[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: 9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity 9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity ( Home » blogs » Arabesque's blog » 9/11, NIST, and... ) Submitted by Arabesque on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 3:25am. Bush Science | Kevin Ryan | NIST 9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity Abstract 9/11 and the NIST report; the twenty million dollar “Magical Fireproofing” report that only manages to prove there was fire and relatively minor structural damage in the WTC towers. I will prove that the NIST report is an outrageous “Conspiracy Theory” that uses “Bush Science” to tell us nothing that we didn’t already know about 9/11. The NIST report is absurd—was it intended as some kind of a bizarre joke? I will show with overwhelming evidence why the report is preposterous and should result in a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for its publication. I have argued that individuals and organizations have credibility—but so do ideas and theories. I previously made two arguments[1]: The US administration lacks scientific credibility The NIST[2] 9/11 report lacks scientific credibility I offered strong evidence to support the first argument[3], which is independent from the second.[4] I concluded that the NIST report uses the political method: Political Method: Start with a thesis[5] and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument. This analysis is actually too polite—the NIST report is an outrageous theory. What is an outrageous theory? David Ray Griffin explains this concept clearly: “What distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts [i.e. like the scientific method] and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts [i.e. like the political method]. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”[6] 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan calls the NIST report: “Bush science”[7]. I propose the following definition: Bush science: an argument that employs the political method with almost no evidence to support it—a predetermined conclusion with fabricated and practically non-existent evidence, including contradictory evidence. It is frequently used to invent a new “scientific reality”[8] where known laws of physics are inconvenient and therefore ignored. An outrageous theory—a theory contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts. Bush science possesses next to zero credibility.[9] Indeed, it defies common sense. Bush science is so deceptive that it can only be considered a deliberate and intentional lie—the worst possible blow to credibility. Bush science consists of most or all of the following: Predetermined Conclusion Fabricated Evidence Relevant Evidence Ignored Contradictory Evidence Ignored Laws of Physics Contradicted Deceptive Experiments Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence. The NIST report contains all of these elements; therefore, it is Bush science. Consequently, it is not credible and should be rejected as a completely false explanation for why the WTC towers completely collapsed. It is an outrageous conspiracy theory.[10] I will use NIST’s own words and “scientific” evidence to prove this argument. Amusingly, Bush science has the most appropriate acronym available to describe it—B.S.[11] Predetermined Conclusion To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about 9/11: fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse. Many thought that this was the most obvious explanation. The problem is that we were not aware of all of the evidence, therefore our conclusions were predetermined.[12] Scientists are trained to think differently.[13] They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation. This is the Scientific Method. The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists. Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence: “Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center”.[14] “I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didn’t know when it was going to happen”.[15] “We all know what caused the collapse”[16] The scientific method examines all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion. How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11? These statements show that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any evidence. Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST. Even NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger’s first impression was that “[explosive] charges had been placed in the building." [17] News anchors[18] and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasn’t this theory examined in the NIST report? Peter Jennings[19] of ABC News said: "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down" Dan Rather[20] of CBS News said that the ”collapse was reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" Structural Engineer Van Romero’s first impression was: "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse"[21] The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes thus contradicting NIST’s predetermined theory: "[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."[22] NIST was aware of this statement and deliberately ignored it—outrageously claiming that it was an anonymous view![23] Credible individuals thought that controlled demolition was possible and that the building should have survived a plane crash[24]—so why wasn’t controlled demolition examined as part of the NIST study as even a remote possibility?[25] Why was NIST so confident of their conclusions when a building designer stated that the buildings would survive exactly this kind of an event?[26] NIST barely blinked at the controlled demolition hypothesis.[27] The evidence suggests that they started with a single predetermined conclusion. NIST’s official theory: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”[28] The plane damage is therefore mainly significant because of the “dislodged fireproofing” according to NIST. I call the NIST theory a “magical fireproofing” theory; essentially, their entire argument rests on fireproofing being “widely dislodged”. I will argue that their evidence is even more absurd than their theory. Fabricated Evidence Fabricating[29] evidence is defined as inventing fake evidence; therefore it is not legitimate evidence to prove a theory: Example: Fire caused the WTC towers to fall because NIST has a computer simulation to prove it …but you can’t see it! Can we trust this evidence? A computer simulation is not evidence if we can’t see it; therefore, it is fabricated evidence: “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[30] What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal: “The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”[31] NIST ignores contradictory evidence. Because it does not prove their predetermined conclusion they have to fix their data until they get the desired result—building collapse: “The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”[32] NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to fool around with? NIST also revealed: “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”[33] Is it not logical to assume that NIST would show us all the proof that supports their theory? Are there legitimate scientists that would support this “evidence” as scientific? Kevin Ryan argues that the NIST theory is largely based on this “evidence”.[34] Evidence that no one can see is no evidence at all.[35] This imaginary evidence defies even comic book logic—a computer model proves a theory but no one can see it? You couldn’t write something this outrageous in a comic book and get away with it. 3000 people died on 9/11 and NIST refuses to release a computer simulation that “proves” their theory? This only makes convoluted sense when we remember that Bush science is an outrageous theory. Relevant Evidence Ignored Unbelievably, NIST states [audaciously in a footnote!]: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”[36] In other words: the report does not explain what happens after the collapse began! This shows that the NIST report is only a pre-collapse theory.[37] I would think that the 20 million dollars used to fund the NIST study would be enough to attempt to answer why the towers completely collapsed. I guess NIST couldn’t find the room to speculate[38] in a 43 volume, 10,000 page study. This proves the unparalleled absurdity of the NIST report. The most fundamental question about 9/11 is how did the WTC towers completely collapse and NIST does not attempt to answer it. [39] And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation? The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started. The amazing thing is that they can’t even prove that the collapse started. NIST abandoned the pancake theory[40] so they have no collapse theory—only a vague statement for why the towers completely collapsed.[41] Is the NIST report a bad joke? How can this report get published and accepted as the truth if it doesn’t even attempt to answer the most fundamental question about 9/11? If the most important question is ignored, the most important evidence relating to this question is ignored. This point alone proves that there needs to be a new investigation.[42] Having established that the study is basically pointless, NIST proceeds to ignore blatant evidence which reveals what actually happened. Molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.[43] Jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.[44] NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."[45] Therefore, logic dictates that something else melted the steel. NIST ignores this evidence.[46] I’m not a structural engineer, but if the steel supporting a building melts wouldn’t you think that it is worth mentioning somewhere in a 10,000[47] page, 43 volume investigation?[48] NIST doesn’t think so![49] Bush science ignores relevant evidence of which this an outrageous example. More evidence that the NIST report is absurd is shown by the fact that a 10,000 page report can’t find the space to mention things found in other reports—even the New York Times reported that: “Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’”[50] What could cause this? Not jet fuel fires![51] Normal fires can’t even melt steel; evaporated steel requires temperatures almost twice as high as is needed to melt them.[52] Of course, NIST won’t offer an explanation for this.[53] Destroying evidence is ignoring evidence. It’s worse than ignoring evidence—it’s a crime! NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.[54] I guess they didn’t want us to find any more “irrelevant evidence”. What can explain all this evidence that NIST fails to mention?[55] NIST obviously doesn’t answer these questions, so we should look elsewhere for the answers.[56] It appears that the NIST scientists have a history of this kind of nonsense. In an amazing coincidence, four of the NIST structural engineers co-wrote a report that was used to explain what happened in another terrorist event; they claimed a single truck bomb did this in 1995.[57] Contradictory Evidence Ignored As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory: This is not science; it’s Bush science! Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"[58] Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[59] Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.[60] NIST found that there was no floor collapse.[61] "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."[62] This evidence actually proves that the WTC towers should have remained standing. Science demands rejecting a theory if the evidence contradicts it. Bush science ignores contradictory evidence. Laws of Physics Contradicted NIST contradicts the laws of physics. From NIST’s FAQ: “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[63] NIST responds: “…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics] The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”[64] According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years can’t resist the momentum from the collapse even a little. NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speed. This is called creating your own “scientific reality”[65] or junk science. You can’t change fundamental laws of physics because they are inconvenient to your theory! Normally, (but not in Bush science!) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved. Jim Hoffman, who is critical[66] of the NIST study states: “NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It: Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air. Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing. Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”[67] Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, agrees: “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[68] This is also disproved with eyewitness testimony from a firefighter in the cleanup: "You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."[69] Perhaps NIST will try to argue a magical dust theory to explain how the towers were crushed at free fall speed[70]—this level of absurdity wouldn’t surprise me. This firefighter clearly states that there was barely anything left of the WTC buildings[71]. Explain this, NIST. NIST didn’t even attempt to explain how the towers completely collapsed[72] because they can’t. They would have to make reference to conservation of momentum, which would have broken their calculators and disproved their entire theory. These facts are perfect examples of why the NIST report is comically absurd. Breaking the laws of physics is characteristic of Bush science. Deceptive Experiments Deceptive experiments are used to invent fabricated evidence. NIST used this technique several times to “prove” their theory[73]. One example of this is the computer simulation “evidence” already mentioned[74]. Another computer simulation exaggerated data such as temperatures, fire durations (longer than the buildings stood on 9/11), and completely removed fireproofing just to show that this would cause “inward bowing from fire”.[75] Another computer simulation pretended that damaged structural steel was the same as no steel at all.[76] So much deception to prove so little. NIST claims that fire-proofing was widely dislodged by the planes. This is a central argument of the NIST study. How did they prove this? They fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples. Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory: “It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”[77] NIST’s own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit.[78] This deceptive experiment actually leads to evidence which contradicts the main argument of their theory![79] Is NIST trying to be this incompetent on purpose? Does NIST manage to prove anything we didn’t already know about 9/11? Unfortunately for NIST, there are no classes taught in Bush science[80]. This shows that NIST occasionally can’t even prove their own theory with fake experiments! Deceptive experiments usually lead to fabricated evidence—this is characteristic of Bush science. Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence In my previous essay I asked whether any sane person could call the NIST report science.[81] As my evidence presented has shown, this is a reasonable question to ask. The 20 million dollar NIST study isn’t worth the paper it is written on. The evidence is astonishingly overwhelming, and I haven’t even touched all of it. Several of my arguments are individually strong enough to prove that NIST’s theories are absurd. NIST’s explanation for why the WTC towers fell is an outrageous conspiracy theory—pure speculative nonsense.[82] Virtually all of the given evidence by NIST is problematic and even contradicts its own conclusions and the laws of physics. Therefore, it is Bush science. NIST doesn’t try to explain what happened after the towers began to collapse and it can’t even explain how the buildings started to collapse. All of my evidence confirms my conclusions in direct contrast to the NIST report. Does the NIST study prove anything besides the fact that there was fire and relatively minor structural damage[83] in the WTC twin towers? Their main theory is a “fireproofing” theory—which was contradicted by their own experiment![84] WTC7 must have been even beyond NIST’s ability to use Bush science as they weren’t brave enough to tackle it[85]. It goes without saying that a new investigation should take place as well as a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for releasing this report. Who gave the final authorization for this report to be published? Did they actually think they could get away with publishing such obvious nonsense? Was NIST deliberately trying to help us figure out that the official 9/11 story is outrageously false? In my opinion, it could be a possible explanation. It is my prediction that the 9/11 NIST report will go down in history (along with the 9/11 commission report) as one of the most scandalous documents of all time. Author: Arabesque Disclaimer: This essay is based on my own research. Resources for research: Books David Ray Griffin: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions Webster Griffin Tarpley: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA Amazon's #1 Non-fiction Reviewer: Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA is "strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed" Progressive Press announced that its "9/11 Synthetic Terror" has just been cited as the best non-fiction book ever by Amazon's top non-fiction book reviewer, intelligence professional Robert Steele, in a 5-star review at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370 . Progressive specializes in books that contend 9/11 was an "inside job." Publisher John Leonard says "it's a coup to have Steele with us on this. Here you have a level-headed, respected insider, lifelong Republican, veteran spy, and he's breaking the taboos. It's a great tribute and a vindication of the work we put into 9/11 Synthetic Terror." Steele's statement that 9/11 was a "US-based conspiracy" may be a first coming from a senior US intelligence community figure. He came to this conclusion "with great sadness" after reading "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA," which he praises as "without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism." Websites Scholars for 9/11 truth: 9/11 Research 9/11 http://truth.org: http://www.911truth.org/index.php Journal of 9/11 studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/ 9/11 Blogger: http://www.911blogger.com/ 9/11 statement signed by 100 prominent Americans http://www.wanttoknow.info/911statement More than 50 prominent government officials who question the 9/11 commission report: http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport Videos Whistle Blower Kevin Ryan (discussing the NIST report): A new standard for Deception: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Improbable Collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782 9/11 Mysteries: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043 9/11 Press for Truth: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250 Terror Storm: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322 [1] See my essay entitled: Political Method Versus Scientific Method: The US administration and its Interpretation of the Events of 9/11. [2] NIST is a government agency: http://www.nist.gov/ [3] My arguments used as evidence the EPA toxic dust report and the report by 60 scientists claiming that the current Bush administration distorts science. See my essay here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136. If you disagree with this argument; evidence stronger than what I have provided must be given to reach a different conclusion. [4] If the US administration had impeccable scientific credibility (which is clearly does not), the NIST report can obviously still be disproved on its own merits without reference to other reports. [5] The NIST theory is that fire is the main reason the towers completely collapsed. Plane damage is cited in the NIST report as a minor factor for collapse in the study. Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California: “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html The plane is mostly significant in NIST’s theory because fireproofing was “widely dislodged” by the impact of the plane. The fires caused the steel to weaken. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests see NIST’s official Theory section in this essay. [6] http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#twintowers [7] A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 [8] See “creating our own reality” http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html and how I link this concept with the Political Method in my previous essay here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136 [9] See my definition of credibility here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136 [10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw7_ltNhIEY [11] Bullshit. http://Dictionary.com. http://Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bullshit (accessed: November 05, 2006).definition: nonsense, lies, or exaggeration. This single word accurately and succinctly sums up perfectly the entire NIST report. [12] Many are still unaware of all of the evidence which is essential to understanding what really happened. See Eyewitness Evidence: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html and Physical Evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html Jet fuel fire is incapable of melting steel; therefore it can not explain this physical evidence: Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: "The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001). [13] See definition of “Scientific Method” [14] This statement by NIST investigator Shankar Nair was made in an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001. Commentary: By Shankar Nair ”A humbling experience for skyscraper professionals In most dangerous situations, I still would rather be in a well- designed tall building.” Page 31. [15] NIST investigator Gene Corely: Engineer: Impact showed World Trade Center's strength, St. Petersburg Times, 9/14/01 An amazing statement considering that the fire fighters didn’t expect this to happen. Also amazing considering that no steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history according to the New York Times: Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times. [16] Comment by NIST investigator Charles Thornton in the book: “Men of Steel: The Story of the Family That Built The World Trade Center” http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400049509 [17] NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger said he had the first impression that it looked like explosive “charges” had been placed in the WTC buildings.[17] See here: http://www.absconsulting.com/news/wsjsept11.pdf The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2001. [18] News anchors know what exactly what controlled demolition looks like—see footnote #20 [19] See here for more: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/jennings.html [20] “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.7.knocked.down.wmv [21] For reference and debate on this quote see here: http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn41 [22] Ibid. 13:59. This is according to building designer John Skilling. See: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227 Nalder, Eric. (1993) “Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision”. Saturday, February 27, 1993, Seattle Times. [23] NIST lied about the fact that they were unaware of this statement: Kevin Ryan: “The real question here is, since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings? Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view?” See also: http://www.exodus2006.com/NIST_faq_response.htm [24] See here for more News evidence on 9/11: http://911proof.com/11.html [25] It will become clear the reason is that the NIST report is a cover up. Jim Hoffman describes the report as: “Nist’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century”. [26] See John Skilling’s quote. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227 [27] NIST had a 20 million dollar 43-volume study, I’m sure they could devote a page to this subject in their report. Only their FAQ attempts to mildly answer criticism to this point. See here: http://wtc.nist.gov/ and here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html [28] NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4. [29] Fabricate: I define in this essay as “to concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse”. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fabricated [30] Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005. [31] NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added. [32] NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added. [33] Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005. [34] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. [35] I propose to create a freedom of information request for this computer simulation “evidence”. This will show once and for all that the NIST report proves nothing. [36] NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added. [37] Steven Jones called the NIST study a “pre-collapse theory” in his essay: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf page 27. [38] This has to be the most embarrassing feature of the NIST report. It is indefensible on this point alone. [39] Jim Hoffman: “Yet the Report makes no attempt to explain how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize -- let alone explain -- the demolition-like features of the collapses, such as their explosiveness and nearly free-fall rapidity.” Taken from: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html [40] The so called: “pancake theory” was abandoned and is not supported by NIST. See NIST’s FAQ on their website: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm [41] This statement is explained by Jim Hoffman: “NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse." I agree with Jim Hoffman, this is clearly absurd logic: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html [42] Scholars for 9/11 truth can explain the “structural behavior of the towers” after the collapse started: read here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf and here: http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html [43] See here for multiple sources with evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html [44] See footnote #12 relating to Dr. Eagar’s comments on fire temperatures and steel. [45] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm [46] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13 [47] Kevin Ryan calls the NIST report a “kitchen sink” or “TNRAT” [i.e. “tin rat”] theory. “They’ll Never Read All of This.” See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, 19:29. [48] This molten steel was mentioned in FEMA report Appendix C, so how come the NIST report doesn’t mention it? Its mentioned in other reports: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html [49] I can’t believe they actually stated this on the record! NIST truly sets a new standard for absurdity. See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13 [50] Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001. [51] As Steven Jones explains: The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf page 23. [52] As Eagar explained in footnote #12, you need 1500oC to melt steel. Steel evaporates at almost twice this at 2860oC. See also footnote #51. [53] Steven Jones explains [Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse?]: “thermite variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures [to cause evaporated steel]. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.” Page 23 [54] See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth 9:42 and here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=department_of_design_and_construction_1 [55] “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#multipleevidence [56] Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ and 9/11 research: http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html. They use the Scientific method—not Bush science. [57] This report also used Bush science to explain the impossible. See here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html The engineers involved in both the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing: Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, Mete Sozen. This seems like an amazing coincidence: “The Murrah Building bombing has a number of parallels to the 9/11/01 attack. One is that the same engineers created reports supporting the official government explanation of the attack as the work of outsiders attacking the buildings from without. 9/11 whistleblower and researcher Kevin Ryan documents commonalities of the investigations in A New Standard For Deception”. See here for more information: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html [58] See here http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis and NIST report [59] Ibid. [60] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests and NIST report [61] Ibid. [62] See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth 34:00. Also read official NIST report. [63] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm [64] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm [65] See my essay that links the political method with “creating our own reality”. [66] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html [67] http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#6 [68] http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf page 27-28. [69] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html [70] See Steven Jones’ comments about this in the movie: http://www.improbablecollapse.com/ you can view it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782. Jones explains how the dust it is further evidence that the towers should not have fallen at free fall speed according to the fire and plane damage theory at 28:40. [71] Photo: September 23, 2001. See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html. This is a very high resolution aerial photograph of ground zero made by NOAA. [72] See the first point in the section of this essay: “Ignoring Evidence” [73] See Kevin Ryan’s presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 [74] See section in this essay dealing with “Fabricated Evidence”. [75] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032. See 47:00 and forward and NIST report. [76] NIST states: “The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed.” (NIST page 98/152) see also here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html#enhancing Jim Hoffman explains: “Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity.” [77] http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 at 36:06 and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests. [78] Ibid. [79] NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4. [80] However, I’m confident that NIST could offer courses in this subject. This report could be presented as a doctoral thesis in Bush science. [81] Read it here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136 [82] See here: http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#twintowers for a definition of “outrageous conspiracy theories”. [83] See the NIST’s Official Theory section: More comments by Kevin Ryan here: http://www.gatago.com/misc/emerg-services/27902058.html [84] Read here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf page 5. [85] The FEMA report comically explains that: “the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. [i.e. we can’t explain why, but we can come up with an outrageous “conspiracy theory”!] Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||