Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

WTC 7 analysis - is this conclusive?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Get serious with AVAAZ about blocking the WTC Building 7 Petition

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-04-30/get-serious-avaaz-about-my-building-7-petition
Sun May 06, 2012 7:29 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard Gage talks in London at the Royal Inst of British Architects (RIBA) venue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oltjeKtXPHY

The 'Potemkin village' = a tweaked computer model that has never been released because NIST reckons it would 'jeopardise public safety' (sic).

David Aaronovitch on Gage's appearance at RIBA:
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/50802/conspirers-against-conspirers
Sun May 06, 2012 6:00 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-10-reasons-why-nist-report-is.html

WTC Building Seven collapsed “as a single unit” (NIST’s own words) at an acceleration for 2.25 seconds indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity. By definition, that means there was no resistance. It’s that simple.
Thu May 10, 2012 8:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Reasons the NIST report has been described as scientific 'fraud' by some.

These are facts and questions for science/engineering-minded people who want to look into the NIST Report (never peer-reviewed, never closely examined by media). The idea is to get more and more science/engineering-minded people to look at these facts/questions. While media shuts down the debate, sceptics ask for more transparency, openness and public discussion. The challenge is to directly reach out to the science/engineering community, many of whom have never encountered the media-suppressed discussion, perhaps by forwarding them the best arguments?

Re: WTC 7, the official report (US Dept of Commerce NIST) is false for the following reasons:

* No physical tests were done to confirm the NIST explanation

* The fire hypothesis is contradicted by the known fire resistance plan

* The fires in WTC 7 lasted only 20 minutes in each area, while the steel components were rated for hours of fire resistance

* NIST’s final theory was based entirely on computer simulations that are not based on evidence

* NIST’s fire modeling contradicts the photographic evidence

* The fires in the critical areas (NE corner of floor 12) were out long before collapse

* NIST did not heat the floor slabs in its model of differential thermal expansion

* NIST ignored known facts about shear studs on the critical girder

* The maximum thermal expansion possible could not have caused the girder to “walk-off” its seat

* The NIST computer result does not accurately model the collapse

'Unless OCT supporters can address these facts without resorting to ad hominem attacks and diversions, we’ll have to assume they agree that the NIST WTC7 report is a fraud.'
(K Ryan)

Why did NIST first try to deny free fall?

Why did NIST, after admitting free fall, delete the statement that this was “consistent with physical principles”?

Why did NIST replace with a statement that it was consistent with their model when their model did not achieve free fall?

Why did NIST fraudulently choose a start time for the onset of global collapse by choosing a brightening pixel from the center roofline in a manner that would have been arbitrary if it were not for the fact it was chosen specifically in order to make it look as though the total collapse time of the building exactly matched their model?

Why did NIST input massive fires on the 12th floor when its own photographic evidence showed the fires in this area had long since burned out? In other words, why did NIST engage in scientific fraud?

Why did NIST carry forward only its worst case scenario into its final models?

Why did NIST claim thermal expansion pushed the girder off its seat when if you input the variables for those beams into their own equation, they would not have expanded enough to do that?

Why did NIST claim there were no shear studs on the girder?

Why did NIST claim the girder was pushed off its seat and then model that failure in ANSYS when it failed to do so in their own LS-DYNA model because it bumped up against the flange of column 79?

Why does NIST reject the scientific method by refusing to release its data for peer review?

Why did NIST lie and claim no steel was recovered from WTC7? Why does it not account for the eutectic steel sample that was preserved from the debris?

Why did NIST reject standard investigative protocol not test for thermitic materials on the basis of the logic that since no such materials existed, there was no sense looking for it?
Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:56 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker