The next installment gets into the meat of NIST's omissions, lies and fabrications. There are just way too many for any reasonable person to characterize these as "mistakes" and given that these were highly qualified experts, it also defies logic that the sheer volume of critical "mistakes" could be characterized as gross incompetence. But even if that's the case, it means that NIST's reports, all of them, should be deemed as absolutely worthless trash that should prompt not only a legitimate investigation of what happened to the 3 towers but an investigation of all the responsible NIST actors. Part 4: Independent Analysis Disproves NIST's New Thermal Expansion Hypothesis Excerpts ... In 2008, the final report on World Trade Center Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) abandoned two myths that the 2005 Popular Mechanics article had misleadingly presented as the foundation of the official explanation for WTC 7's destruction. The first myth it discarded was the sensational story about the non-existent 10-story gouge. The second myth was about a non-existent seven-hour-long diesel fuel fire. Instead, NIST's final report correctly acknowledged that the building endured normal office fires, none of which persisted more than 30 minutes in any given location. Nevertheless, NIST insisted that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed skyscraper in history to be leveled by normal office fires (NCSTAR 1A, p. 47 [PDF p. 89] and NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, p. 604 [PDF p. 266]). NIST had invented a new mundane explanation for how the equally mundane fires had heated up and expanded the floor beams, which in turn had caused a critical girder to "walk off" of its seat. According to this new hypothetical scenario, a fire in the northeast section (near column #79) of Floor 12 heated the beams of the floor above it, causing them to expand a few inches, and then . . (sequence of NIST concocted events) ... Below are ​10 of these false premises: (the article details each one) False Premise #1. The allegation of a Floor 12 fire after 5:00 PM False Premise #2. The claim that shear studs failed due to "differential expansion" False Premise #3. The insinuation that girder shear studs were missing False Premise #4​. The overlooking of beam sag in its calculations False Premise #5. The setting of an impossibly high floor beam temperature False Premise #6. An incorrectly assumed 11-inch seat plate width False Premise #7. The revised 6.25-inch expansion number still insufficient False Premise #8. The thermal expansion limit was exceeded False Premise #9. An assumption of unobstructed girder movement False Premise #10. The non-inclusion of critical stiffener plates ... PART 4 Discussion and Conclusion The NFPA 921 scientific method specifically mandates that a theory be based on "facts that can be proven clearly by observation or experiment." But NIST's methodology violated this scientific methodology every step of the way to such a degree that NIST actually inverted the scientific method. It concocted a fairytale based on a collection of assumptions that were either not backed by any evidence or were in conflict with the available evidence. NIST's farfetched story was based on a fire that could not have existed according to its own data. Moreover, NIST had no proof that this fire, even if it had existed, could have led to broken shear studs on the floor beams. Consequently, NIST had no proof that those particular floor beams could in theory have thermally expanded and pushed that girder off its seated connection. It therefore had no scientific reason to waste time and money on the thermal expansion hypothesis. Yet NIST kept this charade going with a lot of suspicious errors, omissions, and distortions. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/215-news-media-events-5-of-6-nist-fraud-5.html
The 6th and final installment detailing NIST's WTC7 "investigation" and fraudulent report is called: PART 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded Excerpts ... (click on thumbnail) In PART 4, we demonstrated that NIST's hypothetical girder walk-off event contradicted its own data, and therefore that NIST's column #79 buckling scenario could not have happened. Thus, we proved that NIST had no evidence upon which to base its claim of how the collapse of WTC 7 was triggered. Now let us ask: Did NIST's explanation of how this initiating event led to the observed collapse of the entire building also contradict its own data? The short answer: "Yes." For a more detailed answer, we must first assume, for the sake of argument, that column #79 buckled and that this event did lead to NIST's hypothesis for how the complete collapse of WTC 7 occurred. NIST presumed that a localized collapse of the northeast section of the building set off a progressive collapse of the core, and that this 7.6-second core collapse sequence (see NIST's time line) occurred while the building's exterior remained undistorted. Specifically, NIST claimed that the buckling of core column #79 led to the subsequent buckling of columns 80 and 81, then to the collapse of the east penthouse, and finally to the failure of the entire core (see Figure 19). NIST's presumption leaves us with this obvious question: Did the hypothetical progressive core collapse match the distinguishing features of the observed implosion of WTC 7? The answer is a resounding "No," according to more than 2,350 architects and engineers and hundreds of other building professionals and physical scientists who belong to AE911Truth. In their expert eyes, NIST's computer simulation proved that WTC 7 most