"NIST omitted critical structural features from WTC 7 report." says Attorney to DoC Inspector Gen.

This entire thread is symptomatic of the entire span of 9/11 conspiracies that mean absolutely nothing.

Quite simply it's the inexperience of would be researchers, their lack of resources, and no formal training in investigations.

You can't start an investigation with a conclusion then go backwards and pick out minor indictments and disregard every thing else that fails to coincide with the preselected conclusion. To go along with having only google as a research pool with perhaps 10% of the data that is needed.

Unless those graphs can be put into any consonant time line then they are worthless and meaningless. You can't criticize a few sentences in a huge report, you must challenge the ENTIRE report on the basis of a start finish time line. If those graphs show abnormalities then what fact brought them to be abnormal. You simply can not twist facts to suit theories-you must twist theories to suit facts.

If those spikes in the graphs show explosions they are useless without the facts of the explosives themselves. It's for that reason that any group that pushes these theories gets marginalized and forgotten by the professionals in that area-inexperience in proper research habits and no training whatsoever in investigation methods.

If you ever hope to be taken seriously then learn how to be an investigative researcher-don't make it up as you go along.

reply to post by spooky24

If those spikes in the graphs show explosions they are useless without the facts of the explosives themselves

If someone dies from a gunshot wound, do you need the gun to prove cause of death?

spooky24
This entire thread is symptomatic of the entire span of 9/11 conspiracies that mean absolutely nothing.

To me, it CLEARLY shows the unwillingness of the OS believer to read offered link material.

Quite simply it's the inexperience of would be researchers, their lack of resources, and no formal training in investigations.

Enough experience, in 1963, up to today, the Kennedy assassinations got me thinking. I solely use the same resources as you do, NIST and LDEO reports, I did read them all, multiple times. Did you ? There's no need for training if you use everyday logic. And I have a lot of days spend on it already, during my long life.
And used SOLELY the material offered by two US Institutions. Which firmly contradict each-other. And they can't attack each others research, since they used the same atomic basis for their time stamped 9/11 research.
You also did not read my three offered links, especially not Graeme MacQueen's thesis, or you would have never used the above phrases.

You can't start an investigation with a conclusion then go backwards and pick out minor indictments and disregard every thing else that fails to coincide with the preselected conclusion. To go along with having only google as a research pool with perhaps 10% of the data that is needed.

NIST research pages and LDEO research pages, that's all you need.

Unless those graphs can be put into any consonant time line then they are worthless and meaningless. You can't criticize a few sentences in a huge report, you must challenge the ENTIRE report on the basis of a start finish time line. If those graphs show abnormalities then what fact brought them to be abnormal.

It shows you can not grasp the evidence.
NIST did all that time line research for us. Based on THEIR video/photo atomic clock time stamps, where THEY developed the technique for, as you could have read in one of my NIST screen shots. LDEO its seismic evidence is also based on exactly the same atomic clock hardware NIST used. The same one you can use when you adjust your date/time in the bottom right corner of your screen.
THEY put an atomic clock time stamp on the Cianca photo. To my luck, they explicitly used the Nicolas Cianca photo shoots of the whole day of 9/11/2001 as an example HOW they construed their method of real-time stamping ALL available video and photo material in their possession.
Instead of typing a lot of meaningless words, you should have read what I have offered you, then you would have asked totally different questions. Now you make a fool of yourself, which is a pity, since I have read many of your posts which show a deeper insight than the average reader here possesses. They however also show a desperate clutching onto the officially approved fairytale.
Search ATS : LaBTop seismic , and find a plethora of explanations

You simply can not twist facts to suit theories-you must twist theories to suit facts.

That's a great one. EXACTLY what NIST did and still exercises.

If those spikes in the graphs show explosions they are useless without the facts of the explosives themselves. It's for that reason that any group that pushes these theories gets marginalized and forgotten by the professionals in that area-inexperience in proper research habits and no training whatsoever in investigation methods.

