The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conclusion

    Slide 83 provides Professor Hulsey's concluding statements, “Did Building 7 collapse due to fires? No. This is based on our calculations. This contradicts the findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [Our analysis provides] what I viewed as the real way it (e.g. WTC 7) actually behaved. Not what you assumed, not what you do in terms of boundary conditions – making things perhaps easier for yourself – or whatever."


    And here is where I'm having a bit of a problem. Hulsey claims WTC7 did not collapse due to fires based on the calculations. But the calculations only show that WTC7 did not collapse based on NIST's probable collapse initiation theory so I don't see how Hulsey's calculations show that it did not collapse due to fires, but that's a side issue that's extremely minor compared to the following.

    What Hulsey's study (and other studies posted in this thread) also shows beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt is that NIST deliberately omitted structural components and fudged the data.

    The author of this article is Wayne H. Coste. He is also the co-author (along with John D. Wyndham) of a paper called Ethics and the Official Reports about the "Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study". The paper applies to NIST's "investigation" of the "collapse" of the twin towers but as seen here, it equally applies to NIST's "investigation" of the "collapse" of WTC7. This is from that paper:

    II. ETHICAL VIOLATIONS BY NIST – A CASE STUDY

    In any scientific investigation, use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim is an ethical violation whose severity can depend on the circumstances. For events that involve great loss of life and property, and that may represent a criminal act, or a systemic problem that may occur again unless dealt with honestly and correctly, omission and misrepresentation become synonymous with “criminal negligence.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines
    criminal negligence in this way [17]:

    Criminal Negligence: “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.”

    All professional organizations have codes of ethics. For example, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) requires its members “to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.” The Association of Certified FraudExaminers (ACFE) requires an examiner to “reveal all material matters … which, if omitted, could cause a distortion of the facts.” The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has a code of ethics regarding safety, health, the environment, honesty and realism in stating claims, and the seeking of honest reviews [18]. Major events especially require adherence to ethical standards that uphold the credibility of these and similar professional organizations.

    In a world with many thousands of steel-framed buildings, the complete destruction of three such buildings on the same day with great loss of life is an occasion to demand a strictly open and honest investigation, use of accepted codes of procedure, and adherence to sound scientific and engineering principles in order to determine whether other buildings are at risk. If, in addition, an incomplete or dishonest investigation will encourage actions or inactions that place thousands of human beings at home and abroad at risk, such a flawed investigation can be considered an ethical violation and criminal negligence of the most serious kind.


    http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_030714.pdf
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So here's my summary of Dr. Hulsey's Interim Report from what I know so far.

    1. At minimum, it confirms by additionally exposing the fact that NIST's theory is based on concocted data.
    2. It exposes the fact that NIST failed to conduct several basic types of analyses that a forensic investigation and standard investigation protocol requires.
    3. It clearly shows (pending peer review) that NIST's theory is impossible given the actual data and even given NIST's own concocted data.
    4. It confirms the fact that 9/11 was never legitimately investigated.

    As to #4, the US government is constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense. In order to do that it is an absolute requirement that all threats to the US be legitimately and thoroughly investigated. Any deliberate attempt to thwart, minimize or otherwise compromise such an investigation can be considered providing aid and comfort to the enemy and is defined as treason under Article III Section 3.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not pretty Bob, but sometimes you need to take off the rose colored glasses friend.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not operating under any false hopes, I'm just stating the facts. You see what Congress did after the Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture published its expose of the CIA torture program ... absolutely NOTHING. In a true Constitutional Republic, there would be many arrests and heads would roll, perhaps even a Congressional investigation looking into disbanding the CIA.

