NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

PeterTheNinth

This may be another significant moment in the uncovering of the 9/11 truth. Although about fifteen years too late. This is a former NIST employee that does an analysis of his colleagues' work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMoG8bssZf8

I'm not sure how it took him so long to come to the conclusions that he has come to, but I suppose late is better than nothing.

I find it very disappointing that most people are unwilling to look at the truth in front of their eyes. There is enough evidence at this stage to question 9/11 but people just refuse to question.

Dohnjoe

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

There is enough evidence at this stage to question 9/11 but people just refuse to question.

People have endlessly questioned 911 since it happened - to the nth degree (and far beyond I'd argue)

The problem is that most of them don't seem interested in building a properly substantiated case, even 15 years on, there isn't one cohesive alternative theory

Precisely who ordered it, who organised it, which participants were involved, how exactly was it done, names, dates, etc - none of the even most basic elements exist

OwlsZat

Are people afraid of speaking out because the regime there is so strict? A bit like China really.

Dohnjoe

This guy is an app developer and worked with maths data visualization at NIST. He had nothing to do with the investigation and has no background in structural engineering

By his own admittance he started watching 911 conspiracy videos online and became convinced of a theory

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This guy is an app developer and worked with maths data visualization at NIST. He had nothing to do with the investigation and has no background in structural engineering

By his own admittance he started watching 911 conspiracy videos online and became convinced of a theory

You don't have to be a Conspiracy theorist to see the NIST investigation was flawed and lacked the scientific criteria ...

Heck ..They even had to change their original narrative when being pointed out to their flawed research by ordinary people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY

Watch this .... Someone who knows what he is talking about

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

You don't have to be a Conspiracy theorist to see the NIST investigation was flawed and lacked the scientific criteria ...

Heck ..They even had to change their original narrative when being pointed out to their flawed research by ordinary people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY

Watch this ....

I'll have a look at the video later

I am unaware of any credible or recognised group of structural, chemical or other engineers or any body of experts significantly challenging the findings of the NIST report

It's almost always an individal or CTers either

a) picking holes (no report is absolutely infallible)
b) not understanding that any investigation is subject to standard challenges/changes without affecting the final findings
c) subjectively not understanding the science behind

and never in any of those situations are we offered a substantiated counter-theory

Someone who knows what he is talking about

I am guessing this is yet another "scientician" or actual engineer that AE911 have found to yet again attack the NIST to keep their paid subscriptions going

Dohnjoe

20 seconds in and there's a very dubious claim (one of the) "top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

I heard about this study before, it's sponsored by AE911 which are an unrecognised group of self professed "experts" who run a (now) subscription based site. When the study, it's main page stated to know the outcome (AKA proving NIST wrong) - they quickly changed that for obvious reasons

It's an expert and two assistants in Alaska doing a study into WTC 7. It hasn't fully finished yet, so can't comment. But so far seems to mainly focus on one point (that is already being contended)

If anyone here is not familiar with AE911, they contend that 911 was an inside job, but have never produced any substantiated theory on the matter (in 15 years). When a steel framed building collapsed earlier this year in Iran after an internal fire they strongly suggested it was an inside job

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

20 seconds in and there's a very dubious claim (one of the) "top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

Yeah lets focus on that :rolleyes:

Bio below
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I heard about this study before, it's sponsored by AE911 which are an unrecognised group of self professed "experts" who run a (now) subscription based site. When the study, it's main page stated to know the outcome (AKA proving NIST wrong) - they quickly changed that for obvious reasons

I could sponsor it ...doesn't make it any less valid

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an expert and two assistants in Alaska doing a study into WTC 7. It hasn't fully finished yet, so can't comment. But so far seems to mainly focus on one point (that is already being contended)

By a guy on a forum ... Who is challenged himself in the comments section

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If anyone here is not familiar with AE911, they contend that 911 was an inside job, but have never produced any substantiated theory on the matter (in 15 years). When a steel framed building collapsed earlier this year in Iran after an internal fire they strongly suggested it was an inside job

I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxl06jxfgRk

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Yeah lets focus on that :rolleyes:

Yes let's focus on that

"One of the top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

Is he?

https://www.metabunk.org/what-is-hulseys-forensic-structural-engineering-experience.t9063/

I could sponsor it ...doesn't make it any less valid

He is being paid by a group that has no objectivity on the issue

Anti-Vax groups also sponsor studies. Miraculously those studies always seem to support their false claims through diluted pseudo-science

So yes, it is an issue.

By a guy on a forum ... Who is challenged himself in the comments section

Can't comment on final findings when they haven't been produced yet. Maybe at the end he'll step up at the end and say there is no issue with the NIST.

In the meanwhile his "interim" findings are currently being challenged

I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse

Argument from incredulity

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Argument from incredulity

Yes both ended up in a pile of rubble

Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

If WTC 7 collapsed like the plasco building the discussion would have been different

Plasco was a typical normal Asymmetrical collapse

Dohnjoe

Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire.

911 truthers (like the AE911 group) repeatedly claimed that steel framed buildings couldn't collapse due to fire. So when Plasco went down, they almost immediately implied it was an inside job and that it should be examined for explosive effects

They haven't provided any further substantiated evidence, suspects, dates, etc to support that Plasco was an "inside job" demolition. Likewise that haven't provided a substantiated credible theory with evidence that WTC 7 was an "inside job" demolition.

This is a group that relies on cash subscriptions. In order for the cash to come in the conspiracy needs to exist.

So to use a similar argument from incredulity - anyone with a functioning brain can see what's going on here

I'll be extremely interested when Dr Hulsey produces his final report

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire.

Carefully avoiding my question ....

Its a bit hypocritical to whinge about the lack of investigations and alternative theories ... These things require money/funding

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Carefully avoiding my question ....

Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

I pointed out that

"Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire."

Both are quite different buildings.

Its a bit hypocritical to whinge about the lack of investigations and alternative theories

a) there have been investigations
b) there are no substantiated alternative theories

It's very telling behavior that individuals who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire don't seem to have any interest whatsoever in attempting to discover how it fell. They don't have any consensus on a non-evidence based theory. Not only that, but they seem content to solely attack the official version of events.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I pointed out that

"Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire."

Both are quite different buildings.

Avoiding the question again

I asked

Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

a) there have been investigations
b) there are no substantiated alternative theories

It's very telling behavior that individuals who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire don't seem to have any interest whatsoever in attempting to discover how it fell. They don't have any consensus on a non-evidence based theory. Not only that, but they seem content to solely attack the official version of events.

What is there to gain for Dr Hulsey other then finding out what happened ?

What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach

Even NIST who had all the access is relying on flawed science and made models using data no one can verify due national security to reach a conclusion ... That alone says enough about the complexity anyone else is facing to conduct an investigation

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach

This is exactly the reasoning behind all of the conspiracy theories.
"X is impossible, therefore it's a conspiracy"
Fires couldn't take down WTC7 therefore it was a conspiracy.

However in this case fires are the only viable option that makes any sense.

Even if your points about the NIST report held (they don't) it's still the best option and there is no other explanation that could possibly hold water.
It can't be explosives as some claim.
It can't be mini-nukes as some claim.
It can't be space lasers as some claim.

So if it can't be a fire, what did it?

Why can't these experts after 15 years produce one single viable alternative that matches the evidence and doesn't rely on silly assumptions like silent explosives.

Further, without these alternative explanations, there is nothing at all to suggest a conspiracy, which your experts very much want to do.
Even if the arguments against NIST held (again, they don't) then all it could possibly indicate is that the NIST is wrong. You cannot therefore conclude that the attacks or collapses were due to a government conspiracy.

