The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    do you have any links to who has peer reviewed this report? ... and what are the many other factors? ...
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interview with Roland Angle and Leroy Hulsey. Unfortunately due to the pandemic all schools are currently either closed or operating under multiple restrictions. If and when things go back to what can be characterized as reasonably normal circumstances, as discussed, the NIST report and the Hulsey report can be used by engineering students and other academics for a study on forensic engineering.

     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No names of any public commenters have been published, not even mine. The report itself lists that it was peer reviewed by Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D, Chartered Consulting Engineer Analytical Service Company and Robert Korol, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering McMaster University.

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

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    nvm Bobby ... a little research has shown that Hulsey's report has been peer reviewed by 2 people, both of whom are connected to the trooofer movement ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (the usual idiocy omitted)

    A little research has shown that there is not 1 single qualified person anywhere on the planet who has contradicted or even criticized anything significant that has emerged from Hulsey's research and conclusions at any time in the last 4 years. In fact, NIST itself will be officially challenged based on conclusions reached by Hulsey's team.
     
    Eleuthera and ProVox like this.
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    10,687
    Likes Received:
    4,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Much research has shown that the 911 Commission Report noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for one element or other of the official narrative.

    Common Sense, if you're even into that, discovers that liars lie, and the federal government has professional liars in its employ, many of them in the mainstream media.
     
    ProVox and Bob0627 like this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To further emphasize the above, it should also be noted that Hulsey's research contradicts the findings of not only the NIST team but 3 other fully qualified engineering teams as well, Ove Arup & Partners and Guy Nordenson and Associates (2 teams working for the same plaintiffs) and Weidlinger Associates Inc. These are not minor contradictions, they are contradictions that invalidate the heart of the respective conclusions claimed by these entities, which BTW also contradict each other. In the past 4 years and during the period of time the Draft Report was open for public comments, not one single engineer or other member from any of these entities has ever raised any objections to or even commented on Hulsey's findings and conclusions.
     
    Eleuthera and ProVox like this.
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least NIST is being represented here:

    NIST Whistleblower Hails University of Alaska Fairbanks Report

     
    ProVox and Eleuthera like this.
  9. ProVox

    ProVox Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I am not one to automatically dismiss something just because I disagree with the content as it always pays to understand both sides of the argument! On another forum I have had months of the usual abuse after Hulsey’s report first came out. When the final report was released I resurrected the thread, was promptly told I was a f*****g idiot and directed to an ‘expert’ blogger (Mick West of Metabunk) who I was assured had debunked the Hulsey report and shown it to be all wrong!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4

    So I watched West’s exercise in debunking and realised that quite to the contrary of his claim ..... he proved that Hulsey was in fact absolutely correct and that clearly West didn’t have a clue about what Hulsey was trying to explain!

    When the Twin Towers collapsed the ‘expert’ was Bazant who described everything in detail. NIST based their findings on Bazant’s explanation! The explanation from both ceased the moment the situation became dynamic and the loads started moving. NIST’s detailed explanation of the continuing collapse was one sentence on the lines “..... and then the Tower’s collapsed!”

    Then came the NIST report on WTC 7 ..... and they did exactly the same sort of analysis. NIST describes in great detail about expansion, bending beams due to ‘raging fires’ and that is what caused a single column 79 to fail. After coming to that conclusion they again gave another detailed description of what happened next as something like “.... then the building progressively collapsed from East to West!, due to fires from office furnishings”. That was it, the NIST explanation and the believers fell for it!

    In the explanation of each of the collapses the detailed explanation of its initiation ceases at exactly the moment the situation went from STATIC to DYNAMIC. Bazant and NIST must have been fully aware that had they continued their explanation(s) of the collapses it would have shown the most likely outcome would have been that the structures would have toppled ..... all three of them! Certainly the straight down collapse was clearly impossible if Newton Laws of Motion are applied.