It's time you read my 300 + posts concentrated in just a few threads, about thermobaric weapons.
Search ATS using : LaBTop thermobaric
Then read Dr Rousseau's thesis. I offered the link.

If you ever hope to be taken seriously then learn how to be an investigative researcher-don't make it up as you go along.

My impression is you made up this whole post of yours, without taking the proper time to learn what your opponent offers, regarding the subject at hand.

To top it off, here's additional evidence you will not be able to counter intelligently, since it is a long list of facts you cannot ignore by only posting your opinion, you will have to offer intelligent rebuttal. Make my day :

Long evidence list exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE.

You show utterly disdain for all You Tube and Google material. You should learn to be a lot more selective.
Realize yourself that it's the only channel left to expose official lies, since the ones who should do that for us, have sold their souls a long time ago already to the devil.
Main stream media are bought and owned, and are a far cry off from being the investigative voice of the masses.

EDIT :
All my posts about the method used by NIST to attach real-time timestamps to all videos and photos, start as the top post of this page 4 of my thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Flatcoat
If someone dies from a gunshot wound, do you need the gun to prove cause of death?

Not to mention, there have been several murder convictions without a body in different countries. Proving that you don't need the physical murder weapon or even the physical body to prove there was a murder.

Same goes with the WTC collapses. You don't need the physical pieces of explosives or detcord to prove explosives were used. There's plenty of other evidence in the form of flashes, explosions (booms), and isolated ejections as seen only in controlled demolitions:

_BoneZ_

Flatcoat
If someone dies from a gunshot wound, do you need the gun to prove cause of death?

Not to mention, there have been several murder convictions without a body in different countries. Proving that you don't need the physical murder weapon or even the physical body to prove there was a murder.

Same goes with the WTC collapses. You don't need the physical pieces of explosives or detcord to prove explosives were used. There's plenty of other evidence in the form of flashes, explosions (booms), and isolated ejections as seen only in controlled demolitions:

Actually...yes, you DO need that pesky little thing called "proof" if you want to sell people on this ridiculous theory. Without proof, without explosives, you have nothing but wild conjecture. And really, do none of you clinging desperately to this ridiculous "inside job" garbage see how utterly moronic it would be for "THEM" to bring the thing down just as though it were a controlled demolition rather than making it fall over or some such thing?! Seriously?! That never once occurred to you? You never once thought "Gee, if "THEY" were smart enough to pull this off, wouldn't "THEY" notice that bringing it down as a controlled demolition would seem completely obvious to everyone watching?" REALLY?! Yeah, they went through all of this trouble just so that they could obviously bring buildings down in controlled demolition form. Sure they did. And here's an idea...why has NOT ONE of the literally HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of average men and women who would have had to be involved in this come forward? I mean seriously, NOT ONE?! Let it go already...

_BoneZ_

Flatcoat
If someone dies from a gunshot wound, do you need the gun to prove cause of death?

Not to mention, there have been several murder convictions without a body in different countries. Proving that you don't need the physical murder weapon or even the physical body to prove there was a murder.

Same goes with the WTC collapses. You don't need the physical pieces of explosives or detcord to prove explosives were used. There's plenty of other evidence in the form of flashes, explosions (booms), and isolated ejections as seen only in controlled demolitions:

Exactly what part of "The floors above collapsing pushes air out of the floors beneath them" is your brain not able to comprehend?

These 9-11 conspiracy threads are the funniest ones on here. The World's top demolition men and women literally facepalm at the suggestion that this was a controlled demolition, but the experts on YouTube and ATS have it nailed, lol...

These 9-11 conspiracy threads are the funniest ones on here. The World's top demolition men and women literally facepalm at the suggestion that this was a controlled demolition, but the experts on YouTube and ATS have it nailed, lol...

If I was offensive I certainly didn't mean to be. I'm simply trying to get you to focus on the manner of your investigation-rather than what you perceive from it.

