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:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So continuing with the expert summary of findings, in this case with regard to the twin towers. Beginning at 1:12:

    Summary of problems with the NIST WTC Tower Report

    1. The claim that the upper part of the towers crushed the lower part of the towers violates the laws of conservation of momentum and the law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As shown by the measured smooth uninterrupted descent of the upper portion of the North Tower.

    2. NIST claims that the floor trusses in the aircraft impact zone push outward on the perimeter columns with a force of about 80 KIPS before starting to sag and pull the columns inward to cause the building to collapse. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. Extensive photos and videos of the towers show no outward bowing of the perimeter columns at any time during the fires before the collapse.

    3. NIST imposed unrealistic artificial 5 KIP forces on each floor truss to column connection over the 5 stories of the damage zone on the south face of the North Tower in order to make their collapse initiation model work. This amounts to a lateral force of about 750 KIPS applied artificially to that face of the building which cannot be justified by any rationale.

    4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”.

    5. The NIST collapse sequence is initiated by the failure of the floor trusses in the impact zone and subsequent pulling in of the perimeter column. But the sequence ignores the fact that the core columns failed first, as evidenced by the video of the North Tower collapse showing that the antenna and hat truss resting on the core column began their descent well before the outer perimeter of the building began to fall. This fact invalidates the NIST collapse initiation theory.

    6. The NIST report fails to provide any information suggesting that the load capacity of the core and perimeter columns was exceeded at any time during the collapse sequence. NIST ignored the fact that the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model.

    7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory.


    NIST is composed of highly trained experts. If NIST committed one, two or even three errors, it is possible to dismiss these as accidental (although it would be unforgivable for such an investigation to fail to correct any errors). However, as can be seen by these findings, the sheer volume of errors reveal a pattern that is unmistakable, that these were deliberately designed to arrive at a very specific and improbable conclusion.
     
  2. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I only watched the Twin Towers portion. No mention of any variation in weight of horizontal beams in the core at various heights of the building and nothing about the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

    I sent an e-mail on their website asking why they have not made a physical collapse model.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any particular reason you didn't watch the first half?

    True but what was mentioned is far more than enough to prove NIST's fraud, which seems to be the objective.

    Why do they need to create a physical collapse model?

    1. It wouldn't change their presentation even if they created one.
    2. There is no evidence that any of those buildings "collapsed" in any natural sense so I don't see how that makes any sense.
    3. It wasn't their objective from what was presented.

    But I would like to hear their answer if they do provide you with one.
     
  4. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We have different I ideas about what constitutes an easily comprehensible proof. I think the video of WTC7 is obviously a normal controlled demolition but this nonsense has dragged on regardless. WTC7 is not even interesting.

    But the Twin Towers are more than twice as tall as Building 7. This makes it obvious that the bottom had to support far more weight than the top so our "experts" have blatantly advertised their lack of integrity by not discussing how the steel must be distributed in ALL very tall buildings. He showed cross sections of the core columns but did not tell us the weight supported at various levels.

    Because of the top down destruction of the towers, the impossibility of that should be easily demonstrable so this is an additional failure by the experts. The WTC7 explanation is just going to be another complex obfuscation that only experts can understand for anyone that can't tell from the video that that was a normal controlled demolition.



    Since I used paper supports even with the light weight washers less than 2 ounces, I had to make the bottom supports stronger than those at the top. 33 washers came to about 4 pounds st that is what had to be supported at the bottom. AE911Truth should be able to build a model bigger and heavier than mine to show that the vertical top down collapse was impossible without something destroying the lower supports. In SEVENTEEN YEARS, but they do not even talk about trying it. I would not give them a dime.

    I consider th failure to solve and explain this to be more important than who did it.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry, that should be 'were' not 'are'.
     
  6. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The towers never existed in the first place, they were holograms,
    and all they had to do was turn them off.
    Building 7 was used to house extraterrestrials,
    who were getting addicted to street drugs, and forced into prostitution
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More than 1800 posts since April. Impressive!
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are trolling. Please stay on topic or you will be reported.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again the purpose of this thread is not to prove anything about what happened on 9/11, it's to expose NIST and their reports as a scam. Their report on WTC7 is a good part of that so it is crucial.

    The rest of your post is more about what may have happened or not and possible solutions than the point of this thread.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At 1:14:30 in the video the following is presented:

    Deficiency Categories in the NIST WTC Reports and ASCE published Theories

    FirstDefective collapse initiation theories in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

    SecondUnjustified assumptions and errors in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

    ThirdOmissions and alterations of construction details in the NIST WTC7 report

    FourthErrors in the calculations of the ASCE published theories

    FifthInternal contradictions in the NIST WTC7 report

    Sixth – NIST ignores FEMA evidence of high temperature exposure of structural steel from WTC7

    Seventh – NIST and the ASCE refuse to respond to peer criticism


    If we go back to post #4 in this thread, I noted the following from NIST's own publication:

    and if you will note from the First Category the word theories is highlighted. So NIST's first objective was not to concoct theories, it was clearly to investigate and determine. Immediately following the publication of NIST's WTC7 report, Shyam Sunder claimed at 0:27:



