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

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

neformore
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.


With all due respect, and IMHO, I do not think I have ever witnessed in any other thread on any other topic in any other forum, such a thinly veiled attempt to derail a thread from the topics currently at hand...

And those are, as a reminder, the failure of the NIST to include and account for the stiffeners used in the steel construction of WTC 7 and the failure of NIST to pony up the inputs/results data utilized to come to the published conclusion...

You have already stated your position, that being the failure to include stiffeners in the computer modeling does not really affect the outcome and should not affect the outcome...

Of course, this position is not, and cannot, be supported in any empirical sense, because there have been no prior studies allowing for such an absurd approach...

I understand we all make blunders, having made few myself, but I would ask you reconsider your request and not seek to derail this thread. Thank you very much.
edit on 18-1-2014 by totallackey because: clarity




posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   


I'd appreciate a straight answer if possible


I can easily see how a 'straight' answer would derail the thread. A pseudo neurotic examination of a government report that is so meaningless in respect to the bigger picture of a world altering event, that any straight answer on the reality of the situation would implode the thread.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I will answer it, straight up.

- Explosive charges.

Nothing else can explain the actual occurrence of events and phenomenon, taken individually and as a whole.


But oh to be the one who knowingly guards and tries to protect the OS and the official story cover-up as to what actually occurred, given what took place there, well, i sure would not want to be in that person's shoes when everything and everyone must face the truth and the reality as it really and truly is.

Average Joe, who doesn't have access to all the information, he can be excused, no problem, since the nature of the event involved what can only been seen as a mega psychological operation or global psy-op. He's good, blameless.


back on topic...

NAM

edit on 19-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





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.


then use science instead of being obstinate...it works better.




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.


if you know "very little", then how can YOU say it's "meaningless" if you don't understand it??

oh...and basic fundamentals of physics are NOT "theoretical".....i.e. prerequisite for the acceleration of mass EQUAL to g., a 'clear path'.....tell me how fire created that path BEFORE 12.74 seconds so the acceleration EQUAL to g. can ensue globally and unified @ 1.75 s. [when we see the kink form], to 4.0s.

the authors of the official claims REFUSE TO!





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.


coming from one whom admitted ignorance of the subject.....tell me the criteria you are using to dismiss something you don't understand???
fear?




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.


that is more than obvious...my "burden of proof" is the 10,000+ page NIST report that YOU can no t quote to support the OFFICIAL CLAIMS!....I take the OFFICIAL REPORT, formulate a synopsis, and ask for clarification from you, anyone...
but it seems you want to stomp it out without even acknowledging it.




Bottom line is this-you accused some one of the crime


no bunkie....."bottom line", I ask/DEMAND for YOU to PROVE fire as claimed...I do not support the OS, but you sure seem to, so I ask for clarification.....SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!





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


yea...not too many options being a shill here to lie and deceive when ya have absolutely NO supporting evidence to use.

tell me HOW 2005 NIST can find NO reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11, and 2008 NIST can claim fire + brand NEW PHYSICS, [there is your "theoretical" physics again], they refuse to show through PEER REVIEW!

seems physics is not the only thing yer ignorant on......Dictum of BOTH Law and Debate is: Those whom assert MUST PROVE!!!



..and bunkie, the OFFICIAL CLAIMS assert a LOT that needs proving!!!



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

spooky24



I'd appreciate a straight answer if possible


I can easily see how a 'straight' answer would derail the thread. A pseudo neurotic examination of a government report that is so meaningless in respect to the bigger picture of a world altering event, that any straight answer on the reality of the situation would implode the thread.


How is the government report meaningless? If it covers up the truth of said world altering event, like not releasing the info they used to the collapse in their "simulation" since we can't compare this high rise fire to any other in history.Why can't the truthers get a "straight" answer form the ones sworn to protect us?
And in the sense the "meaningless government " is covering up actual events that led to the death of americans. And those are not meaning less and anything attached to those deaths needs to be the truth.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





What you are suggesting is criminal and you can be held libel for falsely accusing someone of a crime-now that is something you really need to worry about.


I think he's suggesting a coverup by NIST, and you're suggesting that it's a false accusation. If it was true then something would've been done about it by now, right?

If coverup is a crime then Bob Graham is in so much trouble for falsely accusing Bush administration of covering up criminal activities which led to so many people being murdered.

Oh Spooky you're so kooky.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) informed re WTC7 Omissions and says she will look into it. I've seen a few of these C-span programs where callers ask about 9/11, her response sounds a lot more sincere than the other ones. But will she actually do it, is another question.




Transcript of the exchange:

Caller:

"Congress's refusal to investigate the evidence that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition on 9/11 is based on its blind trust in NIST's WTC 7 report, which has now been found to contain incorrect data about the building design that, when corrected, renders NIST's fire collapse conclusion impossible. As appropriations committee member would you be willing to review the errors in NIST's report and help in seeking accountability from NIST for its errors considering that NIST has spent over 20 million dollars of taxpayers money to produce this erroneous report? "

Representative Marcy Kaptur:

"I would be more than happy to receive information from you sir and turn it over to those who have that particular agency under their jurisdiction. I have seen some of the callers who have called into programs and I think you're getting your message through, and as I said earlier, 'Truth will out'...sometime the government doesn't have all the facts, or there is an effort in some matters to not reveal the facts, for whatever reason, but ultimately if the American people are persistent the truth will be revealed. So you certainly can send me material and I will discuss it with those who are in charge of funding those agencies."
edit on 24-1-2014 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I dont think people working under NIST did a cover up. They habe been told to explain how fires brought down 7 and they did as good AS they could. Bad their directive been find out how 7 collapsed the report might have looked different.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
A REPLY to "Dr. Pepper's" letter!

