NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Bob0627]

PART I

The foregoing is not meant to convince anyone of anything, it’s all just FYI because Mark F asked and I wanted to publish anyway. That one may or may not see fraud here or pretend there is none is inconsequential. IMO, any intelligent person who can understand it should readily see courtroom evidence of massive fraud, but again, that’s just my opinion. So as promised:

1. NIST structural drawings vs actual Frankel structural drawings and NIST's representation of structural components vs actual structural components (missing shear studs, missing stiffener plates, missing girders).

2. NIST's data vs actual data (e.g. 600 C vs unknown actual temperature, 11" vs 12", description of misrepresentation of fires, etc.).

The above two issues above are combined because they represent the published data allegedly used by NIST. NIST has never made all the data it used available and denied FOIA requests for its full release. So one can only presume that the partial data NIST actually published in the NIST report is the same data NIST used during the modeling tests. If that’s not true, then NIST published contradictory and/or invalid information. If it is true, then NIST’s modeling data is faulty and invalidates all the modeling results.

According to NIST:

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

In the first paragraph, NIST claims that the fires in WTC7 are similar to fires in other tall buildings, albeit uncontrolled. Yet these caused an “extraordinary event” in that they caused the building to collapse. History shows that no steel frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire alone either prior to or after 9/11, even though there were some fires that were much more intense and lasted for longer periods of time. So NIST admits that this was a highly unusual event that resulted from a similar type of fire. The following is a sample of other steel frame high rise fires:

Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

The second paragraph describes what was not part of NIST’s objective but actually served as the heart of the final NIST Report on WTC7.

NIST used invalid data to show that column 79 failed. As one example, NIST contradicts itself as to the shear studs which appear in the original Frankel structural drawings.

“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs.” - NCSTAR 1-1, page 14

“In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders.” - NCSTAR 1-9, page 346

How and why that data is not valid and the effect is detailed in the following videos and articles:

Shear Ignorance NIST and WTC7 - YouTube
NIST and WTC7 The Expanding Lie - YouTube
Tangled Webs NIST and WTC7 - YouTube
NIST and WTC7 maladmiNISTration - YouTube
‘MaladmiNISTration’
WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained - YouTube
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

NIST claims that failures and damage occurred to the column connections when heated at 400 C for at least 3.5 hours due to thermal expansion (NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.4.5). There are several problems with that statement. In the first place, fires did not last for more than approximately 20-30 minutes in any section of WTC7 then moved on (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 Section 8.4.1), so NIST contradicted itself. In the second place, the presumption is that the steel is exposed to heat at a steady 400 C for the entire period of 3.5-4 hours (the steel frame acts as a heat sink, dissipating heat). In the third place the fire at the area around column 79 had already mostly gone out by the time of the collapse of WTC7. And in the fourth place, NIST maintained that a continuous temperature of 600 C was required for enough thermal expansion to dislodge column 79. Such a temperature requires more energy than an office fire can produce. If the fire was nearly out (or out) at the time WTC7 collapsed and a continuous temperature of 600 C caused thermal expansion, then column 79 should have failed well before it actually did (according to NIST). The contradictions are enormous.

NIST theorized without any direct evidence that column 79 was the initiating cause of the collapse of WTC7 and set about creating computer models that would attempt to support NIST’s contention that it failed using faulty/concocted/misrepresented data (see Garbage In). But it wasn’t just one piece of data that was not valid, there were multiple glaring pieces as already explained. Any of these would likely have invalidated any of the simulation models and all of them combined certainly invalidated all results (see Garbage Out).

(continued)

 

[Bob0627]

PART II

#3 & #4 below represent NIST’s conclusions.

3. NIST's computer simulation vs actual videos of the collapse.

This is another egregious NIST concoction because on visual inspection alone, anyone can easily see that the computer simulations (there were 2) don’t even closely resemble the actual videos of the collapse of WTC7. NIST spent a considerable amount of time programming the animation models (“a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete”) and the end result was nothing close to the actual collapse even to the casual observer. The data used to create the computer animated simulations is unknown but based on the result, it can’t possibly be accurate since it does not represent the actual collapse. In fact, it more closely represents what the collapse of WTC7 might look like if NIST’s theory is correct. This is more fully explained here:

FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?

4. Fabrication - NIST's unsupported column 79 theory.

That NIST’s column 79 theory is a fabrication is self-explanatory. There is no direct evidence that the failure of column 79 was the initiating event. There is only circumstantial evidence because the penthouse was located approximately at the top of column 79 and the collapse of the penthouse was seen first. Circumstantial evidence is obviously not direct evidence and is often misleading. Certainly column 79 failed, but so did all the other columns. While it may be possible that column 79 failed first, it may also not be true and WTC7 could not have collapsed unless and until all the columns failed. So this was mostly a best stab for NIST. NIST had to use whatever data it required to make this reasonably work (see descriptions for #1 & #2). NIST also claims that the failure of column 79, located near one corner of the building, caused other columns to progressively collapse in rapid succession, including and especially the core columns (see #5) since NIST claims WTC7 collapsed internally first. In other words, once column 79 failed allegedly due to thermal expansion, all the other connections somehow also failed much like a domino effect. Omitting shear studs, stiffener plates, girders, weldings and whatever other data NIST felt was inconvenient was an attempt to make that scenario more palatable. NIST provides no evidence that the failure of column 79 caused or could cause the failure of all the remaining columns.

5. Fabrication - NIST's unsupported internal collapse scenario theory.

A subsequent or concurrent event that follows NIST’s column 79 theory, is NIST’s internal collapse theory. That is, NIST decided, again without any supporting evidence other the circumstantial penthouse collapse that the interior of WTC7 collapsed first. Meaning the core columns all failed by some progressive mechanism (see #4), leaving all 4 walls and the roof line intact, then the walls followed at free fall and near free fall acceleration, because the outer walls are what is observable on the videos and the interior was not. There is of course, no supporting video evidence for this scenario. And it seems implausible to the casual observer because an interior collapse would likely have caused the walls to cave in (or be pulled in by the connected steel framework) toward the center of the building (somewhat like a deflating balloon) or as depicted in NIST’s computer animations. Furthermore, videos of the collapse do not show evidence of dust clouds prior to the descent of the building, which does not make sense if the more massive interior collapsed before the walls did.

So if NIST’s column 79 theory is a fabrication, so is NIST’s internal collapse scenario which follows. Furthermore, none of NIST’s objectives were to create theories. NIST’s first objective was to:

Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

WTC Disaster Study

So NIST failed to pursue its published objective and instead resorted to concocting theory. It’s interesting to note that NIST initially did not investigate the collapse of WTC7. In 2006, Shyam Sunder said “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”, but following the release of the WTC7 report, he contradictorily said “the obvious stares you in the face.”

6. Willful ignorance - NIST's acknowledgment of free fall without stating effect or cause.

“free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it” – Shyam Sunder, lead investigator on the collapse of WTC7.

At NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.6, the following appears:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)

There is no mention of what caused such an event to take place or how it could possibly have taken place since obviously WTC7 was a massive structure and despite Sunder’s description, free fall did take place by NIST’s own admission directly through the building’s structural components. The failure of NIST to elaborate on this phenomenon can readily be characterized as willful ignorance.

7. Blatant FRAUD - Failure to take into account many eyewitness statements regarding explosions & molten metal (see #9).

There is no evidence that NIST took into account any of the numerous eyewitness statements regarding explosions & molten metal. No such accounts are to be found anywhere in any NIST report. In fact, John Gross, NIST’s lead engineer denied knowing anything about any of the accounts of molten metal. No investigation is valid when it completely ignores eyewitness testimony. At the very least, there should have been a section in the NIST Report acknowledging such testimony in order to allow the reader to judge for him/herself. By failing to do that, NIST is effectively covering up such testimony as if it never existed. This is a clear case of fraud, especially given that all these testimonies were available to NIST at all times.

(continued)

 

[Bob0627]

PART III

8A. Blatant FRAUD - NIST's failure to use the scientific method, which includes failure to make available all the tools necessary for peer review. NIST denied FOIA requests for WTC7 data citing that disclosure would "jeopardize public safety".

Despite NIST’s claim that it did indeed adhere to the scientific method, without peer review the scientific method is non-existent. What that means is that no one can review/reproduce/verify/scrutinize any of NIST’s findings and all that is left is to accept NIST’s findings on faith alone. That’s not science, it’s much closer to alchemy/witchcraft or propaganda.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive, and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify the results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8B. Blatant FRAUD - NIST's denial of critical data violates NIST's own goals and objectives as published here: WTC Disaster Study

This is more or less self-explanatory. Architects, engineers and other appropriate experts cannot review the data that caused WTC7 to collapse allegedly due to fire and work to modify building designs to try to prevent building collapses from fire in the future. Thus NIST’s refusal to release data truly jeopardizes public safety. This runs counter to NIST’s objective to:

Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

9. Blatant FRAUD - NIST's failure to follow NFPA protocol standards that NIST helped develop.

NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Technology. That means NIST is responsible for developing certain national standards. Among these standards, NIST helped develop NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) protocols for fire investigations.

FAQ #16 states in part: “NIST’s WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method”, then lists some of the standard scientific method protocols that NIST claims it used. This statement is of course actually a lie. As described at #8A, without peer review, NIST’s claim that it used the scientific method completely falls apart and renders it false because even if NIST’s claim true about its use of some scientific method protocols, which no one can verify, without peer review the scientific method is non-existent regardless.

Furthermore, what NIST did not mention is that it failed to adhere to several other critical NFPA protocols. These are more fully itemized and detailed by Erik Lawyer, a former firefighter.

Fire Fighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation" - YouTube

10. Blatant FRAUD - NIST's failure to look for explosive materials (see #9). NIST's connections to nanothermite are documented.

Based on the many documented eyewitness accounts of first responders and others who heard, felt and saw explosions, not to mention that 9/11 was after all, a massive terrorist attack that suffered high order damage, there is no excuse for NIST, who by their own admission, failed to look for explosive materials (as recommended by NFPA standards). While it’s true that eyewitness accounts can be characterized as unreliable, no true investigation fails to follow up on eyewitness accounts because the possibility always exists that these can be critical or can lead to valid/critical evidence. To dismiss/ignore eyewitness accounts because of preconceived ideas (or any reason) is unfathomable and certainly grossly incompetent, especially given the 9/11 event.

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

NIST’s connections to nanothermite are explained in this document:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Summary

Only 10 major issues are listed here, there are many more. Any one of these or a combination invalidates the NIST Report on WTC7, all of these certainly do. As such, NIST’s dismal record on its WTC7 report renders all other reports (e.g. on WTC1 and WTC2) completely unreliable and worthless. Even without NIST’s WTC7 report, other reports by NIST are fraught with enormous problem on their own. There is more than enough evidence listed here to warrant an investigation into NIST itself for criminal fraud, especially given the event NIST was tasked with investigating. But even more importantly, to warrant an unbiased forensic criminal investigation into the collapse of the 3 WTC towers.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If what NIST claims is true that would be a huge suit against the builders of 7 for failure to properly take into consideration the expansion.

Dunno about anyone else but I havent heard of any suit against the builders.

 

[Bob0627]

If what NIST claims is true that would be a huge suit against the builders of 7 for failure to properly take into consideration the expansion.

Dunno about anyone else but I havent heard of any suit against the builders.

Actually, there was a lawsuit against the NYC Port Authority regarding WTC7 and the fact that it was built over the electrical substation. I don't know what the result was.

Court Rules Lawsuit Against Port Authority Over WTC Collapse in 911 Attack May Proceed

 

[Mark F]

While we could proceed to Gallop Gish over roads already repeatedly traveled, flogging dead horses in an entirely predictable fashion that I could script out right now, I think I will just skip that bit and jump a few chapters ahead in the interests of moving the project forward.

So in the simplest possible terms, now what?

 

[KokomoJojo]

now what?

discovery

wilful

pretty simple mark

 

[Thoreau72]

Now what?

Now the meat & potatoes of the NIST Sophistry is here for anyone to view.

Now, as anybody paying attention for the last 10 years already knew, it is demonstrated yet again the fraud and pseudo science employed by NIST.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Cha-Ching!!

 

[Bob0627]

While we could proceed to Gallop Gish over roads already repeatedly traveled, flogging dead horses in an entirely predictable fashion that I could script out right now, I think I will just skip that bit and jump a few chapters ahead in the interests of moving the project forward.

I don't blame you.

So in the simplest possible terms, now what?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Let's see where that goes. The proverbial ball is currently in NIST's court.

 

[Mark F]

I don't blame you.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Let's see where that goes. The proverbial ball is currently in NIST's court.

I can assure you Pepper's ridiculous and highly un-professional letter didn't make past the first round of letter openers at the NIST front desk. Pepper and AE911T certainly lack the stones to follow-up on their petty threats. Go ahead, bring in the European's. Let's see where you go with that. I've already dealt with the very obvious problems of his single technical claim in detail in another thread.

If I were a Truther I would find Pepper's letter embarrassing.

