantly increases in volume . At 00.33/34 the Mast drops followed almost immediately by the top section of the building above the impact zone. From the ‘shake’ to the start of the collapse was 11-12 seconds and in that time there was no visible movement of the top section.

    Was the ‘shake’ someone bumping the camera or slamming the office door ..... or was it the seismic signature of an explosion? Impossible to say but then I checked a second video of the same incident from a different vantage point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlR

    The same ‘shake’ occurred at 00.16 and the collapse at around 00.29. So the ‘shake’ and the collapse initiation were virtually identical from both cameras, the small difference can be attributed to slightly differing speeds of each camera.

    This confirms that the only source of the ‘shake’ was a seismic ground wave. Two cameras, two locations ..... identical time lines!

    This does not say what caused the seismic ground wave but, to ignore the immediate clouds of more smoke erupting immediately after the ‘shake’ as being a result of whatever it was that caused it, would be rather naive and to deny the relationship between the ‘shake’ and when the building starts to collapse some 10-12 secs. later, would be incredible.

    Until the collapse, the building did not move, at least to the observer, which means that there were no failing columns causing the collapse! If it had been the columns that caused the collapse the structure would have moved first both vertically and laterally, due to a gravitational progressive collapse! (Newton) That did not happen ........ that is, until 3-4 secs. after the collapse starts, when the Mast and the structure began a rotation toward the south side which was the face with the most fires and the line of least resistance.

    The collapse preceded the tilt of WTC 1, so collapsing columns for whatever reason, were as a result of the collapse NOT the cause of the collapse and using the norm that identical incidents usually have the same cause ....... neither did it cause the collapse of WTC 2 and you could logically and plausibly apply the same reasoning to WTC 7.

    What caused the ‘shake’ will forever be a mystery but a guess at it being Thermate/explosives would not be far out?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While incontrovertible physical proof of a controlled demolition is unattainable at the present, controlled demolition is still provable via deductive reasoning. Having said that, there is however a mountain of circumstantial physical, video, eyewitness, scientific and other evidence that points directly to controlled demolition.

    1. It is virtually impossible that planes, damage, fire, earthquake, other catastrophe, a poorly planned and/or executed controlled demolition or any combination can cause the unimpeded global and total collapse at near free fall or free fall through the structure of a steel frame high rise, never mind 3 of these on the same day. It has never been accomplished naturally, by experiment or by computer simulation.

    2. A well planned and executed controlled demolition can and has caused the unimpeded total collapse at near free fall and free fall of several structures, including steel frame high rises. That is documented history.

    3. #1 above is the least likely cause (perhaps near infinitely unlikely) and #2 is the most likely cause (perhaps nearly 100%).

    4. Given the above, and given that there is no other known possibility, this leaves only one known possibility, controlled demolition.
     
  18. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,918
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, welcome to the discussion.

    The camera shake you notice may possibly be caused by the same massive explosions reported in the basement levels by Willy Rodriguez who worked there. And nearby seismographs recorded the same.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  19. ProVox

    ProVox Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Quote: Bob

    "While incontrovertible physical proof of a controlled demolition is unattainable at the present, controlled demolition is still provable via deductive reasoning. Having said that, there is however a mountain of circumstantial physical, video, eyewitness, scientific and other evidence that points directly to controlled demolition."

    Deductive reasoning is OK if you can stick within the confines of the Universal Laws of Physics. Most of those that oppose any idea that the WTC collapse scenario’s could possibly be a controlled demolition usually start the argument as to how it would be too difficult to rig the building and throw in all the aspects they believe prevent it. Their problem is always that, whilst a controlled demolition would be difficult to implement …… the official line is impossible because it does not comply with Newton’s Laws of Motion ….. but they never consider that in their argument.

    All that can be proved now is what could not be the cause of the collapse, not what DID cause the collapse because that is speculative. An explanation based on probability though ….. would say CD was the most probable cause!

    Quote: Eleuthera

    "The camera shake you notice may possibly be caused by the same massive explosions reported in the basement levels by Willy Rodriguez who worked there. And nearby seismographs recorded the same."

    You are probably correct but unfortunately that would not be considered a verifiable fact. The two videos jointly simply show that the event was irrefutably seismic not a local occurrence and no more than that.