    What this ‘expert’ on 9.11 debunker seemed unable to grasp was what Hulsey was explaining :

    Hulsey used a floor plan of WTC 7 showing just the columns. A computer program calculated loads and he started from the AT REST status. He then accepts NIST’s collapse initiation scenario without question and manually removes the columns 79, 80 and 81. His computer says all other columns remained within the design load parameters when he removed them. Basically the NIST hypothesis failed to initiate a progressive collapse in any direction, let alone from East to West.

    So Hulsey then removed the next line of columns 76, 77 and 78 and this did restart the collapse sequence. However the sequence then stopped again as columns 58, 59, 62 and 65 still remained standing. Only when these columns are manually removed did the building collapse completely.

    What Hulsey was showing was that even if what NIST hypothesised was correct the progressive collapse would not, could not have happened! But, what our debunker seemed to have difficulty understanding is that although Hulsey was using purely STATIC conditions to create a picture, the resulting DYNAMIC situation, i.e. the results of his manual intervention, had to be considered, So he used a simulation showing what was the most likely DYNAMIC reaction of the structure as a whole to the steps he had described in STATIC terms. West seemed to have difficulty understanding Hulsey’s dynamic scenario message.

    What Hulsey describes is what Newton’s Laws of motion dictate, under the conditions he created. A body falling under the effect of gravity alone will follow the path of least resistance. From the moment columns 79, 80 and 81 were removed the situation was DYNAMIC ..... put simply .... the ball game changed, everything above was on the move downward, increasing the load on the next row east which was also removed, so it was going down gaining velocity (Accelerating) and just on the East end of the structure. As the lower steelwork below collapses or is crushed the top starts to tilt to take the path of least resistance to gravity !

    Every time more columns are removed the tilt would increase, the mass above also crushing the steelwork ABOVE the collapse point and eventually the building falls to the East ..... the line of least resistance to gravitational collapse.

    So Hulsey shows that NIST’s hypothesis could not possibly have been correct as the evidence does not show WTC 7 tilting to any great degree at all.

    Hulsey then looks at what little is provided by NIST as to what data they used to create their hypothesis and he finds that crucial steel elements, shear studs, stiffener plates etc. had been left out. He also found incorrect sizing of main beams which NIST claimed were 11” and were actually 12” and temperatures that were way beyond what was achievable with office fires!

    So, Hulsey’s team replaced the missing steel elements, corrected sizes and used the top end temperatures that could have been achieved and they ran the program again. The result was ......A BIG FAT NOTHING ! Nothing moved, the NIST hypothesis didn’t work! So NIST had removed or altered anything that would/could prevent their hypothesis from working! IS THAT NOT A FRAUD?

    So, the debunker managed to debunk himself and prove Hulsey correct ....... for sure .... fire alone as claimed by NISTdid not bring down building WTC 7 ..... now confirmed!
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mick West is a charlatan. He is some sort of disinformation agent who seems to have some kind of stake in his rabid defense of just about everything related to the defense of the official 9/11 narrative, down to the most minute detail. That is his one and only expertise from what I gather. Some of the comments forwarded to Hulsey during the draft comment period clearly belong to Mick West or one of his disciples. As I said, no one on this planet with legitimate verifiable qualifications has contradicted or even questioned anything significant with respect to Hulsey's research, findings and conclusions at any time during his 4 year study. Mick West has no technical qualifications of any kind and has never submitted any in support of any of his nonsensical claims.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BREAKING: 9/11 Families, Experts Mount Unprecedented Challenge to NIST in New Filing

    Family members of those who died on September 11, 2001, joined building experts earlier today in submitting a “request for correction” to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

    The request, which comprises more than 100 pages and five exhibits, represents an unprecedented challenge to NIST’s report on WTC 7. With the ultimate aim of forcing NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires caused the building’s destruction, the request covers eight separate items of information that it says violate the agency’s information quality standards. Only by revising its “probable collapse sequence” can NIST correct these violations, the request contends.

    Starting today, under the procedure governing requests submitted to NIST, the agency has four months to respond. If NIST elects not to take corrective action, it must provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.” The request notes that if NIST does not provide a point-by-point response, NIST will have denied the request “in an arbitrary and capricious manner,” which would set the stage for legal action to force compliance.

