|
Banned
|
willravel, IMO, you should just keep going the way you are going. All you seem to be doing is asking the questions that need to be asked, and demonstrating the inconistancies in the official "line".
To you and I, it seems strange, and potentially "telling"....that NIST has spent at least $16 million and after 4 years, has no more of a vague determination than FEMA as to what happened to WTC 7, and the 9/11 Commission simply ignored that question completely.
Here is NIST's latest "timetable" for answers....now missed....by months....with no re-promise of when the report that they avoided including in last year's "Final" report, will be issued. The problem here is that the postings from uninformed skeptics who try to discourage the posting of questions and of inconsistnacies in the official "line", interferes and distracts from that very process. It is telling that you are the one who is now given "direction", and not the "baiting" "trolls" who contribute nothing other than attempts to discredit you by "pressing your buttons" via personal attacks both here, and about your posting here.....that they continue to bring up on other threads to discredit you, instead of challenging your opinions.
You are not the problem, my friend. You've been driven here....and now discouraged from even examining this controversy here, as well:
Quote:
<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:010pX0prBBYJ:wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf+wtc.nist+%22march+2006%22+%22june+2006%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3">Tentative Schedule for WTC 7 Reports (page 94)</a>
January 2006 - Completion of technical work
March 2006 - Draft reports for review
April 2006 - Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 - Reports for public comment
June - Publication
|
...but in Jan. 2006, NISt was still looking for answers.....
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm
DRAFT Statement of Work for Structural Analysis of WTC 7
NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
Background
This solicitation contributes to completion of the first primary objective of the investigation and the objectives of Project 6 (Structural Fire Response and Collapse). Specific information may be found at the NIST Web site http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm#proj6 under Project 6, Task 6 of the Final Plan. Project 6 seeks to determine the structural response of the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) to impact by debris from the collapse of WTC 1, the fire environment, and any other events that may have occurred, and to identify probable structural collapse mechanisms.
This Statement of Work (SOW) describes analyses that support determination of the location and cause of the initiating event (i.e., the first component or group of components that failed in WTC 7) that led to global collapse, and the subsequent series of component and subsystem failures up to global collapse (including the vertical and horizontal progression of failures up to the point of global instability) that are consistent with the observations from video and photographic records and other evidence.
DRAFT Statement of Work for the Structural Analysis of WTC 7 (PDF file, 50 KB)
This draft statement of work is available for review and comment for 5 business days. To be considered, comments must be emailed to wtc@nist.gov on or before January 10, 2006.
Last updated: 1/4/2006
|
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm
Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?
By Jarrett Murphy | January 25, 2006
Of the many mysteries surrounding 9-11, few have been of as much interest to as broad a range of people as the fate of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story office building that was the last to fall and appears to have been the first steel-framed skyscraper to collapse due solely to fire. <b>The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which this fall issued its final report on what happened to the Twin Towers, was supposed to report on WTC 7 at the same time. But that got pushed to December, then to this spring, and lately to the end of 2006. Now, NIST is soliciting a contractor to try to come up with the best explanation for why the building came down.</b>
NIST announced the move in a draft solicitation earlier this month. A formal bid is being prepared. Michael Newman, NIST spokesman, says the contractor will "determine the most likely scenario for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse and provide the global analysis of the collapse (i.e. the response of the whole building to the initiating event)."
The draft solicitation says NIST will consider the "possibility of any other events that may have occurred that day." This is a red flag to people who harbor alternative theories of what 9-11 was all about. WTC7, which housed offices for the CIA and the Office of Emergency Management, is central to the notion that the buildings at Ground Zero were brought down by planned demolitions, partly because film of the collapse shows a sudden, implosion-like demise.
The Voice asked NIST what it meant by "other scenarios." Its answer:
The contractor will look at up to 20 possible scenarios for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse. In collaboration with the NIST WTC 7 team, the contractor will reduce this number to no more than 5 scenarios deemed most likely to be correct and then focus its modeling on these five to eventually determine the single most likely scenario.
|
Quote:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id265.html
NIST in violation of the Data Quality Act
May 31, 2006 – When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged with determining how three World Trade Center Buildings collapsed at freefall speed onto their footprints on September 11, 2001, there was an expectation that NIST would demonstrate quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity in its analysis – that it would not be influenced by predeterminations. However, upon thoroughly studying the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, as well as the current working hypothesis by NIST on how WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, it is clear that this compromised federal agency violated the Data Quality Act when it published its conclusions regarding the collapse of the twin towers, and is preparing to violate the Data Quality Act again when it releases its report on World Trade Center Building Seven.
