Kevin Ryan is former Site Manager for Environomental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

Through interviews, presentations, and his work as co-editor at the online Journal of 911 Studies, Mr. Ryan works to bring out the truth behind the events of 9/11/01 for the benefit of all people.

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”

by Kevin Ryan

When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable of, or more likely to, tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.

Getting back to those experts at BMSP, we see that DOD employs a number of consulting firms to help out Corley and Sozen, in what is called the Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), including ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates.[4] It should be noted that most of these firms were major contributors to the various official explanations for collapse of the WTC buildings, as well as being government contractors in fields related to terrorism. Strangely, despite their overwhelming expertise in the use of explosives, none of their explanations for the WTC events had anything to do with explosives.

That’s not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & O’Mara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the “One Guy, One Truck Bomb” political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin.

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”[6]

When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeaux’s company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, “Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thornton’s company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero.

In any case, it is clear that Rothschild’s primary experts have a long history of involvement in US government interests, and in highly questionable engineering reports. But surely the “engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country” could not all be so tied to US government interests. There must be some objective members within the group of scientists supporting the Bush Administration’s theories, and some agreement among scientists around the world.

The truth is that interpretation of the events at the WTC does include some agreement from all parties. We all agree that no tall steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed uniformly at nearly free-fall speed into a pile of rubble for any reason whatsoever, outside of demolition. And we’re in agreement that the first three occasions of such an event supposedly occurred all on the same day, all in the same place. To round out a quick agreement, we can all safely say that these improbable events were the emotional basis for the passing of legislation that had already been written (e.g. the Patriot Act), and for the invasion of several strategically-important countries, the plans for which were already in the works.

From there, however, the views of the government’s credentialed experts diverge from those who are more interested in objectively seeking the truth. The initial facts of agreement should lead any objective person to seek a detailed investigation that leaves no hypothesis un-examined. But for the government’s credentialed experts, only one hypothesis was worthy of consideration, a fire-based failure of all three buildings that jibed with the overall official version of the events of that day.

In support of that fire-based triple play, the experts gave us a progression of false stories. The media gave us the first false story, with help from PhD engineers, some of whom were contributors to the official reports. Eduardo Kausel, an “engineering professor at MIT” and contributor to the WTC report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), suggested to us in Scientific American that this catastrophe was probably due to the jet fuel fires melting the steel in the buildings.[8] He was joined in this early theory by a handful of other PhD engineers and professors around the country, and by the US government’s top suspect - Osama Bin Laden. The US State Department still promotes the melting steel theory by promoting the alleged confession video of the alleged Bin Laden, which Matthew Rothschild finds convincing as well. In this confession video, the credentialed expert Bin Laden said -- “Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building..."[9] Apparently Bin Laden’s plan was a complete failure after all, because even the experts now agree that jet fuel-accelerated office fires cannot melt steel (or Iron for that matter).

Another structural engineer who made early claims of melting steel, in the infamous 2002 Nova video “Why the Towers Fell”, was Matthys Levy. Mr. Levy was a principal at the BMAG consulting firm Weidlinger Associates that, later, with the help of many other PhD engineers, produced a report on the WTC disaster as part of an insurance claim by Larry Silverstein.[10] This Silverstein-Weidlinger investigation was based on extensive computer modeling and involved many of the same contractors that contributed to the government studies. Their final report told us that floor failure had nothing to do with the WTC disasters, but “that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses.”[11] At the time, Levy told us “There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure.”[12]

Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NIST’s final report came out in 2005, the “Pancake Theory” had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report. This was strange, considering many of the same experts were involved in both the FEMA and Weidlinger investigations, including Gene Corley.

Amazingly enough, just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse”.[13] NIST’s findings, first reported in their final draft report of October 2004 and built over a period of several years, originally consisted of two considerably different stories for the two towers. But NIST modified this nine months later in their final, final draft report, giving just one story for both towers about “widely-dislodged” fireproofing and sagging floors pulling the external columns inward, with no mention of pancaking. Their final, final collapse initiation sequence, the essence of their report, is now known to be false in every aspect.[14]

Through the years, NIST and the other official investigators ignored the demolition hypothesis completely, as can be seen from their reports and archived presentations. That’s not surprising though, as the scientists working for FEMA and NIST, and therefore for the Bush Administration, would not likely lead their investigation toward a result that would limit or stop the 9/11 Wars. For example John Gross of NIST and Therese McAllister of Greenhorne & O’Mara, who not only co-authored the most important sections of NIST’s report, but were also primary authors of FEMA’s report, continue to act deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to evidence for the demolition hypothesis.[15] And we can imagine that all those “independent” contractors who contributed to the ever-changing story, who were also consulting firms for the DOD’s interesting Blast Mitigation Action Group, would be hard-pressed to offer an explanation that would require a less militarily focused solution.