    The request relies substantially on a report issued last month by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), who concluded definitively that the destruction of the 47-story WTC 7 was not caused by fires. Their extensive four-year computer modeling effort was followed by a robust peer review process, which included dozens of comments from the public as well as review by two external, independent experts.

    The study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization’s petition calling for new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11. AE911Truth is now spearheading the request for correction based on the findings of the study. Other signers of the request include 88 architects and structural engineers and ten family members of 9/11 victims.


    Read the rest ...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/nist
     
    ProVox likes this.
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Request for Correction Letter to NIST (in part):

    NIST was statutorily tasked with telling the 9/11 victims’ families, the building and fire safety industries, the American people, and the U.S. government how and why WTC 7 collapsed. If NIST, through the NIST WTC 7 Report and the NIST WTC 7 FAQs, has disseminated inaccurate, unreliable, or biased information about the collapse of the WTC 7, the implications would stretch across the entire architectural and political landscape.

    First, the dissemination by NIST of inaccurate, unreliable, or biased information concerning the collapse of WTC 7 may lead to (and may have already led to) the adoption of unnecessary and improper changes to building codes, standards, and practices. These changes to building codes, standards, and practices could, in turn, lead to needless deaths and injuries if such codes and standards are too lenient or to unnecessary expenses if they are too strict. Second, immense political and policy ramifications would flow from the correction of inaccurate, unreliable, or biased information disseminated by NIST concerning the collapse of WTC 7. Specifically, should the correction of such information render a finding that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused not by fires but by a controlled demolition, it would instantly cast extreme doubt on NIST’s finding that the total destruction of the WTC Towers was caused by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires and would most likely lead to congressional and criminal investigations to identify those responsible for the destruction of all three buildings. The process and outcome of such investigations would most likely fundamentally reshape the American people’s understanding of the 9/11 attacks and have broad and profound influence on the policies of the U.S. government.

    Thus, the degree to which the correction of information contained in the NIST WTC 7 Report and the NIST WTC 7 FAQs would serve a useful purpose cannot be overstated.


    Request for Correction
     
    ProVox likes this.
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've always said the the NIST report was flawed and lacking in basic science. Let's say that Hulsey's report is gospel and lower supports were simultaneously removed? ... why are we focusing on the NIST report? ...

    If this was a clear case of controlled demolition, why isn't AE911T asking for an investigation of everyone that had been in that building for ... oh, lets say 6 months? ... interview every maintenance worker, janitor, secretary, security guard, copy boy etc ...

    okay ... let's say you proved NIST wrong ... move on to the next phase ...
     
  14. ProVox

    ProVox Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Because I think you will find that such an investigation is the remit of Federal Government, not for a private not for profit organisation. Like any legal action for felony any charges can only be brought by The State -District Attorney as it involves jail time!

    If AE911T or even an individual (with plenty of money!) can take civil legal action and THAT exposes a felony then the State has to (should) act.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you read the Request for Correction letter using the link I provided or even read what I posted? But even if you didn't, what kind of a ridiculous question is that? This was the worst terrorist attack in the US in modern history. NIST was funded and tasked by Congress to investigate the "collapse" of 3 towers on 9/11 and their investigation was "flawed" in YOUR own words and a total SCAM in reality. In other words, NIST, made up of EXPERTS who it is presumed are NOT grossly incompetent, schemed to publish a false narrative. Why would we not focus on NIST, never mind the NIST Report that was already the object of focus for more than a decade?

    What in the world do you think the AE911T petition is all about? It's been there since the organization was founded. It's a demand for a "new" investigation into 9/11, every single aspect of it.

    No let's not "say", NIST WAS PROVEN WRONG, period. There is nothing hypothetical about it as the above insinuates. No one who has proper standing and expertise disputes that FACT, not even NIST so far. The research and the published final Hulsey Report has been peer reviewed and is now the de facto industry accepted standard for what really happened to WTC7 on 9/11 unless and until proven otherwise.