Do you think there are any viable alternative explanations for how WTC7 collapsed?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Avoiding the question again

I asked Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

What is there to gain for Dr Hulsey other then finding out what happened ?

He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

I'm not going to judge Hulsey (except for AE911's idiotic claims) until the final report is out and we see the engineering community's response to it. Perhaps he has indeed found an error in that part of the NIST report (appears that he is focusing on one point).. or perhaps he is mistaken - we should find out soon enough

What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach

Wow

Causes for collapse

1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
2) Public demolition (no evidence)
3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

Investigators start from the beginning and examine every option, every angle

Conspiracy theorists do the opposite. They retroactively attack the established version of events in order to hint at some (often subjective) unspecified theory. Literally working backwards.

No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

But I see you still want to avoid the simple question

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow

Causes for collapse

1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
2) Public demolition (no evidence)
3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

wow indeed

3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

And number 4 is questionable to say the least

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events

The NIST report is apparently ... sealed because of dangers to national security .....

If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

But I see you still want to avoid the simple question

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow

Causes for collapse

1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
2) Public demolition (no evidence)
3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

wow indeed

3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

And number 4 is questionable to say the least

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events

The NIST report is apparently ... sealed because of dangers to national security .....

If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on because it lacks all the parameters proper science is based on

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

But I see you still want to avoid the simple question

I answered. They are different buildings, they collapsed differently.

The question itself is transparent - it's trying to infer that because there's a difference "something else" must have happened to one of them

To repeat my question, which I am going to keep asking throughout these threads, if WTC 7 didn't collapse due to fire, how did it collapse?

A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

There's no peer review of either? It's an investigation not a science theory. It is published and can be examined by anyone. Including the entire engineering/architectural/etc community.

wow indeed

3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

And number 4 is questionable to say the least

All options were investigated. Which is why they ruled out demolition.

Number 4 is questionable to you personally. It's not questioned by any recognised or accredited groups representing engineers/architects/demolition etc

If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on because it lacks all the parameters proper science is based on

It was an investigation. It fulfilled it's goals. You personally don't accept it for personal reasons.

You don't accept it, fine. There are people who don't accept man landed on the moon and subjectively reject any/all evidence presented to them.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I answered. They are different buildings, they collapsed differently.

Then my comment stating

I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse

Is correct

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The question itself is transparent - it's trying to infer that because there's a difference "something else" must have happened to one of them

The collapse sequence itself can hold many clues as to what happened ..so yes you can suggest different scenarios

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To repeat my question, which I am going to keep asking throughout these threads, if WTC 7 didn't collapse due to fire, how did it collapse?

And my answer is going to be the same. Fire bringing wtc7 down the way it did is Impossible, The fact no answer is yet provided doesn't mean you have to fall back to the most unlikely scenario

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's no peer review of either? It's an investigation not a science theory. It is published and can be examined by anyone. Including the entire engineering/architectural/etc community.

The study/report that is completed by Hulsey is going to be peer reviewed ... Like proper scientific research should be ... Unlike the NIST report

Dohnjoe wrote: »

All options were investigated. Which is why they ruled out demolition.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Number 4 is questionable to you personally. It's not questioned by any recognised or accredited groups representing engineers/architects/demolition etc

They cannot recognize it as the basic scientific requirement is lacking ..... peer review so they should question it

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was an investigation. It fulfilled it's goals. You personally don't accept it for personal reasons.

You don't accept it, fine. There are people who don't accept man landed on the moon and subjectively reject any/all evidence presented to them.

Its not about me or others stop playing the man and look at it with fresh eyes

I see you ranting on about CT this and that

And to date only investigation done into wtc7 lacks all the scientific parameters ...and yet you choose to belief it

An investigation that had to be revised over and over when pointed out to its flaws by joe public

here another one

“A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when
its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The
bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the
girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5
in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.”
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008

NIST changed the 5.5 to 6.25 inches when it was
shown that the seat was actually 12 inches wide. ]

Hilarious ...

