Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.
So true. The guy posts links to YouTube videos and ae911truth.org claims and then expects people here to debunk them. I don't think he understands the claims or the facts involved himself, but is baffled by the BS they present and happy to accept it.
- - - Updated - - -
NIST didn't "admit" to any "manipulated data," but made corrections to mistakes, as any honest person or organisation will do.
No it does not, there is no such proof found anywhere
- - - Updated - - -
The bald faced lies are yours.
Each and every one of those posts is nothing more than unsupported opinion they are not factual or supported by any evidence
You never support/source any of your opinions. Most of the information about NIST's obfuscation (scam) is contained throughout this thread which I'm sure you never bothered to examine. I'm going to respond just once more to your unsourced (unsupported) opinion but any further like post will be ignored as worthless just like I do with other posters when they insist on trolling rather than discuss any of the technical details in this thread in like manner.
The following are just some examples of NIST's own admissions:
NIST admitted they omitted lateral support beams and stiffeners in their own letters (incorporated in the article below).
NIST first claimed in its own publication Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. - NCSTAR 1-1, page 14, then contradicts itself years later In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders. - NCSTAR 1-9, page 346. The bill of materials and Frankel drawings that NIST used to "investigate" the collapse of WTC7 show the use of shear studs throughout the WTC7 structure.
NIST asserted on page 527 (PDF page 593) that the failed girder seat on column 79 on floor 13 was 11 wide.
NIST initially denied free fall occurred in WTC7 in its draft report, then published that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25s in its own final report:
NIST never bothered to re-examine its probable collapse initiation theory based on any of the corrections they claim to have made, much of it left uncorrected, instead claiming they stand by their conclusions. This is not only unscientific (fraudulent) but also the height of dishonesty.
Did you bother to check the NIST NCSTAR documents referenced for the alleged contradiction? I'm checking them now and, I've got to say, your kook source is either mistaken or dishonest. I invite you to examine those documents and figure it out for yourself.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101332 - NIST NCSTAR 1-1
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611 - NIST NCSTAR 1-9
It's apparent YOU didn't check the documents and you're just reduced to name calling because of YOUR own failures, which includes denial of the facts.
NCSTAR 1-1 - Page 14 (PDF page 76) bottom of page: Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center.
NCSTAR 1-9 - Page 346 (PDF page 390) top of the page: 8.7.4 Absence of Shear Studs on Girders. In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders (Cantor 1985). Thus, in those locations where there were no opposing beams, resistance to the thermal expansion of the floor beams would have been provided primarily by the lateral stiffness of the girder (neglecting the minor contribution of the puddle welds attaching the metal deck to the girder).
I am not interested in doing the research for you and I am not interested in your fakery. Either you discuss the issues in this thread in a mature and intelligent manner or you will be ignored. "kook source" is neither mature or intelligent, the source is NIST's own publications that YOU provided the links to and made false claims about.
You're not reading enough of NCSTAR 1-9 to understand the context properly.
From the top of page 345:
The top flange of the beam did not buckle, since both the primary and secondary beams
were tied to the slab using shear studs.
Oh dear. Does NCSTAR 1-9 contradict itself as well as NCSTAR 1-1? Well, no. Continuing on:
Floor beams framed into only one side of a girder in several locations in WTC 7, as shown in the
highlighted areas in Figure 8–18. (Arrows indicate directions that the metal deck spanned.) Of particular
interest was the northeast corner of the building. The relevance of this framing condition, in concert with
the presence (or absence) of shear studs, and the use of seated connections under the effect of fire-induced
thermal expansion is covered next.
That "next" is the text you and your dishonest source quoted. The text in question was referring to very specific parts of the construction. It was taken out of context. You have been duped.
The entire section is called: 8.7.4 Absence of Shear Studs on Girders
YOU ARE the one who doesn't understand (or pretends not understand) that NIST's publications are deliberately worded to confuse the ignorant and cognitive dissonant, not to mention filled with LIES and OMISSIONS (which are also lies). YOU also don't understand the difference between beams and girders. YOU also didn't get (or pretend not to get) the fact that NIST deliberately omitted lateral support beams, which NIST ADMITTED to. If anyone is being dishonest, it's YOU, because you insist in your world that NIST did a fine job. The problem is that NIST omitted several critical components, not just shear studs, and deliberately modified data to try to make its THEORY sound reasonable. Even if these were "errors" then NIST is grossly incompetent and their publications are worthless trash. Given that this is a crucial 9/11 investigation they were tasked with, there is NO ROOM for INCOMPETENCE. But these are far from the only issues with NIST's investigation, the thread goes into much, much more detail with regard to their unscientific/unscrupulous methodology.
Yeah that comes from someone who claims to believe "NIST did a fine job", despite all the EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Wow. So now you're deliberately ignoring information contrary to your delusions.
I feel sorry for you. I hope you'll wake up and recover your sanity. Misinformed and paranoid is no way to go through life, son.
No response necessary SON (as promised).
The following was recently posted.
In addition, NIST admitted:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence, although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. - Footnote 2, NCSTAR 1 page xxxvii, PDF page 39.