The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

It's in PM’s book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths”, that we find this survey. Here they include other figures like Forman Williams, although they fail to tell you that Dr. Williams was also a member of NIST’s top advisory committee, and therefore was defending his own work. Williams is presented by PM as a disinterested academic expert, but one must wonder how disinterested Williams was when the University of California San Diego received $393 million in federal grants in 2005, the same year the NIST WTC report came out, with his own Engineering department receiving $44 million of that sum.[18] Another of PM’s disinterested experts was Engineering professor Richard Fruehan of Carnegie Mellon University, an institute that received $100 million in federal grants that same year, with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total.

In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration’s terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19]

In the forward to PM’s book, Republican Senator John McCain describes how he feels the truth behind September 11th is more mundane than “conspiracy mongers” would have us believe. Strangely, he refers us to the “banality of Nazi evil” to show that 9/11 was probably not an elaborate conspiracy. That is, according to McCain, 9/11 was probably NOT part of a simple plan by corporate-funded politicians to maintain and expand their power, but was instead the work of a small group of powerless fanatics whose plans to bring about worldwide totalitarian rule were held back only by our own cherished freedoms. That’s a tough bit to swallow, to be sure, but the idea that a Hearst publication would resort to the “banality of Nazi evil” is absolutely astounding. That’s because in writing this forward, Senator McCain joined an infamous group of Hearst publication authors, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering, who wrote for Hearst, the latter until 1938.[20]

Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed “experts”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up.

It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11 and the changes in worldview that might be demanded of such an examination. The problem is, the easy answers have all been wrong, while at the same time the experts have ignored one fairly simple hypothesis that is now becoming obvious to many. It should be clear that this is because the credentialed experts we’ve been dealing with are all quite well invested in maintaining the official version of events.

1. Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, September 11, 2006 http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx091106
2. For a short description of DOD’s BMSP, see “Department of Defense Should Broaden Communication Efforts to Protect Federal and Civilian Buildings From Bomb Attacks”, The National Academy of Sciences, November 2001, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10230
3. Missing Trillions: Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference, 911Research.com, http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
4. US Army Corps of Engineers, Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), Consulting Firms, https://bmag.usace.army.mil/consulting_firms.php
5. Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building, Mlakar, Corley, Sozen, Thornton, 1997, http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf
6. General Partin’s letter to Senator Lott can be found in its entirety in the Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, April, 19,1995, The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Appendix, page 378-380. This letter is also reproduced here -http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm
7. See Context of 'March 6, 2002: House Committee on Science Holds Hearing on WTC Collapses Investigation, Cooperative Research, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a030602collapseheari...
8.“When the Twin Towers Fell”, Scientific American, October 9, 2001 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
9. The US State Department still appears to be promoting this first false theory by promoting Osama (Fatty) Bin Laden’s baseless statements. US State Department website: The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=A...
10. Profile: Weidlinger Associates, Cooperative Research http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=weidlinger_associat...
11. “Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures”, Engineering News-Record, 10/25/02, McGraw Hill Construction, http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp
12. Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing, Engineering News-Record, 11/04/02 http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
13. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, August 2006, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
14. See my essay, What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, at the Journal of 911 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com . Also see the critique of my presentation Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, 911Research.com, 10/15/06 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
15. See video of John Gross’ presentation at the University of Texas Austin, with testimonies and evidence of molten metal at the WTC. Project for New American Citizens, http://911blogger.com/node/6104
16. “A 9/11 Conspiracy Virus is Sweeping the World, But it Has No Basis in Fact”, George Monbiot, The Guardian, February 6, 2007, http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2007519,00.html
17. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Facts, Dunbar & Reagan, Hearst Press, 2006. Note: See also Eduardo (melting steel) Kausel’s glowing review in the front cover.
18. See Fedspending.org, Grants, http://www.fedspending.org
19. City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz and Eric Lipton, (New York: Times Books, 2003), 138
20. Remembering “The Chief”, PBS’s Online NewsHour, 9/07/00, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/nasaw_9-7.html

Bush Science: et argument som anvender den politiske metode og som nesten ikke støttes av bevis - en forhåndsbestemt konklusjon inneholdende fabrikkerte eller ikke-eksisterende bevis - eller til og med motstridende bevis. Argumentet kan bli brukt til å skape en ny “vitenskapelig virkelighet”, hvor kjente fysiske prinsipp er ubeleilige, og derfor blir ignorert. En vill teori - en teori som motstrides av alle, eller nær på alle, relevante fakta.

Dette innlegget handler om en grunnleggende mangel, som avstedkommer et utall av andre feil og mangler.

# Rapporten forklarer ikke Tvillingtårnenes totale kollaps.

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." - NIST-rapporten s. xxxvii/39 (PDF) (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse." - NIST, s. 144/194 (PDF) (Uthevelse tilføyet)

Dette kan kanskje ved første øyekast virke uproblematisk, men er det i virkeligheten ikke, (blant annet) fordi;

1) det finnes ingen historisk presedens for totalkollaps av stålrammebygninger som følge av brann;

2) NIST fremviser ikke kalkulasjoner eller datasimulasjoner som viser at kollapsinitiering ville ledet til global kollaps, eller at "kollaps var uungåelig";

NISTs påstand baseres med andre ord ene og alene på spekulasjon og ugrunnede antagelser.

