The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain this one Bobby.

    How can Hulsey definitively say that fire did not cause the collapse yet all possibilities have not been explored?
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read the draft report you would know the answer to that. You would also understand why it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios.

    Did you ever question why NIST never investigated all possible scenarios, including CD? No, you just accepted their phony excuses without question.

    If you read what I posted, you would know the answer to that. The multi-gigs of data will be available within the next 2 weeks, Why does it matter to you, do you really anticipate doing the research yourself or are you just going to rely on Mick West? Have you ever questioned or criticized NIST for never allowing all their data, models and methodology to be available for public scrutiny? Of course not, you just gave these criminal phonies a pass. The hypocrisy oozes.

    If you read my posts or understood that Hulsey modeled the most likely reason WTC7 collapsed the way it did, you would know the answer to that question. NO fire can remove all the columns of any building simultaneously. Did you ever question why NIST arrived at their conclusion without examining all the possibilities? No, of course not.

    You still haven't answered my question, are you that terrified or perhaps the question is too complicated for you?

    But don't bother, I'm not that interested.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's ridiculous Bobby. You say it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios yet Hulsey says that fire could not have caused the collapse. Can't have it both ways. You can't state that your study completely rules out fire when you admit that you didn't study all scenarios.

    Did you ever question why Hulsey never investigated all possible scenarios as he admitted INCLUDING DC?

    Did you ever criticize Husley for not releasing his data with his report? Why is he waiting two weeks? That's two weeks LESS for people to look over his work.

    How do you know Hulsey used correct input data? He hasn't released it yet. What is there are mistakes? Why are you not questioning Hulsey's work? Why did he lie about making the study transparent during the four years the study took place? Did you ever question that?

    The hypocrisy oozes.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is that what Hulsey's model shows Bobby? You better take a closer look. All columns simultaneously being removed eh? Why does the west penthouse fall into the building without the the roof descending?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bobby, here is the claim made by Hulsey.
    Hulsey makes the global, all encompassing claim that FIRE did not cause the collapse yet in the same breath YOU state that it wasn't necessary to rule out all scenarios. Explain how someone can rule out something COMPLETELY without studying all scenarios.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you read the report, you would see the problem with Hulsey completely ruling out fire as a possible cause of collapse.

    Here is an excerpt from his report:
    See that Bobby? All they looked at and supposedly have shown was not possible was the HYPOTHETICAL failures alleged to have happened by NIST and the other firms.

    That's it.

    For Hulsey to COMPLETELY rule out fire as he did is an embarrassment.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not going to quote all your pathetic OCT groveling nonsense so I'll just make it a generic response, more or less.

    The only thing embarrassing is your own posts pretending you have any standing to criticize Hulsey and his work.

    Any fool with minimal intellectual capacity who has ever seen a CD would (or should) know that WTC7 was CD'd the first time he/she saw the video, it's not rocket science. Any fool who knows the least bit about CDs would know that to make a building such as WTC7 fail globally and drop into its footprint symmetrically at free fall would require that ALL its columns be removed simultaneously. Any fool with minimal logical capability would know that fire in a large steel frame high rise can never duplicate a CD. And any fool with minimal intellect should know that to try to model a global collapse of WTC7 in the manner seen in videos using fire (or fires) as the primary cause would likely require infinite (or nearly infinite) iterations and may never achieve such a result. OTOH one would likely not even need a computer to model what happened to WTC7 is the result of having all its columns removed simultaneously. In fact, there are real world modelS (plural emphasized) that have achieved that very same thing.

    I personally never needed Hulsey to tell me what happened to WTC7, I KNEW (I didn't just suspect) that WTC7 was control demolished the very first time I saw it on video, in 2004. All Hulsey did with his 4 year study is scientifically PROVE that NIST's hypothesis was not only impossible but also based on scientific fraud and PROVE that a computer model can be constructed such that it replicates the global collapse of WTC7.

