|
|
Topic started on 21-11-2008 @ 03:16 PM by CameronFox
|
The final report was released yesterday (November 20th 2008)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World
Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations
and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the
investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s
failure.
NIST REPORT
Still no bombs or thermite.
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 05:27 PM by IsaacKoi
|
Originally posted by cashlink
This has already be debated there is an old thread on this already thank you for posting.
No, this hasn't been posted before...
CameronFox's post above is about the final version of the NIST report on WTC7. The previous threads have been about a draft of that
report. The final version was only released by NIST yesterday.
Of course, much of the discussion of the draft report is equally applicable to the final version of the report since the differences between the
versions are not that radical.
I had been planning on starting a thread about the final version of the NIST report with a fairly long post (which included links to some of the
previous threads relating to the draft report released in August 2008 and other resources), but CameronFox started this thread while I was still
typing...
All the best,
Isaac
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:10 PM by BornPatriot
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:33 PM by truthwillneverberevealed
|
i know its frustrating, more so because they didnt even bother to look at all the evidance. unacceptable.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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? 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 05:59 AM by exponent
|
Originally posted by cashlink
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?
So everyone who agrees with NIST has "half a brain" or less? This includes two worldwide engineering organisations. How exactly do you propose NIST
convinced them?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 08:34 AM by CameronFox
|
Originally posted by cashlink
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 have not posted my opinion on the report. I didn't say I agree or disagree with it. Your opinion is that you believe the NIST report to be a white
wash.
All I was asking was what lead you to believe that.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 12:22 PM by Griff
|
Originally posted by exponent
The ASCE do support NISTs conclusions, but there are many others to choose from. CTBUH, ICC, NFPA etc.
Then why did the ICC reject many of the proposals to change the building codes if they fully agree with NIST's conclusions?
Or are we to believe that the ICC want us to work in death traps?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 03:05 PM by BornPatriot
|
post on wrong thread sorry...
[edit on 24-11-2008 by BornPatriot]
[edit on 24-11-2008 by BornPatriot]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 03:21 PM by Griff
|
Originally posted by BornPatriot
well it appears the government is willing to sell me the models in which they used...
I replied stating I would go up to 100 dollars for their efforts... I'm not even sure how much this model is gonna cost... they havent sent me an
estimate yet... so guys I'm willing to fork up the first 100 anyone else wanting to fork over more tax money... just U2U me,
I would like to say it is for a good cause, but all we are getting is what they coined "RAW DATA" ha ha ... that could mean any thing....
[edit on 24-11-2008 by BornPatriot]
Funny how they want us to pay for the data that we have already paid for through our tax payer money. 
Dispicable. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
