http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provi...

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-...

A former NIST employee made the following statements regarding NIST's politicization and corruption (these emails were forwarded to me by a prominent 9/11 truth activist, I simply edited them to remove names so as to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower):

Communication dated October 1, 2007:

----NETSCAPE ----

http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/08/21/former-chief-of-nists-fire-science-division-calls-for-independent-review-of-wtc-investigation

Alan Miller of Patriots Question 9/11 has this important story over at Op Ed News.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?

Continued after the jump...

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-family-members-file-petition-with.html

Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST's reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Mr. Doyle is the representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, the Coalition of 9/11 Families*, and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

Mr. McIlvaine, an outspoken 9/11 truth activist, lost his son Bobby when the World Trade Centers were destroyed.

Another prominent 9/11 family member supports the petition, but decided for personal reasons not to sign.

Also signing the petition are:

• Physicist Dr. Steven Jones

The above image consists of two shots of WTC7 taken on 9/11. The Left photo is attributed to the NYPD, and is used by NIST as corroboration for eyewitness testimony that suggests that debris from the collapse of the towers caused a specific amount of damage to WTC7. The photo on the Right is by Aman Zafar. The discrepancy is obvious, Zafar's photo does not confirm the visual data in the NYPD photo.

Researchers should petition NIST for provenance on this photo. If the photo was taken with a digital camera as other helicopter shots from 9/11 were, then Exif data should be embedded in the file that will reveal a time-stamp. The original file should also reflect what we see in the NIST drafts, and not bear evidence of tampering in Photoshop or other image editing software. A separate inquiry to the NYPD probably wouldn't hurt. (If you have a connection there, use it.)

Vesa blogged this item yesterday and invites observations and input. truth911.net also blogged it and there is good information in the comments section below the blog entry. DanR over at the Randi Rhodes Message Board posted about this back in December of 2006, after seeing a post here, and that's where I cribbed the source files for the graphic above.

But if it wasn't for "Winston Smith", and his article, Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations, posted last October, maybe nobody would have noticed this one.

The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?
by Eric Douglas, R.A.

PDF or Microsoft Word

The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.

This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Extremely short notice on this one, members of 911truthla.us will be on hand to protest and to ensure this "hamburger" gets nicely tenderized:

http://cfiwest.org/calendar/Hamburger.htm

Ronald Hamburger

Conspiracy or Science:
Why Did the Towers Fall?

Sunday, December 3
11 a.m.

Debates have been raging for years about whether or not the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed due to the impact of the two commercial airliners that struck them on 9/11/2001. Questions about the collapse of building 7, which was not struck by a plane, also feed the conspiratorial fire. Could terrorists have planted explosives throughout the World Trade Center in advance of the crashes? Were the fires caused by the planes enough to bring down these engineering marvels? Wherein lies the truth?

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

By "Winston Smith" of StudyOf911.com 2006-10-19 - Last updated 2006-10-25

An interesting analysis of the collapse of WTC7, incorporating the latest available photographic evidence.

Via poster quicknthedead at the September 11 forum at DemocraticUnderground.com.

A mass of conrete, iron, and more found fused together below Ground Zero

9/11 - Can you keep a secret? I hope not - The Truth Will Set You Free

"The NIST report represents what can really only be called anti-science. They started with their conclusion and worked their way back to some leading hypothesis."

"Here is the meteorite - molten iron fused with concrete."

"Architects, engineers, people who work with steel - welders - have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in their lives."

"As I stood there on the 33rd floor, I heard very strange noises on the 34th floor. now, the 34th floor was an empty floor - a floor that did not have any kind of walls, it was a construction floor. It was totally hollowed out there was nothing there . . . not even the elevators stopped there. You had to have a special access key to open the door on the 34th floor"

There are some very interesting clips in this short film, be sure to check it out for some things you might not have seen before.

Update:
This is actually part of the recently released 3 part series '9/11 Mysteries'. Sorry for the confusion, here is the link to the full film:
911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Full Length)

Hat tip to whatreallyhappened.com for the link!

NIST has been forced to respond, in a set of questions and answers, to points raised by 9/11 truth advocates. Here is the webpage. I eagerly await a rebuttal from people who know more about this issue than I do.

The questions which NIST purports to address are:

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?