    His draft paper will be peer reviewed and fully endorsed by the scientific community, perhaps with some tweaks. They are the ones who will sort this out and they are the ones who matter. Of that I'm fully confident because there is NO other valid scientific explanation. And that will become THE industry wide accepted standard. Are Hulsey's paper and methodology perfect? Perhaps not, but then again no one else has done anything close to what he's done and NIST's garbage is just that. The vast differences are that there is nothing valid out there that replicates or supports NIST's conclusions and there can never be because NIST denied public access. Hulsey's work, once the data is available, can be replicated all day long and confirmed. Even if let's just say it might take years to find the flaws, it will always be available for scrutiny. Peer review is actually not the end all, it is a starting point. That's why it's a standard that anyone can work from. So people such as Mick West, you and ALL other fanatical 9/11 "debunkers" can spin your wheels 24/7/365, you are all irrelevant and just a propaganda distraction.

    Instead of bitching and moaning, do the work and the modeling yourself and see if you can come up with a different result. I'm sure that will never happen because even if you had the expertise and the facilities, I'm 100% sure you won't be able to.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And what "fool" COMPLETELY ruled out fire? Thanks for reinforcing my point about Hulsey and his report.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking the wrong question, it should read "What fool wouldn't completely rule out fire?". Oh yeah NIST and you. Go back and read Hulsey's draft where he shows in no uncertain terms what didn't happen because of fire.

    You never had any point about Hulsey and his report, same with NIST and their report. You just keep embarrassing yourself trying to defend an impossibility and a massive fraud and keep pretending there's somehow an alternate reality where fire does the exact same thing as a controlled demolition.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.

    There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to

    publiccomment@AE911Truth.org.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    Hopefully if that deadline passes with no data available, the peer review deadline will be extended appropriately. IMO it should be extended regardless. The final published peer reviewed report will become the scientific standard for what most likely happened to WTC7 on 9/11 (that all columns were removed simultaneously, perhaps with the core columns first followed by the remaining columns a fraction of a second later), until proven otherwise*. The NIST report called the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (a hypothesis of a gravitational collapse caused by thermal expansion due to fire alone - peddled for almost 11 years as fact) will be scientifically invalidated in the process, until proven otherwise*. Whether that means the Hulsey hypothesis will also be officially accepted or not, we shall see. In the meantime, there's also an initiative to inform Congress:



    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/563...rs-urge-congress-to-reopen-9-11-investigation

    The scientific invalidation of the NIST WTC7 hypothesis will (or should) precipitate a scientific review/analysis of NIST's WTC1 and WTC2 hypothesis. An article on that subject was published in 1996 and has exceeded 1 million views. That number is by far the most widely read article in the Europhysics Journal.

    15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses
    https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

    https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

    * I anticipate that the only thing that might change as time passes is that Hulsey's final report will be edited to include additional detail and perhaps some corrections.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Volunteers from the local group DC911Truth showed up in great measure and did their part by delivering packages to all 535 members of Congress. The packages included a copy of the Bobby McIlvaine Act; a moving letter from Gioia; evidence “postcards” that concisely outline the explosive evidence regarding the destruction of the towers; and a one-page summary of the recent YouGov survey commissioned by AE911Truth, which found that a majority of Americans who see video of the collapse of Building 7 are certain or suspect it was due to a controlled demolition.

    On the final day of the visit, Steele delivered a packet to each member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (chaired by Cummings, whose office hosted a meeting) and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The packet included a cover letter (see below) from Gage, the abstract of the UAF report, and the one-page summary of the YouGov survey. Steele also gave the UAF abstract and the YouGov survey results to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who is the sole representative from Alaska.


    September 13, 2019
    Re: World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse Reports by NIST and UAF
    Dear Congressman Cummings:

    I am writing you today on behalf of more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling on the U.S. Congress to open a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

    In September 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the National Construction Safety Team Act, which mandated the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to investigate and determine the most likely technical cause of these three building failures. NIST conducted its investigation over the next six years, releasing its report on the Twin Towers in 2005 and its report on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in 2008.

