The *REAL* REAL Take on the NIST Report

[chipmunk stew]

Since a few people suggested improvements on "The REAL Take on the NIST Report (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79565)", I thought I'd redo it, taking those suggestions into account (with apologies to Foolmewunz)

You can choose multiple options, and your user name will be visible.

Please be patient while I build the poll. It will appear shortly.

[GlennB]

Short of TP here after the CD of the Malvern TP factory here in the UK, though we worry about the hardness of the NIST paper.

Would have voted Count Chocula, but are not familiar with this particular dude, dude.

[T.A.M.]

You are not familiar with count chocula...advertising mascot for the chocolate filled cereal eaten by millions of obese children...lol

TAM:)

[Architect]

So nothing like Count Ducula then?

[T.A.M.]

Only in the sense that they were both cartoon characters.

TAM:)

[LashL]

I selected both A2 and A3, primarily because the final report into WTC7 is not yet complete.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I picked B1, B2 and B3, sinking T.A.M.s submarine.

[Foolmewunz]

Since a few people suggested improvements on "The REAL Take on the NIST Report (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79565)", I thought I'd redo it, taking those suggestions into account (with apologies to Foolmewunz)

You can choose multiple options, and your user name will be visible.

Please be patient while I build the poll. It will appear shortly.

No apologies necessary. I thought of restarting it, myself, but thought that might seem a little egocenctric. But I do believe this is important. I'm rather tired of hearing the NIST apologists label.

Good job. (I still think like someone ordering in a Chinese restaurant... I took one from group A and one from B.... )

[jhunter1163]

I chose B1 to A4, placing SoT in check.

[R.Mackey]

I've said this elsewhere (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2274955#post2274955), but the NIST report is worth reading, no matter what you think about Sept. 11th. Not only does it answer the question it was tasked to do (you may dispute the accuracy of that answer, but its conclusions are definite), but it provides a rare and thorough look at how scientists do their jobs.

If this interests you, give it a shot.

[The Silver Shadow]

I haven't read into the NIST report, so I can't give an opinion until I get a little bit of time on my hands to check it out.

[Whiplash]

So nothing like Count Ducula then?

Or maybe Count Dooku?

[scissorhands]

I have voted for A5 for no real reason other than nobody else had.
Damn I forgot to put B4 in as well and now I cant vote.

[truthseeker10]

There is a little boy named Shane Bernier, who has been diagnosed with cancer (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia). He was doing alright for a while, but had a relapse this past summer. So he is at CHEO ( Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and his big wish? To get as many birthday cards as possible for his birthday.

He will be turning 8 on May 30, and he really wants to try to make a record for as many cards as he can. Even if he doesn;'t make this record, apparently he just gets absolutely thrilled with seeing his name on each card.

You can also send them to the local tv station, CJOH. local radio station, KISS FM, or, right to Shanes house:

Shane Bernier
Box 484,
Lancaster Ontario
K0C 1N0

Do not post this again, or you will be suspended for spamming the forum.

[Bananaman]

Who here has actually read the NIST report?

I admit I haven't, which will surprise no-one who has ever read a post of mine. The bloody thing's about a thousand pages long and much less enjoyable than War And Peace. Although there are parallels if one stretches one's imagination. Actually there aren't, but you get the gist.

But what I really want to know is how anyone who has waded through the minutiae, if I've spelt that correctly, which I probably haven't...er, where was I? Oh yes, if anyone has actually sat up into the early hours reading the damn thing, and then feels confident enough to stride into the debate with that under their belt, actually found the experience of reading it?

And how long did it take you?

And how much of it can you remember?

I have to read the occasional scientific paper at work, and they're usually only about 10 to 20 pages, and they give me headaches. How can one absorb the NIST report and digest it? It's not normal is it?

Bananaman (The Troofer hater on no other grounds than that they're all bonkers.)

[R.Mackey]

Who here has actually read the NIST report?

I admit I haven't, which will surprise no-one who has ever read a post of mine. The bloody thing's about a thousand pages long and much less enjoyable than War And Peace. Although there are parallels if one stretches one's imagination. Actually there aren't, but you get the gist.

Try Ten thousand pages.

This question has been asked and answered before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79616). If you want a crash course on NIST, just read NCSTAR1, that's only a few hundred. If you want more but find your interest fading, my suggestion is to read NCSTAR1-5A -- no calculations, no fancy physics, just pictures and narrative of What Really Happened. This alone leaves very little doubt about what mechanisms led to collapse, albeit lacking quantitatively.

[Hokulele]

Who here has actually read the NIST report?


*Raises hand*

But what I really want to know is how anyone who has waded through the minutiae, if I've spelt that correctly, which I probably haven't...er, where was I? Oh yes, if anyone has actually sat up into the early hours reading the damn thing, and then feels confident enough to stride into the debate with that under their belt, actually found the experience of reading it?


I don't claim to be confident enough to stride into a debate on the minutiae, but am comfortable with the main points and how they are supported.

And how long did it take you?


A couple of months, but I didn't do it all in one go. I was lucky/unlucky enough to have had several long, boring, trans-Pacific flights at that time, and reading through the report helped pass the time. I did need the backup battery for my laptop. Much of the report consists of images, tables, and repeated sections (introductory, explanatory stuff), that it actually reads relatively quickly.

And how much of it can you remember?


That's hard to say. Some parts I remember quite well since I either found it interesting, applicable to what I do for work, or they are sections that are cited rather often in this forum. There is much more that I have to go back and re-read when someone else mentions it.

How can one absorb the NIST report and digest it?


Alka-seltzer. Seriously, it was very helpful to have the folks on this forum answer the questions I had as I waded through.

It's not normal is it?


Well, I wouldn't claim to be normal in the normal sense of the word anyway. ;)


ETA: Heh, the thread R.Mackey linked was one of the reasons I ended up reading the whole thing.

[Bananaman]

R. Mackey
This question has been asked and answered before.

I had a suspicion it might have been, but I'm only a few months old on this site and have seen so many people refer to this vast text (A couple of months, but I didn't do it all in one go. I was lucky/unlucky enough to have had several long, boring, trans-Pacific flights at that time, and reading through the report helped pass the time. I did need the backup battery for my laptop. Much of the report consists of images, tables, and repeated sections (introductory, explanatory stuff), that it actually reads relatively quickly.

I was thinking along those lines myself when considering taking on the task. Trans-Pacific flights would be ideal for reading it. Mind you, spending a couple of months airborne to achieve the task doesn't appeal.

Hokulele:
Well, I wouldn't claim to be normal in the normal sense of the word anyway.

Nor would I, thank God. Normality is the death of creativity and new ideas. That's my opinion anyway.

I might need to clarify that last sentence by explaining I'm making a distinction between likeable eccentricity and straight-jacket troofer bonkers cases. Hope that clears things up.

Bananaman (The Normal)....ish

[T.A.M.]

I have read all of the executive summaries (some over 100 pages each), and I have read large sections of NISTNCSTAR 1-1 and 1-6

TAM:)

[Bananaman]

I think it would be very interesting to see if anyone here who hasn't been banned from the Loose Change forum, or their ilk, would pose the same question there.

And it would be even more interesting to see if anyone believes their replies.

Bananaman.

[Grizzly Bear]

Who here has actually read the NIST report?

I admit I haven't, which will surprise no-one who has ever read a post of mine. The bloody thing's about a thousand pages long and much less enjoyable than War And Peace. Although there are parallels if one stretches one's imagination. Actually there aren't, but you get the gist.

But what I really want to know is how anyone who has waded through the minutiae, if I've spelt that correctly, which I probably haven't...er, where was I? Oh yes, if anyone has actually sat up into the early hours reading the damn thing, and then feels confident enough to stride into the debate with that under their belt, actually found the experience of reading it?

And how long did it take you?

And how much of it can you remember?

I have to read the occasional scientific paper at work, and they're usually only about 10 to 20 pages, and they give me headaches. How can one absorb the NIST report and digest it? It's not normal is it?

Bananaman (The Troofer hater on no other grounds than that they're all bonkers.)

I've read parts of it but most of my debates focus on where I have the best knowledge of the subject, in this case the architectural and structural aspects. But I haven't read NIST in its entirety, in fact I've barely done more than skimmed through it, but I have read a number of papers like Debunking 911 Debunking (Jones) and R. Mackey's papers on the book. Since joining here I've started to study subjects in my field much better than sort of the 'laymans' term background

I essentially compared the papers released by the truth groups and compared them with engineering papers, and NIST to see how closely they followed the material I am familiar with, and made the decision on my stance from there.


I've spent a few months reading the NIST report although sparsly and where it interested me most

I most vividly remember things from it by images, and that's where I draw my conclusions. Unfortunately I'm not as good at processing the information I retain and applying it to my posts to respond to the alternate theories.

[T.A.M.]

I believe "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" was written by DRG.

I think anyone interested in the attacks, in the collapses, from either side of the argument, should read the executive summaries. Easier to read, less detail, but convey the essence of the reports.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" was written by DRG.

I think anyone interested in the attacks, in the collapses, from either side of the argument, should read the executive summaries. Easier to read, less detail, but convey the essence of the reports.

TAM:)

Crap whoops :jaw-dropp
You can see I'm confused, this is bad. I'll hde in my box now... :boxedin:

[T.A.M.]

well all the truthers tend to blend together, so really a minor faux pas.

TAM;)

[Quad4_72]

(twoofer mode) NIST report? (Twoofer mode)

[Architect]

I found that being stuck in bed with a knackered knee and various other roof-fall related injuries which effectively negated normal sleep patterns allowed me to read the report, plus had the advantage of helping fight the insomnia.

Of course with all those painkillers, how much can I really remember..........?

[Tweeter]

How ironic that most of you tell truthers to read the report when a large percentage of you havent. Tisk , tisk.

[twinstead]

Tweeter, YOU FOLKS are the ones who are claiming the NIST report is CRAP. You'd think one would READ it before a declaration like that is made; for example, I'm NOT declaring the NIST is the word of God.

[jammonius]

Well, posters, it appears that certain of the "Truthers" not only read the NIST report, they also understood it was a fraudulent undertaking and they then told NIST as much in officially submitted, and published, requests for correction:

You may find the full content of those challenges to NIST on NIST's website at:

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

How many of you have read the RFCs?

[twinstead]

jammonius can you save me some time and direct me to any RFC that suggests that the WTC was felled by space beams, or even that 911 was an inside job?

[Pato2747]

It's funny. They ask for an investigation. They get it, and disregard it as it comes from the gubmint. Of course, NIST stopped trying because they knew that making another one would be a waste of time.

I'm halfway through it, by the way.

[R.Mackey]

I've read those too, and even written on why they're nonsense.

We've also read about the legal response to Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, and how their challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77753) was so ridiculous that they may well be counter-sued (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101094).

[jammonius]

jammonius can you save me some time and direct me to any RFC that suggests that the WTC was felled by space beams, or even that 911 was an inside job?

I will choose to interpret your request as having been made in good faith, despite the baiting, buzz words you use.

Why don't you take a look at these from the webpage link given above:


Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007 [PDF File]
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review [PDF File]
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007 [PDF File]
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007 [PDF File]
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]

[jammonius]

I've read those too, and even written on why they're nonsense.

We've also read about the legal response to Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, and how their challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77753) was so ridiculous that they may well be counter-sued (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101094).

Are you yet another poster rooting for the Military Industrial Complex? Keep us posted on what happens, if you would please.

Did you submit what you wrote to NIST or to ARA, SAIC and UL for them to use in defending themselves?

Did they accept your help?

[R.Mackey]

Are you yet another poster rooting for the Military Industrial Complex? Keep us posted on what happens, if you would please.

Non-sequitur.

Did you submit what you wrote to NIST or to ARA, SAIC and UL for them to use in defending themselves?

Did they accept your help?

No, and it wasn't necessary. The claim was dismissed out of hand. Read the thread.

[gumboot]

I've read NCSTAR-1 and the sections on the emergency response and occupant egress and what have you.

It's actually not very difficult reading.

[twinstead]

I will choose to interpret your request as having been made in good faith, despite the baiting, buzz words you use.


Nope, your first impression was correct; I find your theory to be ludicrous on its face and totally without merit, and sadly for you my opinion is echoed by pretty much every legitimate and respected scientist and scientific journal. In essence, your peers think you are crazy.

In a nutshell, my question was not in good faith by any stretch of the imagination.

[T.A.M.]

Just as I would find little value in reading the journal entries of a schizophrenic, I would find it a waste of my time to read anything by Dr. Judy Wood.

