The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

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

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    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
  2. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    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.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oh the irony ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    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.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn’t qualify as adult or intelligent either. Do you have anything adult AND intelligent to post with respect to this thread topic? To remind you this topic is about the 9/11 Commission, their report and any related issue. Please remain on topic or you will be reported for trolling. If you can’t do that stay the **** out of my thread.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyway, back on topic (my sympathies Shiner)

    Since there seems to be quite a bit of fear on the part of some trolls that the 29 FACTS I listed are being exposed on a regular basis (and they should be ... often) and some feeble attempts are being made to dispute one or two them, I feel it's appropriate to go over each and every one of them in more detail. This time one at a time.

    #1 has already been gone over and stands as FACT via the historical record, there is no valid dispute. The 9/11 evidence was destroyed despite all attempts to stop the destruction and the Bush administration is fully responsible for its destruction for their failure to stop it. What hasn't been ascertained is exactly who ordered the destruction, what the Bush administration knew about the destruction, were they directly involved, did they even order it (perhaps not directly but via back channels) and much more. And this is just one small example proving there was no legitimate investigation into 9/11, otherwise that would have been part of the investigation.

    So I'll move on to #2. Anyone care to dispute #2? (I'm not sure why anyone would want to other than trolls)

    Here's the video evidence (at 3:30):

     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    Shinebox likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    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.
     
  8. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    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.
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not ready to move on to #2 yet ... can you offer anything as to who may have been attempting to stop the destruction of "evidence"? ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too late I guess, already moved on.

    This article might help identify the culprits directly responsible and those who criticized it.

    http://brianrwright.com/CoffeeCoasterBlog/?p=673
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ok ... so you used a blog as evidence, which I'll accept ... so now, the City of New York workers are in on the scam under Giuliani's direction ... I thought is was the Bush admin? ... the plot thickens ...
     
  12. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    troofers will never discuss the numbers of conspirators it would take to accomplish their silly conspiracies ...

    start counting ... controlled demo of three buildings ... switched aircraft and passengers ... phony eyewitnesses ... planted aircraft parts ... DNA trickery ... and on and on ...

    I am still shocked that I wasn't a player in this big scam ...
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not "evidence" and I never said it was, re-read what I posted for comprehension, or better yet, skip it and ASSume what you want. I don't care. Nothing you post about 9/11 is genuine, intelligent or adult.

    That's YOUR invented conspiracy theory, I'm not interested in your red herrings.

    Nothing alleviates the full responsibility of the Bush administration from failing to insure the 9/11 evidence was not destroyed.
     
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and all the people they had to kill, because they wouldn't go along with it.
     
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm a very intelligent adult bob ... I was able to retire at the age of 50 but got bored so I work as an engineering consultant when I feel like taking on a project ... I am also a troller ... I have a mid sized cabin cruiser that we (kids, grandkids and my wonderful wife) take out at least evry other week and cruise the keys with lines in the water on the way to wherever we end up ... mahi, snapper, char, the occasionally wahoo (tastiest fish on the planet) ...



    nope ... that's a troofer CT ...



    what evidence bob? ... didn't another troofer gather some paint flakes and tried to spin them as thermite residue? ..
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah Donald Trump keeps making that claim too. Anyone who prolifically uses the childish term "troofer" (and many other things you post) to try to bolster their arguments has no claim to any reasonable level of maturity or intelligence. The rest of your post is the evidence. Please remain on topic, I don't give a rat's ass about you, your non-credible "engineering" background, your boat, your family or "troofers". You want to continue the discussion on the first of 29 points I posted about the 9/11 Commission and their report (and related issues), fine, anything else I'm not interested.
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ah bullshit bob ... you're not interested in anything but troofer nonsense ... anyone that doesn't agree with your cockamamie theories "has bought and defends the OCT" or whatever other troofer terms you like to use ... yes, you're a troofer bob ... get used to it ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually you and millions of others are an integral part of this huge scam. The NIST and 9/11 Commission scams rely on millions of people believing their reports are fact. It would be a huge problem if that wasn't the case. And the scams do work for people such as yourself.
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    please say hello to the pachyderm for me would ya ...
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation of what YOU believe that is supposed to be.
     
  21. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can dance around all you want, but everyone is waiting for your explanations.

    OH, The Troofers aren't, red is green, is black, is grey, anything is OK, as long as it is anti-government.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  22. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that's easy Bob ... the truther belief in all things which would require 10s of thousands of conspirators with none of them giving up the ghost ... don'y play stupid Bob ... why not just address it? ... you can play your "legitimate investigation" card all you like but please don't deny that you believe explosives were involved in the destruction of the towers ...
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I address the Official Conspiracy Theory, the official conjecture, not YOUR conjectures. I can ask you the same question. Why are you playing stupid and failing to address the many frauds perpetrated by the 9/11 Commission and NIST as published in their reports? These are documented demonstrable facts, not theory, despite that you insist on characterizing them all as "conspiracy theory" promoted by "troofers". And the problem is these facts do not go away just because you theorize about 10s of thousands of conspirators. Neither the 9/11 Commission or NIST is made up of 10s of thousands of conspirators. In fact one 9/11 Commissioner resigned calling it a scam and a former NIST employee publicly claims the NIST investigation was a scam.

    These scams were perpetrated no matter what else you or I or anyone else believes or theorizes.