Image yourself in a court of law telling a jury that these graphs show a spike that is clear evidence of some kind of explosion. The Defense objects by stating 'continually' the judge strikes your testimony. Why? because you simply can't pick and choose moments to presume and avoid everything else. For those graphs to be admissible they must be in a timeline of events. True, this is no court of law, however investigations can't start at A--skip to--D without explaining B and C. If you are convinced that they show expositions-then you have to show how that was done-now-not later-now. If you can plot an exact time in which these expositions were set off-then logically you could go back to the scene and find evidence to prove it-when you do-then you can continue. That is what you learn as an investigator-you can't leave the bucket half full.

If I look up the street and see smoke coming from a far away house and say-oh some one left some grease on the stove end of story. For that to be a true statement with continually then I must go to the house and look in to see something burning on the stove. You can't just assume it. Same as your explosions-if that is your statement then go to the source(WTC 7) and prove it. Then you can continue.

True again, I was trained in a more formal courtroom sense as how investigations are done but the basics don't change. You showed about 7 or 8 interviews from persons at ground zero. You consider these statements evidence however they aren't until you explain the over 1200 interviews were done at ground zero after the recovery missions were completed. You are trying to show evidence that is highly flawed, totally out of context and the worst-misleading which taints every other single piece of evidence you show. OK, you agree, strike the ground zero interviews as prejudism and move on to the next shown fact. That would be the implosion of the towers. I know what James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated" said of the The Hudson Building the largest building ever imploded-five times smaller than WTC “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosive and running wires with a completely empty building". What is the given response? They are bought out, paid by the government.

It fails to matter how much evidence you can muster to post that YOU think is evidence-what matters is what evidence can stand up to the requirements of motive, means and opportunity. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand.

Spooky24. Can you be a tad bit more specific ?
Your English does not match my grasp of it.

Pentagon and Fl 93 seismic signals quest by LDEO just after 9/11 :
Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack
Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum :
www.mgs.md.gov...

This link that I posted on Jan. 9, nine days ago, is gone, nowhere to be found on their website anymore....
Try to find this specific link in their Search, it's suddenly not there anymore, while a lot of other 2001 links are still there.
I used key words like : Pentagon , Observations , 2001 , LDEO , seismic , 911 , September 11.
With or without " ", no results.

What a coincidence, another reshuffling of an official Institute its website, just after I post a seismic link to it. Then it's suddenly gone.
And this is happening to my seismic links, too many times already.
Won-Young Kim's 2005/2006 work for NIST which he posted on the web, disappeared within a day from NIST's pages, after I posted a link to it.

Spooky24, I think NIST and a few others understand very well what I offer. Disruption is their means to bury my evidence.

jaffo
Actually...yes, you DO need that pesky little thing called "proof"

You're attempting to change the words that were typed. Nobody said you don't need proof. What was said is that you don't need physical evidence to prove something. As long as there is other evidence to prove something, then the physical evidence is not needed.

jaffo
without explosives, you have nothing but wild conjecture

So, you're saying that the courts who have prosecuted without a physical body have prosecuted on wild conjecture only? It's only "wild conjecture" in the world of denial. In the real world, evidence is proof.

jaffo
wouldn't "THEY" notice that bringing it down as a controlled demolition would seem completely obvious to everyone watching?

Um, it was obvious to people watching. It was obvious to news anchors, and many other people around the world on that very day after it happened.

jaffo
Exactly what part of "The floors above collapsing pushes air out of the floors beneath them" is your brain not able to comprehend?

You're out of line.

Air compression doesn't work that way. If it were air compressing between floors, it would be coming out of multiple windows across the whole entire floor on multiple sides. That's what always happens, every time. An entire floor is not going to push air out of only a couple windows on just one side of the building.

In the controlled demolition image, and most other controlled demolitions, the ejection is caused by a high-powered explosive being detonated. Just like at the WTC. Witnesses saw the flashes (just like in controlled demolitions), and they heard the booms (just like in controlled demolitions), and you can see the ejections (just like in controlled demolitions).