Full report here .... If you are really interested

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:

What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?

I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

Perfectly explained here

https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s

And another clip about why its a rubbish report

I think it was you who pointed out over and over that CT's lacked the scientific validation and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt

What do you think about the NIST report and its scientific value ?

https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=27m28s

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

Perfectly explained here

https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s

I take that as a no to all of them in that case.

So then do you believe that thermite is an impossible explanation like you do with fire?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I take that as a no to all of them in that case.

So then do you believe that thermite is an impossible explanation like you do with fire?

You can take it anyway you like and in the process put words in my mouth

Its up to NIST to use a proper scientific approach regarding thermite ... all they said was ... we looked at the fires and the collapse and therefore ruled out thermite

I don't know what was used, but to believe a complete asymmetrical event can lead to an almost perfect symmetry collapse requires to much mental gymnastics from my part Thats probably why NIST didn't let their study/model be peer reviewed.

I would have expect that you ..Being someone who is a skeptic and believes in the scientific principals would be dismissing the NIST findings purely on the lack of validation of said science alone

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You can take it anyway you like and in the process put words in my mouth

Its up to NIST to use a proper scientific approach regarding thermite ... all they said was ... we looked at the fires and the collapse and therefore ruled out thermite

But there's no evidence that there was Thermite or Thermate.
There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.
Thermite or Thermate has never been used to used to demolish a building.

And on top of that, the visual evidence is not consistent with those being used.

Now you are using all these reasons (though erroneously) to conclude that the fire explanation is impossible.

Therefore you must conclude that the Thermite explanation is impossible too.

If this is not the case, then you are doing what you accuse others of and you are holding a double standard.

weisses wrote: »

I don't know what was used, but to believe a complete asymmetrical event can lead to an almost perfect symmetry collapse requires to much mental gymnastics from my part

Well for one, it's not an almost perfect symmetrical collapse...

I think that the NIST's report is scientifically sound. You have not shown any reason that it is not.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But there's no evidence that there was Thermite or Thermate.
There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.
Thermite or Thermate has never been used to used to demolish a building.

And on top of that, the visual evidence is not consistent with those being used.

Now you are using all these reasons (though erroneously) to conclude that the fire explanation is impossible.

No I do not .. where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ?

King Mob wrote: »

Therefore you must conclude that the Thermite explanation is impossible too.

How can you say that ..when you are also stating There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.

there is no model no proper research done and yet you want to conclude its impossible ... thats not very scientific now is it ?`

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one, it's not an almost perfect symmetrical collapse...

I think it is... all the events leading up to the collapse( including the penthouse collapse) are asymmetrical... even the building is but seconds later the building falls in a nice symmetrical collapse

King Mob wrote: »

I think that the NIST's report is scientifically sound. You have not shown any reason that it is not.

Ahh come on ... It lacks all the scientific validation needed to be sound ... Its about basic scientific standards not being adhered to and not about me giving reasons why its not ... although I posted a PDF report which will be peer reviewed ... will you accept their conclusions ?

Giving your very flexible standards regarding science I don't think you should lecture others about having double standards

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No I do not .. where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ?

How can you say that ..when you are also stating There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.

there is no model no proper research done and yet you want to conclude its impossible ... thats not very scientific now is it ?`

So again.
Is there any evidence to suggest that there was Thermite present?
Is there any models for how the building could be taken down with it?
Is there any examples of Thermite ever being used to take down a building?

If so, present these.
If not, then why do you believe the thermite explanation is possible?
Is the space laser explanation proposed by some conspiracy theorists also possible in the same way?

weisses wrote: »

I think it is... all the events leading up to the collapse( including the penthouse collapse) are asymmetrical... even the building is but seconds later the building falls in a nice symmetrical collapse

But again, the collapse is not symmetrical.
The building visibly kinks and tips backwards.

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on ... It lacks all the scientific validation needed to be sound ... Its about basic scientific standards not being adhered to and not about me giving reasons why its not

I simply don't think that you are applying the terms and ideas of scientific standards correctly or honestly.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So again.
Is there any evidence to suggest that there was Thermite present?
Is there any models for how the building could be taken down with it?
Is there any examples of Thermite ever being used to take down a building?

If so, present these.
If not, then why do you believe the thermite explanation is possible?
Is the space laser explanation proposed by some conspiracy theorists also possible in the same way?

How can I present something that was not included in any investigation ? ( It should have been)

Again ... where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ? show it so I can respond accordingly

King Mob wrote: »

But again, the collapse is not symmetrical.
The building visibly kinks and tips backwards.

The whole visible exterior fell symmetrically downwards .. plenty of videos showing that its the reason free fall acceleration could be reached

So are you suggesting that the Asymmetrical failure of the pent house, somehow translated symmetrically to the exact base of each and every column in the precise pattern required to initiate the perfect collapse ?

King Mob wrote: »

I simply don't think that you are applying the terms and ideas of scientific standards correctly or honestly.

Then you will accept the peer reviewed findings of the Huxley study yes ? You being a man of science

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

How can I present something that was not included in any investigation ? ( It should have been)

Then the answer to all of those questions is No.
There is no evidence of thermite.
There is no viable model for how it could work.
There is no example of it ever being used.

So why is the thermite idea possible?
Do you believe it is possible?

Do you believe that the space laser idea is possible?

weisses wrote: »

Again ... where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ? show it so I can respond accordingly

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to ask here.

Let's try again:
Why do you think the fire explanation is impossible.

weisses wrote: »

The whole visible exterior fell symmetrically downwards .. plenty of videos showing that its the reason free fall acceleration could be reached

But it didn't fall symmetrically. There was a kink and it tilted backwards.
Are you claiming that it did not have a kink and that it did not fall backwards?

weisses wrote: »

Then you will accept the peer reviewed findings of the Huxley study yes ? You being a man of science

No, because I do not believe that they will be actually applying any type of scientific standards and I think that they are inherently biased and are aiming for a preferred conclusion that supports conspiracy theories.

I also think they are being deliberately disingenuous about how peer review works and is applied to mislead folks like yourself.

Do you think it is possible that they might conclude that the official explanation is valid?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, because I do not believe that they will be actually applying any type of scientific standards and I think that they are inherently biased and are aiming for a preferred conclusion that supports conspiracy theories.

Based on what ? did you read the report ?

If Yes what is the reason for your distrust based on what you read

If no .. Your conclusion is not really scientific now is it ?

Who would have thought I would be the skeptic and you the believer

If anything falls outside the realm of scientific validation then it is the NIST report

King Mob wrote: »

I also think they are being deliberately disingenuous about how peer review works and is applied to mislead folks like yourself.

Where in the PDF I posted did they displayed that behavior , if that is true I will look at it differently of course ..But please show me where they are being deliberately disingenuous

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think it is possible that they might conclude that the official explanation is valid?

They concluded its not possible

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Based on what ? did you read the report ?

Basic skepticism and a long history of following types like them in the creationism movement.

I don't understand why you trust them.

Now again, do you believe that the thermite explanation is possible?
Yes or no, please.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

The collapse sequence itself can hold many clues as to what happened ..so yes you can suggest different scenarios

Give an example of a scenario

And my answer is going to be the same. Fire bringing wtc7 down the way it did is Impossible, The fact no answer is yet provided doesn't mean you have to fall back to the most unlikely scenario

Is impossible to you personally.

The study/report that is completed by Hulsey is going to be peer reviewed ...

That's because it's largely challenging a portion of the engineering methodology

Like proper scientific research should be ... Unlike the NIST report

Again, to repeat, the NIST report was an investigation. Can't really peer review an investigation. The information was made public so experts, groups, etc can examine it.

Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:

Personal incredulity.

The NIST investigation took years and involved countless experts, as well as external assistance from structural engineering groups, fire protection engineers and steel construction experts

They had access to 10's of thousands of documents, hundreds of witnesses

Parts of the report itself have been challenged, but the actual findings (e.g. that WTC 7 fell due to unchecked fires) have not been challenged by any recognised groups of experts, engineers, etc

And to date only investigation done into wtc7 lacks all the scientific parameters ...and yet you choose to belief it

These are your personal beliefs and incredulity

In 2002, there was a FEMA investigation
In 2003 there was an investigation by Asif Usmani (a professor of engineering and 2 others) - who determined the buildings fell due to fire

There was still demand from families, experts, etc for a more indepth investigation, which led to the NIST

An investigation that had to be revised over and over when pointed out to its flaws by joe public

here another one

“A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when
its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The
bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the
girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5
in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.”
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008

NIST changed the 5.5 to 6.25 inches when it was
shown that the seat was actually 12 inches wide."

No report is infallible as mentioned many times. So far nothing has changed the findings of the report.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

Perfectly explained here

https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s

This is all addressed quite clearly on the NIST FAQ

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is all addressed quite clearly on the NIST FAQ

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

Really ? .... I mean really?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Basic skepticism and a long history of following types like them in the creationism movement.

I don't understand why you trust them.

Now again, do you believe that the thermite explanation is possible?
Yes or no, please.

Slow handklap

Unless not properly investigated I'm not ruling out anything

The only skeptic here is me....

Trust has nothing to do with it ... science has

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Give an example of a scenario



Is impossible to you personally.



That's because it's largely challenging a portion of the engineering methodology



Again, to repeat, the NIST report was an investigation. Can't really peer review an investigation. The information was made public so experts, groups, etc can examine it.



Personal incredulity.

The NIST investigation took years and involved countless experts, as well as external assistance from structural engineering groups, fire protection engineers and steel construction experts

They had access to 10's of thousands of documents, hundreds of witnesses

Parts of the report itself have been challenged, but the actual findings (e.g. that WTC 7 fell due to unchecked fires) have not been challenged by any recognised groups of experts, engineers, etc



These are your personal beliefs and incredulity

In 2002, there was a FEMA investigation
In 2003 there was an investigation by Asif Usmani (a professor of engineering and 2 others) - who determined the buildings fell due to fire

There was still demand from families, experts, etc for a more indepth investigation, which led to the NIST




No report is infallible as mentioned many times. So far nothing has changed the findings of the report.

You make it look I made this all up personally

I base an opinion on information out there

And the reason you gave for why NIST doesn't need to be peer reviewed is BS (you probably know that as well)

All that was asked was the data/parameters etc used that lead to their conclusion as to how the building fell ...That all of a sudden was a matter of public safety ... You cannot make it up ... Which lead of course to a situation where it was very difficult to check their findings, which lead to speculation ...finally the funding was there for a comprehensive peer reviewed study which surprise surprise showed NIST was flawed

So no its not me personally who have an issue

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Slow handklap

Unless not properly investigated I'm not ruling out anything

The only skeptic here is me....

Trust has nothing to do with it ... science has

It does though. You are simply trusting them because you prefer their conclusion.

You have no other reason to and every reason to distrust them, which you ignore.

And you can't really pretend to be on science's side if you are going to entertain the possibility that Space lasers might have possibly taken down a building because it wasn't ruled out...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Really ? .... I mean really?

Yes really. There are no videos that contain any explosions in WTC7, never mind the dozens that a demolition requires.

Can you point to one?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Really ? .... I mean really?

A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise

However nothing on the level of demolition blasts were heard or recorded

A part of that video which tries to make that claim can be explained here

This is what demolitions sound like

You described that video as being a perfect explanation. A perfect explanation of what exactly? what are you suggesting?

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise

It also bares pointing out that these reports come from people all around the site at different points of the day and over the site of the attack. All of them refer to single explosions rather than the groups of explosions like in actual demolitions. And they are spread out throughout the day rather than in rapid succession and immediately before the collapse of the building.

If there were demolition style explosions, then there would be some recordings of it somewhere, but there's not.

If WTC7 was taken down by an explosive, then there would be a noticeable sound before the penthouse collapsed into the building. There is not.

Explosives can be ruled out and put on the same pile as space lasers, based on those alone.
Unless we are going to assume silent explosives which would be lower down in the pile from space lasers.

Dohnjoe

We may joke about space lasers, but there is virtually as much evidence for them as demolition

No explosions, residue, det cords, cuts to the metal, no physical evidence of any sort, no whistle-blowers, leaks, suspects, leads


So we have to move to the hypothetical, which gets even more absurd. Why covertly demolish a prominent 47 story building on the day of the attacks in full sight of the world's media and thousands of witnesses? what does it achieve, except to act extraordinary risk onto an already risky inside job.

Some have speculated it was to destroy something inside the building - the same building they supposedly spent weeks clandestinely rigging, wiring and cutting for demo, why not just destroy whatever it was then?

How did all the detonation equipment survive and "work" after a 7 hour unchecked fire? what if the fire was put out and the firemen discovered all the detonation preparation (or any of the hundreds of people and staff who were using the building on a daily basis prior)?

What if the planes had missed their targets, the building would be rigged, they would "unrig" it? Why make it so ridiculously over-the-top difficult and risky for themselves?

No supporting evidence, no physical evidence and highly implausible even on a hypothetical level

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It does though. You are simply trusting them because you prefer their conclusion.

You have no other reason to and every reason to distrust them, which you ignore.

And you can't really pretend to be on science's side if you are going to entertain the possibility that Space lasers might have possibly taken down a building because it wasn't ruled out...

Stop trolling

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes really. There are no videos that contain any explosions in WTC7, never mind the dozens that a demolition requires.

Can you point to one?

That is not the quote I responded to

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

Are you saying in all the videos no explosions were heard and there are no videos with witnesses reporting explosions ?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise

That is a ridiculous claim ... did these thousands of witnesses got interviewed in regards to explosions ?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We may joke about space lasers, but there is virtually as much evidence for them as demolition

No explosions, residue, det cords, cuts to the metal, no physical evidence of any sort, no whistle-blowers, leaks, suspects, leads


So we have to move to the hypothetical, which gets even more absurd. Why covertly demolish a prominent 47 story building on the day of the attacks in full sight of the world's media and thousands of witnesses? what does it achieve, except to act extraordinary risk onto an already risky inside job.

Some have speculated it was to destroy something inside the building - the same building they supposedly spent weeks clandestinely rigging, wiring and cutting for demo, why not just destroy whatever it was then?

How did all the detonation equipment survive and "work" after a 7 hour unchecked fire? what if the fire was put out and the firemen discovered all the detonation preparation (or any of the hundreds of people and staff who were using the building on a daily basis prior)?

What if the planes had missed their targets, the building would be rigged, they would "unrig" it? Why make it so ridiculously over-the-top difficult and risky for themselves?

No supporting evidence, no physical evidence and highly implausible even on a hypothetical level

And now there is a report out ruling out a fire induced collapse, A report that is gonna be peer reviewed ..... A report ruled out by KM before he even looked at it ...:rolleyes:

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Stop trolling

I'm not trolling. I'm just tired of chasing down answers to simple questions you're unwilling to answer.

Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

Yes or no please.

weisses wrote: »

Are you saying in all the videos no explosions were heard and there are no videos with witnesses reporting explosions ?

There are no explosions in any videos at all.
There are no explosions in any videos when there absolutely would be explosions if they were used to start the collapse.

All witness reports are 1. Explainable without explosives and 2. are inconsistent with what would have been heard if it was an explosive demolition.

Do you believe that there were demolition charges used?
If so, how do you explain the lack of any sounds of explosions immediately before the collapse?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

That is a ridiculous claim ... did these thousands of witnesses got interviewed in regards to explosions ?

There were thousands of witnesses. The footage in the video you provided when the building fell showed many people still in the area. There multiple TV crews, many recording live. The NIST interviewed around 1,000 people and reviewed 7,000 pieces of footage

A handful of people reported hearing loud bangs or what they thought were explosions

Out of the over 100 witnesses to the Pentagon airliner crash, a handful of witnesses saw what they thought was a small corporate jet hit

Out of the over 503 interviews (recorded) with firefighters, several thought they heard explosions or saw flashes

Transformers exploding, lifts crashing down shafts, large pieces of debris hitting the ground, explosions within the fire itself, the diesel tanks in WTC 7, witnesses testimony being mistaken, selectively used or twisted out of context

At no point in any of that was anything approaching demolition explosions recorded or caught on any visual or audio device. There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever that there were demolition explosions by witnesses. The sounds of a demolition are extremely clear as demonstrated by the video I posted.

Can you answer the question I asked?

And now there is a report out ruling out a fire induced collapse, A report that is gonna be peer reviewed ..... A report ruled out by KM before he even looked at it ...

It doesn't rule anything out yet because it's not final. It is also delayed. As posted earlier people who have already looked at interim (not final) results have pointed out what they believe are several flaws and miscalculations already - but have commented that we need to wait until the final version is produced

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not trolling. I'm just tired of chasing down answers to simple questions you're unwilling to answer.

Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

Yes or no please.

Yes you are trolling

King Mob wrote: »

There are no explosions in any videos at all.
There are no explosions in any videos when there absolutely would be explosions if they were used to start the collapse.

All witness reports are 1. Explainable without explosives and 2. are inconsistent with what would have been heard if it was an explosive demolition.

Do you believe that there were demolition charges used?
If so, how do you explain the lack of any sounds of explosions immediately before the collapse?

I am focusing on the report that shows fire could not have caused this nice symmetrical collapse

All other possible causes are speculation, because they have not been properly investigated ....

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were thousands of witnesses.

Did these thousands of witnesses stated they heard no explosion ?

And as I said to KM. The discussion is about the report stating fires did not bring down building 7

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It doesn't rule anything out yet because it's not final. It is also delayed. As posted earlier people who have already looked at interim (not final) results have pointed out what they believe are several flaws and miscalculations already - but have commented that we need to wait until the final version is produced

Thats why its so important the research is open and available for review

Unlike the NIST report ...Which is verifiable proven to be flawed even without large portions not being available for review

Why am I the only one here taking a critical approach ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Yes you are trolling

I'm not trolling. I'm just answer simple direct questions.
If you were honest and directly answered them, then we could move on.

Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

Yes or no please.

weisses wrote: »

I am focusing on the report that shows fire could not have caused this nice symmetrical collapse

All other possible causes are speculation, because they have not been properly investigated ....

But again, even if your objections to the actual story held and your report was in anyway worth while, then we are still left with the fact that a fire is the only possible explanation.
Even if the NISTs explanation is totally and utterly wrong, there is no other possible explanation.

Thermite and explosives can be ruled out for the exact same reasons as space lasers or magic as explanations.

If you were applying your "skepticism" fairly, then you would be equally declaring these explanations as possible as you claim the fire explanation could be. But you don't because you want to keep those explanations plausible to fit your preferred narrative of a conspiracy.

So yea, if it's not fire, or explosives or space lasers: what was it?

And please stop claiming it's a symmetric collapse. You know it's not.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

However nothing on the level of demolition blasts were heard or recorded

A part of that video which tries to make that claim can be explained here

A quote from the OP in that thread regarding his "analysis"

I would like for drommelsboef to explain why he thinks I "failed miserably".
First, I did not fail - I made a mistake and corrected it myself.

So you use this kind of people to prove a point and having issues with CT'ers at the same time .... terrific