Er dette god, grundig og objektiv vitenskap? Skal vi ta vitenskapsfolkenes utsagn for god fisk fordi de har så flotte CVer?

3) NISTs konklusjon bryter med vitenskapelige prinsipp:

"Eksempler på ikke-vitenskapelige utsagn er derimot dogmer eller definisjoner. Dogmer er uvitenskapelige fordi deres holdbarhet av ulike grunner ikke ønskes diskutert." - Wikipedia om vitenskap

Definisjon dogme:

dogme: påstand som kreves antatt som uomstøtelig sann (uten særlig bevis), og som det bygges videre på

NIST vil ha oss til å tro på et dogme ved å hevde at "kollaps var uungåelig" uten å forsyne oss med valide grunner for at så var tilfelle. Dogmer er, som vi har lært, "uvitenskapelige fordi deres holdbarhet av ulike grunner ikke ønskes diskutert."

Hvorfor vil ikke NIST diskutere hele kollapsfenomenet?

# NIST slipper å inkludere en rekke empiriske data ved å unngå en fullstendig analyse.

Wikipedia om Den vitenskapelige metode:

(...)

"All forskning drives ved at forskere lanserer teorier eller hypoteser for å forklare fenomen. Disse testes mot observasjoner ("empiri"). Dersom teorien kan forklare observasjonene, er teorien styrket; hvis observasjonene motsier teorien, må teorien forkastes eller modifiseres. Strengt tatt kan ikke noe sies å være "vitenskapelig bevist", bare at det hittil ikke er funnet observasjoner som motbeviser teorien. Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter "Sannheten" for all fremtid, bare at vitenskapen til enhver tid har de mest plausible, troverdige og mest motsigelsesfrie kunnskapene om sitt fagfelt.

Hva som er empiri er fagspesifikt. I naturvitenskaper som fysikk kan det være måleresulater fra instrumenter. (...)" (Uthevelse tilføyet)

Ved å ikke analysere hele kollapsen omgår NIST en rekke data som alle indikerer eksplosiv demolering.

Her kan nevnes;

squibs,

hastighet,

symmetri,

smeltet metall

og mye annet.

Nå er det ikke slik i vitenskap at man kan plukke ønskede data fra øverste hylle etter eget forgodtbefinnende. Man er faktisk prisgitt de data som er.

Skal en hypotese testes i samsvar med den vitenskapelige metode, må hypotesen testes mot alle empiriske data, ikke bare mot de som passer forutbestemte konklusjoner. Alle relevante data må inkluderes og "hvis observasjonene motsier teorien, må teorien forkastes eller modifiseres."

NIST på sin side gjør ikke det, men forsøker isteden å bevise sin (dårlige) hypotese med dogmer og unnvikelse. Dette er intet annet enn "den politiske metode" i praksis, noe som alene gjør at WTC-rapporten ikke holder god vitenskapelig standard. Den er faktisk uvitenskapelig.

Den politiske metode: Start med en tese og undersøk kun de fakta som bekrefter argumentet.

NIST demonstrerer i sitt "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" hvordan vitale data dermed kan ignoreres:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. - NIST, Answers to FAQ, pt. 13 (Uthevelse tilføyet)

NIST finner nemlig, i all sin vitenskapelighet, ingen grunn til analyse av totalkollapsene fordi det klart fremgår av videobevisene hva som skjer etter kollapsinitiering!

Se og hør John Gross, en av NISTs ledende ingeniører, komme med denne oppsiktvekkende og foruroligende uttalelsen (etter at han har løyet om det smeltede metallets eksistens):

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501]

"We were charged with finding out the cause of the collapse, and, er ..., we found what happend... I think we scientifically demonstrated what was required to initiate the collapse. Once the collapse initiated the video-evidence is rather clear: It was not stopped by the floors below..."

Med de premiss Gross her legger til grunn for NISTs granskning er det forunderlig at de i det hele tatt forsøkte å vise hva som forårsaket kollapsinitiering (noe de heller ikke gjorde på en tilfredstillende måte, men det kommer jeg tilbake til).

Vi kan jo se det hele på video, mener jeg: Fly krasjer, påfølgende brann, kollaps begynner og kollaps stopper.

End of story!

Case closed??

***

Tillegg:

NIST har ikke vist at "collapse was inevitable"

Noen vil nok hevde at NIST har gjort de nødvendige analyser, at de har gransket hele kollapsen, og at de har konkludert med noe tilfredstillende. Dette er rett og slett feil.

De innrømmer det til og med selv:

"... we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Sept. 2007 Response to April 2007 RFC, from NIST

***

Oppdatering 9/1-08:

Det er ikke forunderlig at de ikke makter å "... provide a full explanation of the total collapse", når de sensurerer vekk essensielle data fra sin granskning.

Uttalelsen blåser også, etter min mening, liv i spørsmålet omkring alt av stål/bevis som ble fjernet fra Ground Zero. Hadde NIST hatt tilgang på dette bevismaterialet hadde de muligens kunne forsynt oss med en "full explanation".