You can clearly see from the image I posted above at the WTC and in controlled demolitions, the main explosives (ejections) are spaced apart from each other. At the WTC, the explosives were being detonated below the collapse wave, weakening the structure, so that the building can continue to collapse through itself with no resistance. Buildings cannot collapse through themselves with zero resistance without assistance. That's what explosives are for.

jaffo
Let it go already...

That will never, ever happen until those responsible are brought to justice....

_BoneZ_

That will never, ever happen until those responsible are brought to justice....

Dick Cheney got a fresh heart, so he's probably good for a while yet, but rest assured there'll be justice within the span of one generation, although it may be not human justice of the traditional variety in a court of law on earth.

What i think we're after _BoneZ_ is something that i call historical justice whereby the OS public myth cannot sustain itself indefinitely, and by justice, i'm not even talking about some sort of vengeance, but justice as a point of great historical learning capable of rippling right through the whole system, forcing it to take "inventory", and in the process, binding and chaining the devil within before casting it into the abyss which means oblivion, but not without a thorough understanding and comprehension as to it's terrible and ugly nature.

We need to be realistic in terms of our goals and objectives.

Btw, have you seen the fairly recent 9/11 documentary "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" by award winning filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco? (see my signature, below)

Maybe instead of messing around with the likes of the ATS 9/11 Forum, which has become a bit of a ghost town as a result of certain crackdowns by the strongly biased (or worse..?) Staff and Ownership - we should be working to send out a copy of that documentary to every single person who needs to see it and be made aware of all these issues...

Now that's what i would call blowback "terrorism" and a "security leak" of the right and best kind and by God do "they" ever deserve it, for creating it (while also covering it up) in the first place and doing so in such a way and manner that the OS narrative and public myth about it simply cannot be believed by any sane and rational or scientifically minded, and HONEST person, who is not weak minded or too cowardly to face it's ugly truth, although there are other psychological reasons why a good person would not be able to "digest" it, even though they already swallowed it's Big Lie, hook, line and sinker.

Best Regards,

NAM

This seems to be the crux of the opening post :

The letter to the Inspector General includes almost a dozen pages of technical drawings and prints with explanations of each, but ultimately concludes that after the omitted stiffeners and lateral support beams were added into a new analysis, there was no buckling of beam G3005 due to the lateral supports requiring approximately 16-times more axial compression to cause buckling.

Was the new analysis performed by core members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T)? Where can we find it online?

This Pepper-letter's choice of words is very diplomatic, with an underlaying iron fist :

Silence from your office or a rejection of this reasonable request may prompt my clients to seek legal recourse and to raise this issue with their colleagues in Europe where a number of government officials and professionals have long been critical of the official U.S. Government’s position and explanation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. The detailed information and evidence possessed by my clients (I enclose herewith a detailed, technical narrative, graphics, and a DVD prepared for your further review) would be examined closely by their European structural engineering colleagues at Cambridge University and elsewhere.

I suggest that the resulting reports would devastate the current NIST
conclusions, but that is not our intention. We wish to handle this issue, here,
where it primarily belongs, but the ball is now in your court.

If, you wish to explore these issues directly with my clients I am certain that a
representative group of structural engineers would be pleased to meet with you, and any relevant NIST officials in order to discuss the options.

Avoidance through stonewalling and prolonged silence will no longer suffice.
This will not go away.

Let us see if we can find a way together to cooperatively address this concern. This discrepancy has caught the attention of a group of serious, patriotic American professionals and they believe that even the consolidated control over US mainstream media on this issue, is capable of being run over by interested media sources, we know, in the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France, Russia and elsewhere.

I therefore, respectfully ask you to work with us on this matter, and look forward to hearing from you.

Page 4 of the letter its PDF states this :

Analyses by private citizen engineers show that with the correct seat length used, and the omitted features included, the failure of this critical girder as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report would have been impossible.

