NIST and the WTC: "Science" at the Service of an Empire

[reprehensor]

"Science" at the Service of an Empire

snip

In other words, "Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn't have time to do that. And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?"

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. <8> According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 °C are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 °C." <9>

snip

In other words: "Once the top started coming down, it was so heavy that the damaged columns could not stop it. Neither could the undamaged columns of dozens of floors do that, it seems. But we didn't need to model that for we've all seen that down it came."

more@link

[pox americana]

1. 10,000-pages

Of tax-funded Enronology, written no doubt with some Bolton-like stooge somewhere madly deleting anything that might give a clue as to what actually happened.

[hack89]

2. So....

With hundreds of engineering societies and millions of engineers in the world, this is the best you could find? Is it safe to assume that all the rest agree with NIST? Or is it your contention that every engineer in the US and the world is in on the plot? So what exactly are Sami Yli-Karjanmaa qualifications besides the fact you like what he has to say?

[pox americana]

3. "Is it safe to assume that all the rest agree with NIST? "

Who in their right mind is going to publicly disagree with the official story, and who is going to sponsor that kind of research? Not the government, that's for sure, and that leaves nobody.

p.s. remember the Warren Commission report? Not exactly bulletproof but you didn't see any tsunami of academic dissent then, either.

[spooked911]

4. exactly-- most academics, remember, are funded by the US government

if they question the official story on 9/11, I'm sure there would be repercussions.

[hack89]

7. What about the professional engineers..

who are not funded by the government? Are you saying that all the people qualified to evaluate and criticize the report work for the government? What nonsense! How about other countries - are their engineers incompetent?

[pox americana]

8. Engineers who conduct and publish research

do it in universities or corporations. Tell me which university or corporation is going to sponsor research pointing to the Bush administration as the cause of the WTC demolitions.

[hack89]

11. So....

is it your contention that the NIST report requires extensive research to reveal its flaws - and that all the analysis made by 9/11 "researchers" that we see constantly on this board is useless? For if it is not, and you can make meaningful judgments on the report by just reading it, then what is stopping an engineer (perhaps retired?) from rendering such a judgment? So I ask again - where are the scientist and engineers (globally!) that disagree with the NIST report?

[pox americana]

13. (I just answered that below)

:)

[hack89]

6. So France has no competent engineers..

that are willing to pass professional judgment on the NIST report? This report is available globally - if it is so flawed where is the global criticism?

Your reply is also a slur on all the scientist and engineers that challenge the government on a daily basis on such issues as nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, global warming, etc.

[pox americana]

9. They don't have access to any of the data or materials.

Not even the original WTC engineering specs and drawings. What kind of professional judgment can they pass on nothing?

[hack89]

10. Sami Yli-Karjanmaa did not have access to such information either

(besides the fact he is not an engineer) yet you accepted his judgment on "nothing" - don't you realize that grasping for such straws only weakens your case? A building is only as strong as its foundations - if this is the best you can do than you are building on sand!

[pox americana]

12. Look, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to know what you,

I, Yli-Karjanmaa and everybody else observed, live or on TV, which was three controlled demolitions.

Now, getting somebody to sponsor and publish peer-reviewed research making that claim on the basis of an objective analysis of evidence which is available to no-one outside the US government is a whole different story.

Ain't gonna happen, not while this administration retains a shred of power anyway.

[hack89]

14. If it is so obvious to the naked eye..

why are only "Google" engineers the only ones saying anything? You are telling me that nearly every professional engineer in the world saw demolition and said nothing! Again I ask, what is stopping an engineer in France or Russia from coming to the same conclusion as Sami Yli-Karjanmaa and publicizing them? Perhaps because it is not so obvious? Why haven't any international engineering societies spoken out on the hijacking of their profession by the US government?

[spooked911]

15. just because these international engineers may have doubts doesn't mean

we would know about their doubts.

Absence of evidence of their doubts is not evidence that they are absent of doubt.

[hack89]

16. Can't argue with "logic" like this..

so I won't. Have a nice evening.

[spooked911]

5. This is an important issue-- why didn't the study model the collapses

further down the buildings? This is when things really start getting inexplicable, according to the official version.