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:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually no I have never come across the above video or heard of Rebekah Roth and I'm surprised I didn't during my research. I don't know how much credence I can give to this person because I am certainly no expert in terms of the flight attendant profession but many of the things she says make a lot of sense. She does speculate quite a bit but if she's for real it would be intelligent guesses. Just so you know I did Google her name and a few sites call her a fraud and that she has a made up name. Most of these are blogs and date back to 2016, none more recent. But one would expect that when constantly dealing with rabid defenders of the official 9/11 narrative. It would be interesting if there were other flight attendants who were in the profession during the same era who could corroborate or refute some of the claims she makes. I will try to research this a bit more when I get a chance.

    Note I'm not going to get into NDEs in this thread.
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did read Rebekah Roth's book some years ago. It was entertaining and somewhat informative. Much of it made sense, but it was somewhat romanticized.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Earlier today — just two days before Christmas — NIST filed its “motion to dismiss” against the historic lawsuit we filed in September regarding NIST’s final report on Building 7 and the agency’s egregious response to the “request for correction” we initiated last year.

    AE911Truth and our co-plaintiffs — eight 9/11 family members and 10 architects and structural engineers — now have until January 13 to amend our complaint and until early February to respond to the motion to dismiss.

    Skipping ...

    At the heart of this legal battle is whether the public has any power to hold government agencies accountable when they issue blatantly unresponsive decisions under the Data Quality Act. NIST is arguing that 9/11 family members and building professionals don’t have standing and that the Data Quality Act is not judicially enforceable.

    Skipping ...

    If we defeat the motion to dismiss, NIST will then have to defend the substance of its decision in court. If we prevail at that stage, NIST will be forced to genuinely respond to our analysis and will effectively have to reverse its conclusion that fire was the cause of Building 7’s destruction.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/803...MzjE3ObEN-LmRnJ97dinoOrXJvYUzp-YAIlFdFy0jd_Rg

    So in other words what this really is about is that NIST does not want to defend the substance of its own 9/11 report(s) in a court of law because they can't, they are all provable frauds (i.e. scientifically untenable). These actions by NIST are more or less an admission that they are in fact fraudulent. They are arguing that 9/11 family members have no standing to hold NIST accountable for their phony reports and that the Data Quality Act has no value despite being passed by Congress in 2001 to ensure maximization of the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by a federal agency. Without the DQA, any agency has the power to publish garbage and propaganda without accountability. Which is what we get from our pretend government all the time anyway. The difference here is that what NIST did was supposed to be scientifically accurate, not merely fanciful theory that has no basis in reality. Science has specific universally accepted standards which must be followed or it's not science.

    NIST is an acronym for National Institute of Standards and Technology. That means that NIST is responsible for setting many scientific standards used in the US. If NIST is not accountable for setting those standards then they are all worthless.
     
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My cynical bet is that the court will keep the official narrative alive....
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In this case doing that means either that the court will have to agree that the 9/11 families and the architects and structural engineers have no standing to hold NIST accountable (meaning no one does) or that an act of Congress (the DQA in this case) is not subject to judicial review. Both have far reaching ramifications that can be applied to virtually anything, making any and all federal agencies unaccountable, just like in any authoritarian state. And/or rendering an act of Congress impotent/worthless at the whim of the judiciary. I would bet that you are correct. Maintaining the official 9/11 fairy tale at all cost is one of the highest priority of the pretend US government.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they have nothing to hide why are they hiding everything? When a federal agency engages in blatant, pervasive criminal fraud you can bet the farm they're going to hide everything. Assuming these criminals at NIST didn't shred the evidence, this could finally be a bit of a victory in exposing some of the fraud and maybe more:

    LEGAL VICTORY REGARDING AGENCIES’ NONDISCLOSURE OF 9/11 RECORDS

    A six-year legal battle against the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] and the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to get access to data they used in preparing FEMA’s Building Performance Study of the collapse of World Trade Center [WTC] buildings on 9/11 has culminated in a court decision granting discovery to 9/11 researcher David Cole. Cole, the plaintiff, is represented by Lawyers’ Committee attorney Mick Harrison. The Lawyers’ Committee has supported this litigation from the start. NIST and FEMA fought to dismiss Cole’s Freedom of Information Act case but on December 21, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied their motion for summary judgment and granted Cole discovery. Discovery will allow Cole to inquire via depositions, document requests, and interrogatories into why FEMA and NIST failed to disclose key records known to exist regarding the collapse of WTC buildings on 9/11.