Please offer a link to, or an excerpt from this analyses at AEf911T.

The well known "Experiment according to Tyndall" explains the enormous forces during thermal expansion/contraction acting on a clamped-in piece of steel.
It will break after cooling down.

The only problem with such an explanation by NIST for the WTC 7 collapse :
The Tyndall experimenter has to tighten the end-screw placed on that piece of steel, after heating it with f.ex. a blowtorch, causing the breakage while it is cooling down and CONTRACTING again.


The NIST girder walk-off simulation does not include eventual partial heating of the girder during localized fire heating taking place in separate rooms under the concrete filled metal deck on top of the beams, nor does it include the to be expected small beam-deflection on both ends of the girder where the girder is connected to the beams.
They suppose all rooms were on fire under that critical part of floor 13, which is impossible to ever prove. Nobody was there to record exactly which rooms were fully burning.
See figure 16 on the bottom of page 13 of the Dr. Pepper letter (enlarge that PDF-page to 400 %). It's a "von Mises" (WCS) stress analyses. The color scale on the right is indicating forces in psi.

In other words, both girder ends just push at both their beams connections, forcing these beams to bend and deform partially a few inches over a distance of perhaps one or two meters of their length.

Now, what I am missing in both NIST and AEf911T their analyses, what happened when beam G3005 did cool down again? After the underlaying fires moved on again after having consumed all ignitable materials in those rooms.

I am only interested in the scenario where girder A2001 is NOT heated to 500 C, per the NIST WTC 7 report. Who at NIST can prove definitely that that girder was evenly or partially heated to 500 C? Or that the beam was evenly or partially heated to 600 C?
Its report is all a game of completely uncertain guesses.

If that girder was not heated that high, which is much more acceptable since they were all perfectly insulated according to existing building instructions, then the cooling down of a heated to 600 C beam G3005 could have caused sudden breaking of its end connection to a still stiff girder A2001.
According to the Tyndall expansion-contraction experiment where the beam is heated and the girder not. Then the girder gets bend, and the cooling beam "could" snap off from its welds or bolds on the still cool girder.
The girder part could also bend back again. It's your guess again.

But when you enter my list of evidences into this guessing game, it suddenly becomes clear what really happened.
Explosives were used, that is the only sane conclusion.


By the way, if you follow videos of burning exterior rooms in WTC 7, it becomes clear that fires swept from room to room, leaving burned-out and quickly cooling down again, rooms behind.
Fire per room did not last more than 30 minutes maximum, which is easily within fire retention times laws for the insulation of those WTC 7 beams, girders and columns.

WHY would it ever be possible for normal office fires in a non destructed by outside forces burning building (no plane impact, no WTC 1 (N) debris impact possible at its NORTH-EAST side) to heat the overlaying THICK steel to such ridiculous high temperatures of 500 to 600 degrees Celsius? While its steel was perfectly insulated from those short lasting fires.
Why is there not ONE piece of WTC 7 steel preserved for later inspections?
Only WTC 1 and 2 pieces, and just a small % of those.

The whole WTC 7 report was a game of "what-ifs".
For the attentive reader, a very clear working towards a desired outcome.

reply to post by spooky24

I'm simply trying to get you to focus on the manner of your investigation-rather than what you perceive from it.

which is in this case, the 10,000+ page NIST report and known taught science...

which shows the 2005 NIST did NOT find a reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet for SOME REASON against ALL normal procedure, 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.


"NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure"

since you seem to be touting the official claims, can you tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, consisting of 105 vertical feet continuous load bearing support, at least 8 floors of truss assemblies w/ carrier beams, lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office material, *~*GONE*~*, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

I was trained in a more formal courtroom sense

then you know the Dictum of both Law and Debate is Those whom assert MUST PROVE.

FIRST come the asserted PUSHED official claims...

now 'truthers' asking questions and DEMANDING the support of those claims....

