• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Mark F said:
Comment on what?
Click to expand...

Why join a discussion if you're not even going to pay attention to the conversation you are joining ? Seriously dude, take one guess which post we were talking about that got a 2 word response as though it was somehow valid,
 
BmanMcfly said:
Why join a discussion if you're not even going to pay attention to the conversation you are joining ?
Click to expand...

What kind of a question is that; how long have you been here?
 
Fledermaus said:
OPINIONS on a BLOG...

And?
Click to expand...

Try reading it, you might figure out the answer to your question.

I know I know, you won't let pesky things like facts get in the way of your opinions,
 
BmanMcfly said:
Try reading it, you might figure out the answer to your question.

I know I know, you won't let pesky things like facts get in the way of your opinions,
Click to expand...

I read the OPINIONS. And OPINIONS are like _________

Lets look at EVIDENCE and FACTS instead.

Oh, wait. Truthers don't do FACTS and EVIDENCE. Do they?
 
Yes, truthers do facts and evidence.

That is what makes you uncomfortable Maus. :roll:
 
Truthers do partial facts, misrepresent facts and evidence, and play the "what if" game.
They rarely provide the sources and admit some sources are known to post untrue statements.

Guess the courts will sort out if NIST committed fraud.

Interesting some do not recognize that.
 
[usually nonsense skipped]

mike2810 said:
Guess the courts will sort out if NIST committed fraud.

Interesting some do not recognize that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they don't recognize it because NIST has not been charged with fraud so unless and until they are, the courts will never sort that out. In fact, no court is currently involved with NIST that I know of. So you have nothing to fear, your defense of NIST is "admirable", unfortunately the only purpose it serves is to maintain your head in the sand.

That NIST has not been charged with fraud is not evidence that NIST did not commit fraud. In fact, the courtroom level evidence that NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud is overwhelming. That does not mean that it is a slam dunk that NIST would be found guilty of committing fraud should such a case ever reach a courtroom. Government rarely successfully prosecutes itself.

As an analogy, the overwhelming evidence shows that the last two administrations committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. In fact, Obama recently admitted "we tortured some folks" while still protecting the prior administration (a clear violation of the Nuremburg Principles). This should be more than enough to prosecute most members of the Bush and Obama administrations for war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, I believe most American courts would immediately dismiss any such charges under pretext of Executive immunity.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Why join a discussion if you're not even going to pay attention to the conversation you are joining ? Seriously dude, take one guess which post we were talking about that got a 2 word response as though it was somehow valid,
Click to expand...

Why join a discussion if you are not interested in debate? That's what you told me yesterday.

As usual, you missed the point entirely. I was merely inquiring as to what there was to comment on,... I mean other than :beatdeadhorse
 
Bob0627 said:
[usually nonsense skipped]



Perhaps they don't recognize it because NIST has not been charged with fraud so unless and until they are, the courts will never sort that out. In fact, no court is currently involved with NIST that I know of. So you have nothing to fear, your defense of NIST is "admirable", unfortunately the only purpose it serves is to maintain your head in the sand.

That NIST has not been charged with fraud is not evidence that NIST did not commit fraud. In fact, the courtroom level evidence that NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud is overwhelming. That does not mean that it is a slam dunk that NIST would be found guilty of committing fraud should such a case ever reach a courtroom. Government rarely successfully prosecutes itself.

As an analogy, the overwhelming evidence shows that the last two administrations committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. In fact, Obama recently admitted "we tortured some folks" while still protecting the prior administration (a clear violation of the Nuremburg Principles). This should be more than enough to prosecute most members of the Bush and Obama administrations for war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, I believe most American courts would immediately dismiss any such charges under pretext of Executive immunity.
Click to expand...

and what is the title of the OP.
Your claim is NIST has commited fraud. Funny how you do not bring up the potential fraud that some CT people have played out. Heck even the editor of VT admits 30-40% of what is posted is untrue.


Of course it will not be settled on a forum. Your defense of your view is consistant.
 
Bob0627 said:
From a blog:

NIST admits they omitted lateral support beams from WTC 7 report

In a letter dated July 11, 2014 to Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Jim Schufreider, representing NIST, admitted (albeit indirectly) for the first time that NIST omitted the lateral support beams in its final report on WTC 7, published after a 7 year investigation + delay in November, 2008.

Unfortunately Mr. Schufreider's letter to Senator Boxer made false statements and misrepresentations, probably in an effort to deceive the Senator so as to avoid meaningful oversight. To this day the question remains open whether NIST fulfilled its Congressional mandate in the National Construction Safety Team Act.