Attached is the initial response received on Jan. 14, 2014 from the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General’s office regarding the complaint letter sent by attorney Dr. William Pepper on Dec. 12, 2013. The Inspector General has sent the information provided in the Pepper letter to NIST management for a response.

Individual citizens are encouraged to write or call the DoC Inspector General’s office themselves to let them know you are interested in this issue and to insist that the Inspector General ensure that the NIST be open and transparent here, and to also ensure that there is no conflict of interest. Anyone involved in the original report, which is now under scrutiny with allegations of impropriety, should be precluded from the response activity.


January 14, 2014

Dr. William F. Pepper
wfpintlawoxford@aol.com

Dear Mr. Pepper:

The Department of Commerce (DOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received your
correspondence and reviewed the information you provided. We have assigned complaint
number 14-0192.

After careful consideration, we decided upon the following course of action:

 Further evaluate the information and allegation(s) you provided. An investigator will
be contacting you to obtain further information and clarify your allegation(s).

 Refer your allegation(s) to management officials of the affected DOC component.
Your allegation has been forwarded to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology

more.. 911blogger.com...

edit on 27-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


In other words the hot potato has been handed directly to the mgmt of the NIST, chosen very carefully from a few different options, that's very interesting..

They're going to need a Dr. Pepper when they receive it and start meeting about it.. can you imagine - would love to be a fly on that wall..



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I think Dr. Pepper (i love that), should now send another letter to the complainants (or whatever legal term you'd use to describe them) directly, now that it's in their basket, and offer up a trade along these lines..


Admit the error, but give us your models that you used to show how it (with members and stiffeners included) would work if/when included...

That would solve it.

Simple misunderstanding. Give us access to the model you used, with the stiffeners and beams included, and we'll call it a day.

Does that make sense? I think it does.

That's the only way they can correct the error, right?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Merinda
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I dont think people working under NIST did a cover up. They habe been told to explain how fires brought down 7 and they did as good AS they could. Bad their directive been find out how 7 collapsed the report might have looked different.


They were told to explain how fire brought down WTC7, but couldn't do it without omitting its structural features (the whole point of this thread). Look up the meaning of a "coverup".



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jaffo
 





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


Lol... Where has that happened outside of a CD? Can you produce that theory in a picture or video?
Because the only way I have seen those squibs reproduced in the same manner is in a CD.
Have you taken the time to look at videos that look at those close up?
Have you seen the material that gets thrown out the section that the squibs come out of?
Why is the floors so far below the collapse, if it is just being pulled down by gravity and is hitting the individual floors as it is going down, why is air being pushed out so far below it?
Are you willing to look at it from the CD side? Should always be able to look at it form both sides and then apply what your sense of logic is to both and see which makes more sense. Or leaves less questions to be answered.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


They're explosive ejections of building material. It's unquestionable and unmistakable.






posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Match those up with the eyewitness statements from multiple firefighters of timely explosions throughout both collapses and not much air left in the compressed air idea.

Many a video of firefighters saying without a doubt that there was explosions outside of when the towers were hit.
Your sig video has a good chunk of them. I wonder how many that disagree with what you have to say have actually watched the whole thing...



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





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.


where did I say that?

I said tell me HOW FIRE, since THAT IS the OFFICIAL CLAIM, removes the required structural resistance of 105 vertical feet of continuous support, 8 floors of truss assemblies WITH carrier beams, lateral cross and diagonal bracing throughout, interior partitions, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, office contents, utilities in WTC7 to ALLOW the found 105 vertical feet of acceleration EQUAL to g.

the OFFICIAL CLAIM PUSHED IS fire did this....

there is an interval of acceleration equal to g. found by NIST occurring in WTC7.

WHEN does it occur????

...between the time of 1.74 sec to 4.0 seconds

WHAT does it encompass?

the "entire" building....moving as a "single unit"
....moving as ONE ...there is no part doing anything different than another part during that time interval, i.e. accelerating equal to g.


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, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL"......significance is NONE of the gravitational energy is 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 do we see those SAME numbers, that we see in the global unified descent of a steel frame; 9.8m/s^2 ????
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.....but somehow, spot fire gives us the SAME numbers seen under 'CONTROLLED conditions....wow.....somehow occur 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....

a 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"





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.


no....DUH-bunker....I said PROVE the claims PUSHED as truth......your, "theoretical" science CLAIMED to do this is YOUR problem!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 





I dont think people working under NIST did a cover up. They habe been told to explain how fires brought down 7 and they did as good AS they could. Bad their directive been find out how 7 collapsed the report might have looked different.


exactly!
The initial NIST did their job within the parameters they were given....to which they found NO reason why these three buildings failed with their HUNDREDS of volunteer professionals....then three years latter with a NIST HYPOTHESIS crew, they ignore their own science to profess NEW science!

...that they refuse to prove through proper peer review.


2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any 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 possible 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 unknown reason, the 2008 NIST is allowed to ignore their own 2005 scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as no other building has done before, as stated by Shyam Sunder at the NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

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....

like everything else Gov.....the initial intentions were hijacked....and it's all here in black and white.





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join