So NIST admits they did not perform any analysis (they claim "little" but there is no evidence in the report that any analysis was conducted) following their theoretical "collapse initiation" theory. Again, NIST's first objective was to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft ...".
So NIST not only admits they failed to follow its first objective but also admits they cut corners in their "investigation". Kevin Ryan notes: "The most fundamental question about 9/11 is why were the WTC towers completely destroyed and NIST does not attempt to answer it. And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation? The NIST report is irrelevant if it cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the collapse began. Absurdly, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete. More outrageously, NIST cant even prove convincingly why the collapse began."
Indeed.so very true.
There is a new article in a publication called Europhysicsnews authored by Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Tony Szamboti and Ted Walter. It's called: "15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses" and appears on Page 21 (PDF page 23). The following are some excerpts:
Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, [A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. But in the case of WTC7, he claimed, there was structural resistance that was provided. Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NISTs computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had no structural components below it for eight stories.
Instead, NISTs final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connectionsalso due to thermal expansionleft a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit . NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling. Correcting just one of these errors renders NISTs collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NISTs computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NISTs computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so might jeopardize public safety.
Forensic Structural Engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings and conclusion of his WTC 7 Evaluation study to a panel of attorneys at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 11, 2016. Using finite element modelling, Dr. Hulsey and his team found that the official explanation by NIST for the collapse of WTC 7, which is that ordinary office fires brought the building down, is wrong. When asked by Public Interest Attorney Daniel Sheehan, "On a scale of 1 to 100, what is the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed simply because of fires?" Dr. Hulsey replied, "Zero". He also said that if any of his Ph.D. students had submitted the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that NIST has given us, he would have failed them.
Really all that is needed is pointing out that they did not have building plans. In fact, the plans are only mentioned 3 times in the entire NIST analysis.
Their information came from engineers. It must have been FEMA engineers, or perhaps port authority.
NIST published quite a few disclaimers in their report(s) to cover their collective a$$es. The disclaimers are a good part of the evidence of their deception and I certainly appreciate that you brought that to the attention of this thread. While it is evidence of their scam, it's far from the only evidence and not enough by itself. Never mind that most people haven't even bothered to read the NIST reports, I doubt that many who have read them have bothered to read all the disclaimers.
Having said that, NIST used the original Frankel drawings in their "investigation" and released them publicly via FOIA request. So much of the analysis critical to NIST's theory as posted in this thread is based on the same plans that NIST used. That way both sides are working with apples and apples rather than apples and oranges.
Even in modern buildings, it is almost impossible to find accurate "as built" drawings ... change orders and value engineering tends to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the planning to construction to the as builts ...contractors and developers tend to hide mucho on their shortcuts ...
building inspectors are not immune from "look the other way" ... if it pays for kid's tuition or a new Mercedes ...
That's bullcrap. If Giuliani took the building plans then how did August Domel get his drawings? Here is an excerpt from his WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO document from page 14.
Any firm involved with the design and construction would have access to plans. You trying to say that Giuliani had the only set and that he hid them away is just asinine. You really have no clue as to how engineering firms work and what they have access to do you? I suppose Domel had special clearance into Giuliani's secret drawing stash right?
Also, nowhere was it stated that blueprints and/or drawings were taken by Giuliani. It was "WTC documents". You just assumed in order to try and make a case for your concrete core baloney.
Let me get this straight.
You're using the fact that NIST mentioned plans 3 times as proof that they DIDN'T HAVE PLANS?!
Yes, they simply mentioned them, but never referred to a single sheet. They referred to some book of drawings also.
The truth movement has been deceived by obsolete plans photoshopped by silverstein and assoc. Proof can be found on 20% of the 200 + sheets in the revision tables that have freehand title blocks done in pencil.
That is an utter impossibility from a scan of a blueprint. It is a screw up in the photoshopping and attempt to make the obsolete plans appear as final drawings.
How did Domel get the drawings if they were locked away?!
Guiliani had not yet taken from the NYC dept. of buildings what he later took in December. There were plans for the outer steel framework and pictures of the concrete core and some documentation for it. The plans for the outer steel frame must have had some references to the attachment of the steel exoskeleton. Inspectors notes would also have details on the concrete core as it was being constructed.
There is NO WAY a structural engineer is going to make a safety report for a site like the WTC without examining some plans and determining what kind of structure stood there.
Where is you image of the supposed steel framed core structure from 9/11? Post that now.
Making this up or do you have proof of this somewhere?
I have posted images. They are everywhere. The problem is when they are posted, YOU, and only YOU make the claim that the steel in the pictures is actually elevator guide rails and not core columns. That's your only reason on why they are not structural columns, which is a lame argument.
One person, you, making that claim. Everyone else sees structural core columns. You base your guide rail claim on butt plates, yet have provided no proof that those butt plates are solely used for elevator guide rails. Hence, you are making it up.
Can one of you explain how the concrete/steel core column argument changes (adds to or detracts from) many of the key points in this thread, which is of course NIST's 9/11 "scam investigation"? The evidence shows NIST did NOT investigate the actual collapse of the twin towers (using NIST's own published claims). So IMO it doesn't matter anyway how the twin towers' core columns were constructed.
citation(s) needed ...
Separate names with a comma.