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:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let’s follow the facts and logic.

    NOTE: The use of the term “fully destroyed” for the purpose below means leaving almost nothing of any significance standing.

    1. There are only 2 possibilities. Either all 3 towers fully destroyed themselves naturally as a result of the events of 9/11 or all were fully destroyed artificially by other means. There is no third possibility. It’s also safe to say the method of destruction (natural or artificial) that occurred for one tower very likely occurred for all 3 towers but that is not conclusive.

    2. It has been conclusively proven and settled that a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition can fully destroy any structure, including a steel framed high rise tower. In some cases in an accelerating straight down manner and even free fall or near free fall.

    3. It has also been shown that a poorly planned and/or poorly executed controlled demolition will fail to fully destroy a structure but may partially destroy it.

    4. The only known method of fully destroying a building just like a controlled demolition is of course a controlled demolition. And conversely there is no known method of fully destroying a building just like a controlled demolition other than a controlled demolition. Not by experiment and not by computer model.

    5. It has never been proven by experiment or computer model that a steel framed high rise tower can be fully destroyed by plane crash, damage and/or fire. Furthermore, it has never occurred that these events (including earthquake and missile attack) have ever fully destroyed any steel framed high rise tower either before or following 9/11.

    6. The Cardington and Broadgate office fire experiments have shown that a deliberately loaded and exaggerated fire did not cause a steel framed structure to collapse.

    7. Taking all the above into consideration, in the event a building is fully destroyed, given the probability, the most likely reason is controlled demolition and the least likely reason is the building fully destroyed itself naturally as a result of some other event.

    8. And last but not least, it is proven that the NIST “investigation” into the “collapse” of the twin towers and WTC7 was unscientific, based on concocted data for the purpose of yielding a preconceived conclusion and therefore fraudulent.

    NOTE: Nothing above is a substitute for or intended to be a substitute for a legitimate investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and WTC7 on 9/11. Furthermore, nothing above conclusively proves or is intended to conclusively prove what actually happened to those 3 towers on 9/11.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Summarizing the findings of many experts who have conducted extensive research on NIST's WTC7 report, at 36:00 of the video, the following is claimed:

    All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions.

    1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.

    2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.

    3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.

    4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.

    5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.

    6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.

    7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.

    8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.

    9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.

    10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.

    11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.


    Please note that the very first post in this thread makes note of many of these false/concocted NIST assumptions. One does not have to be an engineer or even understand physics to be fully aware of the implications raised by the above. All these findings are evidence of criminal fraud perpetrated by those responsible at NIST.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    can you source the experts Bob? ...sorry, but I can't let you off this easy ...

    both you and I KNOW that you believe that WTC7 was "destroyed" by CD ... do you have even a whisper of evidence or are you going to continue this absurd premise of negative evidence? ...

    I want to see a puff of smoke or a sound of an explosion coming from 7 ...

    nobody knows wtf happened in 7 ... bad foundation probably compromised by the 1 and 2 collapses ... who gives a **** what hacks at NIST say? ...

    you're grasping at straws Bob ... could be the plastic straws that everybody is bitching about right now ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already long done, all over this thread. Do you have anything legitimate (preferably sourced) that can contradict or bring into question (that you agree with and can show why you support it) anything presented in the video? This discussion is not about the experts, it's about their findings.

    Unless and until anyone can scientifically prove otherwise, the evidence and logic (as already described) dictates that CD is the most likely cause for all 3 WTC towers and that anything else is the least likely cause. The default position in a legitimate investigation should first be neutrality followed by the most likely cause and definitely not the least likely cause. Regardless, I (and anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence, hopefully you too) require incontrovertible proof no matter what I believe, that is not debatable.

    The evidence is not mine and the preponderance of evidence (as shown throughout this thread) indicates that the 3 towers were not fully destroyed as a natural consequence of the events of 9/11. That leaves only one other possibility.

    None of that is relevant to this discussion. However, as an aside, there is a video posted numerous times in this section of the forum of a loud explosion coming from WTC7 just prior to its destruction.

    I do and so do many, many others. What NIST published as a result of their "investigation" is the official US government position (a large portion of the OCT). If you don't care you should not be posting in this thread because that's what it's all about. The purpose of this thread is to expose the fact that no legitimate investigation was ever conducted into the destruction of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11 in order to try to achieve the objective of having one done. It is not to prove anything about what actually happened to the 3 towers on 9/11. This has already been well stated throughout this thread, pay attention.

    Sorry but your opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion or the facts. I keep telling you 9/11 is not about me but you constantly insist you want to divert any and all discussions on the subject to try to make it about me. Read this again for comprehension:

     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,985
    Likes Received:
    2,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never held elected office either, but I've read and seen enough to know that power corrupts.

    Does one need to be a submariner to understand how things work? Does one need to be a detective to connect dots?

    What are you trying to say?
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    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.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    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.
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry, that should be 'were' not 'are'.
     
  11. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,334
    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
     
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More than 1800 posts since April. Impressive!
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are trolling. Please stay on topic or you will be reported.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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)
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you (and many others) predicted that Hulsey would publish his report yesterday ... still waiting ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  19. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,334
    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.
     
  20. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,334
    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.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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
  22. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,334
    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.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    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.
     
  25. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,334
    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