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:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 3

    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.

    This point is the second of 2 points that does require the appropriate physics formula that calculates the amount of energy necessary to cause a girder connection failure and it is supplied in Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report. Anyone can verify the formula if one feels it’s necessary to so. Dr. Hulsey demonstrates via physics that the energy required to cause such failure was far too insufficient (see slides #44-#48 ).

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

    NIST’s structural drawings shown in their report simply do not match the original Frankel drawings that NIST worked with which clearly show that there were lateral support beams. The missing lateral support beams are best explained by illustrations in slides #36-#38 of Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report.

    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.

    NIST used data and structure that was inconsistent with reality but necessary to try to support its column 79 failure and subsequent collapse propagation theories. See Roland Angle video at 29:00.

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

    FEMA noted that physical evidence showed extremely high temperatures had been attained. Furthermore, there were many eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel, iron or metal that John Gross, a NIST lead engineer and spokesperson claimed he never heard of. This is despite the claim by NIST that they interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses. So either NIST’s claim is false or those eyewitnesses were ignored. And furthermore, there is a photo of John Gross standing on a pile of WTC7 steel that clearly shows the effect that extremely high temperatures would produce on steel. See also Roland Angle video at 30:00.

    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.

    This is strictly observational. Anyone can plainly see that the NIST collapse model does not in any way resemble the actual collapse of WTC7 seen in multiple videos. As such NIST’s computer model has no basis in validity. See Roland Angle video at 32:15. IMO the computer generated collapse animation model published by NIST is intellectually insulting.

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

    There is no controversy with respect to this point. NIST published the fact that free fall indeed occurred for about 100 feet or 8 stories for a period of 2.3 seconds. NIST also claimed that fires lasted in one area for about 30 minutes then moved on to another area. Furthermore, observation showed that fires were scattered in different areas of WTC7 and that there were no fires in many parts of WTC7. In fact, no fires can be seen in the vast visible portion of WTC7 (3 sides seen on multiple videos) as it was descending. In order for WTC7 to descend uniformly at a rate indistinguishable from free fall (an appropriate description used by physics Professor David Chandler), it would be absolutely necessary for failure to occur simultaneously at the exact same level. This is simply not possible from fire alone. NIST did not address the ramifications of free fall other than claim it was stage 2 of a 3 part collapse stage. See Roland Angle video at 33:50. See also a lengthy article written by Professor David Chandler:

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    So as demonstrated only two of these points may require calculation verification for a reader if necessary to avoid acceptance on faith. However as also explained, the rest of these points are strictly common sense and far from faith based. All these points are sourced from the NIST report itself which is publicly available. In technological terms most of them have long been analyzed and do fully expose NIST’s criminal fraud. A much more thorough detailed analysis will soon be available for peer review and the final publication will be entered into the court record as expert witness evidence/testimony.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,437
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was googling around to find more info on this guy...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...grees-with-citizen-investigation-team.548562/

    ...and I found this. At the 7:35 time mark he talks about NIST.

    DEETS - audio interview part 3/6



    I haven't listened to very much of the whole talk yet.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DEETS+-+audio+interview+part+-+AE911Truth.org



    edit ten minutes later
    ---------------------

    This guy talks about NIST too.

    SheltonLankford, Lt. Col. USMC, Ret. - Statement in NY

    (11:05 time mark)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deets was a NASA aeronautical engineer. Any engineer worth his salt understands the implication of a building descending symmetrically at free fall or near free fall unimpeded acceleration. This is very basic physics and the objective of every successful controlled demolition.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After reading many of the posts in this thread (I still haven't read all of them):

    https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw9v/nist_versus_dr_leroy_hulsey_911_megathread/

    I find that several posters agree with me that Dr. Leroy Hulsey's preliminary study has not proven that fire alone did not cause the "collapse" of WTC7. What Dr. Hulsey did prove beyond any doubt is that NIST's "probable collapse initiation" theory is not valid and impossible. So it's possible that what Dr. Hulsey meant is that he has proven that NIST's fire alone hypothesis is false but his wording does not quite point to that.