Såkalte skeptikere (punkt 6 i Hauglands artikkel) hevder at denne bevisforspillelsen ikke fant sted. Det står i sterk kontrast til det Bill Manning, redaktør av prestisjetunge Fire Engineering Magazine, skrev i denne artikkelen:

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history."

(...)

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

***

Jim Hoffman har også gjort seg noen betraktninger vedrørende den manglende analyse i sin meget gode artikkel "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century":

(...)

... a half-page section entitled "Events Following Collapse Initiation," that combines a vague rendition of the pile-driver theory with incomplete, circular, and straw-man arguments against the demolition hypothesis. The addition of this section does not change the fact that NIST did not attempt to model, or characterize in any meaningful way the collapses.

Let's pause and consider the implications of this. NIST's investigation is being presented as the presumptive last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:

1. A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.
2. The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures.
3. The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.

Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7. (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"Besynderlige prioriteringer" er nok de rette ord å bruke, ja... Om det er noe NIST virkelig kan, er det dette med besynderligheter.

***

Oppdatering 9/1-08:

Det er flere punkter som påviser dogmatisk uvitenskapelighet fra NISTs side.

I 2006 forsøkte Ed Haas, Muckraker Report, å organisere en nasjonal 9/11-debatt. Tanken var at uavhengige researchere skulle debattere representanter fra NIST om WTC-rapporten. Etter gjentatte skriftlige invitasjoner kom følgende svar:

“The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006.”

Haas ville ikke gi seg med det, og forespurte NIST om endring av tidspunkt eller sted for debatten ville få dem til å revurdere sin avgjørelse. Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, responderte:

"The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

La oss igjen se på Wikipedias definisjon/forklaring av den vitenskapelige metode:

"Strengt tatt kan ikke noe sies å være “vitenskapelig bevist”, bare at det hittil ikke er funnet observasjoner som motbeviser teorien. Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter “Sannheten” for all fremtid, bare at vitenskapen til enhver tid har de mest plausible, troverdige og mest motsigelsesfrie kunnskapene om sitt fagfelt." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter “Sannheten” for all fremtid..." Men det er jo akkurat det NIST gjør ved å nekte og debattere sin rapport for dens mangler og feil, og de bryter med det med den vitenskapelige metode - igjen.

Dogmatisk ytrer de "A change in venue or date will not alter that decision", som om WTC-rapporten utgjør den ene ubestridelige sannhet, enda det finnes mengder av "...observasjoner som motbeviser teorien." NISTs uvitenskapelighet (politiske metode) beviser faktisk at de ikke har noen holdbar teori.

Å blande naturvitenskap og politikk er nesten som å blande vann og olje; de vil ikke mikses, og det blir et fryktelig søl.

Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

Usannheter fra den kanten er ingen nyhet, siden de har anvendt en rekke bedragerske og uvitenskapelige metoder for å komme frem til sine forutbestemte slutninger. Et stadig økende antall forskere og fagfolk innenfor de respektive fagfelt setter nå spørsmålstegn ved mange av NISTs metoder og konklusjoner.

Denne gangen handler det forøvrig om det smeltede metallet som ble funnet flere steder, i og under WTC-ruinene, etter angrepene. I vidoesnutten som følger hevder John Gross, en av NISTs ledende ingeniører, at smeltet metall ikke ble funnet. I videoen er det også vitner som forteller om det smeltede metallet de så ved Ground Zero.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501]

Noen andre indikasjoner på at Gross og NIST farer med løgn:

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) gjorde en begrenset analyse av metallet, og skrev om det i sin rapport.

Mange øyenvitner rapporterte om smeltet metall, branner og (selvfølgelig) en ekstrem varme i ruinhaugen. Brannene i ruinene fortsatte i ukesvis, trass i uavbrutte forsøk på å kjøle dem ned med vann.

NASA's AVRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) ble brukt for å lage en termisk avbildning av Ground Zero. Bildene som ble tatt 16. september, 2001, viser over tre dusin punkter med betydelig varme. Dette beviser naturligvis ikke at smeltet metall ble funnet, men er allikevel interessant.

"The New York Times" beskrev funnene som "...perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." Det har foreløpig ikke blitt fremsatt noen tilfredsstillende eller konkluderende forklaring på fenomenet, hvilket ikke er spesielt underlig siden NIST forsøker å benekte eksistensen av smeltet metall.

Hvordan har det seg at en så "profesjonell, grundig og vitenskaplig" granskning går så slumsete og uvitenskaplig til verks, at de lyver og ikke inkluderer alle empiriske data?

Selv "dype mysterier" kan ha enkle forklaringer - hvis man ser etter dem, vel å merke.

I 2005 fremla NIST resultatet av deres 20 millioner-dollar-etterforskning som forsøkte å forklare hvorfor World Trade Center tårnene (1&2) kollapset fullstendig - en såkalt "global kollaps".[1]

Mange fremholder blindt denne rapporten (ofte uten å lese et ord av den) som tungtveiende og konkluderende bevis på at den offisielle historien er sann. Jeg (Arabesque) skriver denne listen for å rette på situasjonen. Alle mine påstander er dokumenterte - dette er ikke noe jeg tar ut av løse lufta. Noen av påstandene høres kanskje for ville ut til å være sanne, men sanne er de.
Mine fotnoter vil bevise det.

!0 gode grunner til at NIST-rapporten er absurd:

#10. Deres teori er at "widely-dislogded fireproofing" var hovedårsaken til at tånene kollapset.[2]

#9. Denne teorien ignorerer det faktum at det ikke finnes noen historisk presedens for totalkollaps av "stålrammebygninger" grunnet brann - utenom på 9/11.[3]

#8. NIST motbeviser sin egen "widely-dislogded fireproofing"-teori med et hagle-eksperiment.[4]

#7. De ignorerer mangfoldige øyenvitneobservasjoner.[5]

#6. De ignorerer en av fysikkens fundamentale lover.[6]

#5. Ståltestene de utførte strider imot deres egen teori, og viser at tårnene ikke burde kollapset.[7]

#4. De "beviste" sin egen teori med computermodeller de nekter å frigi for offentlig beskuelse.[8]

#3. I deres computersimuleringer benyttet de seg av sterkt overdrevne data.[9]

#2. Deres rapport på 10000 sider - og i 43 bind - forklarer (kun i en fotnote!) at deres teori er en "pre-kollaps-teori" - de forsøker ikke å forklare "the structural behavior of the tower" etter at kollapen begynte![10]

NISTs mest absurde blunder?

#1. I deres 10000 sider lange rapport er ikke smeltet og fordampet stål drøftet med et ord, da de hevder at dette var "irrelevant to the investigation"![11]

Dette utsagnet er slående bevis for at det er behov for en kriminaletterforskning, i tillegg til en ny etterforskning.

Fotnoter:

[1] www.nist.gov/
[2] Dette er NISTs teori med deres egne ord: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.” Utdrag fra NISTs “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers”, side 4.

NISTs teori er altså en "fireproofing theory". Ifølge NIST ville bygningene ikke ha kollapset, om ikke "brannbeskyttelsen" hadde falt av i stort monn.

Den strukturelle skaden flyene gjorde var i stor grad ubetydelig:

MIT-professor Thomas Eagar, som støtter den offisielle teorien, sier at sammenstøtene mellom fly og bygninger ikke var betydelig fordi "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).

Professor Astaneh-Asl ved University of California sa “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, 5 okt., 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html

Se også:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, "9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference". 4. juni, 2006.

Se også:
Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

[3] Ifølge "The New York Times" hadde aldri noen stålrammebygning kollapset som følge av brann:

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

[4] Kevin Ryan viser at det faktisk motbeviser deres teori: “It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”

Med andre ord: Hagleskuddene fjernet "brannbeskyttelsen" der de traff, og kun der. Det går klart frem av deres egne foto at hagleskuddene fjernet lite "brannbeskyttelse", noe som motbeviser deres egen teori.

Tatt fra: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged

Se også:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests.

[5] Øyevitneforklaringer:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

David Ray Griffin, Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories, http://www.911truth.org/.

Søvnløse Netter: 118 vitner: Brannfolkenes utsagn om eksplosjoner i tvillingtårnene

[6] Som sett i NISTs FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[6]

NISTs respons:

“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Merk: denne påstanden motstrider en av fysikkens grunnleggende lover] The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”

Jim Hoffman forklarer hvorfor dette er umulig:

“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:

Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”

Fysiker Steven Jones, som har skrevet over 40 fagfellevurderte vitenskapelige avhandlinger, er enig (se side 28):

“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”

[7] Her er NISTs egne testresultat:

Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

Se her:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis

og her:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labt

[8] “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[9] Hvilke data brukte NIST til sine computermodeller? Det vet vi ikke sikkert, men de avslørte:

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, s. 142; uthevelse tilføyet.

Dette beviste ikke deres forutbestemte konklusjoner, så de skiftet ut data inntil de fikk ønsket effekt - bygningskollaps:

“The more severe case (…) was used for the global analysis of each tower (...) To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance (…) the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted (...)” NIST, 2005, s. 142; uthevelse tilføyet.

NISTs teori kunne ikke bevises med opprinnelige data, så de byttet de ut med data som motstrides av øyenvitneobservasjoner. Beviser dette noe annet enn at computersimuleringer er morsomme å leke seg med?

“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, 6. oktober, 2005.

[10] NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, s. 80, ln. 12; uthevelse tilføyet.

NIST-rapporten er irrelevant hvis den ikke kan forklare "structural behavior of the tower" etter at kollapsen begynte. I all vesentlighet er rapportens eneste fokus å bevise at kollapsen startet, ikke å vise hva som skjedde etter at den hadde startet.

[11] Jeg kan ikke tro at de faktisk erklærte dette - skriftlig! NIST setter åpenbart en ny standard for absurditeter.

NIST: “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.” Fra: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13

NIST forsøker å uttrykke at det smeltede stålet (metallet) ble skapt etter bygningskollapsen(e). Hvordan vet de at stålet smeltet etter kollapsen(e)? Hva har NIST gjort for å bevise denne teorien? Ingenting. Hvorfor er ikke det smeltede stålet som FEMA-rapporten og øyenvitnene innberettet nevnt et eneste sted i NISTs 10000 sider lange rapport (løgn)?

