9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity

By Arabesque

Revision: July 6, 2007.

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

By Arabesque

Updated: 05/02/07 Minor revisions and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" replaced with "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?

The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report,[1] 9/11 commission report,[2] FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality[3] were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

Please utilize this checklist of quotations from the NIST and FEMA reports on the WTC collapses. I have copied these examples from Improbable Collapse, which I recommend.

Remind OCTs that the official studies of the collapses were underfunded, inadequate in every way, and ultimately inconclusive:

"With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse each tower could not be definitively determined." – FEMA BEPAT, Executive Summary, p.2

Remind OCTs that the airplane impacts did not topple WTC 1 and 2, and that the official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history:

"The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." – NIST, p. xxxviii

Remind OCTs that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt or deform steel, and that NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it burned models for over 2 hours:

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's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman

Introduction

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.

* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".

* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.

* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.

* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".

* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.

[SNIP]

Continued at 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?