    That is exactly what's happening, the very next phase is a direct challenge to NIST officially called a "REQUEST FOR CORRECTION". There are also at least 3 active lawsuits challenging the official 9/11 narrative.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I smell a Petition for Writ of Mandamus here because everyone should know by now that NIST will do nothing other than claim they stand by the fantasy they've peddled for the last decade plus. It will be the third Mandamus action, a legal action to compel the US government to DO ITS JOB. Something the US government rarely does, not before, on or following 9/11, not even in the face of a lethal pandemic. And that's why the founders, namely Thomas Jefferson wrote what he did in our founding document as quoted by my signature.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DECLARATION OF ANDRÉ ROUSSEAU

    1. My name is André Rousseau. I reside in Bègles (Gironde) in France.

    2. I have the following degrees relevant to the testimony I am providing: Licence (equivalent to a bachelor’s degree) in Earth Sciences, a Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies (DEA) (equivalent to a Master’s degree) in Tectonophysics, Oceanography, and a DEA in Applied Physics from the Faculté des Sciences de Paris; a Thèse 3ème Cycle (equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Rennes 2; and a Thèse d’Etat (roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Bordeaux 1.

    3. My training includes land and marine seismic explorations in France and northern Spain, gravity and studies of acoustic well logging in Central Massif of France, Vendee, Alsace, Germany (KTB borehole) and California (SAFOD borehole).

    4. I am a retired researcher in Geology and Geophysics. My employers throughout my career were the University of Rennes, Elf Aquitaine, and the National Center of the Scientific Research (CNRS) in Bordeaux, where I worked from 1972 to 2007.

    5. I have attached my curriculum vitae.

    6. It is my professional opinion that NIST was incorrect in attributing the two seismic signals generated during the destruction of WTC 7 to a cascade of floor failures inside the building and to the initiation of the building’s global collapse. It is my professional opinion that the two seismic signals must have been generated by two subaerial explosions that corresponded in time and location to the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7’s east penthouse and to the initiation of global collapse, respectively.

    7. My opinion is based in part on my analysis of the seismogram produced by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columba University (LDEO) in Palisades, New York, about 34 kilometers away from Lower Manhattan, shown below.


    Read the rest ...

    Exhibit B — Declaration of André Rousseau, Applied Geophysicist
     
    ProVox likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SEVEN - The Trailer

     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is an update on the Request for Corrections and as I expected they are going to delay a response.

    NIST Issues Update on Pending Request for Correction to Building 7 Report

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology this past Friday issued an update regarding the pending “request for correction” to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. In an email sent to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Daniel G. Cipra, a senior analyst in NIST’s Management and Organization office, wrote:

    “Your request for correction of information under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public dated April 15, 2020, is currently under review. While our goal is to respond within sixty days to such requests, we are unable to do so in this case. A response providing the Agency’s view will be forwarded to you as soon as possible."


    Skipping ...

    Under the procedure governing requests submitted to NIST, the agency must provide an initial decision within 120 days of the submission, which would be on August 13, 2020.

    If NIST elects not to take the corrective action sought, it is required to provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.” The requesters would then have 30 days to file an appeal with NIST Associate Director of Laboratory Programs James K. Olthoff. The procedure governing requests dictates that “No individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.” Mr. Olthoff’s decision would constitute a final decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Should NIST fail in any way to comply with the procedure governing requests or should it fail to rectify the information quality violations documented in the request, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters will consider legal action under the Administrative Procedure Act.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/695...g-request-for-correction-to-building-7-report
     
    ProVox likes this.
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New Analysis of 9/11 Footage Finds the Dominant Hypothesis Among Reporters Was that Explosions Brought Down the Twin Towers

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth today published a groundbreaking paper by researchers Ted Walter and Graeme MacQueen documenting the findings from their review of 70 hours of 9/11 news footage.

    In total, Walter and MacQueen identified 36 news reporters across 11 different channels who either reported the occurrence of explosions during the Twin Towers’ destruction or who afterward referred to the destruction as an explosion-based event or who reported the possible use of explosives based on information from government sources.