    Read the rest ...

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...IlnFV12_57H_VTSNXW26qGXVyXXB8vC1hPfwva-9xBVMg

    Imagine that, there are actually 2 judges (Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey and District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) with a level of integrity.
     
    Grey Matter and Eleuthera like this.
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many other examples today of just how blatantly unaccountable the federal government is, a sad comment.

    But great news regarding the discovery process, 4 days before Christmas!

    Yes, there are a few honorable men in the judiciary.

    Let's hope that FEMA and NIST will comply.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2021
    Bob0627 and Grey Matter like this.
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    9/11 families and experts file response to NIST’s motion to dismiss in lawsuit challenging Building 7 report

    Late last night, eight 9/11 family members, ten architects and structural engineers, and AE911Truth filed a response to NIST’s motion to dismiss in our ongoing lawsuit against the federal agency.

    The lawsuit challenges NIST’s decision on the “request for correction” that we originally submitted in April 2020 regarding the agency’s final report on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. The ultimate aim of the request was to compel NIST to reverse its conclusion that fire was the cause of Building 7’s destruction.

    The goal of the lawsuit is to obtain a court order that forces NIST to comply with the request for correction. This would require NIST to perform new analyses and develop a new “probable collapse sequence” that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence — which NIST’s current probable collapse sequence is not.

    In its motion to dismiss, NIST makes the remarkable claim that 9/11 family members and building professionals lack standing to bring this lawsuit. NIST also argues that agency decisions under the Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) are not subject to judicial review.

    In our response, drafted by attorney Mick Harrison of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, we argue that all three categories of plaintiffs — 9/11 family members, building professionals, and AE911Truth — indeed have what is called “informational standing.” We also argue that AE911Truth has “organizational standing” due to the adverse impact NIST’s Building 7 report has had on our activities since the report’s release in 2008.

    In response to NIST’s argument that claims under the Data Quality Act are not subject to judicial review, we cite precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which is binding on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court hearing this case) — that such claims are indeed reviewable.

    At the heart of this legal battle is whether the public has any power to hold government agencies accountable when they issue blatantly unresponsive decisions under the Data Quality Act. If we do not prevail in this case — which is likely to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals regardless of which side prevails now — it will render the Data Quality Act essentially meaningless as a tool to address intentionally biased information disseminated by federal agencies.

    We invite everyone who cares about holding NIST accountable for its false and unscientific report on Building 7 to read NIST’s motion to dismiss and our response to it.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/836...miss-in-lawsuit-challenging-building-7-report

    An excerpt from the Response:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged with investigating and reporting the cause of WTC 7’s collapse. NIST in November 2008 issued its findings and conclusions regarding the collapse of WTC 7 in its WTC 7 Report. NIST, through the NIST WTC 7 Report and the NIST WTC 7 FAQs, disseminated inaccurate, unreliable, and biased information about the collapse of the WTC 7, ignoring the abundant evidence of the use of explosives (in a controlled demolition), and misrepresenting to the public that WTC 7’s collapse was due entirely to fires in the building. NIST’s WTC 7 Report was based on purported computer modelling of WTC Case 1:21-cv-02365-TNM Document 19 Filed 04/11/22 of WTC7’s collapse but NIST refused to release its computer modelling to the public or independent scientists for attempts at verification and replication.

    NIST’s conclusion -- that fires initiated by debris damage from the collapse of one of the WTC towers, the North Tower, WTC 1, caused the collapse of WTC 7 – was simply incompatible with the then-available, and now-available, scientific and witness evidence. Plaintiffs submitted to NIST, via their Request for Correction (RFC) under the IQA, a scientifically and logically irrefutable case based on careful documentation of dispositive evidence clearly showing that the NIST WTC 7 Report’s conclusion and rationale -- that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was due to fires and not the use of explosives and incendiaries -- was more than just wrong, it was factually inaccurate, methodologically unreliable, scientifically unsound, illogical, and biased.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/P...Architects_Engs_et_al_v_NIST_et_al_041122.pdf
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The courts have become utterly corrupted. They support the status quo, and they do not seek the truth.