TAM:)

[jammonius]

Non-sequitur.



No, and it wasn't necessary. The claim was dismissed out of hand. Read the thread.

I beg your pardon? My queries to you decidedly follow exactly upon what you posted. You expressed consternation that elements of the MIC that worked directly for NIST in preparing what can only be described as the worst example of a paid-for governmental 'report' issued in this century and perhaps ever, given the importance of what it purported to cover, were being challenged for doing so. However, and to the contrary, you have openly expressed support for the MIC contractors who pulled off that bit of fraud.

You also specifically stated that you had written your opposition to the challenges to NCSTAR 1 that are found at the website I posted. So, as you have written about them, it logically follows to query whether what you wrote was submitted to the proper authorities for their consideration and/or to the MIC defendants whose position in the legal matters you mentioned you support.

Yet again, your one word response is utterly useless, R. Mackey.

You are also quite wrong in the outcome. I have read the responses of NIST and, if anything, those responses confirm that fraud was committed.

Did you not even recognize that much? Surely you must be aware that NIST admitted fraud was committed and acknowledged as much, aren't you?

[R.Mackey]

I beg your pardon? My queries to you decidedly follow exactly upon what you posted. You expressed consternation

uh, no I didn't. I was merely dismayed at how poorly informed you are.

that elements of the MIC that worked directly for NIST

You have an inaccurate description of the "military industrial complex."

in preparing what can only be described as the worst example of a paid-for governmental 'report' issued in this century and perhaps ever,

You don't even have a clue what the report contains, space-beam-boy.

given the importance of what it purported to cover, were being challenged for doing so.

Yes, challenged by morons, as exposed in a court of law. See the thread I linked previously.

However, and to the contrary, you have openly expressed support for the MIC contractors who pulled off that bit of fraud.

Begging the question x2. There is no fraud, and the contractors involved are not military in nature.

You also specifically stated that you had written your opposition to the challenges to NCSTAR 1 that are found at the website I posted. So, as you have written about them, it logically follows to query whether what you wrote was submitted to the proper authorities for their consideration and/or to the MIC defendants whose position in the legal matters you mentioned you support.

And I gave you the answer. The claims are so transparently insane that they were dismissed on the spot, and no "assistance" was needed from me or anyone else. I wrote my work as a matter of public interest, and as such have made it available to those who wish to learn about the subject. NIST and the rest involved already know about the subject and do not need my help.


Yet again, your one word response is utterly useless, R. Mackey.

You are also quite wrong in the outcome. I have read the responses of NIST and, if anything, those responses confirm that fraud was committed.

That's not what the court says. Those documents are a matter of public record.


Did you not even recognize that much? Surely you must be aware that NIST admitted fraud was committed and acknowledged as much, aren't you?

NIST did not admit fraud, did not commit fraud, and did not acknowledge it. Of course, given your other disconnects from reality, these minor gaffes don't really surprise me.

[Apollo20]

I haven't read the NIST Report from "cover-to-cover", but I have looked at all the pictures!

Nice collection .....

However, the computer generated images, just like the Purdue "movie", convinces me of nothing.....

For example: The debris cloud simulacra from the aircraft impacts, such as Fig 7-49 of NCSTAR 1-2, or Fig 5-6 of NCSTAR 1-6, are really out of line with observation.

[jammonius]

I haven't read the NIST Report from "cover-to-cover", but I have looked at all the pictures!

Nice collection .....

However, the computer generated images, just like the Purdue "movie", convinces me of nothing.....

For example: The debris cloud simulacra from the aircraft impacts, such as Fig 7-49 of NCSTAR 1-2, or Fig 5-6 of NCSTAR 5-6, are really out of line with observation.

Thank you.

[jammonius]

QUOTE]

R.Mackey,

With all due respect, you're exposing yourself as being willing to engage in cheap semantics for no good reason. If you'll check your dictionary, you'll see that 'consternation' and 'dismay' mean the same thing:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consternation

[QUOTE]You have an inaccurate description of the "military industrial complex."

ARA, SAIC are quintessential corporate members of the MIC. Do you self-identify as being an individual member of it?

You don't even have a clue what the report contains, space-beam-boy.
Yes, challenged by morons, as exposed in a court of law. See the thread I linked previously.