Se også NISTs løgner, og Jim Hoffmans Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century.

I 2005 PUBLISERTE NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) sin 10000 sider lange WTC-rapport. NIST har siden fått flengende kritikk fra flere hold grunnet fundamentale feil og mangler i sine analyser og granskning. Jeg vil gjennom en serie av innlegg redegjøre for noen av rapportens svakheter, og vise at den ikke konstituerer annet enn et realt stykke "Bush Science", hvor den politiske metode foretrekkes fremfor den vitenskapelige metode.

Arabesque definerer:

Bush Science: et argument som anvender den politiske metode og som nesten ikke støttes av bevis - en forhåndsbestemt konklusjon inneholdende fabrikkerte eller ikke-eksisterende bevis - eller til og med motsigende bevis. Argumentet kan bli brukt til å skape en ny “vitenskapelig virkelighet”, hvor kjente fysiske prinsipp er ubeleilige, og derfor blir ignorert. En vill teori - en teori som motstrides av alle, eller nær på alle, relevante fakta.

Dette innlegget handler om en grunnleggende mangel, som avstedkommer et utall av andre feil og mangler.

# Rapporten forklarer ikke Tvillingtårnenes totale kollaps.

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." - NIST-rapporten s. xxxvii/39 (PDF) (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse." - NIST, s. 144/194 (PDF) (Uthevelse tilføyet)

Dette kan kanskje ved første øyekast virke uproblematisk, men er det i virkeligheten ikke, (blant annet) fordi;

1) det finnes ingen historisk presedens for totalkollaps av stålrammebygninger som følge av brann;

2) NIST fremviser ikke kalkulasjoner eller datasimulasjoner som viser at kollapsinitiering ville ledet til global kollaps, eller at "kollaps var uungåelig";

NISTs påstand baseres med andre ord ene og alene på spekulasjon og ugrunnede antagelser.

Er dette god, grundig og objektiv vitenskap? Skal vi ta vitenskapsfolkenes utsagn for god fisk fordi de har så flotte CVer?

3) NISTs konklusjon bryter med vitenskapelige prinsipp:

"Eksempler på ikke-vitenskapelige utsagn er derimot dogmer eller definisjoner. Dogmer er uvitenskapelige fordi deres holdbarhet av ulike grunner ikke ønskes diskutert." - Wikipedia om vitenskap

Definisjon dogme:

dogme: påstand som kreves antatt som uomstøtelig sann (uten særlig bevis), og som det bygges videre på

NIST vil ha oss til å tro på et dogme ved å hevde at "kollaps var uungåelig" uten å forsyne oss med valide grunner for at så var tilfelle. Dogmer er, som vi har lært, "uvitenskapelige fordi deres holdbarhet av ulike grunner ikke ønskes diskutert."

Hvorfor vil ikke NIST diskutere hele kollapsfenomenet?

# NIST slipper å inkludere en rekke empiriske data ved å unngå en fullstendig analyse.

Wikipedia om Den vitenskapelige metode:

(...)

"All forskning drives ved at forskere lanserer teorier eller hypoteser for å forklare fenomen. Disse testes mot observasjoner ("empiri"). Dersom teorien kan forklare observasjonene, er teorien styrket; hvis observasjonene motsier teorien, må teorien forkastes eller modifiseres. Strengt tatt kan ikke noe sies å være "vitenskapelig bevist", bare at det hittil ikke er funnet observasjoner som motbeviser teorien. Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter "Sannheten" for all fremtid, bare at vitenskapen til enhver tid har de mest plausible, troverdige og mest motsigelsesfrie kunnskapene om sitt fagfelt.

Hva som er empiri er fagspesifikt. I naturvitenskaper som fysikk kan det være måleresulater fra instrumenter. (...)" (Uthevelse tilføyet)

Ved å ikke analysere hele kollapsen omgår NIST en rekke data (som alle indikerer eksplosiv demolering).

Her kan nevnes;

squibs,

og mye annet.

Nå er det ikke slik i vitenskap at man kan plukke ønskede data fra øverste hylle etter eget forgodtbefinnende. Man er faktisk prisgitt de data som er.

Skal en hypotese testes i samsvar med den vitenskapelige metode, må hypotesen testes mot alle empiriske data, ikke bare mot de som passer forutbestemte konklusjoner. Alle relevante data må inkluderes og "hvis observasjonene motsier teorien, må teorien forkastes eller modifiseres."

NIST på sin side gjør ikke det, men forsøker heller å bevise sin hypotese med dogmer og unnvikelse. Dette er intet annet enn den politiske metode i praksis, noe som alene gjør at WTC-rapporten ikke holder god vitenskapelig standard. Den er faktisk uvitenskapelig.

Den politiske metode: Start med en tese og undersøk kun de fakta som bekrefter argumentet.

NIST demonstrerer i sitt "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" hvordan vitale data dermed kan ignoreres:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. - NIST, Answers to FAQ, pt. 13 (Uthevelse tilføyet)

NIST finner nemlig, i all sin vitenskapelighet, ingen grunn til analyse av totalkollapsene fordi det klart fremgår av videobevisene hva som skjer etter kollapsinitiering!

Se og hør John Gross, en av NISTs ledende ingeniører, komme med denne oppsiktvekkende og foruroligende uttalelsen (etter at han har løyet om det smeltede metallets eksistens):

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501]

"We were charged with finding out the cause of the collapse, and, er ..., we found what happend... I think we scientifically demonstrated what was required to initiate the collapse. Once the collapse initiated the video-evidence is rather clear: It was not stopped by the floors below..."

Med de premiss Gross her legger til grunn for NISTs granskning er det forunderlig at de i det hele tatt forsøkte å vise hva som forårsaket kollapsinitiering (noe de heller ikke gjorde på en tilfredstillende måte, men det kommer jeg tilbake til).

Vi kan jo se det hele på video, mener jeg: Fly krasjer, påfølgende brann, kollaps begynner og kollaps stopper.

End of story!

Case closed?

Tillegg

NOEN VIL nok hevde at NIST har gjort de nødvendige analyser, at de har gransket hele kollapsen, og at de har konkludert med noe tilfredstillende. Dette er rett og slett feil.

De innrømmer det til og med selv:

"... we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Sept. 2007 Response to April 2007 RFC, from NIST

Det er ikke forunderlig at de ikke makter å "... provide a full explanation of the total collapse", når de sensurerer vekk essensielle data fra sin granskning.

Uttalelsen blåser også, etter min mening, liv i spørsmålet omkring alt av stål/bevis som ble fjernet fra Ground Zero. Hadde NIST hatt tilgang på dette bevismaterialet hadde de muligens kunne forsynt oss med en "full explanation".

Såkalte skeptikere (punkt 6 i Hauglands artikkel) hevder at denne bevisforspillelsen ikke fant sted. Det står i sterk kontrast til det Bill Manning, redaktør av prestisjetunge Fire Engineering Magazine, skrev i denne artikkelen:

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history."

(...)

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

Jim Hoffman har også gjort seg noen betraktninger vedrørende den manglende analyse i sin meget gode artikkel "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century":

... a half-page section entitled "Events Following Collapse Initiation," that combines a vague rendition of the pile-driver theory with incomplete, circular, and straw-man arguments against the demolition hypothesis. The addition of this section does not change the fact that NIST did not attempt to model, or characterize in any meaningful way the collapses.

Let's pause and consider the implications of this. NIST's investigation is being presented as the presumptive last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:

1. A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.
2. The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures.
3. The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.

Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7. (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"Besynderlige prioriteringer" er nok de rette ord å bruke, ja ... Er det noe NIST virkelig kan, er det besynderligheter.

DET ER flere punkter som påviser dogmatisk uvitenskapelighet fra NISTs side.

I 2006 forsøkte Ed Haas, Muckraker Report, å organisere en nasjonal 9/11-debatt. Tanken var at uavhengige researchere skulle debattere representanter fra NIST om WTC-rapporten. Etter gjentatte skriftlige invitasjoner kom følgende svar:

“The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006.”

Haas ville ikke gi seg med det, og forespurte NIST om endring av tidspunkt eller sted for debatten ville få dem til å revurdere sin avgjørelse. Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, responderte:

"The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

La oss igjen se på Wikipedias definisjon/forklaring av den vitenskapelige metode:

"Strengt tatt kan ikke noe sies å være “vitenskapelig bevist”, bare at det hittil ikke er funnet observasjoner som motbeviser teorien. Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter “Sannheten” for all fremtid, bare at vitenskapen til enhver tid har de mest plausible, troverdige og mest motsigelsesfrie kunnskapene om sitt fagfelt." (Uthevelse tilføyet)

"Derfor påstår ikke vitenskapsfolk at de besitter “Sannheten” for all fremtid..." Men det er jo nettopp det NIST gjør ved å nekte og debattere sin rapport for dens mangler og feil, og de bryter med det med den vitenskapelige metode - igjen.

Dogmatisk ytrer de "A change in venue or date will not alter that decision", som om WTC-rapporten utgjør den ene ubestridelige Sannhet, enda det finnes mengder av "...observasjoner som motbeviser teorien."

Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

Å blande naturvitenskap og politikk er nesten som å blande vann og olje; de vil ikke mikses, og det blir et fryktelig søl.

I 2005 fremla NIST resultatet av deres 20 millioner-dollar-etterforskning som forsøkte å forklare hvorfor World Trade Center tårnene (1&2) kollapset fullstendig - en såkalt "global kollaps".[1]

Mange fremholder blindt denne rapporten (ofte uten å lese et ord av den) som tungtveiende og konkluderende bevis på at den offisielle historien er sann. Jeg (Arabesque) skriver denne listen for å rette på situasjonen. Alle mine påstander er dokumenterte - dette er ikke noe jeg tar ut av løse lufta. Noen av påstandene høres kanskje for ville ut til å være sanne, men sanne er de.

Mine fotnoter vil bevise det.