On October 1, 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231) was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The first "specific objective" of this Act was, "1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." (NIST NCSTAR 1A, page xxvii).

Yet when NIST published its Final Report in November 2008 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1 - 9, (2 volumes, 796 pages) it did not meet the first "specific objective" of this Act. Those of us familiar with NCSTAR 1-9 know of the many omissions and distortions it contained, most notably the incidental admission of free fall for over 105' without any analysis of how that free fall might have occurred.

Evidence uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in late 2011 shows that two key structural features of Building 7 of the World Trade Center were omitted from the NIST analysis of why and how WTC 7 collapsed. These structural features are stiffeners and lateral support beams. If either of those structural features had been included in the NIST analysis, the collapse would not have occurred in the NIST model. This is important because the NIST analysis of WTC 7 relied entirely on computer models and not on the available physical evidence.

The Schufreider letter to Senator Boxer and the Senator's cover letter to the author are attached to this blog entry. So is Table 8-2.

Here are the drawings and Technical discussion from the William Pepper letter, based on the records uncovered in late 2011 through the Freedom of Information Act.

Among the problems with the Schufreider letter are the following. These comments are from engineers familiar with NCSTAR 1-9.

In his letter Schufrieder says "The NIST computer analyses of the WTC 7 collapse showed that G3005 did not fail laterally and therefore, the secondary beams S3007, G3007 and K3007--like the web stiffeners--had no bearing on the final NIST analyses nor on the conclusions drawn from them as to the most probable cause for the WTC 7 collapse."

However, on page 353 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Table 8-2 says the northmost floor beam (that is G3005) began to buckle laterally at 2.10 seconds. Of course, this is with the lateral support beams omitted as seen in Figures 8-22 and 8-27.

As far as the contention that web buckling was not an issue and that is why they left off the stiffeners, that is also complete nonsense, as web buckling was not the failure mode they claim and they are ignoring the effect of the stiffeners on the failure mode they do portend (flange bending). The stiffeners are germane to that failure mode and they are clearly trying to avoid that conversation.

Regarding the stiffeners: The following statement is found on page 488 in NCSTAR 1-9:

Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat primarily in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads. Under such conditions, the beam was removed.

The bearing stiffeners prevent flange bending as well as web crippling. The lateral walk-off and removal of critical framing members from the ANSYS model was based on an assumed flange bending failure, so the stiffeners were required to be included in the analysis. In other words: if you leave the door open, obviously the dogs will get out.

Any further justification based on the lack of web crippling is irrelevant. Mr. Schufrieder is the Director of the Congressional and Legislative Affairs Office. He has either not read NCSTAR 1-9 carefully, and/or he does not understand it. Most likely he is simply parroting Mr. Newman’s response to David Cole

(End of engineers' comments.)

The 2nd engineer was referring to the following NIST email, which prior to July 11, 2014 was NIST's most detailed response regarding the stiffeners and lateral support beams.

From: michael.newman@nist.gov
To: (email address of attorney William Pepper)
Sent: 4/14/2014 4:06:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: NIST Response to Your Letter to the Commerce OIG

Dear Dr. Pepper,

NIST has thoroughly reviewed the assertions in your letter to the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General dated Dec. 12, 2013 (received by NIST on Jan. 14, 2014), regarding our investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Based on our review, NIST finds no reason to modify or change our findings and conclusions.

As previously indicated when presented with similar questions, NIST remains confident of the technical work contained in the final report of the WTC 7 report issued on Nov. 20, 2008.

Sincerely,

Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs

**********************************************

Michael E. Newman
Senior Communications Officer
Public Affairs Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070

Attachments

http://911blogger.com/sites/911blog...er cover letter July 11 2014 to MG 80 pct.jpg
http://911blogger.com/sites/911blog...Schufrieder letter July 11 2014 p1 47 pct.jpg
http://911blogger.com/sites/911blog...Schufrieder letter July 11 2014 p2 47 pct.jpg
http://911blogger.com/sites/911blogger.com/files/Table_8-2_0.jpg

NIST admits they omitted lateral support beams from WTC 7 report | 911Blogger.com


So NIST admitted so far (in no particular order):

Free Fall
Omitting stiffeners
Transposing data
Incorrect data
Omitting at least 3 lateral support beams
That the computer simulations of the collapse don't match the videos
Not an admission (yet) but a documented contradiction regarding the shear studs
Click to expand...

Congrats debunkers you've successfully dodged real facts again...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Congrats debunkers you've successfully dodged real facts again...
Click to expand...

successfully?

you give them far more credit than they deserve, seems to me they are getting busted at every turn.
 
mike2810 said:
and what is the title of the OP.
Your claim is NIST has commited fraud.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's very perceptive of you, congrats.

Funny how you do not bring up the potential fraud that some CT people have played out.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just ask me what the title of OP is? And you even answered it yourself correctly. Now you're asking me why I did not bring up a different topic in this topic? I think you're thoroughly confused and full of contradictions. Pass me what you're smoking.

Your defense of your view is consistant.
Click to expand...

You figured that out too? Wow, that's 2 out of 3 you got right in the same post. Well done.
 
Bob0627 said:
Correct. That's very perceptive of you, congrats.

Didn't you just ask me what the title of OP is? And you even answered it yourself correctly. Now you're asking me why I did not bring up a different topic in this topic? I think you're thoroughly confused and full of contradictions. Pass me what you're smoking.

You figured that out too? Wow, that's 2 out of 3 you got right in the same post. Well done.
Click to expand...

So, Bob.....

What are you going to do with your "proof" of fraud?

Report it to the FBI? Please do....

Report it to the media? By all means do so.

How about delivering it to the Attorney General? Go, man, go.

When they get done laughing come back and share with us, eh?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Congrats debunkers you've successfully dodged real facts again...
Click to expand...

Congratulations conspiracy nutter - you still do not get it on a fundamental level.

Neither of the two questions satisfied by Bob's post. Nothing new here and still no demonstrated relevance PLUS the fact nothing changes either way. So :beatdeadhorse
 
Mark F said:
Congratulations conspiracy nutter - you still do not get it on a fundamental level.

Neither of the two questions satisfied by Bob's post. Nothing new here and still no demonstrated relevance PLUS the fact nothing changes either way. So :beatdeadhorse
Click to expand...

Just say the words: "I refuse to try to explain those facts raised because that will force me to alter my opinions."
 
BmanMcfly said:
Just say the words: "I refuse to try to explain those facts raised because that will force me to alter my opinions."
Click to expand...

Well that is the truther mantra!
 
Quag said:
Well that is the truther mantra!
Click to expand...

Lol.. So does that mean you are going to address that post? I don't mean the source, I mean the actual facts raised in that article?

No? Ok, well, I guess you are repeating the same mantra.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Just say the words: "I refuse to try to explain those facts raised because that will force me to alter my opinions."
Click to expand...

Like I said, you still don't get it. There is nothing new here. No demonstrated relevance and no evidence anything has changed. Bob, who introduced this new information :roll: has not made any specific claim using this information, therefore there is nothing to discuss.

The null hypothesis remains:

Dear Dr. Pepper,

NIST has thoroughly reviewed the assertions in your letter to the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General dated Dec. 12, 2013 (received by NIST on Jan. 14, 2014), regarding our investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Based on our review, NIST finds no reason to modify or change our findings and conclusions.

As previously indicated when presented with similar questions, NIST remains confident of the technical work contained in the final report of the WTC 7 report issued on Nov. 20, 2008.

Sincerely,

Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs
Click to expand...

Should Bob, or anyone else ever actually figure out how any of this would change the fundamental conclusions of the NIST report they are welcome to post that data for review. So far, all anyone has done is assume things would change. I know several actual engineers who have reviewed the NIST report AND the allegations contained within this thread and none are impressed with the case being made by the woo spewing crowd.

The entire effort to discredit NIST is, as it has been pointed out frequently, a complete waste of time at any rate. CT's and Bob in particular don't get that or why and probably never will. That reality I suppose can not be helped.
 
NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11

Mark F said:
Like I said, you still don't get it. There is nothing new here. No demonstrated relevance and no evidence anything has changed. Bob, who introduced this new information :roll: has not made any specific claim using this information, therefore there is nothing to discuss.

The null hypothesis remains:



Should Bob, or anyone else ever actually figure out how any of this would change the fundamental conclusions of the NIST report they are welcome to post that data for review. So far, all anyone has done is assume things would change. I know several actual engineers who have reviewed the NIST report AND the allegations contained within this thread and none are impressed with the case being made by the woo spewing crowd.

The entire effort to discredit NIST is, as it has been pointed out frequently, a complete waste of time at any rate. CT's and Bob in particular don't get that or why and probably never will. That reality I suppose can not be helped.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm ... Brb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom