NIST ignores calls from leading structural and fire engineers

[240 is Back]

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC CollapsesThe British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the twin towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]

[240 is Back]

NIST makes no mention of molten metal found at the collapse site in the weeks and months after 9/11, which has been described in numerous reports (see September 12, 2001-February 2002). The “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 146 ] Members of Congress are critical of NIST’s recommendations, saying they are not detailed enough, or adequately documented, to be rapidly incorporated into standard building code publications. [New York Times, 10/27/2005] According to Glenn Corbett, a technical adviser to NIST and fire science professor at John Jay College, NIST is not aggressive enough to carry out major forensic investigations. He says, “Instead of a gumshoe inquiry that left no stone unturned, I believe the investigations were treated more like research projects in which they waited for information to flow to them.” [Associated Press, 10/26/2005; US Congress, 10/26/2005

[240 is Back]

OCT 2005:

NIST will release its final report on the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC separately, at a later date


JAN 2007:

Still not report?

[sandycoosworth]

potential energy

[a_joker10]

The visuals are in the report under the appendixes and you can ask for the model.

(Potential Energy) Don't believe in heavy objects falling.

You can on their site and see the progress reports. But you are too lazy.

[240 is Back]

Regarding the collapse of WTC 7 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001): “While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 8/30/2006] In response to the fact sheet, Kevin Ryan, the coeditor of the online Journal of 9/11 Studies, says, “The list of answers NIST has provided is generating more questions, and more skepticism, than ever before.” He says, “NIST is a group of government scientists whose leaders are Bush appointees, and therefore their report is not likely to veer from the political story.” [New York Times, 9/2/2006; Reuters, 9/2/2006]

[sandycoosworth]

joker doesnt understand the concept of a stacked deck...

[a_joker10]

Except that you guys don't perform research.

Do you even know how is performing the test or that they will be open for public consultation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/solicitation_selection_process.htm
http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121406.asx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

[240 is Back]

joker doesnt understand the concept of a stacked deck...

nor the lack of common sense in spending $16 MIL on the nist report, but not budgeting $500 for one test on the metal for explosives residue, even as family members marched and protested as the trucks hauled away the crime scene.

[240 is Back]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-06.htm

LOL @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden_L._Bement_Jr.

Guy worked for Deprt of Defense/DARPA, then went into pvt sector for a defense contractor TRW til 92.

He completely fell off the map for a few years (planning something big, eh? )

Returned to be Bush's personal choice for NIST director, following 9/11.



yeah, I think he's not the guy who would be the most willing to blow the whistle on Bush and the military spenders, seeing as he spent his life working for them.  What a f'king sham.

[a_joker10]

240 the reports were open for public consultation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

You can compare the draft reports to the final reports if you want to

[240 is Back]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-06.htm

LOL @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden_L._Bement_Jr.

Guy worked for Deprt of Defense/DARPA, then went into pvt sector for a defense contractor TRW til 92.

He completely fell off the map for a few years (planning something big, eh? )

Returned to be Bush's personal choice for NIST director, following 9/11.



yeah, I think he's not the guy who would be the most willing to blow the whistle on Bush and the military spenders, seeing as he spent his life working for them.  What a f'king sham.

LOL - TRW Inc. was active in the early development of missile systems and spacecraft.

yeah, i totally wouldn't be surprised if the missile which hit the pentagon then was carried off had a nice TRW stamp on it's ass.

[240 is Back]

joker - Do you see any conflict of interest with this man leading the investigation?

[sandycoosworth]

for the last time POTENTIAL FUCKING ENERGY

[a_joker10]

Why, because he had defense contracting job.?
No.

The reports aren't about him anyway. It is about the universities and engineering organizations that support the report and the reports were peer reviewed.

[240 is Back]

Why, because he had defense contracting job.?
No.

The reports aren't about him anyway. It is about the universities and engineering organizations that support the report and the reports were peer reviewed.

Okay.  So why won't nist deomnstrate the collapse model they say exists, to the industry who is asking for verification of their 911 collapse theory?

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC CollapsesThe British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the twin towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]

[OzmO]

for the last time POTENTIAL FUCKING ENERGY

Why can't it just be "energy"

Why does this potential energy have to be "fucking"?