    It doesn't matter if nothing is going to be done by the criminals running our pretend government, the facts that are being deliberately suppressed must be exposed as they are discovered and disseminated to everyone who cares (or not).
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Although Dr. Hulsey claimed his paper will be released in October or November 2017 for peer review, this has not yet happened. I'm guessing he wants to be sure of all the details before publication and it's taking more time than he anticipated. I'm also guessing it will be released in January or February. It's quite understandable though, NIST took 7 years to publish their report.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's going to be a bit longer. According to the website:

    Project Dates

    May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

    http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

    If it takes a bit longer to get it right, so be it. I'm fully confident Dr. Hulsey and his team will scientifically prove beyond any doubt that NIST's report on the "collapse" of WTC7 is full of dung from start to finish. Many of us have believed that since it was first published. I'm also fully confident the controlled MSM will be totally silent on this.
     
  7. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,503
    Likes Received:
    3,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here are a few tips none of the "Experts" have covered, what has New York City that makes it somewhat unique ?
    .
    Underground commercial steam to include massive underground tunnels.
    Compare the timelines for construction of towers 1 and 2 and
    building 7....
    Concrete pour schemes.
    How much underground presure, directed pressure was directed at building 7 through underground tunnels and the defunct pour conduit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what is your point?

    1. What "experts" are you referring to?
    2. How does your point (whatever it is) relate to the topic of this thread (the NIST "investigation" methodology)?
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your non-answer implies you have no point then.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A draft report of the study is scheduled for release in early 2018 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report will then be published in May or June 2018.

    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The latest update on Dr. Hulsey's research is that the results will be delayed until later this year. There are apparently many technical hurdles to overcome to come up with something his team can confidently publish for peer review.

    Excerpt:

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

    Read the entire letter ...

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

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following is a recent debate between Tony Szamboti and Mick West. For those who are not familiar with these 2 people, Tony Szamboti is a structural engineer and a member of AE911Truth. He has thoroughly studied the NIST reports on the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 and has authored and co-authored several peer reviewed technical papers on the subject. Mick West is a self professed "debunker" who spends much of his time criticizing anyone and everyone who disagrees with the official 9/11 narrative and as most of those who fit that criteria, rarely or never questions any of it and defends virtually every minute detail of the narrative. I have to apologize but I am not familiar with West's professional background but I imagine he does have a fairly reasonable understanding of engineering. I'll let the viewers judge for themselves the debate points. It is helpful if one has an engineering or physics background in order to understand the finer technical details presented but not necessary. It is a long video over 1 hour 44 minutes but some may find it interesting and educational.

     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mick banned me from this thread:

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

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

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

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I take it because you didn't buy the official 9/11 narrative and refuse to go along with his program.

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

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Specs say it was supposed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone posted that wind speed hit 100 mph six times during the life of the towers. I have not verified that anywhere yet.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either way the towers obviously withstood high winds during their existence. I personally saw the tower sway from the top of the other tower back in the day. They also withstood the alleged impact of the planes as well.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following video is 1 hour 19 minutes long. The first half examines the immense issues/contradictions with NIST's theory on the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11 and the second half examines the equally immense issues/contradictions with NIST's theory on the "collapse" of the twin towers on 9/11.

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




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

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    awwww ... no way! ... not only are we listening to a civil engineer, but they toss in some directive bites at around the 8 minute mark ... major troofer fail but I will keep watching just to mine more material for the audience ... brilliant!!!
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    a "small amount of debris" hit the tower ... yeah, ok dude ...
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A typical response of a detailed scientific analysis of the NIST "investigations" that took years and many appropriate experts to examine, uncover, analyze and summarize:

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

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

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,691
    Likes Received:
    2,274
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what took the towers down.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The debris field was provided in a detailed diagram by FEMA and its effect on WTC7 was explained by NIST in their report. It's their respective claims, you had nothing to do with it and your opinion is irrelevant.

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

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be the purview of a legitimate investigation. The purpose of this thread is not to determine what caused the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, it is strictly what the title says, to expose NIST's criminal scam in detail.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A controlled demolition.
     
  25. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,691
    Likes Received:
    2,274
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh' that's a good one.
    You ever work on a demo crew, no you did not.
    Do you know the magnitude of the job on an empty 20 story building, no you do not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018

Share This Page