certainly did not collapse according to NIST's hypothetical progressive collapse scenario. NIST's computer simulation of its progressive collapse sequence does not remotely resemble the actual collapse of WTC 7. Instead, its simulation exposes fundamental flaws in the progressive total collapse hypothesis. In particular, the computer simulated collapse sequence shows three glaring contradictions which, when compared to the real event, prove that a progressive collapse did not occur: (each section below is detailed) #1. The exterior would not remain undeformed during progressive core collapse #2. A progressive core collapse would lead to an asymmetric fall instead of symmetric implosion #3. The progressive core collapse sequence does not replicate observed free-fall acceleration ... Finally, since NIST did not adhere to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921 investigative guidelines, let's do what NIST should have done explore what kind of data is considered by the NFPA 921 as evidence of incendiaries and explosives, or, in this case, forensic evidence for controlled demolition. ... It's troubling to contemplate the extent to which NIST went in omitting and distorting data in order to fabricate its illogical collapse initiation hypothesis, which we outlined in PART 4. It's equally disconcerting to uncover, as we have in this section, proof that NIST misrepresented or ignored actual evidence in order to assiduously avoid the logical conclusion of controlled demolition. According to the National Science Foundation, these sorts of omissions and distortions rise to the level of scientific misconduct or worse. ... All in all, the official version of the failure of WTC 7 does not stand up to even the most elementary scrutiny. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/217-news-media-events-6-of-6-nist-fraud-6.html
It is really "idiotic" when you think about it. NIST claims: "The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings" http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm So NIST's "idiotic" claim is that for the first time in history, ordinary office fires globally demolished a 47 story skyscraper, which would be the tallest building in most American cities, in a matter of seconds. Ordinary office fires have never caused any steel frame high rise to collapse, never mind be globally destroyed in seconds, any time in history, prior to and after 9/11. There have been over 40 such infernos, including the 1975 North Tower fire, many with much greater intensity than WTC7 and lasting much longer. One office building (the Usce tower) was pelted with multiple rockets on at least 2 occasions, caught fire and didn't go down. It was renovated and is currently in use today. Some samples: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm A recent inferno where the building stood: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-skyscraper-fire-new-years-eve-2015-live.html And another where the building did not collapse: [video=youtube;Ok9ek9d2w1o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok9ek9d2w1o[/video] I know it's a difficult read for those not technically inclined but by not reading the rest of the articles in this thread, you're not getting the full gist of NIST's fraud. You shouldn't bury your head in the sand like that, but of course, that's certainly your prerogative. All I can do is lay out the facts, it's up to the individual to study them or ignore them and I understand you want to choose the latter because of NIST's "idiotic" claim.
I seriously doubt that's true because the twin towers were more than twice as tall and required a design that would be more suitable for a building that size. Regardless, even if what you claim is true, what you're really saying is that there's nothing abnormal about WTC7 and your claim is still false. And since your claim has nothing to do with NIST or the topic of this thread, it's irrelevant as well. Well that would be an outright lie. Where do you get that I don't understand? Why do you need to make things up about me? I'm not the topic of this thread, NIST is the topic and in particular, its "investigation" and subsequent reports. Try to stick to the topic of this thread if you can. If you can't then your posts are deliberate diversions (i.e. trolling). No it's my opinion and those of many others who share that opinion. The many reasons are fully detailed in this thread, the one you don't want to read because it would cause you to go beyond the very first sentence in the very first post in this thread, which you claim you couldn't get past. There are multiple videos and a whole series of articles that have been posted so far that detail in vivid technical terms how NIST went about its "investigation" and what NIST claimed in its reports and why many of NIST's claims are fallacious and impossible. So far, the discussion is focused on WTC7 and there's more to come but I will post about NIST's twin tower collapse theories as well when I get to it. So given that you haven't reviewed anything in this thread beyond the very first sentence, you have no basis for any of your comments other than the first sentence, which I agreed with you on. When and if you ever want to go beyond the first sentence and review the actual subject matter and discuss it intelligently, I certainly have no problem with it, in fact I welcome it. But please try to stick to the subject, I'm not the subject of the thread, understand?
Just because you have a bunch of nuts that agree with you doesn't make you right and thanks for proving you don't even know hoe the building was constructed or why that matters.