    There are other issues that were brought out in the discussion thread (a year ago) such as flashover and gas temperatures being much higher than 600o. However the fact is that NIST chose 600o as a steady temperature and photo evidence shows that while fire may have affected the area that NIST chose for its failure hypothesis an hour earlier, it was out by the time WTC7 was destroyed. The 600o temperature was specifically chosen to try to achieve enough thermal expansion (which it did not anyway). Too high a temperature would have caused sagging and not enough expansion and too little would not have caused enough expansion.

    Other criticisms are that Dr. Hulsey did not model the entire building and that there were other errors in his research and that it was incomplete and the lack of promised transparency. However, even if true, none of these change the fact that NIST's hypothesis relies on missing stiffeners, missing shear studs, missing lateral support beams and missing side plates none of which were actually missing according to the original Frankel drawings from which NIST was working from. Any one of these missing structural components renders NIST's hypothesis invalid and impossible when applied. So it's clearly obvious NIST deliberately left these out in order to try to make their hypothesis "probable".

    Hopefully Hulsey's final report will be more detailed and more specific and any issues will shake out during the peer review process.

    But I do feel the discussion was technical and intelligent for the most part.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An interesting point was raised in the thread about Mick West and Metabunk. I have no way of verifying the claim nor do I care about the "debunking" guru OCT lovers use as their appeal to authority:

    Amazing how many times Metabunk has been cited here already. It's very far from a credible or impartial source.

    One of the first criticisms Metabunk tries to make of Dr Hulsey is that he hasn't released his research yet -- even though, as you say, we all know this is as iterim (sic) report -- without ever once reflecting on the fact that NIST has take (sic) steps to ensure it will never release its research.


    Mick West perpetually locks threads on Metabunk when the discussion starts to present him with difficult problems (he says this is because they go "off topic") and selectively bans or retroactively edits other users' posts if they make points he can't answer.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one seems to want to discuss this critical topic on an intelligent/technical level. Even the usual NIST defenders are afraid to tackle this issue. Their excuse is they're waiting for the final report even though it's not going to deviate significantly from Hulsey's preliminary report. So I'll bring an outside intelligent/technical discussion to this forum.

    Here's a post from a poster who claims to be a fire protection/mechanical engineer (I have no way of verifying his credentials) that describes (in general) Hulsey's study vs NIST perfectly:

    The value of this study is that it removes the study of the 9/11 failures from the realm of kookery and places it back in the realm of engineering analysis which is what has been lacking for the last 15 or more years. I know that the NIST studies were supposed to be that but they were not definitive. They made assumptions as Dr. Hulsey stated and they were essentially conducted to affirm a pre-determined conclusion and not to explore all possibilities or even be open in the sense that they would be led by the physics.

    Dr. Hulsey, alumni of UMR (Go Miners!), did the service of doing what NIST could not do because of their mandate and their status as a government agency. I don't know if anyone remembers but the release of the WTC7 report lagged the report for WTC1 and WTC2 by several years. The reason was that they were looking for a possible reason to explain the collapse where a collapse is so very anomalous. Steel frame buildings do not collapse due to fires alone. There is a long history of high rise fires that establish that. There was no structural damage due to the airplane impact that weakened the column system.

    Dr. Hulsey points out some obvious concerns early in the presentation.

    The major one is where are the fires and how large were they? The building was non-combustible construction type which means that the building itself would not contribute to a fire in a significant way. The fuel sources would be limited to surface finishes, carpeting, and furnishings. There was no jet fuel spread acting as an accelerant or fuel supply to raise temperature exposures. The calculated temperatures don't bring the structural steel members anywhere near failure points. To affirm the assumption that the limited fires brought the building down would require that one has to conclude that thermal expansion stressed the connections in such a way as to cause failure and progressive collapse. There is no other potential mechanism to bring about collapse with the assumptions NIST seemed to make.

