We Need to find out who this third party is so we can E mail them because the are going to be responsible for the NIST report and the Identification of events
and data from photographs, videos, and witness accounts. I dont Think NIST is going to give them all the evidence we should try or best to influcene there
conscience and send them our evidence
For all tasks included in this solicitation, the models, assumptions, and analyses will be subject to
review and approval by NIST. NIST will arrange for third parties to conduct independent
reviews before final approval. NIST plans to retain a third party expert in structural system
behavior, structural stability, and failure criteria for members and system failure. The third party
expert will provide expert technical assistance to guide and assist the Contractor’s work, but it is
the Contractor’s responsibility to conduct the work described in this SOW. Third party experts
will also review Contractor reports for: (1) appropriateness of the models for their intended uses,
including modeling assumptions, level of detail, model geometry and material properties, and
Since NIST is refusing to release computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers, why not do our own?
Are there any structural/civil engineers out there, with access to finite element analysis modeling software, who can build simplified models of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?
This would constitute a solid project for a civil engineer undergrad/graduate for any academics out there.
(More after jump)
Just a reminder that the debate with NIST would have taken place a few days from now; however, NIST "scientists" refused to defend their own work. Instead, NIST engineers choose safe speaking engagements in which they can deny+the+existence+of+molten+metal+at+Ground+Zero.
On January 31, 2007 the Muckraker Report canceled its effort to hold a National 9/11 Debate. We thank everyone who expressed interest in the event, particularly those patriotic Americans that were willing to publicly debate the government officials responsible for the “official” account of what happened on September 11, 2001. Jim Fetzer, George Nelson, Judy Wood, Philip Berg, Steven Jones, Morgan Reynolds, David Ray Griffin, and many others in the “Truth Movement” – the Muckraker Report salutes you and thanks you.
Muckraker Report again boldly goes where most fear to tread!
Published: Thursday, March 1, 2007
Effort to halt government WTC7 investigation launched
March 1, 2007 – The following Request for Correction was e-mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007. It will be certified mailed on March 1, 2007. Attorney Jerry Leaphart has informed me that he will work on the legal papers for an injunction this weekend.
The subject matter within this Request for Correction and pending filing for injunction is purposeful. The reader might be tempted to conclude that many other contradictions found within the government investigation of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 should have been referenced in this Request for Correction. I can assure you that great thought went into this effort and it mirrors the advice of counsel. What some might conclude as “too narrow” is actually advantageous to achieving the goal – the truth.
Please support the Muckraker Report in this effort.
February 28, 2007
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RRR
There report is coming out soon so come on all you keyboard commandos lets smack to them
1 How did the news Media have Proir Knowledge Building 7 was comming down.
2 Who is the person who made the determination that the building 7 was going to have a total failure?
3 How can any human being predict within minutes of a total colapse of a 47 story stuctual steel knowing that no building have ever fell from debris or fire in the history of mankind.
4 The likely hood of building 3, 4, 5, 6, falling do to fire debris has much greater chance then building 7.
Here is just a start with some questions that they should considerd in there Report before they Finish it.
Please Please Email Them it will make a diffrence
( send photos) Contact BFRL
Ask a question or request additional information
(James E. Hill, Director) currently serving as NIST Acting Deputy Director
Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, Acting Director
WMV | MP4 Versions available at http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=195
Fellow Truth Seekers,
I just wanted to start a topic where we can compile information and comments on NIST
I hope to read and add my thoughts on these findings
Please leave all your discoveries and comments below:
National ConstructionSafety Team Advisoy Committee 2003 Report to Congress:
Does NIST Have a Stake in the War on Terror and the Control and Surveilance of American Citizens
NIST: Both Fingerprints, Facial Recognition Needed to Protect U.S. Borders
Isn't the Department of Commerce a Branch of the US Government?
As a non-regulatory agency of the US Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, NIST develops and promotes measurement, standards and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade and improve the quality of life
NIST is 1984
NIST Director Urges Better Security for Critical Industrial Systems
And you thought NASA was a funnel for money that will never be accounted.
"Gauging the Economic Impact of Government R&D Programs
The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?
by Eric Douglas, R.A.
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.
There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers...
Extremely short notice on this one, members of 911truthla.us will be on hand to protest and to ensure this "hamburger" gets nicely tenderized:
Conspiracy or Science:
Why Did the Towers Fall?
Sunday, December 3
Debates have been raging for years about whether or not the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed due to the impact of the two commercial airliners that struck them on 9/11/2001. Questions about the collapse of building 7, which was not struck by a plane, also feed the conspiratorial fire. Could terrorists have planted explosives throughout the World Trade Center in advance of the crashes? Were the fires caused by the planes enough to bring down these engineering marvels? Wherein lies the truth?
Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:
In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.1
Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true. I am writing this list In order to help remedy this situation. All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up. Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are. I have provided the footnotes to prove it.
This is for anyone who still takes the NIST report seriously.
I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:
#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.2
By "Winston Smith" of StudyOf911.com 2006-10-19 - Last updated 2006-10-25
An interesting analysis of the collapse of WTC7, incorporating the latest available photographic evidence.
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity
Revision: July 6, 2007.
Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.
Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.
Updated: 05/02/07 Minor revisions and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" replaced with "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"
9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?
The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report, 9/11 commission report, FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.
Please utilize this checklist of quotations from the NIST and FEMA reports on the WTC collapses. I have copied these examples from Improbable Collapse, which I recommend.
Remind OCTs that the official studies of the collapses were underfunded, inadequate in every way, and ultimately inconclusive:
"With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse each tower could not be definitively determined." – FEMA BEPAT, Executive Summary, p.2
Remind OCTs that the airplane impacts did not topple WTC 1 and 2, and that the official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history:
"The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." – NIST, p. xxxviii
Remind OCTs that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt or deform steel, and that NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it burned models for over 2 hours:
9/11 - Can you keep a secret? I hope not - The Truth Will Set You Free
"The NIST report represents what can really only be called anti-science. They started with their conclusion and worked their way back to some leading hypothesis."
"Here is the meteorite - molten iron fused with concrete."
"Architects, engineers, people who work with steel - welders - have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in their lives."
"As I stood there on the 33rd floor, I heard very strange noises on the 34th floor. now, the 34th floor was an empty floor - a floor that did not have any kind of walls, it was a construction floor. It was totally hollowed out there was nothing there . . . not even the elevators stopped there. You had to have a special access key to open the door on the 34th floor"
There are some very interesting clips in this short film, be sure to check it out for some things you might not have seen before.
This is actually part of the recently released 3 part series '9/11 Mysteries'. Sorry for the confusion, here is the link to the full film:
911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Full Length)
Hat tip to whatreallyhappened.com for the link!
NIST's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman
On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.
* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".
* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.
* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.
* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".
* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.
Continued at link.
NIST has been forced to respond, in a set of questions and answers, to points raised by 9/11 truth advocates. Here is the webpage. I eagerly await a rebuttal from people who know more about this issue than I do.
The questions which NIST purports to address are:
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?