You have no basis to characterize those who agree with me as "nuts", other than the usual immature name calling when you have nothing intelligent to post. Regardless, the topic is not about me or anyone who agrees with me, it's about NIST and its fraudulent investigation and subsequent reports. You admit you haven't reviewed anything in this thread past the first sentence so you have no basis for any of your opinions and so far, all you're doing is trolling. I haven't mentioned anything about the construction of WTC7 other than one very general sentence because it's irrelevant to this topic. So the above claim is yet another lie that you posted obviously just for the purpose of distracting any adult discussion on the subject matter of this thread. The thread is not about proving what I know or don't know about how the building was constructed or why it matters. It's strictly about NIST, its fraudulent investigation and subsequent reports. In fact, YOU haven't supported any of your irrelevant claims with anything, period. And since YOU posted the claim that you believe the construction of WTC7 was "not normal", the burden of proof (BOP) is on YOU. But not in this thread, post your claims about the "abnormal" construction of WTC7 and why it matters for the reason(s) YOU believe it should matter in another thread. This thread is not about that at all. Having said that, if you can show how and why the construction of WTC7 matters strictly as it relates to this topic, please do so. Again, the BOP is on YOU. I don't need to prove or disprove any of YOUR personal unsupported and irrelevant claims nor do I want to.
Just a question of principles: Why was the task of investigating a terrorist attack given to the National Institute for Standards and Technology at all? Is there no law enforcement organization in the USA? Does NIST regularly investigate criminal acts? Why not FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever, anybody having experience in criminal investigations?
NIST was not tasked with investigating a terrorist attack, they were tasked with investigating how and why the 3 towers collapsed. NIST does not have any jurisdiction or expertise to conduct criminal investigations or terrorist attacks. My guess is that the reason NIST was designated for the investigation into the collapses is that it's staffed with relevant experts but that's just a guess. IMO the investigation into the 3 tower collapses should have been conducted by a selected team of all kinds of experts, especially including those experienced at fire investigations and a team of forensic chemical analysts. That's if it was going to be a legitimate investigation. There is no evidence publicly available that shows that there ever was a forensic criminal investigation into 9/11. The Bush administration did everything in its power to prevent any kind of investigation, including urging Sen. Tom Daschle on more than one occasion not to investigate.
The FBI actually -did- investigate 9/11, it's just that not many people are aware of this fact. The name of the investigation was PENTTBOM. I've just read an article that states that the FBI actually suspected that the Twin Towers were bombed. Here's the contents of the article, there are links in the original, which is linked to at the bottom... **FBI Believed that Bombs Were Used on 9/11 On 9/11, the FBI believed that bombs were involved in the attacks. How do I know that? Because, according to the FBI's website: Following the massive terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI dedicated 7,000 of its 11,000 Special Agents and thousands of FBI support personnel to the PENTTBOM investigation. "PENTTBOM" is short for Pentagon, Twin Towers Bombing. (see also this and this). Indeed, the FBI told a reporter for USA Today that FBI agents believed there were bombs in the Twin Towers. Similarly, the Washington Post believed that bombs were involved, as reflected in a September 21, 2001 article containing the following phrase: In the hours after Tuesday's bombings . . . . Many firefighters and policemen also said there were bombs in the Twin Towers. And perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6). But surely experts have since proven that no bombs were involved. Right? In fact, structural engineers, architects, scientists and demolition experts and other high-level experts have examined the evidence and think that there were bombs. Even the former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire, who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere) doesn't bevelieve an adequate investigation into 9/11 has been conducted. He has called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."** Source: FBI Believed that Bombs Were Used on 9/11 | Washington's Blog Another thing: The FBI never found enough evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden with 9/11: FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” | GlobalResearch
True but it was not a forensic criminal investigation and not a legitimate criminal investigation either. The FBI in fact hid 27 boxes (about 80,000 pages) of documents from their PENTTBOM investigation from Congress and the 9/11 Commission and lied and told both they had given them everything they had.
I asked you to show how it's relevant to the manner in which NIST investigated the 3 collapses. Just saying I'm wrong and it's very relevant says nothing, it's no more than an unsupported claim. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Just saw a video from Jonathan Cole that I think psikeyhackr might like. I certainly thought it was well done... [video=youtube;TJNzaMRsN00]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00[/video]
I saw that a while back, Cole's videos are very informative. What caught my attention with Cole's experiment here is at about 7:37 he says he had to build a steel guide rail system otherwise the top section would continuously fall over. That alone says that if the top section separates from the building and drops directly down into the rest of the structure, it could probably never crush the rest of the building even if that were possible because it would likely fall over and not drop straight down. And that is exactly what looked like was going to happen but somehow the top section straightened itself out (was actually totally pulverized before it affected the lower section since it disappeared). And Cole's experiments are exactly what NIST should have done to see if what happened to the twin towers made any sense in natural collapse. But instead NIST never went beyond "the collapse was inevitable".