    I would never deny the obvious. But my beliefs have nothing to do with the facts, whether they are correct or not. The fact is the Official Conspiracy Theory embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports is a massive scam, period.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 1

    The following was recently posted in another thread:

    So I decided to move this "discussion" where it properly belongs.

    First, I'd like to point out the fallacious claims:

    1. That the above 11 listed assumptions are mine. They are not, they were actually listed in a video presentation of a webinar narrated by Roland Angle called “A Critique of the NIST WTC Building Failure Reports and the Progressive Collapse Theory”. So anyone can review the video and judge for themselves if these 11 points have any basis in validity:



    2. That these 11 listed assumptions claimed to be erroneous are "garbage". Far from it, if any single one of these NIST assumptions is erroneous, it would invalidate NIST's entire WTC7 collapse theory formulated following their research and published in their “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7”. And that has far reaching and extremely serious implications. These implications should reveal themselves if the current grand jury investigation is not going to be compromised. Of course there are no guarantees because all of this information has been suppressed by the mainstream media over the last decade+.

    https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.NCSTAR.1a

    The painstaking analysis conducted by many experts over a number of years is being called “garbage”. Yet there is no similar criticism by the same person of the NIST “investigation” and subsequent report which has been proven to use manipulated structural diagrams and invented or distorted data designed to produce a predetermined theory peddled as fact.

    3. That one requires all the calculations and models and must verify them to be 100% correct before determining if all these 11 points are accurate or not. I’ve assessed that perhaps only two of these (#1 and #6) may be necessary if one is inclined to do so, but all of them? Absolutely not since 9 of these are not directly associated with calculations and/or models and are strictly based on plain common sense.

    4. That if the calculations and models cannot be verified, all 11 points are faith based. If anything, NIST refused to release data and models despite FOIA requests so one can ONLY accept NIST’s theory on faith. Exposing NIST’s erroneous assumptions as fact is not faith based, it’s simply fact that can be easily revealed and/or demonstrated as such.

    (continued)
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 2

    So as challenged and in pursuit of my personal objective (to expose the OCT as a criminal fraud), I will take each of the 11 assumptions and try to show how and why experts have concluded that correcting each of these invalidates NIST’s theoretical conclusions. I will of course source as much as I can.

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

    There is no controversy with respect to NIST’s original claim that the bearing seat width is actually 12 inches and not 11 inches as claimed in their report since NIST admitted their error when they issued an erratum. A video was posted in the very first post of this thread called “The Expanding Lie” which describes a physics equation used to determine linear expansion relative to temperature. The author shows a spreadsheet that depicts these expansion lengths at various temperatures. This is also repeated in the video called “Tangled Webs NIST and WTC7”. A similar explanation can be seen in the Roland Angle video. Anyone who is familiar with physics (or if not use Google to confirm) can verify the equation and anyone who understands spreadsheets can verify/confirm the resulting calculations. This is the first of two points that requires some familiarity with physics and math that anyone can verify the calculations for him/herself. I have worked with computer software, including programming and spreadsheets for decades so this is a simple task for me. NIST’s claim is that the temperature from the heat of the fire reached 600o and caused a thermal expansion of the girder of 5.5 inches. It is calculated that expansion cannot possibly exceed 5.7 inches (at 12 inches, a minimum of 6.1 inches would be required for potential walk off). As such walk off could not possibly take place and consequently there would be NO collapse even if all other aspects of NIST’s walk off theory was correct. It has to be noted that NIST modified the thermal expansion to 6.25 inches without any valid supporting evidence after being made aware of their “error”. Physics proves thermal expansion to 6.25 inches at 600o is simply impossible. Additionally, Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report claims that given the correct structural components and data, any thermal expansion would actually take place in the opposite direction (east) that NIST claims (west) and reach a maximum of 1.92 inches using SAP and 1.85 inches using ABAQUS. This NIST claim is not only impossible with respect to physics but also immaterial with respect to application of the correct structural components (see #2, #3, #4 and #7 below).




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

    There is no controversy with respect to NIST’s omission of stiffeners in the structural drawings in their publication. These simply do not match the original Frankel drawings. NIST admitted that they omitted these structural components in a response letter but claimed the omission of the stiffener bears no consequence to their theory. A stiffener is a welded plate that greatly enhances the strength of the girder connection. When stiffeners are present, walk off is rendered impossible so NIST’s claim of no consequence is not valid. There are several detailed explanations with respect to the stiffener plates. These can be found in the video called “WTC7 – The Stiffener Plates Explained”, the Roland Angle video and Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report.



    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

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

    Column 79 contained side plates on both sides of the column (see slides #30 and #32 of Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report). These side plates would have trapped the expanding girder and prevented any chance of walk off and subsequently made any chance of collapse as theorized by NIST impossible.

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

    NIST’s final report claimed there were no shear studs even though NIST claimed there were shear studs in their earlier report. But the Frankel drawings that NIST used in their “investigation” depicted 3,986 shear studs per level. Shear studs would have prevented walk off and made any chance of collapse as theorized by NIST impossible. There is a video in the very first post in this thread that explains the shear studs issue in intricate detail, it’s called “Shear Ignorance” for anyone who requires a review.



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

    The NIST report claims that the girder connections to column 79 were broken down to the 6th floor. This claim does not have any valid supporting basis in fact and is contradicted by NIST’s own report (see Roland Angle video beginning at 24:00). And since according to the NIST report the primary cause of the collapse of WTC7 was due to the failure of column initiated by girder walk off (which as explained was not possible), none of these connections could have been broken as theorized by NIST anyway.

    (continued)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018

Share This Page