I need NO report to do this
I need NO evidence to do this.

but YOU do defending them.......
Dear Mr. Bob -----

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.

reply to post by spooky24

This entire thread is symptomatic of the entire span of 9/11 conspiracies that mean absolutely nothing.

so says the one whom can't defend it's own.

You can't start an investigation with a conclusion then go backwards

uhm.....since day one.....what were the claims of 9-11 even with NO investigation ...fire fell these buildings caused by planes....

well bunkie, the 2005 NIST found those NOT to be true.....yet the 2008 NIST crew can OFFICIALLY claim fire even though there is absolutely NO scientific evidence pointing to fire....just agenda.


I don't have to provide evidence of the fires NOT doing what is claimed, YOU need to produce evidence they did....and all you have is a bullied agenda

Unless those graphs can be put into any consonant time line then they are worthless and meaningless.

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULL#!
and it does not matter WHO says it...it's still bull.

You can't criticize a few sentences in a huge report, you must challenge the ENTIRE report

hey, I have a wicked awesome idea.....YOU post from the NIST 10,000+ page report of YOUR supporting EVIDENCE that the fires present along with the MINIMAL localized asymmetrical damage caused the three buildings to fail on 9-11...
..as officially claimed in 2008 they did claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA.

oh...and a few last words.....If you ever hope to be taken seriously then learn how to be an investigative researcher-don't make it up as you go along.

Serious question for posters in this thread, because I'm curious.

What do you think was used to bring the towers down?

I'd appreciate a straight answer if possible, without rambling on and pages of references etc.

since you seem to be touting the official claims, can you tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, consisting of 105 vertical feet continuous load bearing support, at least 8 floors of truss assemblies w/ carrier beams, lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office material, *~*GONE*~*, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

The same thing over and over and over it sure gets old. How many times is this same 'laws of physics' jingle is going to be posted. For the 50th time or more this stuff is meaningless. I know very little about physics however I do know it is a theoretical science and not an applied science like Biology or Anthropology. The theories of the science are based mostly on the writings of a brilliant man that lived in the 17th century who was knighted for his genius and contributions to science.

All of this you post over and over again you couldn't get within 100 miles of a court room and you would be laughed out of a grand jury. You are insinuating someone(I have yet to hear who by the way) has committed the crime of conspiracy before and after the fact, capitol murder in addition to fabrication of evidence on an grand scale. You have the burden of proof and I don't know how fire alone did anything-and I don't care.

Bottom line is this-you accused some one of the crime of conspiracy-theoretical science is not evidence nor is it allowed to presented as such. If you remove the criminal aspects of this case and proclaim it to be a theoretical discussion about how the building fell then all this can be applied to your argument.

I simply am running out of ways to convince you that every single word of the seemingly never ending discussion on the physics of the building collapse is meaningless in a criminal trial-and since you are the one accusing someone of a crime-you have the burden of proof-and that proof must meet the standards of evidence in the jurisdiction in which the accusation is made.

reply to post by spooky24

You can't start an investigation with a conclusion then go backwards and pick out minor indictments and disregard every thing else that fails to coincide with the preselected conclusion.

We all thank you for finally admitting the NIST is wrong...

The NIST has done this very thing of which you accuse others...

reply to post by spooky24

I know very little about physics however I do know it is a theoretical science and not an applied science like Biology or Anthropology.

Oh boy...

Applied physics – physics intended for a particular technological or practical use. It is usually considered as a bridge between "pure" physics and engineering.

List of applied sciences

Honestly, just stop for a second...

And please forgive us all if we accept the statement of the fine people at Harvard in lieu of your post...

AP 50a is the first half of a one-year, team-based and project-based introduction to physics. This course teaches students to develop scientific reasoning and problem-solving skills. AP50a topics include: kinematics; linear and rotational motion; relativity; conservation of momentum and energy; forces; gravitation; and oscillations and waves. Multivariable and vector calculus is introduced and used extensively in the course.