The Data Quality Act took effect on October 1, 2002. Its purpose is to ensure that federal agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology disseminate accurate information to other federal agencies, states, and the public. When the Data Quality Act was enacted, it mandated that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with public and Federal agency involvement, develop and issue guidelines under section 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In response to the Data Quality Act, the National Institute of Standards and Technology developed, defined, and enacted the following guidelines and standards.[1]
Quality is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity. Therefore, the guidelines sometimes refer to these four statutory terms, collectively, as “quality.”
Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public. In assessing the usefulness of information that the agency disseminates to the public, NIST considers the uses of the information not only from its own perspective but also the perspective of the public. As a result, when transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information’s usefulness from a public’s perspective, NIST takes care to ensure that transparency has been addressed in its review of the information.
Objectivity consists of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. In a scientific, financial, or statistical context, the original and supporting data will be generated, and the analytic results will be developed, using sound statistical and research methods.
Integrity refers to security – the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption of falsification.
The mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.[2] True to its mission statement – NIST did not approach its research on how WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed from a forensic science perspective. It did not treat its investigation as a crime scene investigation. It based its research on the predetermined conclusions fed to it by the U.S. government. NIST only had one working hypothesis when it started its investigation into how the twin towers collapsed – that the government’s account of 9/11 as articulated in the 9/11 Commission Report was one hundred percent accurate and therefore complete. NIST did not set out to reach a different conclusion. It purposely set out to validate the conclusion that had already been fed to the media by the White House – that the twin towers miraculously collapsed in 10 seconds (South Tower) and 11.4 seconds (North Tower) due to the impact of aircraft and ensuing fires.
In the scientific world, a hypothesis is a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations, a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory. It is important to note that in its final draft on how the twin towers collapsed, NIST used the word “probable” frequently – such as “probable cause” and “probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2”. NIST also generously used this disclaimer; a disclaimer that in my opinion, essentially invalidates the entire NIST report:
No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 1007-321).[3]
Why did the U.S. government deem it appropriate to exclude the NIST reports from being used as evidence in lawsuits and legal actions? There is only one plausible explanation. The U.S. government knows that the NIST findings could not withstand the rigors of cross-examination. The fact that approximately 150 plaintiffs that refused the government’s 9/11 Victims Fund are still waiting for their day in court nearly five years after 9/11 validates my premise that the government is allergic to any civilian force that desires to put the government’s account of 9/11 to the test of a jury trial.
If the NIST scientists responsible for the “probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2” had to take the stand in a civil court proceeding, it would quickly be discovered by the world that NIST failed to perform and disseminate its research regarding the collapse of the twin towers in accordance with its own Data Quality Act guidelines. Even a rookie attorney fresh out of law school would be able to quickly dissect and dismiss as irrelevant, the NIST conclusions. It is precisely what NIST did not consider in its research that makes its published conclusions suspect. NIST simply refused to consider and vigorously pursue a second working hypothesis; that the twin towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition.
NIST is quick to boast about the volume of its final draft as if twenty thousand pages of text prove completeness. However, quantity does not prove quality. Anybody that has taken the time to read the NIST reports on the probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2 is quick to point out that while NIST has assembled an impressive looking book set and DVD series, what the final draft on the twin towers actually amounts to is an exercise in futility and redundancy. Throughout the pages of the NIST report, the government repeats itself over and over and over – never actually saying anything new or informative. It’s as if NIST has subscribed to the notion that if a lie is told often enough – it somehow becomes a truth.
Throughout the NIST reports is found this language:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
This statement is a gross contradiction that cannot be easily dismissed or ignored. When defining its approach to its research into the probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2, NIST explained that with the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers, it acquired and organized nearly 7,000 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000 photographs representing at least 185 photographers. NIST claimed that this information guided the Investigation Team’s efforts to determine the condition of the buildings following the aircraft impact, the evolution of the fires, and the subsequent deterioration of the structure. Assuming that this statement by NIST is true, then it is proof that NIST was grossly negligent and violated the Data Quality Act by not pursuing a controlled demolition hypothesis in addition to the “pancake theory” hypothesis that was the centerpiece of the NIST research.