    Sadly, it has become apparent to the thousands of professionals who have signed our petition, as well as to countless experts in other technical fields, that NIST conducted its investigation based on the pre‑determined conclusion that all three failures were due primarily to fire. Along the way, NIST ignored, dismissed, and denied the overwhelming evidence contradicting that conclusion.

    As part of our effort to establish the truth about these three building failures, we have funded a four-year computer modeling study of the collapse of WTC 7 by engineers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The draft report of this study was released on September 3, 2019. The final report will be published by the end of the year, after a two-‐‑month public comment period.

    We respectfully ask that you, as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, read the draft report. Then, following the release of the final report, we ask that you do everything in your power to have the Committee on Oversight and Reform investigate the profound discrepancies between the NIST findings and UAF findings — and hold NIST and its lead investigators accountable. Pending the outcome of your investigation, we also ask you to consider introducing the obby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act, which would establish a select committee to reinvestigate the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers (see AE911Truth.org/justice).

    Enclosed you will find the abstract of the UAF WTC 7 report. You may download the full report at http://ine.uaf.edu or at https://AE911Truth.org/wtc7. If you have any questions, please contact me directly.

    Sincerely yours,
    Richard Gage, AIA
    Founder and President


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/574...11truth-take-to-the-halls-of-congress-on-9-11
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UAF, AE911Truth Release All Data from WTC 7 Study — Time for NIST to Do the Same

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to announce the release of all input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during the University of Alaska Fairbanks World Trade Center Building 7 study.

    All of the data can be downloaded in a ZIP file at either AE911Truth.org/wtc7 or ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.

    Because the release of these files was delayed by two weeks, the deadline for the public comment period has been moved from November 1 to November 15, 2019.

    Help Ensure an Open and Transparent Scientific Process Regarding WTC 7


    The files contained in this download will enable any person with the requisite software tools to examine and replicate all of the computer analyses performed during this study.

    Unfortunately, while the UAF research team has made all of its data available to the public, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has so far refused to practice the same level of transparency regarding its taxpayer-funded investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.

    In 2009, then-NIST Director Patrick Gallagher issued a “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information” stating that the disclosure of certain information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation “might jeopardize public safety.” Since then, NIST has cited this public safety exemption as grounds for withholding key portions of its modeling data and other information from members of the public — including from licensed engineers, whose foremost duty is to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

    In response to one engineer’s appeal of NIST’s decision to withhold this information, the U.S. Department of Commerce subsequently claimed that, if released, the withheld information “might provide instruction to groups and individuals that wish to learn how to simulate building collapse and devise ways to destroy buildings.”

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which represents thousands of professionals who are tasked with ensuring the public’s safety, vigorously objects to the withholding of any information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation. It should be clear to all observers that the risk of anyone using this information to devise ways to destroy buildings is infinitesimal to zero and that the withholding of this information has merely served to prevent the public from scrutinizing the analyses performed by NIST.

    We therefore encourage every member of the public who cares about ensuring an open and transparent scientific process regarding the collapse of WTC 7 to email NIST Director Walter Copan at walter.copan@nist.gov and respectfully ask him to annul the 2009 “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information.” This simple action would allow NIST to disclose any information related to its WTC 7 investigation that members of the public request in the future.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/591...from-wtc-7-study-time-for-nist-to-do-the-same

    So we are a step closer to getting the scientific community to face the facts and accept the industry wide standard truth that the NIST report on WTC7 is not valid. And that the only possible cause of the global destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 at free fall and near free fall is the near simultaneous failure of every column which of course could never have been caused by fire. It is up to NIST or anyone, to try to legitimately refute this reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While we await expert review, analysis and comments (peer review) of Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft report that scientifically proves that the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 is severely defective and the resulting hypothesis is impossible, yet another scientific/mathematical analysis of the collapse of the North Tower has been presented that also requires expert review, analysis and comments.