    So if that is the mechanism that must be the reason the building came down, did the NIST engineers feel enough pressure to stack the model in such a way as to cause it to affirm the original assumptions? Dr. Hulsey in his analysis, demonstrates that the NIST analysis left out of their model critical structural elements (side plates and stiffeners) that would have prevented the buckling that stressed the connections that they claimed caused the collapse.

    This is what some expected and never had confirmed until now (this point is arguable since this issue was discovered long before Hulsey's study - see post #1 in this thread). If true, NIST committed engineering malpractice in releasing the study with the claim that it explained the failure. This new study is really huge in its implications because it basically calls the NIST WTC7 report a fraud even if the good doctor was too polite to say that.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One poster claims that the NIST report was reviewed by and published by the Journal of Structural Engineering in 2012. But on closer inspection a couple of authors of the review turn out to be Therese McAllister and John Gross, both were NIST employees at the time the review was published and John Gross was the lead engineer and spokesperson for NIST's WTC7 "investigation" and final report. 3 other contributing authors are employees of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., a defense contractor. It will cost you $30.00 to download John Gross's review of his own work.

    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Addendum.

    The same poster later in the thread insists this was a peer review by JSE. This is 100% false for 2 reasons.

    1. There is no such thing as a self peer review. John Gross cannot peer review his own work.

    2. If NIST refuses to release EVERYTHING they used to arrive at their conclusion (citing that the public release would "jeopardize public safety") then peer review is impossible and all their work can only be taken on faith. And that is contrary to the scientific method and not valid science.

    The fact is none of NIST's work was ever peer reviewed and can't be for reason #2. And IMO the Journal of Structural Engineering should have either rejected the article for failure to provide supporting documentation or published it with a disclaimer that this it is not peer reviewable and that the author of the review is self-reviewing his work, which is of course a blatant conflict of interest.

    And that brings up Dr. Hulsey's concern that he could never be able to get his work published with any "prestigious" American industry publisher so he will be looking to have it published in a foreign publication. And further and even more concerning that JSE is potentially a biased/compromised publisher not to be trusted.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JSE is a part of a library of literature from the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE).

    https://www.asce.org/publications/

    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.

    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...udulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses

    And this is also why Dr. Hulsey either isn't going to be able to publish his work or his work will not be treated fairly by the ASCE.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Something I have not seen before (the full PDF document) and once again I'm not in a position to verify the claim. A poster in the thread has provided a link to a PDF file that contains correspondence with NIST with respect to a FOIA request for their data from their research into the destruction of WTC7. Of note is NIST's claim that they have submitted 8,910 files and withheld 3,370 files or 27% of "all responsive records". See below:

    January 6, 2010

    Dear Mr. [REDACTED],

    This letter is the final response to your February 4, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) #09-48 request to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in which you requested a copy of "Case B input and output from the ANSYS analysis as described on page 35 ofNCSTAR 1A, The Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7."

    Enclosed you will find a disc that contains 8,910 files (approximately 73% of all responsive records) that can be released and are responsive to your request for Case B input and output from the ANSYS analysis. The files on the disc contain input files of a version of the 16-story ANSYS model of the World Trade Center (WTC) 7 structure, which does not include the connection models and was analyzed with service gravity loads, and Case B input temperature files.

    We are, however, withholding 3,370 files (approximately 27% of all responsive records. The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculation to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


    (See page 35 of the following PDF)

    http://www.governmentattic.org/4docs/NIST-Tracking-09-11_09-48_2008-2010.pdf
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    something that both troofers and sane people never address is How EVERYTHING gets built in the 5 Burroughs ... from the 30s up until today ... it was and still is mob controlled ...

    the mob squeezes the subs and pays off the city officials ... New York and Boston still have uncontrollable unions ...

    you will never get a spec set of drawings ... the developers have cut deals and value engineered down to pay off the bosses ...