    The 36 reporters include, by network, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Cynthia McFadden; CBS’s Harold Dow, Tom Flynn, Mika Brzezinski, and Carol Marin (appearing on WCBS); NBC’s Pat Dawson and Anne Thompson; CNN’s Aaron Brown, Rose Arce, Patty Sabga, and Alan Dodds Frank; Fox News’ David Lee Miller and Rick Leventhal; MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield and Rick Sanchez; CNBC’s John Bussey, Ron Insana, and Bob Pisani; WABC’s N.J. Burkett, Michelle Charlesworth, Nina Pineda, Cheryl Fiandaca, and Joe Torres; WCBS’s John Slattery, Marcella Palmer, Vince DeMentri, and Marcia Kramer; WNBC’s Walter Perez; New York 1’s Kristen Shaughnessy, Andrew Siff, John Schiumo, and Andrew Kirtzman; USA Today’s Jack Kelley; and two unidentified reporters (1 and 2) who attended a press conference with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki.

    The paper, titled “How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11,” includes extensive appendices where every news clip can be viewed.

    Walter and MacQueen conclude that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis. Next, they plan to publish a follow-up paper examining how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.

    Read “How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11.”


    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...qxXhwwCkR9fADR8xGqroo7StaIMqcXyZcPIs_yZoh8R9M

    Yet today, almost 19 years later the MSM remains silent on Dr. Hulsey's peer reviewed study and the ongoing efforts of the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry.
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — which is the U.S. government agency that investigated the World Trade Center’s destruction — the Twin Towers came down “essentially in free fall.” 1

    NIST’s theory of the collapses hinges on the idea that the upper section of each tower could continuously accelerate through the lower stories at nearly the rate of gravity, while in the process completely dismembering the steel frames and pulverizing nearly all of the concrete to a fine powder.

    Yet NIST provided no modeling or calculations to demonstrate that such behavior was possible. Instead, NIST arbitrarily stopped its analysis at the moment of “collapse initiation,” asserting that total collapse was “inevitable” once the collapses initiated.2

    Astonishingly, NIST’s entire explanation for why the lower sections failed to stop or even slow the descent of the upper sections is limited to half a page of its 10,000-page report, in a section titled “Events Following Collapse Initiation,” 3 which asserts:

    “The structure below the level of collapse initiation provided minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.

    “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” — p. 146, NIST NCSTAR 1

    In 2007, a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members filed a “Request for Correction” to the NIST report under the Information Quality Act. They argued that, among other things, NIST failed to establish the likely technical cause of the building failures because it did not explain why, after collapse initiation, total collapse had ensued.4 They wrote:

    “Here, NIST has not offered any explanation as to why (i.e. the technical cause of) the story below the collapse zone was not able to arrest the downward movement of the upper floors. The statement “as evidenced by the videos from several vantage points” is only an explanation of what occurred, but gives the reader absolutely no idea why it occurred. Basic principles of engineering (for example, the conservation of momentum principle) would dictate that the undamaged steel structure below the collapse zone would, at the very least, resist and slow the downward movement of the stories above…. The families of the firefighters and WTC employees that were trapped in the stairwells when the entirety of the WTC Towers collapsed on top of them would surely appreciate an adequate explanation of why the lower structure failed to arrest or even resist the collapse of the upper floors.” — p. 20, Request for Correction

    NIST responded to the Request for Correction with the remarkable admission that it was not able to provide a full explanation of the total collapse: 5

    “NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution…. [W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” — p. 3-4, NIST Response to Request for Correction


    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ObtBiGp9kn9ZFxn2yMgUlXADwLw__IKTK_2ufTZ8VjiXU
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST's scam was almost as obvious as Trump's con game. They denied, lied, contradicted and distorted at every opportunity in order to try to promote their phony hypotheses for the destruction of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11. Much like Trump does 24/7. In this case they claimed they interviewed multiple eyewitnesses during their "investigation". Yet (from an AE911T article):

    In addition to the wealth of video and photographic evidence regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers, there is a wealth of eyewitness accounts. The largest source of eyewitness accounts is the New York Fire Department’s (FDNY’s) World Trade Center Task Force Interviews (sometimes referred to as the “FDNY Oral Histories”), which comprise approximately 10,000 to 12,000 pages of statements by over 500 FDNY personnel collected from early October 2001 to late January 2002.1

    In its final report on the destruction of the Twin Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) declared that it found “no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.”2 Although it does not elaborate beyond that in its final report, one of the reasons NIST gives in its FAQs is as follows:

    “[T]here was no evidence (collected by NIST or by...the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.” 3

    This statement ignores and directly contradicts the plethora of accounts from eyewitnesses who reported witnessing explosions, which they consciously identified as such.