    New Paper on WTC ‘Collapses’ Adds to Literature Refuting Progressive Collapse Theory

    Few people know that the official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction relies entirely on just four journal papers. All four papers were coauthored by Northwestern University engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant, and all four were published in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics between 2002 and 2011 (Bažant submitted the first paper a mere two days after 9/11). 1 2 3 4

    This may come as a surprise to many people, since one would assume that the government itself fully investigated the Twin Towers’ destruction and offered a complete theory explaining these catastrophic building failures. But that assumption is wide of the mark.

    As it happens, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) limited the scope of its investigation to “the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse.” Stunningly, NIST admitted that it conducted “little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” and that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” 5 6

    In other words, the government did not explain how the tops of the Twin Towers were able to crush through the enormous steel structures below them “essentially in free fall.”7 The only analysis ever produced in support of this notion was by Bažant and his various coauthors.

    This past September, the most recent paper refuting Bažant’s theory was presented by German mathematician and physicist Ansgar Schneider at the annual congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) in New York City. Schneider’s paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe,” can now be found in the conference proceedings and is also available for free on arXiv, the e-print server of the Cornell University Library.8

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.10801.pdf

    Complementing earlier research, Schneider’s paper offers a new and unique approach to falsifying Bažant’s theory. Previous papers showed that Bažant hugely underestimated the ability of WTC 1’s lower section to resist the fall of the upper section and pointed out that there would have been a large, observable deceleration of the upper section’s downward movement — which there was not — if it had impacted the intact lower section. 9 10 11

    Schneider’s approach is to assume that Bažant’s mathematical model of a progressive collapse is valid. Then, by plugging into the model the actual data related to the fall of the upper section, he calculates the upward resistance provided by the lower section.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Schneider finds that, from 4.6 seconds until 7.7 seconds into the collapse, the computed upward resistance of the lower section is so great that the collapse would have been arrested if the upward resistance were consistent throughout the vertical length of the building.

    Yet Schneider also finds that the upward resistance during the first 4.6 seconds and after 7.7 seconds is almost as low as one-tenth of the possible average upward resistance over the vertical length of the building — specifically, 66 meganewtons versus 500 meganewtons. This finding is consistent with David Chandler’s estimate that, based on the upper section accelerating constantly at 64% of free fall for the first four seconds of the collapse, “close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated.”12

    Schneider thus arrives at the question: What mechanism so dramatically reduced the resistance of the building structure at the beginning and the end of the collapse? The obvious answer, in light of all of the evidence ignored by NIST but known to the public for many years, is that explosives and incendiaries were used to destroy the structure.

    Regrettably, Schneider was not allowed to give his presentation at the 2019 IABSE Congress in the format he would have hoped. In August, he was denied entry to the United States because his two previous trips to Iran to teach courses and speak at math conferences made him ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program available to most Europeans — and then he was denied a normal visa, despite having an invitation from IABSE.

    Unable to attend the conference in person, Schneider recorded a 15-minute presentation that the organizers kindly played at his session. A revised version of that presentation is available below.



    Schneider and AE911Truth are grateful to the many people who donated so that he could register for the 2019 IABSE Congress, which enabled him to present this important paper and have it published in the conference proceedings.

    (click the link below for references)

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/604...terature-refuting-progressive-collapse-theory
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI, the deadline for the pubic comment period for Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft paper on WTC7 ended yesterday. According to Roland Angle who claims to have read the comments, he believes that the Hulsey study will stand unchallenged. It does not mean however that no one can ever challenge it past the deadline, that is open ended indefinitely. What it does mean is that once Dr. Hulsey publishes the final report, it will be the de facto scientific/industry wide accepted standard hypothesis for the destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 unless and until proven otherwise. And it will completely invalidate the official NIST report on the "collapse" of WTC7, as well as the Weidlinger and ARUP studies.
     

Share This Page