    Frankel drawings FFS ...

    oddly enough, as built drawings are usually kept in the building of record ... but lawyers, guns and money somehow prevent digital copies ...
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A bunch of questions for you Shiner:

    1. Do you have any supporting documentation for the above claim of yours?

    2. Do you have anything besides your unsupported claim that the "as built drawings" for WTC7 not only exist but are significantly different than the original Frankel drawings?

    3. Can you show any correlation between the above claim and this topic? In other words, even if there exists "as built drawings" for WTC7 that are significantly different from the Frankel drawings, how does that change anything within the context of NIST's "investigation" and reports? There is no question NIST used the Frankel drawings for their "investigation" since these were released by NIST under FOIA request.

    Please answer the questions and preferably leave out your imaginary demons ("troofers") from your answer(s) if you're capable of answering in a mature, intelligent and honest manner.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I must have asked really tough questions. So far your silence says it all, worthless hot air that has zero to do with the topic of this thread ... as usual. But you did get to invoke your “troofer” demons in support of your obsession with “as-builts”. This is why NO ONE addresses “as-builts” in any 9/11 discussion (except YOU), they are absolutely irrelevant.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Back to reality.

    Upon further reading, there was yet another FOIA request for the release of the data used for the computer cartoon model NIST released that does not match the actual videos of the destruction of WTC7. NIST's response (in part) was as follows:

    Enclosed you will find a disc that contains 19,114 files (approximately 20% of all responsive records) that can be released and are responsive to your request for the Computer Models used by NIST. The files on the disc contain input files of a version of the 16-story ANSYS model of the WTC 7 structure that does not include the connection models and was analyzed with service gravity loads, 3 sets of ANSYS input temperature files and input files of the 47-story LS-DYNA global collapse model of the WTC 7 structure with no connection details.

    We are however, withholding 74,777 files (approximately 80% of all responsive records). The NlST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model break element source code. ANSYS script files for the break elements. custom executable ANSYS file, all input and results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure models and capacities.


    So NIST did not want to release the majority of the data they claim they allegedly used as input for their phony "collapse" model that stopped abruptly within about 2 or 3 floors of descent. I personally can't blame them because that ridiculous cartoon must have been embarrassing to begin with even for them.

    There originally was a request for all the models NIST used but NIST pretended to be confused about that request claiming they used many models and wanted to know which specific models were being requested. So obviously most of their models were being withheld. If I recall NIST also promised to release their WTC1 or WTC2 "collapse" model but never did.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am adding one more fact about the 9/11 Commission and their report to this list (#17). I am also going to place it appropriately so some of these facts will be renumbered. This is by no means a complete list but it does contain many key facts that prove beyond any doubt that the 9/11 Commission did not legitimately investigate 9/11 in violation of their mandate and that the 9/11 Commission Report is a worthless document designed to be a major portion of the official 9/11 narrative and as a result designed to coverup 9/11.

    1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
    2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
    3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
    4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
    5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
    6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
    7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
    8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).
    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
    10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
    11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
    12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
    15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
    16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
    17. Page 146 of the 9/11 Commission Report contains a full disclaimer of Chapters 5 and 7 (see #12, #13 and #16). This is effectively an admission by the 9/11 Commission Report that two key chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report are totally unreliable (and therefore deceptions meant to be promoted as fact).
    18. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
    19. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
    20. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
    21. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
    22. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
    23. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
    24. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
    25. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    26. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
    27. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
    28. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
    29. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
    30. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An interview with Roland Angle. Among the highlights:

    The ASCE has chosen to censor AE911T from formally presenting their overwhelming evidence to their colleagues by rejecting their application for a booth at the recent convention. The excuse from a sales manager and not an architect, was that their information was not compatible with the goals and objectives of their convention. So what was their goal exactly, to prevent dissemination of the truth about 9/11?

    Roland Angle claims their evidence based research has never been challenged by any colleague they presented to.

    AE911T strictly deals with the science of 9/11 and not with the criminal aspects and that their extensive research overwhelmingly rejects NIST's theories as scientifically untenable and blatantly false.