    The actual video itself IS factual evidence and from that it is possible to create a time line. The time line shows that when you then apply Newton the NIST explanation is not valid as the initiation of the collapse came before the effect that Newton describes as a gravitational progressive collapse, when the apparently weakened columns gave way 3-4 seconds after the collapse had started.

    It makes the idea that Hulsey’s report will no doubt explain for WTC 7 valid also for WTC 1 and 2. That is simply that if you follow Newton, a Gravitational Progressive Collapse as the NIST report and Bazant describes, cannot result in what we all clearly saw ……… a Gravitational Global Collapse! It is truly physically impossible ….. without intervention.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you stick within the confines of deductive reasoning and/or physics, it's not just OK, it is exactly what both say it is unless and until proven otherwise.

    Their arguments are a non sequitur. Unless and until they can prove otherwise, science and logic always prevail (see the multiple scientific studies that have invalidated NIST's conclusions). Any failure to consider physics in such an argument is not a valid argument.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NIST scammers still scamming us reinforcing their nonsensical (non-)explanation that releasing all their data would "jeopardize public safety". This garbage is in response to multiple recent demands that they release all their data and/or explain in detail how in the world releasing it would "jeopardize public safety".

    36. Why did NIST withhold from public release limited and specific input and results files for certain collapse models used in the WTC 7 study? (added 11/20/19)

    This information was exempt from public disclosure under Section 7d of the National Construction Safety Team Act because it was determined by the Director of NIST that release of the files might jeopardize public safety. The withheld information contains detailed connection models that have been validated against actual events, and therefore, provide tools that could be used to predict the collapse of a building. The information contained in the withheld files is sufficiently detailed that it might be used to develop plans to destroy other, similarly constructed, buildings.

    In Michael Quick v. United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Civil Action No. 09-02064 (CKK) U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, Apr. 7, 2011, the court upheld NIST’s finding to withhold this information.


    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Don't you all feel so much safer now that NIST isn't going to reveal to "terrorists" how ordinary fires could cause the "progressive" collapse of steel frame towers at free fall?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UAF Final Report to Be Published in Early 2020, Kicking Off Year of Intensive Outreach

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to announce that the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks computer modeling study on World Trade Center Building 7 will be published early next year.

    The draft report of the UAF Building 7 study was released on September 3, 2019, initiating a two-month public comment period that ended on November 15.

    In the weeks since the end of the public comment period, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, the study’s lead researcher, has reviewed several dozen comments submitted by members of the public as well as the evaluations performed by independent technical reviewers. He and his team are now preparing the final report, taking into account the valuable input received. (1)


    The release of the final report early next year will kick off an intensive period of outreach as we expand our efforts to share the UAF study with engineering organizations and universities around the world and with elected officials in Washington, D.C. — through Project Due Diligence presentations, mailings, letter writing, meetings with congressional offices, and more. At the same time, we will continue working to raise public awareness through our upcoming Building 7 documentary and other initiatives.

    We will also take the UAF final report directly to NIST by filing a formal Request for Correction under the Information Quality Act, pressuring NIST to correct key aspects of its Building 7 investigation that are now proven to be false and to have materially affected its findings. (2)


    We look forward to working with our partners and with thousands of concerned citizens to bring this groundbreaking study — and the truth about Building 7 and the Twin Towers — to the engineering and building professions, our elected officials, and the public in 2020.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/631...y-2020-kicking-off-year-of-intensive-outreach

    (1) This seemingly implies that there were no significant challenges by anyone during the peer review process and therefore Hulsey's study stands.

    (2) I'm guessing NIST will simply ignore Hulsey's study and/or maintain their position that they stand by their work despite the overwhelming evidence that their probable collapse initiation hypothesis has NO VALID SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019
    Kokomojojo and Eleuthera like this.
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,396
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yep, until Gage sues them and they are forced to show their cards in court, and you can bet anything shown will be kept behind the iron curtain.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,445
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately I doubt they can be sued. On paper there can be a grand jury investigation that could determine if the NIST engineers can be charged with intentionally violating federal law (see posts #19 and #61 in this thread), however the reality is that it will never happen. NIST is always going to be protected by the US government. They've spent $trillions on the phony war on terror under pretext of 9/11, they certainly don't want anyone to know the OCT is one of the biggest scams in history.
     
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,918
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has already and recently been demonstrated that the federal Judiciary and Department of Justice ignore law suits brought. The Lawyer's Committee petition sits gathering dust.
     

Share This Page