I said it's not relevant to the manner in which NIST investigated, which is the topic of this thread. In any case what I posted has nothing to do with the construction of the building, it's just one more point revealing NIST's fraud, the lack of any legitimate experiment. In this case, it's about the twin tower collapse investigation. Do you understand the point yet? So do you have anything that correlates the construction of the building to the manner in which NIST investigated?
Ok so moving on, the following is a paper that summarizes and details 25 areas of concern with regard to the NIST "investigations" and their reports. Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports I'll just post the Index for now and the discussion can open for each topic within the paper: Table of Contents WTC 7 THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER 1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114 2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM 3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED 4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 BETRAY NISTS COMPUTER MODEL 5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES 6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS 7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS ALL THREE BUILDINGS 8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL 9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C 10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION 11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED 12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS 13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE 14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL THE TWIN TOWERS 15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED 16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED 17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL 18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE INWARD BOWING WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY 19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE 20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE 21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES 22. NO JOLT CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED 23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS 24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS 25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf
It's telling that none of the OCT defenders are interested in tackling the ripping apart (technically/scientifically speaking) of the NIST reports, exposing in detail NIST's machinations in promoting its impossible theories. But that's ok, I'll just continue to describe the extent of NIST's fraud. The prior post lists 25 areas of concern. The first 2 are about NIST's deliberate omissions of key structural components. This NIST scheme is addressed in detail in the first post in this thread. So on to #3. 3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED NIST initially denied that WTC7 experienced a period of free fall during its collapse (2.25s, 105 ft or 8 stories). Shyam Sunder, a NIST spokesman and lead engineer described free fall as follows: “free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it” - Shyam Sunder WTC7 was a 47 story steel frame building about an acre in area that was obviously built with a massive amount of structural components. So according to Sunder, free fall would have been impossible in any natural collapse. David Chandler confronted Sunder with regard to the free fall of WTC7, as seen in the video below: [video=youtube;Rkp-4sm5Ypc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc&feature=youtu.be&list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824[/video] Subsequently, NIST published in their WTC7 Final Report that indeed it collapsed in free fall from the moment the roof line began to descend and for about 2.25 seconds. In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft) - NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.6 However, there is nothing in NIST's report that explains how or why WTC7 experienced a period of free fall, which again according to Sunder himself is impossible given that WTC7 was built with a massive amount of structural components. David Chandler explains in further detail the free fall issue in the following article: Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11 Excerpts ... We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero... in both directions. ... NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. ... NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible. (If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.) ... Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. ... NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment. The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html I'm going to add to the above that it's not strictly that building dropped at free fall for a period of time, it's also that the descent of the building from beginning to end was at a nearly constant acceleration. So even if the measured rate is not exactly free fall, that it accelerated signifies that the building's massive structure provided no significant resistance of any kind. This can only happen in a controlled demolition where everything that might provide resistance is purposely removed. Furthermore, it is impossible for ordinary office fires (as NIST described it), even with severe damage, to cause a building to collapse just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. That NIST failed to explain this phenomenon is just one piece of evidence out of so many, that prove that NIST perpetrated a hoax.
4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 BETRAY NISTS COMPUTER MODEL IMO, NIST's computer models are a gross insult one's intelligence. The reason NIST does not want to make its data and methodology publicly available is that it likely would be even more insulting to any expert analysis. NFPA protocol requires the use of the scientific method, which includes a peer review process. The lack of availability to NIST's data and methodology renders peer review impossible and that's exactly what NIST does not want, a peer review. They got one anyway, using whatever NIST did make publicly available and the result is why this thread exists. NIST took about 6 years to arrive at its column 79 probable collapse initiation theory and part of that time, even according to NIST, was used to fabricate a computer model that might lend some credibility to its column 79 failure theory. NIST claims a 25s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete. And IMO it's probably because NIST went through a period of trial and error using only data that might work for its computer model, omitted real data and concocted data they determined was necessary. Regardless, the result of their animation is such nonsense even a child should be able to see the enormous difference between their cartoon simulation and the actual collapse of WTC7. As it turns out, the computer animation looks like what the collapse might look like if it actually took place according to NIST's theory. There is another article that more fully explains NIST's computer model: FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire? http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...ve-that-the-skyscraper-came-down-by-fire.html