!0 gode grunner til at NIST-rapporten er absurd:

#10. Deres teori er at "widely-dislogded fireproofing" var hovedårsaken til at tånene kollapset.[2]

#9. Denne teorien ignorerer det faktum at det ikke finnes noen historisk presedens for totalkollaps av "stålrammebygninger" grunnet brann - utenom på 9/11.[3]

#8. NIST motbeviser sin egen "widely-dislogded fireproofing"-teori med et hagle-eksperiment.[4]

#7. De ignorerer mangfoldige øyenvitneobservasjoner.[5]

#6. De ignorerer en av fysikkens fundamentale lover.[6]

#5. Ståltestene de utførte strider imot deres egen teori, og viser at tårnene ikke burde kollapset.[7]

#4. De "beviste" sin egen teori med computermodeller de nekter å frigi for offentlig beskuelse.[8]

#3. I deres computersimuleringer benyttet de seg av sterkt overdrevne data.[9]

#2. Deres rapport på 10000 sider - og i 43 bind - forklarer (kun i en fotnote!) at deres teori er en "pre-kollaps-teori" - de forsøker ikke å forklare "the structural behavior of the tower" etter at kollapen begynte![10]

NISTs mest absurde blunder?

#1. I deres 10000 sider lange rapport er ikke smeltet og fordampet stål drøftet med et ord, da de hevder at dette var "irrelevant to the investigation"![11]

Dette utsagnet er slående bevis for at det er behov for en kriminaletterforskning, i tillegg til en ny etterforskning.

Fotnoter:

[1] www.nist.gov/
[2] Dette er NISTs teori med deres egne ord: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.” Utdrag fra NISTs “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers”, side 4.

NISTs teori er altså en "fireproofing theory". Ifølge NIST ville bygningene ikke ha kollapset, om ikke "brannbeskyttelsen" hadde falt av i stort monn.

Den strukturelle skaden flyene gjorde var i stor grad ubetydelig:

MIT-professor Thomas Eagar, som støtter den offisielle teorien, sier at sammenstøtene mellom fly og bygninger ikke var betydelig fordi "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).

Professor Astaneh-Asl ved University of California sa “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, 5 okt., 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html

Se også:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, "9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference". 4. juni, 2006.

Se også:
Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

[3] Ifølge "The New York Times" hadde aldri noen stålrammebygning kollapset som følge av brann:

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

[4] Kevin Ryan viser at det faktisk motbeviser deres teori: “It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”

Med andre ord: Hagleskuddene fjernet "brannbeskyttelsen" der de traff, og kun der. Det går klart frem av deres egne foto at hagleskuddene fjernet lite "brannbeskyttelse", noe som motbeviser deres egen teori.

Tatt fra: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged

Se også:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests.

[5] Øyevitneforklaringer:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

Søvnløse Netter: 118 vitner: Brannfolkenes utsagn om eksplosjoner i tvillingtårnene

[6] Som sett i NISTs FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[6]

NISTs respons:

“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Merk: denne påstanden motstrider en av fysikkens grunnleggende lover] The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”

Jim Hoffman forklarer hvorfor dette er umulig:

“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:

Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”

Fysiker Steven Jones, som har skrevet over 40 fagfellevurderte vitenskapelige avhandlinger, er enig (se side 28):

“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”

[7] Her er NISTs egne testresultat:

Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

Se her:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis

og her:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labt

[8] “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[9] Hvilke data brukte NIST til sine computermodeller? Det vet vi ikke sikkert, men de avslørte:

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, s. 142; uthevelse tilføyet.

Dette beviste ikke deres forutbestemte konklusjoner, så de skiftet ut data inntil de fikk ønsket effekt - bygningskollaps:

“The more severe case (…) was used for the global analysis of each tower (...) To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance (…) the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted (...)” NIST, 2005, s. 142; uthevelse tilføyet.

NISTs teori kunne ikke bevises med opprinnelige data, så de byttet de ut med data som motstrides av øyenvitneobservasjoner. Beviser dette noe annet enn at computersimuleringer er morsomme å leke seg med?

“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, 6. oktober, 2005.

[10] NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, s. 80, ln. 12; uthevelse tilføyet.

NIST-rapporten er irrelevant hvis den ikke kan forklare "structural behavior of the tower" etter at kollapsen begynte. I all vesentlighet er rapportens eneste fokus å bevise at kollapsen startet, ikke å vise hva som skjedde etter at den hadde startet.

[11] Jeg kan ikke tro at de faktisk erklærte dette - skriftlig! NIST setter åpenbart en ny standard for absurditeter.

NIST: “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.” Fra: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13

NIST forsøker å uttrykke at det smeltede stålet (metallet) ble skapt etter bygningskollapsen(e). Hvordan vet de at stålet smeltet etter kollapsen(e)? Hva har NIST gjort for å bevise denne teorien? Ingenting. Hvorfor er ikke det smeltede stålet som FEMA-rapporten og øyenvitnene innberettet nevnt et eneste sted i NISTs 10000 sider lange rapport?

Se også NISTs løgner, NISTs absurditeter: Del 1 - Fundamentale mangler, og Jim Hoffmans Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century.