NIST Releases FINAL WTC-7 Report: Nov. 20th, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 04:31 PM by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox


This has already be debated there is an old thread on this already thank you for posting.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 05:57 PM by CameronFox
reply to post by cashlink


Yes Cash, as Issac stated, this report was only finalized yesterday.

Thank you for your concern.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:40 PM by cashlink
reply to post by IsaacKoi


Good enjoy your selves, so far it “has” been *proven* NIST has lied in their previous reports and they refuse to correct their information.
Until their work is accepted in the journal of Science, there is “nothing” to debate.
NIST, has consistently lied to the public about their reports. Furthermore, they have made public statements as to why they did not look in to doing a study on CD on the WTC. The statement was, there was no eyewitness who saw explosions or heard explosions.

The NIST Lied on WTC 7 - PROOF
www.youtube.com...

My opinion is this is another white wash.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:56 PM by CameronFox
reply to post by cashlink


Hello Mr. Cashlink,

All respect sir, but can you point out what sections of the NIST report on WTC-7 lead you to believe it is a white wash. (in your opinion)

Thank you,

Cameron



reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 10:24 PM by tezzajw
At least NIST have released their critic's comments.

Read Andy's comments...
Read Brandon's comments...
Read Earl's comments...
Read Kevin's comments...
Read Nancy's comments...
Read Rick's comments...

I would estimate that around a third of the comments asked about Larry 'Pull It' Silverstein's famous Freudian slip.

I would estimate that more than half of the comments asked about the lack of investigation into controlled demolitions.

I couldn't see where ThroatYogurt contacted NIST. He stated that he did contact them, in the thread on the Draft Report. I informed ThroatYogurt of the unit conversion typo, but I couldn't see any mention of that in the public comments section.

Page 10 (52/130) still gives a figure of 32 kg/m^3, converted to 6.4 lb/ft^2. Clearly wrong. I can't believe that numerous other professionals never noticed this? There's a couple of people, in the comments section, who mention the fuel loads - yet none of them point out the unit error.

Either ThroatYogurt never emailed NIST with the errors that we picked up in the Draft Report thread, or NIST didn't consider it worthy to correct a fairly basic unit error.

These proceedings, are closed. Right?

So much for an accurate Final Report...

[edit on 21-11-2008 by tezzajw]


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 03:20 AM by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox


No you need to do your own research, I am not going to do it for you! Everyone who has read NIST report that has half a brain can clearly see the lies and distortions.
I did not come in here to play a ThroteYogart game.
However, this thread is not about how cashlink has to prove NIST are liars.
Why don’t you tell us why you believe in NIST?


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 06:08 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by exponent


Let me guess: one of those organizations is the ASCE?

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The professional organization for engineers who build the nation's roads, dams and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters.

After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the levee failures caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate what went wrong.

Critics now accuse the group of covering up engineering mistakes, downplaying the need to alter building standards, and using the investigations to protect engineers and government agencies from lawsuits.

...In the World Trade Center case, critics contend the engineering society wrongly concluded skyscrapers cannot withstand getting hit by airplanes. In the hurricane investigation, it was accused of suggesting that the power of the storm was as big a problem as the poorly designed levees.

...Seed accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."

...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.


911blogger.com... ^ An Associated Press article that Google and other sites carried at one time but now seems to be difficult to locate aside from 9/11-related websites.


Additional reading from a civil engineering blog: civilengineeringcentral.wordpress.com...

A response to the question presented, 'Has the ASCE become corrupt?':

Yes, in answer to your question,
ASCE is corrupt to every bone of their management. They have become absolute paid lackeys to the USACE, who themselves are corrupt self-seviant jail-house punks for big business.
When is the last time you perused the ASCE website’s personel section for jobs in Public Relations? Try it. They have gone over to the dark side. Their PR dept is second to none, not even the people who work for the Corps: www.scpr.com...

My father, a Ramblin’Wreck from Georgia Tech (top 17 of his class) and a retired Air Force Lt Colonel, held the opinion even before Katrina, that the heads of the Corps of Engineers should all be drawn out and shot if not for disobeying direct orders by over-stepping and under-performing their mandate, then just for their BAD ENGINEERING on the levees in New Orleans.

I saw interviews with Raymond Seed. He was aghast and incredibly offended by the dark cloud that the ASCE casts over his profession.
How about yours?

Thank you,
Bruce
editor~New Orleans News Ladder
]

The administration of the ASCE is apparently corrupt as are the top brass of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Both the ASCE and the Corps have fine upstanding members and loads of ASCE members are within the Corps.

The profession is trained to follow rules and it is always best not to make waves with big clients. The Corps is the biggest client of civil engineering firms in the world. This income source creates a bit of a natural complicity. The ASCE administration is so complicit that they have traveled the world telling engineering audiences about how the political culture of New Orleans is to blame for the levee failures even though the ERP did not study New Orleans politics.



We live in an era ripe for all sorts of corruption. If you refuse to see it, then you refuse to see it, but you can never say no one told you so.


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 10:21 AM by exponent
reply to post by bsbray11


The ASCE do support NISTs conclusions, but there are many others to choose from. CTBUH, ICC, NFPA etc.


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 12:46 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by exponent


And how many of those organizations have pursued their own investigations? The ASCE engineers that Dr. Astaneh-Asl criticized were also sent to FEMA, and engineers from the FEMA report later sent to NIST, so it's little wonder to me that they would "support" (such an empty word) those conclusions when NIST's hypothesis was really just the end product of what the ASCE began.

There is also a big hint in some of what I posted above about the ASCE's public relations policies and big business. The ASCE serves in many respects as a political mouthpiece as its policies and positions automatically carry weight behind them, which is why it's such an awful thing to have engineers accusing the ASCE of covering things up things like 9/11 and Katrina on behalf of the government and the big businesses they contract out. At the same time, the position of authority they have begs just the kind of corruption they are being accused of. Who else would big business or federal officials go to to have their misleading data published and make it appear credible?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by bsbray11]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 11 hours ago, 111 replies
Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 13 hours ago, 70 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 58 replies
Stunning close view of Mercury
  Space Exploration, Posted 8 hours ago, 28 replies