NIST CoverUp In Progress

[mirandapriestly]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NCST.html
Observations:
According to NIST: there is "no evidence" of a blast and therefore no blast analysis.

It is enlightening to listen to the conversation with Jerry Leaphart, the attorney for Scholars for 911 Truth. They really want to make sure his comments stay out of the meeting by saying there is a rule that they can only discuss wtc7 and not 1 or 2 during the meeting, but they discuss the towers in other parts!

NIST guys says: "isn't that conspiracy stuff?" about the blasts, but they are talking about 7 where they don't know what happened so how can they say what is "conspiracy" and what isn't?

They say they looked at thermite, but, notice Dr Jones isn't present, now isn't that kind of weird since he is the thermite guy? ....This is a sham, and these people are OUR public servants, but they sure as hell aren't working in our interests. The chief scientist for the wtc study, Sunder, comes from MIT (Raytheon funding) and I can't stress enough that the current and former NIST heads were appointed by George W Bush (and that does make a difference , do you think someone working for, say, Alberto Gonzalez, would write a decision unfavorable to the Bush policies on spying & torture? Now the same lack of oversight has spread to science...

Comments by Leaphart:
Apparently I am not the only observer to have made this connection between progressive collapse on the one hand and the impropriety of referencing any part of NIST NCSTAR 1 to such phenomena, on the other. At a recent meeting, 5 case studies on progressive collapse were presented. Noticeably absent from that set of case studies was any reference, whatsoever, to the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.

It sounds like they are going to come up with an "initiating event" theory for 7, IOW some debris started the fires in 7 and that lead to the collapse, but that is just bullshit. If that could happen to 7 , all the buildings around there would have collapsed, but miraculously only those with a wtc address did. Also, in the videos you can see that debris did not hit building 7 and the fires are in the lower floors which could not have been reached by debris from the towers. Of course they ignore credible witnesses who saw the lobby destroyed before the tower "collapses", and heard explosions, and how then hell did everything get into such tiny pieces? and thrown so far? and just plain ....disappeared?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. It's the same "expert" shit we got with the Warren Report. Truth lite. It's a

sham.

[LARED]

2. Would you prefer non-experts to investigate

important issues and concerns?

Perhaps to investigate the collapse of the WTC the NIST should hire a zoologist?

[spooked911]

6. I'd prefer truth-telling experts, not whitewash experts

:)

[mirandapriestly]

9. A biased expert might as well not be an expert

It's obvious that these guys are starting with an assumption and trying to prove it, hoping that most people aren't really paying attention (that's where they are, unfortunately, right. Now that sounds like "Bush Science" to me.

[LARED]

15. The irony is too rich to pass up

It's obvious that these guys CT'ers are starting with an assumption and trying to prove it, hoping that most people aren't really paying attention (that's where they are, unfortunately, right. Now that sounds like "Bush faith based Science" to me.

Why are you so concerned about assumptions. The entire litany of CT is based on assumptions. If you were honest about it you would see the CT community has never moved past speculation and assumption.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. NIST is considering hypothetical blast analysis in its WTC 7 report.

There's a lovely new PDF of a recent Powerpoint presentation at http://wtc.nist.gov right now. It talks all about it.

The WTC 7 report is due out in the spring.

[spooked911]

7. Well, gosh! Why would they even bring up such a cock-fool conspiracy idea like that?

Let me guess-- just to shoot it down?

[LARED]

13. There is good reason to investigate blast scenarios

Not for the reasons your think.

The point of investigating a potential blast is to determine if something did explode, like a fuel tank, gas cylinder, pipeline, (IE something that normally might be found in an building) and what impact it may have had on the building. Most importantly to improve building codes to protect against this sort of occurrence.

[wildbilln864]

4. Good post Miranda...

and Merry Christmas to you and your's!
:hi:

[DrDebug]

5. Merry Christmas to you and Miranda as well

:toast:

[spooked911]

8. Thanks, Miranda

[mirandapriestly]

11. Hi spooked

;)

[mirandapriestly]

10. Am I missing something here?

How can they be doing a "blast analysis" when they have said there is no evidence of a blast???? They are starting not only with a bias, but an inaccurate bias, I have seen quite a few indications of blasts - ie: credible eyewitnesses, video and audio explosions, and video and audio and transcript of more than one person knowing ahaed of time that the buildings were "coming down" or about to be "blown up". Whereas there is very weak evidence of a substantial fire, and I sure would like to know how debris got into the lower part of the building in such a way that it would damage an interior column!
They knew ahead of time what their "analysis" will be, there were told what it had to be.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Okay, wait a minute.

Over and over, the clarion call of all things CT has been that "NIST isn't considering a blast, how can they call it definitive if they don't consider all the evidence, blah, blah, blah"...

...and now you find out that they ARE considering a hypothetical blast and you're upset about that??

Listen to yourself.

[LARED]

14. Why not do a little homework for yourself

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

Hypothetical Blast Analysis

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.

��Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.

��Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.

��Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.