But none of this really answers the question at hand, now what?

So Bob you've proven NIST committed fraud, now what are you going to do? Go to Disney Land?

What changes if NIST was wrong?

 

[Sunzi]

PART III
Based on the many documented eyewitness accounts of first responders and others who heard, felt and saw explosions,.

No explosives were used on 911. Simile fools 911 truth followers again.
A weak attack on NIST because 911 truth followers can't do engineering, they only do woo.

Now you have a pile of rant you can do nothing with. Fiction for the paranoid conspiracy theorists.

13th year of failed fantasy. Lucky 911 truth followers were not on Flight 93, the terrorists would have made their target. At least this tripe can fool people like the Boston Bombers, or the next McVeigh.

Infinite fail, infinite fantasy, 911 truth in the 13th year of overwhelming evidence which does not exist.

 

[Bob0627]

I can assure you Pepper's ridiculous and highly un-professional letter didn't make past the first round of letter openers at the NIST front desk.

You know what happened at NIST when they received Pepper's letter? Please explain how you know the above for a fact.

Pepper and AE911T certainly lack the stones to follow-up on their petty threats.

What are you talking about? In any legal process, due process requires that a reasonable amount of time be given to respond. You make an awful lot of assumptions for someone who has no clue about what's going on between Pepper, the U.S. Department of Commerce and NIST.

The rest is your typical nonsense, not that the above isn't, and certainly not worth addressing.

What changes if NIST was wrong?

NIST was not just wrong, they committed fraud and at least someone or an entity is trying to hold them accountable as they very well should be. I don't have a crystal ball, do you?

 

[Mark F]

You know what happened at NIST when they received Pepper's letter? Please explain how you know the above for a fact.

What are you talking about? In any legal process, due process requires that a reasonable amount of time be given to respond. You make an awful lot of assumptions for someone who has no clue about what's going on between Pepper, the U.S. Department of Commerce and NIST.

No I don't know what was happening at NIST's secret volcano lair when the letter arrived but I can easily speculate based on the low quality and unprofessional nature of the letter. It was written as pure propaganda. There is no expectation of anything coming from it and there is nothing here NIST is under any obligation to respond to.

The rest is your typical nonsense, not that the above isn't, and certainly not worth addressing.

It is a serious question. Indeed really it is the only question and as usual you are finding ways to duck out of answering it either because you don't get it or you do get it and don't want to deal with it.

So what if NIST is wrong, what does that change?

 

[Thoreau72]

The entire fooking story is changed. That is, as I've been trying to tell you, the entire OCT is invalidated.

Even though it is invalidated by all the other facts and evidence....egads.

 

[ozeco41]

It was written as pure propaganda.

Yes. Which begs the question of why AE911 sent it. As usual with AE911 the stated purpose is not credible given the tactics they adopt.

There is no expectation of anything coming from it and there is nothing here NIST is under any obligation to respond to.

Certainly "no obligation" but NIST's PR stance has always been generous to a fault. Look at how they dealt with the Chandler "freefall" nonsense even knowing Chandler's record for mendacity.

... as usual you are finding ways to duck out of answering it either because you don't get it or you do get it and don't want to deal with it...

It is hard to tell where the line lies between those two.

So what if NIST is wrong, what does that change?

That question has been raised several times.

 

[Bob0627]

No explosives were used on 911. Simile fools 911 truth followers again.
A weak attack on NIST because 911 truth followers can't do engineering, they only do woo.

Now you have a pile of rant you can do nothing with. Fiction for the paranoid conspiracy theorists.

13th year of failed fantasy. Lucky 911 truth followers were not on Flight 93, the terrorists would have made their target. At least this tripe can fool people like the Boston Bombers, or the next McVeigh.

Infinite fail, infinite fantasy, 911 truth in the 13th year of overwhelming evidence which does not exist.

Ok, so don't worry about it then, it's not your problem.

 

[Bob0627]

No I don't know what was happening at NIST's secret volcano lair when the letter arrived but I can easily speculate based on the low quality and unprofessional nature of the letter. It was written as pure propaganda. There is no expectation of anything coming from it and there is nothing here NIST is under any obligation to respond to.

Ok thanks for your opinion.

It is a serious question.

Not for me, try again, next.

So what if NIST is wrong, what does that change?

Why would you believe my answer has changed since my last post?

 

[Bob0627]

No I don't know what was happening at NIST's secret volcano lair when the letter arrived but I can easily speculate based on the low quality and unprofessional nature of the letter. It was written as pure propaganda. There is no expectation of anything coming from it and there is nothing here NIST is under any obligation to respond to.

Are you worried about this?

 

[Bob0627]

The entire fooking story is changed. That is, as I've been trying to tell you, the entire OCT is invalidated.

Even though it is invalidated by all the other facts and evidence....egads.

I think they're worried about this, doesn't it sound like that to you? Who in his right mind (or better yet, what kind of person) would defend NIST knowing the extent of the fraud they committed? And for such an event, the most lethal terrorist attack on US soil in history. What I posted about NIST isn't even everything, there's a lot more.

 

[ozeco41]

I can assure you Pepper's ridiculous and highly un-professional letter didn't make past the first round of letter openers at the NIST front desk.

I would take a different slant on how far it went. I think it would have been considered right up at the top. It raises generic policy issues - not just "yet another claim from the nut fringe". I think you know that I worked in the AU version of public sector agencies at the same rank as senior NIST staff and where we faced similar challenges. How do you respond fairly to both informed and uninformed enquiries from those who are well intended to those at the other end of the spectrum?

Recall that NIST had responded neutrally and factually on the Chandler "free fall" enquiries. In that instance he was right on an issue that was minor in objective reality but big in truther mythology.

The AE911 claim is similarly placed for importance to the parties.

The big difference being that Chandler was right in the core issue despite the false claims that have since been erected using it as a false foundation. Free fall simply does not distinguish CD. NIST could agree with the true core fact and simply wear the inevitable truth movement nonsense of misreporting. Part of the price of being in senior Government roles. Ask me some time. :roll: That aspect is "freedom of speech" as we enjoy in the Western World whether protected by explicit Constitutional provisions or otherwise safeguarded at law.

On this one AE911 is wrong on the core claim. I haven't seen the proof but reports on another forum suggest that NIST may already have responded saying, in effect "You are wrong - we will not change anything".

Now if that is true we have the identical situation as existed with the Chandler thing - except Chandler was correct and truthers trumpeted their version of the "victory". They have no "victory" to trumpet on this one. However that will not prevent the opposite response - colloquially stated as "We wuz robbed". I'll wait and see.

BUT I reckon it either got way past the front desk OR the policy decision had already been made post the Chandler fiasco. My gut feeling - if Chandler happened over again they would still play it the same. Being transparent, honest and fair outranks by several grades the concerns about what the conspiracy sector will say.

If I were a Truther I would find Pepper's letter embarrassing...

You are thinking of the "Genuine Truthers" of former years. Yes, some of them would have been embarrassed.

But none of this really answers the question at hand, now what?

The perennial problem when truthers get into "forests and trees" syndrome - and focus on a few leaves.

What changes if NIST was wrong?

Like the Szamboti Gerrycan tag team on another forum - they refuse to see how petty the detail is. Even if the detail of web stiffeners does by some magic change the initiation the remainder of the hypothesis remains intact.

It's nearly as silly as saying "NIST said that a red bolt failed. They are wrong - it was blue - so the whole report is faulty and we should press criminal charges of fraud".

I am only slightly exaggerating. :mrgreen:

 

[Mark F]

Are you worried about this?

Why would I be?

 

[Mark F]

Ok thanks for your opinion.


Not for me, try again, next.

Why would you believe my answer has changed since my last post?

Yes we know that any question that attempts to get you to be specific is not a serious question to you. But since your goal is to demonstrate the NIST report a fraud I think it is a more than fair and serious question to ask what comes after that. What changes if the NIST report gets thrown out? On what planet is that not a serious question?

 

[Bob0627]

Why would I be?

Your characterization of Pepper's letter as "ridiculous and highly un-professional" makes you sound really desperate. Why are you afraid to hold NIST accountable for its massive fraud? What's ridiculous and unprofessional about his letter?

 

[Bob0627]

your goal is to demonstrate the NIST report a fraud

That's not my goal. My goal is the same as it always was, to get the truth about 9/11. If the official report is a fraud, one first has to try to show that it's a fraud in order to try get it tossed in favor of a real investigation.

What changes if the NIST report gets thrown out? On what planet is that not a serious question?

Everything. See above. What's your goal? All you've been doing all along is to try to defend NIST and the official story. Like I said, I have never seen a post from you that holds NIST's feet in the fire no matter how fraudulent they have been shown to be. Same with the 9/11 Commission. You're always on the defensive about these 2 scams.