    Maybe something will change.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope so but I'm not optimistic. They will likely dismiss this for "lack of standing" as a "matter of law". That prevents discovery and all legal discussion on the facts of the lawsuit. If you read the brief, they are already anticipating an Appeal whichever way this goes.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST never investigated the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 other than to create a (false/unsupported) hypothesis of the "collapse" initiation. NIST relied on a paper written by Zdeněk Bažant 2 days after 9/11 (9/13/2001) and published in the ASCE journal, that claimed that the smaller top portion of the tower crushed the much larger lower portion of the tower and left it at that. Later NIST claimed that the "collapse was inevitable" once initiated. Bažant's paper was studied by several engineers including Tony Szamboti and found to contain serious errors. A paper was written by Szamboti and Richard Johns in collaboration with others called World Trade Center Physics: Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse and submitted to the ASCE journal for publication. In 2013, ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics refused to publish it on false and unethical grounds claiming it was "out of scope". An appeal was initiated over 3 years ago on the grounds that the rejection was in clear violation of ASCE's own code of ethics. This long battle was eventually won and ASCE has now agreed to conduct a new review of Szamboti's paper.



    Of course the impact of refuting Bažant's hypothesis is massive. It will totally shred NIST's official claims with respect to the total destruction of the twin towers on 9/11. NIST is already under fire for its WTC7 "collapse" hypothesis which has been thoroughly dismantled by Dr. Leroy Hulsey's 4 year study and resulting peer reviewed paper. Furthermore, it will focus attention of the destruction of the twin towers to the entire ASCE community.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same censorship used against dissenting voices regarding the 911 narrative was also applied 20 years later against those doctors and scientists who dissented from the Official Covid Narrative.

    Some already understand this, but many never will.
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What I call The Twin Towers Affair is a scientific and cultural absurdity. The NIST mentions the total amount of steel in the towers 3 times in the NCSTAR1 report. They never specify the total amount of concrete. But how can a 1360ft skyscraper be designed without figuring out how to distribute the steel and concrete?

    So two decades of have gone by without physicists and structural engineers asking something as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level of the towers. There were 6 basement levels. Can we even find how much of the 500,000 tons was below ground level compared to what was above?

    So what does it say about our culture that "experts" won't ask obvious questions and we raise an entire generation being told brainless physics?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing about the NIST investigation was legitimate. NIST left out many other important structural elements besides the total amount of concrete.

    The evidence for the controlled demolition of all 3 towers is overwhelming. Why does it matter how much concrete there was in the towers? How does that figure affect the conclusion that they were controlled demolitions? The concrete from the towers was pulverized into massive amounts of dust that covered lower Manhattan and into the Hudson River. This cannot happen in a progressive gravitational collapse and can easily happen in a controlled demolition via explosive forces. So I'm not sure why this issue matters.
     
  15. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What constitutes overwhelming evidence?

    But a 1300 foot structure that stood for 20+ years had to be designed to hold itself up. Lower portions had to support more weight.

    So regardless of what destroyed the buildings anyone over the age of 12 should understand the steel distribution had to be important and find it peculiar that experts like structural engineers and physicists have not discussed the subject for 20 years.

    I consider this failure to analyze the problem for so long to be more important than the actual problem.

    This psychological issue raises the question of whether psychologists have the brains to handle middle school physics. LOL

    Physics certainly does not give a damn about psychology.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only explosive forces could have pulverized all that concrete, hurled multi-ton structural components horizontally at measured velocities of over 70 MPH and some landing up to 600 ft distant. Some of these components were embedded into adjacent buildings. Those forces turned almost all human remains into microscopic particles, some were found on adjacent rooftops. The explosions caused the twin towers to be destroyed top down at about 2/3 G unimpeded. And there is much more evidence for a controlled demolition. None of that can be caused by a fire induced gravitational collapse. Furthermore, the top portion of the tower cannot destroy the much more massive and mostly undamaged lower portion via gravity and definitely not in an accelerating manner. You want physics and mathematics? The mathematician Ansgar Schneider proved that even if Bazant's hypothesis was accepted as true, the building's collapse would still have been arrested.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/604...terature-refuting-progressive-collapse-theory

    I can't account for what in particular you feel must be discussed or not but IMO there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves the towers were controlled demolished without having to know the total amount of steel and concrete contained in those towers. This is particularly true of WTC7, where Dr. Leroy Hulsey's model shows the building could only have been destroyed in the manner seen on multiple videos by taking out the core columns simultaneously followed about 1.5 seconds later by the simultaneous removal of the exterior columns. Office fires can never accomplish that.
     
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    When I woke up on 9/12 I was thinking the collapse was impossible but I didn't understand why I was even thinking it. I spent the next two weeks trying to figure out why.

    Consider the Eiffel Tower. It is 11,000 tons of wrought iron. The height makes it equivalent to 80 levels 12 ft in height. Can you imagine the top 140 ft falling straight down and destroying everything below? The North Tower had 100,000 tons of steel.

    Wikipedia admits the steel distribution is exponential in the Eiffel Tower and anyone can see it from the outside. The Twin Towers must have Had a similar distribution but it cannot be seen. The Twin Towers look the same all of the way down. Believing in the collapse is an emotional response. Scientists should have seen beyond that. Structural engineers should know.

    I don't know if you have seen my physics demonstration with the washers and paper loops. The paper loop supports are as weak as possible but I had to put triple loops in the bottom 5 levels. 15 loops is the same number as in the top 13 levels. Anyone who will think about the physics will figure out the collapse was impossible.

    I recently communicated with a self-proclaimed "scientist", a chemist, who admitted that he had not thought about the distribution of steel. There are skyscrapers all over the world. How will so many people admit that they didn't think about that while the internet is full of evidence that it hasn't been discussed for 20 years?

    The global psychology of the situation is weird.

    People do not like the inevitable conclusions, and necessary investigations, if airliner impacts and fires could not have caused the collapses.
     
  18. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A curious thing about WTC7 is that the NCSTAR1 report says there were 28,000 tons of steel in the building. Each of the Twin Towers was twice as tall but had about four times as much steel.

    That math stuff again.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I watched the video of the "collapse" on 9/11 I thought it was very peculiar but I didn't readily believe it was impossible. When the second tower "collapsed" in the same manner, I just thought that since the first tower collapsed, it stood to reason that the second one would also collapse. It wasn't until 2004 when I first found out about the "collapse" of WTC7 and watched it on video for the first time that I immediately knew this was a controlled demolition. I didn't need any detailed explanations or a physics analysis to come to that conclusion, just the video. From that it then stood to reason for me that the peculiarity of the twin tower "collapses" was because they were also controlled demolitions, not collapses as a result of planes, damage, fire or a combination. It was then that I started doing daily research and received confirmation from expert after expert that these buildings were deliberately destroyed and that Arab hijackers could not possibly have been responsible.

    IMO any structural engineer who hasn't yet come to the conclusion that the towers were destroyed via controlled demolition after any kind of study should immediately turn in his/her license and change careers. And that's without even knowing about the amount of steel and concrete in the towers. This is why I don't find that those are key facts to understanding what really happened. If you noted throughout the years, the most vocal engineers and other scientists who refute the official 9/11 fairy tale are retired. The silent ones are not stupid or incompetent, they're just keeping quiet for fear of jeopardizing their careers. After all, many work for companies that have lucrative government contracts.

    I have seen your demonstration but for me what led me to believe that the collapses were impossible are many other factors I learned over the last 15+ years.
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It demonstrates how well brainwashed the American people have become.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a 5 part article ripping NIST's WTC7 fraud to shreds. Here are some excerpts from Part 1:

    NIST confirms its Building 7 report is indefensible — Part 1 of 5: The omitted web stiffeners

    Case in point: If the investigators at NIST were truly confident of their findings and wanted the public to accept their report as scientifically sound, they should have opened the door wide to scrutiny and made it easy for other engineers to attempt to replicate their analysis. This is how the scientific process works.