    They are still waiting the results the Hulsey study which they anticipate will be released shortly. They expect it will be a game changer in its final peer reviewed form.

    For the full interview (begin at 1:30):

     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,125
    Likes Received:
    11,955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, ASCE is as corrupt as the mainstream media.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As Roland Angle explains, when it comes to a choice between one's livelihood and integrity, the choice is almost always the former. Many of these people have strong ties to lucrative government contracts. This is why you'll find that most professionals who are 9/11 activists are also retired.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For those who are anxiously waiting and haven't noticed:

    A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

    Project Info

    Lead Researcher(s)

    Project Team
    • Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
    • Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student

    Project Dates

    May 1, 2015 - September 30, 2019

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

    At the rate the legal actions are moving along, there will be plenty of time to submit the final peer reviewed version into the court records as supporting expert witness evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am anxiously awaiting 9/30/19 ...
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first draft of the Hulsey Report on WTC7 is scheduled to be released the first week of September 2019 according to AE911T. This version will be open for peer review for a 6 week period.

    This September promises to be a momentous period for AE911Truth and the millions of people who have been fighting for a real investigation into the events of 9/11 over the past 18 years.

    In the first week of September, AE911Truth will participate in releasing the draft report of the groundbreaking World Trade Center Building 7 Study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).

    The release of this report will include a livestreamed presentation by the study’s principal investigator, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, at UAF’s Schaible Auditorium on September 3, 2019, followed by a second presentation from Dr. Hulsey at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club on September 5, 2019. The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/543...years-later-september-2019-schedule-of-events

    I'm anticipating that the final peer reviewed version will be published later this year and added to the list of exhibits filed with the Grand Jury petition and the lawsuit vs the FBI and the DOJ. Unless there are major conflicts within the scientific community, it will become settled science. That is, that the NIST report on WTC7 will be fully vetted and exposed as a scientific fallacy (to be kind). IMO, in a just world those responsible at NIST should be held criminally accountable and charged with perpetrating a massive fraud.

    See Post #81 in this thread and:

    https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1001.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following up on the latest news, the first draft of Hulsey's WTC7 Report will be released on 9/3/19. According to AE911T:

    In just a couple of weeks, the breakthrough Building 7 Study by Dr. Leroy Hulsey will be released, proving definitively that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/544...-3-i-need-your-help-to-spread-it-far-and-wide

    Although I've known for years that fire could not possibly have been the cause for the complete destruction of WTC7 at free fall and near free fall acceleration (a virtual scientific and logical impossibility), proving that fire was not the cause is a whole other matter. That would be akin to proving a negative. It's one thing to prove that the NIST Report on WTC7 is a scientific fraud (that was proven long before I ever heard of Hulsey), but it's another to prove that fire wasn't the cause. IMO to do that, one would have to prove an alternate cause (e.g. controlled demolition). Unless I'm missing something, the preliminary report by Hulsey only shows that the NIST Report on WTC7 is filled with misinformation and is scientifically unsustainable. Hulsey avoids any attempt at pointing to any specific cause. But for me, Hulsey's Report does more than enough to prove that NIST not only failed to do their job but invented the cause of the destruction of WTC7 via reverse engineering. That is, they predetermined the cause and worked for 7 years to try to prove it. That is not science, that's fraud. This entire thread is devoted to exposing NIST's criminal fraud.

    Having said all that, I'm anxiously awaiting the draft report so I can study it and read commentary from experts.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  24. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    looking forward to it ...
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Richard Gage (at 19:45) Hulsey models what could have brought down WTC7 (when you take out 8 stories of columns, 82 columns at once) and what could not have brought down WTC7 (using the same conditions as NIST). In the former case, Hulsey's model shows WTC7 coming down in the same manner seen in multiple videos. There is no question that fire cannot take out 82 columns at once, only a controlled demolition has that capability. NIST's stated hypothesis is that this was a "progressive collapse". Of course there's nothing progressive about 82 columns being taken out at once. In the latter case, WTC7 does not collapse at all.

     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019

Share This Page