    "the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires"

    Yet in NIST's WTC7 publication, NIST claims their entire publication was a probable collapse initiation [theory]. So NIST is peddling a theory in their publication but publicly claiming it's a fact.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rumors of the death of Dr. Leroy Hulsey have been greatly exaggerated. The following is a recent interview with Dr. Hulsey. Some highlights:

    1. For all those who bought the NIST nonsense (and defend it regularly) that the core of WTC7 came down first, then the walls in free fall (as a natural consequence), Hulsey's research strongly disputes that fallacy (which should be readily apparent from all the videos anyway). The inner structure was heavily connected to the outer structure and if that were true would have seriously affected the outer structure by showing all sorts of exterior movement or deformations, which was never visible during the "collapse". In fact the NIST cartoon model shows just that but fails to match what is seen on video in any way.

    2. Dr. Hulsey claims to have created a collapse model that much more closely resembles the actual "collapse" seen on videos. He says the ONLY way that was capable of happening is if he had the exterior columns severed at the exact same time as the interior columns. However he also says he doesn't believe there is any natural phenomena that could cause that to happen.

    3. Dr. Hulsey claims he used NIST's claimed data to analyze what should have happened under those conditions and the results are that what NIST theorizes happened could not possibly have happened in accordance to NIST's theory.

    4. Dr. Hulsey claims he should be wrapping up his study within the next 2 weeks and will have the results ready for peer review before the end of this year. He says there will not be one paper, there will be several papers. He also says he doesn't believe any of these papers will be published in the US because he believes no US outlet will want to publish them. So he is looking into publishing them in respected European outlets.



    (interview begins at 25:10)
     
  12. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you (and many others) predicted that Hulsey would publish his report yesterday ... still waiting ...
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was just a guess that I alone made, no one else that I know of. I'm not Hulsey and I have nothing to do with his study other than posting it here. Your belief is that it will never happen and since Hulsey says it will be completed in about 2 weeks, I would say my guess was far more accurate than your prayers.

    No you're not, you're only here to troll.
     
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you want some cheese with your whine.

    why is it that whenever you refuse to answer something, the person is trolling.

    So Bob. You have already refused to answer, but
    How many people do your so called, "Experts" say were involved to make this happen.
     
  15. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you even know what trolling is.

    When you have your line in the water, and the boat moves through the schools of fish, looking for a bite.

    No, Bob, it is you who is trolling, looking for people either to dumb, or to government hating, who will come to your call.

    Refusing to answer questions, posting over and over, stuff that was proven wrong.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YOU should know by now you’ve had several of your trolling posts deleted by the mods. Quit violating the rules of the forum or you will be reported. You can count on it.

    EDIT: This thread is about the NIST 9/11 investigation scam. Please stay on topic or you will be reported. Your last 2 posts are off topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
  17. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never saw any posts deleted.
    Something was pointed out when I first got here, but I have stayed within the rules since then.

    Bob, you are blatantly posting false info on a public site.
    Whenever someone questions what you post, you say it's trolling.
    I think the mods know better.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just want to expand on this a bit. According to Hulsey, he claims he tried to create a model that would collapse similarly to what is seen on the videos of WTC7 using different scenarios but was unsuccessful until he removed all columns simultaneously. Given that there’s no natural phenomena that could cause such an event that leaves only a man made event. And the only known man made event that is well known and proven to do that is a controlled demolition. Hulsey says he will not conclude that a controlled demolition caused that to happen in the case of WTC7 and I can understand that because he’s a scientist and requires investigation and proof.

    What this study does also say is that in addition to the ARUP and Weidlinger studies, every single professional study has refuted NIST’s collapse initiation theory as non-viable. And by extension it also means that we have never had a legitimate investigation into the “collapse” of WTC7.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again I am requesting that posters remain on topic (all trolling posts have been reported, whether they are removed or not is not my call). This topic not about me, it's clearly about the NIST "investigations" and their reports. These are currently in the process of being ripped to shreds by relevant experts using state of the art investigation tools. It has taken 17 years to get us to this point and I'm guessing because of the current political climate, it will take many more years (if ever) for the US government to acknowledge that 9/11 has never been legitimately investigated and to follow up accordingly and appropriately.

    It's a sad commentary that Dr. Hulsey believes he won't be able to get his papers published for peer review in any prestigious American publication. There is an extremist mentality in the US that desperately wants to maintain the official 9/11 myth as evidenced by the many trolling posts whose objective is to disrupt every 9/11 discussion that does not cater to the official 9/11 myth. The war industry relies heavily on the official 9/11 myth to maintain its massive $profits and power and it seems they have a ton of support. Breaking down such a behemoth will take a monumental effort.
     
  20. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree.

    And using a bomb, they could pass it off as a handful of conspirators,
    as opposed to the tens of thousands, it needs now.
     

Share This Page