    But NIST has done exactly the opposite of that since issuing its final report in November 2008. Here are a few examples:

    • In 2009, after a member of the public submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for NIST’s computer modeling data, NIST classified the data based on the absurd grounds that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”
    • Also in 2009, NIST denied a FOIA request for the text of interviews with witnesses who reported explosions inside Building 7, basing its decision on the equally absurd grounds that these interviews “were not directly related to the building failure.” (See page 69.)
    • On more than one occasion, the information NIST has disclosed in response to FOIA requests has conspicuously omitted drawings of structural elements that are central to its explanation of how the building collapsed.
    • NIST has continually ignored basic questions posed by outside engineers about decisions made during NIST’s computer modeling — decisions that materially affected the results of its analysis.
    • When prominent criticism has emerged — for example, the 2016 article in Europhysics News critiquing the NIST report or the 2020 release of the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Building 7 study — NIST has either responded with superficial boilerplate language (see page 44) or has not responded at all.

    Indeed, over the past two decades, NIST has rarely, if ever, had to answer criticism of its reports.


    ...

    The omitted web stiffeners


    Perhaps the most consequential and flagrantly false aspect of NIST’s computer modeling was its omission of an important structural component called “web stiffeners.” These were attached to a girder on the 13th floor of Building 7 that is central to NIST’s theory of how the building collapsed. This issue was covered in Section C of the request for correction (see page 18).

    I chose to start the series with this issue for three reasons:

    1. NIST has publicly admitted to omitting the web stiffeners from its modeling, making this fact uncontroversial.

    2. The web stiffeners indisputably make NIST’s probable collapse sequence physically impossible — though, of course, NIST does not admit this.

    3. NIST’s explanation for omitting the web stiffeners is, without a doubt, the most preposterous of all the explanations in NIST’s response to the request for correction.

    To be clear, critics of the NIST report have known for over a decade that NIST omitted this structural component from its modeling. They have also known, based on simple engineering logic, that including the web stiffeners makes NIST’s probable collapse sequence physically impossible. This was later confirmed through computer modeling conducted as part of the UAF study. (See page 80.)


    ...

    Through its patently absurd explanation for not rerunning its analysis with the web stiffeners included, NIST validates one of the main criticisms that engineers and researchers have been making for more than a decade: The web stiffeners on Girder A2001 make NIST’s probable collapse sequence physically impossible.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...3btrm1FUMTKRy9t4RsHKNh6T3d9xGkAgjf9JSQ_wKPgvg
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From J. Edgar Hoover:

    The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.

    It seems to me today that the 911 conspiracy was child's play compared to the Plandemic.
     
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Whoops!
    That was supposed to be iron not steel.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST confirms its Building 7 report is indefensible — Part 2 of 5: Impossible and incoherent

    In Part 2, I will examine the three other aspects of NIST’s probable collapse sequence that were critiqued in the first half of the request for correction.

    The first two aspects, like the omitted web stiffeners, have to do with the initiating event in NIST’s probable sequence, i.e., Girder A2001 allegedly being pushed off of its seat by thermally expanding floor beams that framed into it. (A refresher on NIST’s probable collapse sequence is provided below.)

    The third aspect I will discuss is what NIST claims happened immediately after Girder A2001 was pushed off of its seat: a supposed cascade of floor failures in the northeast corner of the building from the 13th floor down to the 5th floor.

    Whereas NIST provided a totally ludicrous explanation for having the omitted web stiffeners from its model, it essentially provided no response whatsoever regarding these other three items in the request for correction. This was despite the fact that these sections of the request for correction invited NIST to stand by the claims in its report if it could substantiate them with further information. Instead, NIST declined to provide even the most basic of information to substantiate these aspects of its probable collapse sequence. (Keep in mind that NIST’s information quality standards require a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.”)

    As a result, NIST’s responses — or lack thereof — to these three items in request for correction confirm that NIST’s probable collapse sequence is not only physically impossible for three additional reasons but also that the probable collapse sequence does not even reach the level of being a coherent series of events.

    Read the rest ...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ensible-part-2-of-5-impossible-and-incoherent
     
    Kokomojojo and Eleuthera like this.
  25. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,436
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's all it takes. Not really much at all. No need for an engineering degree to see that WTC 7's collapse couldn't possibly have been the result of anything other than a controlled demolition. And what are the combined ramifications of this observation? The finger points squarely at Republican operator Dick Cheney. It is truly unbelievable and the very audacity of the operation provides cover for it. Quite brilliant in a way, wasn't it?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.

Share This Page