    Then NIST contradicted themselves (lied) while at the same time lied about what the eyewitness claims might have led to:

    In 2007, a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members filed a “Request for Correction” to the NIST report under the Information Quality Act.5 They argued that NIST had, among other problems, ignored the eyewitness evidence of explosions contained in the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews. NIST responded by saying that it had reviewed them, and, “Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers” — a markedly different position from the one given in its FAQs, which said that “There was no evidence (collected by...the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions....”

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...aEsQLtDNr3_v6K2oLt3GzI1p2aSjY0migNga7jxBSXlCI
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI

    NIST Late on Response to WTC 7 Request for Correction


    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now more than a week late in issuing its “initial decision” on the pending request for correction to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

    Two days before the August 13 deadline, NIST informed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) that the response had been completed but was undergoing review by the U.S. Department of Commerce. When asked, NIST did not give an expected time frame for the review to be concluded.

    AE911Truth, along with 88 architects and structural engineers and ten family members of 9/11 victims, submitted the request on April 15, 2020. Together, they seek to have NIST reverse its conclusion that fires caused the building’s destruction.

    Under the procedure governing requests submitted to NIST, the agency was supposed to provide an initial decision within 120 days of the submission, which made August 13, 2020, the deadline.

    If NIST elects in its initial decision not to take the corrective action sought, it must provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.”

    The requesters would then have 30 days to file an appeal with NIST Associate Director of Laboratory Programs James K. Olthoff. The procedure governing requests dictates that “No individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.” Mr. Olthoff’s decision would constitute the final decision of the Department of Commerce, of which NIST is a part.

    Should NIST fail to comply with the procedure governing requests (in a manner more severe than the current delay) or should it fail to rectify the information quality violations documented in the request, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters will likely pursue legal action under the Administrative Procedure Act.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/703-nist-late-on-response-to-wtc-7-request-for-correction

    If they actually have a response, it should be a good one. "We stand by our conclusion(s)" isn't going to fly.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well it may not fly but that's more or less how NIST responded to the overwhelming number of inconsistencies and contradictions outlined in meticulous detail in the Request for Correction. NIST issued a response dated August 28, 2020 and even I, who is admittedly unqualified with my inadequate technical background can easily see through their response that this is not a legitimate response and more like a dance around. It doesn't even go into most of the numerous points raised by the Request for Correction.

    Even a cursory reading of NIST’s letter, prepared by the staff of the Engineering Laboratory headquarters, reveals NIST’s response to be a blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request, written with the intention of misleading the uninformed reader into believing an adequate response has been provided.

    ...

    We and our fellow requesters will appeal NIST’s egregious decision by the September 27, 2020, deadline. In accordance with NIST’s Information Quality Guidelines, our appeal will be made to NIST Associate Director of Laboratory Programs James K. Olthoff, and no individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.

    Mr. Olthoff will have the final opportunity to restore NIST’s integrity and prevent legal action against NIST for noncompliance with the Data Quality Act.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/nist
     
  25. Denizen

    Denizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    10,139
    Likes Received:
    5,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The amazing thing about the NIST report is that the media unquestioningly accepted an evidently contrived and false report that did not even portray the collapse of the building as witnessed by all.

    The collapse of WTC 7 was evidently an explosive demolition.

    Shyam Sunder is a stooge who must have been blackmailed or otherwise threatened to comply with the Bush mob.

    Shyam Sunder has slimed the reputation of NIST forever.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
    Bob0627 likes this.

Share This Page