Submission from Byrne who does a nice job of exposing a cover up in action at NIST regarding the collapse of WTC7. Needless to say, NIST will soon have an "independent third party" analysis of the collapse to hide behind.

Sorry it took so long to post, it was kind of long and I had to find a way to break it up into little pieces so it wouldn't take over the entire first page...

From the NIST website at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7. This latest news on the (long awaited) WTC7 report is somewhat behind the NIST previously stated timetable for the scheduled FINAL WTC7 report issue date of December 2005........The timetable (from the draft SOW document) will now be no earlier than November 2006. The PDF document at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.

This webpage was updated on 4th Jan 2006 & for any contractors to be considered, they must contact NIST on or before January 10, 2006. That does not give any independent companies interested in the work much time! Advance notice of this imminent Work Package MUST have been given to the likely winning contractor as it would be impossible for any contractor to prepare the price for & submit such a bid within the 5 day 'notice of Interest' period given. It'll be interesting to note to whom the contract goes to, & what their previous association/history is with the NIST/Bushco government.

Reading the Scope of Work Document (Some interesting excerpts reproduced below), it seems that the NIST has undertaken some analysis already (including major computer modelling etc.), but that they now seek a contractor to MAKE IT ALL FIT TOGETHER!! If the collapse is a simple physical explanation (i.e. NO CoNTROLLED DEMOLITION) then why can't a team of NIST Goverment Scientists/Engineers come up with a theory/explanation that fits?!

It seems that a contractor is being sought that can dance to the NIST Paymaster's tune and who can then be blamed/dimissed when any criticsm is receieved. & Why the 11 month delay - no explanation is given by NIST. Note how the document states "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study". THEY ARE ALMOST SAYING - PLEASE MR CONTRACTOR, FIND/SUPPLY ANY THEORY THAT FITS!!

Check out the the Draft Statement of Work Document here (Notice the controls in place to ensure NIST has the final say in the report. What good is third party analysis if the the results have meet NIST guidelines?)

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=50233#post50233

So it seems that NIST have had difficulty in undertaking the analysis themselves & now wish to sub-contract out the difficult 'donkey work' to a contractor who will play along. The use of a sub-contractor (who will dance to the tune of the NIST Paymaster) will allow the excuse to be used when the analysis is criticised (as was used before in relation to criticisms of the NIST's reluctance to fully model the collapse visualisation & initiating events [NCE article of 6th October 2005]) along the lines of "Well, it was a sub-contractor & we have now terminated his contract.

Somebigguy: Plus it gives them a third party "investigation" to spread around while maintaining complete control over the finished product.

The text of the NCE article of 6th October 2005 can be found here:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=50235#post50235

The point regarding the NCE news article regarding the NIST reluctance to produce the thermal dispersal and load redistribution visualisation models of the towers’ collapse, to arrive at the points of global collapse initiation, and then to correlate these with the available video evidence (as the UK academic suggested), was that this is what you would do if it was a genuine accident/event, i.e. the only ever full scale collapse of (3) steel frame buildings.

I’ll leave you with a statement from Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST, made during the NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) Public Meeting in New York on February 12, 2004. When asked by Investigative Reporter Nico Haupt about many of the glaring inconsistencies surrounding the unprecedented implosion of WTC 7; among other issues, Haupt asked for a simple explanation as to how WTC 7 imploded into its footprint in less than 8 seconds. The following is Dr. Sunder’s reply to Nico Haupt’s concerns:

Thank you very much. We will fully report. We have begun reporting, and we will fully report on the fires in WTC 7, the causes of the collapse in WTC 7, as well as any other evidence from first-person accounts about 7… So stay tuned, we will get more information as time goes”