NIST To Release Draft of Final Report on WTC Towers June 23

[Bolo Boffin]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/calmed/wtc_briefing_june23_2005.htm

Also, the draft of recommendations from this exhaustive study of the WTC collapses will be available then, too - for a public comment period of six weeks.

Still no evidence of controlled demolitions - it's crunch time for amatuer investigators who feel otherwise.

[drdtroit]

1. Look for it in the "fiction" section of your local bookstore. n/t

[AZCat]

2. It will be interesting to see how this all trickles down...

into the building codes. The ICC (the organization that produces the IBC, IMC, IFC) has already begun incorporating info into the IBC because of September 11th.

For more information, see this article.

[philb]

3. I've seen no independent or serious gov't sponsored inquiry re: 911 so far

and would be surprised if this is any different.
Why would one think this would be any different than the obviously bogus 9/11 Commission Report-
which as Dr. Griffin stated was clearly a 571 page lie.

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Go check out what's already been released.

Read through the interim report, or look at the draft sections already released:

http://wtc.nist.gov

The draft reports are:

- the design, construction, and maintainance of structural and life safety systems

- occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communication

- the emergency response operations

Apparently the scientists at NIST are concerned with designing buildings in which more people can stay calm and escape, improving the efficiency and reliabiblity of emergency responses, and honing the maintainance of safety systems. How adult of them.

[stickdog]

5. It was also very "adult" of them to dismiss suggestions of demolition

from the get-go and refrain from seriously investigating anything possibilities other than the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. With zero evidence of demolition, that's what real scientists do.

Go check out their work. They're saving lives over there at NIST.

[stickdog]

7. First, there are many reasons to suspect demolition, especially in WTC7.

Second, you typically must look for evidence in order to find it.

Third, it's highly UNscientific to refrain from investigating certain hypotheses simply because there isn't enough evidence to prove them. Note that there's no compelling EVIDENCE for any of the officially sanctioned collapse theories, either.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. No, there's not. Not scientifically.

You can speak the dark imaginings of your heart and mine to no end, but these are not reasons to suspect demolition in any building on 9/11.

You can look at video evidence with a layman's eye, but this doesn't constitute reason to suspect demolition - not even if Dan Rather blurts out how much it looked like a controlled demolition.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

On this page, you'll find NIST's summarized collapse sequence for the towers. WTC 7, with its unique structure and circumstances, isn't included here. But this is what to note in the press release.

The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, recovered steel, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation. All are being considered for NIST’s upcoming recommendations.

Extensive computer modeling. Photographs. Video. Recovered steel. Eyewitness accounts. Emergency communication records.

The NIST study will be the most complete picture of the WTC's performance on 9/11. They aren't considering the demolition idea because there is absolutely no reason to do so. The 9/11 conspiracy theory dog needs to find a new stick. Go track the movements of the 9/11 hijackers with Paul Thompson - that's proving a lot more fruitful than this insistence on easily disproven and shockingly discrediting fantasies.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Ouch Bolo!

:spank:

:smoke:

[stickdog]

10. Thanks for confiming my post. Where is the scientific evidence

that the WTC7 collpased from a fire again?

Please direct us to that "scientific" evidence so we can examine it, bolo. Hand waving is NOT evidence. "Just trust us, we looked at stuff" hearsay is NOT evidence.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

[demodewd]

11. anxious

I'm anxious to read the chapter on the refutation of Controlled Demolitions.I know how open minded those NIST people are...I'm sure they will include all the physical possibilities.

[philb]

12. The scientific and other evidence still support controlled dem at WTC7

I've seen no scientific evidence to the contrary. And doubt that I will when the NIST report is out.

But its will be interesting; I hope they do a legitimate study.
but I'm not sure they could under the circumstances.

[LARED]

13. What scientific evidence points to CD? (n/t)