Why should NIST have worked with two working hypotheses instead of one? Why should there have been a controlled demolition hypothesis that received matching computer modeling and explanation, as did the “pancake theory” hypothesis? The answer is found in the 7,000 segments of video footage that NIST used to develop the computer modeling and collapse simulations that were intended to validate the government’s 9/11 Commission Report. Nobody can deny that the collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 looked like controlled demolitions. Americans remember watching the news on the morning of 9/11. We remember all the newscasters reporting live from New York City. We remember when the first tower fell, and the voices of news anchors from all the major networks attempting to describe what they just witnessed. To a man, every major network, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC used the language, “It looked like what we have all seen before when a building is purposely demolished – like a controlled demolition.” If NIST viewed over 7000 video segments, if it listened to the commentary given by the major media outlets on the morning of September 11, 2001, then it had to have seen buildings collapsing in the style of a controlled demolition. NIST had to have heard newscasters describing the scene as looking like “a controlled demolition.”
The footage of the collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 and its similarity to footage of other buildings being demolished by controlled demolition demanded that NIST develop a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST did not. Instead, NIST spent millions of dollars developing what amounts to computer-enhanced imagery that’s sole purpose was to coincide with what the 9/11 Commission Report proclaimed as truth, regardless of how warped the science had to become to fit the government’s account of 9/11.
When putting the NIST study to the Data Quality Act test, it is clear that by refusing a controlled demolition hypothesis – NIST demonstrated contempt prior to investigation. The people responsible for preventing the NIST scientists from adequately studying a controlled demolition hypothesis remain unknown, but rest assured, those government scientists were on short leashes whether they care to admit it or not. The message was predetermined, and those that did not want the public to suspect any other conspiracy theory, other than the government-issued conspiracy theory, controlled it. Believe otherwise if you must, but the government’s account of 9/11 is the most conspiratorial and outlandish of all conspiracy theories offered to date regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
In reading the NIST report, I sometimes sense that the authors are trying to send distress signals to the American people. It’s as if the NIST scientists are hostages being forced to read a script against their will. We have all see footage of hostage tapes and have learned not to believe the words that come out of a hostage’s mouth under such duress. We recognize that sometimes a hostage, when fearing for his or her life, will say whatever it is that he or she thinks needs to be said to survive. It might be extreme, but not necessarily far-fetched to suggest that the government scientists at NIST were coerced to perform exactly as the U.S. government required to substantiate the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It is reasonable to suggest that if the team of lead scientists would have begun showing signs of even a split decision on how the twin towers collapsed – each would have been relieved of his or her duties. Careers would have been destroyed, and if necessary, people would have been silenced. That is to say that if controlled demolition would have become a talking point for the NIST scientists – the conversation would have been squelched at all costs.
When defining the approach of their investigation, the NIST scientists said that “the scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster” led to the NIST approach of computer modeling and collapse simulation. This is critical and another example as to why NIST should have developed a controlled demolition hypothesis to fulfill the mandate set by the Data Quality Act. Why was there a “scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster”? NIST stumbled over the lack of evidence, when what was lacking should have served as evidence that something peculiar happened to the physical evidence that would have been extremely helpful in accurately determining how the twin towers and WTC-7 collapsed. NIST should have viewed the utter destruction of the crime scene by FEMA and the FBI at Ground Zero and the fact that FEMA only allowed NIST access to 236 pieces of steel from the entire World Trade Center Complex wreckage – steel that was contaminated if not tampered with prior to being delivered to NIST for analysis, as all the evidence it needed to open and thoroughly explore a controlled demolition hypothesis. Incidentally, some of the steel NIST received from Ground Zero belonged to other WTC buildings – particularly buildings five and six. In total, NIST examined less than one-fifth of one percent of meaningful steel from the twin towers.
More importantly, there is no record that any of the miniscule pieces of steel that FEMA gave NIST were tested for traces of explosives. Why? The 236 pieces of steel were not tested for traces of explosives commonly used in controlled demolitions because NIST was not working a controlled demolition hypothesis. It was working the “pancake theory” hypothesis in support of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Remember the four pillars of the Data Quality Act – quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity. Recall that in accordance with the Data Quality Act, NIST defined objectivity as consisting of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information.
NIST did not investigation the collapse of the twin towers free from a predetermined bias. Nor is NIST investigating the collapse of WTC-7 in an unbiased manner. In fact, NIST has already released a statement on WTC-7 that says that NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC-7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. The use of the words, “bombs” and “missiles” is a purposeful distraction. The focus should be on the words “controlled demolition” and the fact that the collapse of WTC-7 and the twin towers both require a controlled demolition hypothesis because the video evidence that NIST claims it used to develop its “pancake theory” and insists to ignore in the context of a controlled demolition, speaks for itself – that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC-7 clearly looks like a controlled demolition. The appearance of controlled demolition is all that should have been required for NIST to pursue a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST refused or was prevented from pursuing this hypothesis.
Another fact that clearly places NIST in direct violation of the Data Quality Act is that its “pancake theory” cannot be supported when tested against the laws of gravity and many laws of physics. Focusing on the laws of gravity – it is impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the elapsed times of 10 seconds and 11.4 seconds within the NIST “pancake theory”. It’s as if NIST finally achieved success with its computer image manipulation and dared not to put its theory to a real world scientific test to learn if the laws of gravity permit its conclusions. Had NIST measured its “pancake theory” against the laws of gravity, it would have quickly discovered that the theory simply does not sustain itself.
The south tower stood 1,362 feet tall, the north tower, 1,368 feet. The computer generated models that NIST produced show all building material falling unrestricted – at freefall speed. NIST had no alternative in this regard because the towers did indeed collapse at freefall speed. In fact the towers’ resistive systems – that being the super steel structure skeleton, offered no resistance to its own collapse. It’s as if the structural steel suddenly and simultaneously vanished from within the buildings. For the “pancake theory” to stand against the laws of gravity requires that the 70 to 85 tons of intact steel below where the airplanes impacted the two towers provided zero resistance when the buildings began to collapse.
How long should the towers have taken to collapse within the NIST “pancake theory”? Some experts suggest 40 seconds – four times longer than the elapsed collapse time caught in the 7000 video segments NIST claimed to have studied. There is a more telling fact about gravity though that cannot be ignored. If the roof of either tower were to be suspended in midair in a vacuum that offered no wind resistance to its fall – 1,362 feet above the ground with nothing whatsoever beneath it – no building, no 85 tons of super steel structure, no trusses and cross members, nothing but the actual roof of either tower exactly as it appeared prior to 9/11 hovering 1,362 feet above the ground, and it was dropped – the laws of gravity dictate that the roof, with no building beneath it, would take 9.2 seconds to hit the ground.
How then is it possible for the towers to have collapsed in 10 and 11.4 seconds within the confines of the “pancake theory”? If one floor fell upon the other, would there not be a resistance time requirement before the lower floor failed as a result of the floor above falling on it? Wouldn’t each floor be paused before it collapsed from the weight of the others? How is it possible that there was a downward, simultaneous advance failure of all structural integrity that allowed these incredible steel superstructures to completely collapse at a speed slightly above the elapsed time required for the roof alone to fall from 1,362 to the ground?
The truth is that it simply is not possible.
[1] The National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism, http://www.nist.gov/director/quality_standards.htm, [Accessed May 21, 2006]
[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism, http://www.nist.gov/director/quality_standards.htm, [Accessed May 21, 2006]
[3] National Institute of Standards and Technology National Construction Safety Team Act Report 1 – 1,298 pages (September 2005) CODEN: NSPUE2
|
The "work" that is being done here is to compile a record of what does not "add up" in the governments account of what happened on 9/11.
In this post, we demonstrate that not only does the government's account of what happened to WTC-7, the only steel framed tall building in the world, ever to collapse as a result of a structural fire ( it was 47 stories tall and it collapsed less than 8 hours after fire burned on some of it's floors), but that the most respected and technically savvy government agency charged with a scientific investigation and determination of what happened that caused three skyscrapers to all collapse at or near the speed of gravity, into their own footprints, because that agency's mission is to make buiding code change determinations that enhance fire safety and structural integrity, not only did not include the causes of most troubling building collapse of the three, WTC7, in it's "final" report, issued a year ago....but has missed a promised seperate addendum to the final report that was due 2 months ago, and now offers no firm date for that release.
Since WTC7 was not struck by a jumbo airline flying at high speed, the delay in reporting determination of the reasons for it's collapse, puts all other high rise steel framed structures in a state of fire safety uncertainty, along with all
similar buildings planned, or under construction, and those who underwrite insurance of these structures, at a higher exposure to safety and financial risk.
This is the present state of affairs. Nothing else must be "so", for this to be the status of the investigation of what happened. I suggest that those who want to post conditions for what willravel and some others are doing here, to start their own thread and post their opinions there. This subject has already been "driven to paranoia", accompanied with derision towards those who are willing to come here and attempt to have a serious discussion. Since there is no discouraging of "troll and bait posts", is the intent to drive this discussion off of all TFP threads? |