If that is what you said in what you wrote, then small wonder you did not submit it to anyone in authority. All that does is smack of someone who is opinionated and who is following very closely to the recognition that "whatever person A says about person B reveals information about A, not B." You don't want to be known as a moron, I assume. Therefore, I suggest you moderate your language.

Neither NIST nor the MIC defendants could gain much from a simpleminded observation like that.

Begging the question x2. There is no fraud, and the contractors involved are not military in nature.


You do not know what you're talking about.

And I gave you the answer. The claims are so transparently insane that they were dismissed on the spot, and no "assistance" was needed from me or anyone else. I wrote my work as a matter of public interest, and as such have made it available to those who wish to learn about the subject. NIST and the rest involved already know about the subject and do not need my help.

You appear not to have read NIST's response. It clearly admits fraud and I do not have to spoon feed you or anyone else on this issue. I will, however, provide you with the link to NIST's response and give you a hint that the admission of fraud is found on page 1. By the way, I read the NIST response as being quite respectful and not at all dismissive. But, hey, that's just me.

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/%40doc/%40os/%40ocio/%40oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004161.pdf

Read it, R. Mackey.

That's not what the court says. Those documents are a matter of public record.

What on earth are you talking about, do you know?

NIST did not admit fraud, did not commit fraud, and did not acknowledge it. Of course, given your other disconnects from reality, these minor gaffes don't really surprise me.[/

Yes NIST did admit fraud and I've shown where it did so.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Try Ten thousand pages.

This question has been asked and answered before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79616). If you want a crash course on NIST, just read NCSTAR1, that's only a few hundred. If you want more but find your interest fading, my suggestion is to read NCSTAR1-5A -- no calculations, no fancy physics, just pictures and narrative of What Really Happened. This alone leaves very little doubt about what mechanisms led to collapse, albeit lacking quantitatively.

It is a good read about three days worth, and some of it is quite boring.
Well actually cover to cover, is about 2 days and 5 hours, I read it however there are sections that I have problems with because they seem to be opposite to observation, of the reactions of the materials in the actual environments.

I do not believe the conspiracy theories, and I have problems with NISTs, I guess you can call me an IFer,
I think that if certain questions I have about the fire and the chemistry were answered, that it would help clarify the event for many.

I think, there is a snow balls chance in Hades that it will happen.

Now I can not help but think to what he people in the buildings and the planes suffered though, I have had a glimpse into that H@11 and I can say it was definitely white hot at times.

The gasping for air, the crushing, the incredible heat, the choking dust, corrosive fumes, It makes me ashamed to be human that one human be he a politician, or a terrorist can sink so low as to do that to another living soul.

The only thing I can think of worse is someone Making a profit from it by duping others, into believing they know the truth.
The materials themselves the way the act and inter react can give you only a limited incite into what occurred, We may never Know the total truth about 9/11/2001, however we can say what is false and blatantly so.

Sorry did not mean to ramble just some loose thoughts.

[jammonius]

crazy chainsaw,

There is much merit in what you have written and you have pointed to some of the flaws with NCSTAR 1. 9/11 is virtually unparalleled in heinousness. I can think of no single word to describe the awfulness of what was done to us.

I can go one step further, too. It was so awful that it is well nigh impossible for Americans to consider that it was done by rogue elements of the American power structure. Although the official story is transparently false and impossible, it is still too painful for most to come to grips with the fact that the death and destruction wrought on 9/11/01 could only have been caused by weapons that are among the most secret and most lethal known to mankind. And guess who has them? Hint: Niether 19 Arabs with boxcutters, nor located in caves somewhere is the right answer. However, if "box cutter" is a military acronym for DEW, just as "daisy cutter" is for a powerful conventional bomb, then there may have been an element of truth in the official story, after all.

[Bananaman]

Jammonius:
I can go one step further, too. It was so awful that it is well nigh impossible for Americans to consider that it was done by rogue elements of the American power structure. Although the official story is transparently false and impossible, it is still too painful for most to come to grips with the fact that the death and destruction wrought on 9/11/01 could only have been caused by weapons that are among the most secret and most lethal known to mankind. And guess who has them?

Sorry, but you're either a teenager or insane. For instance, would you like to enlighten us poor fools about these secret and lethal weapons?

I just can't wait, it's so exciting.

Bananaman (who really wonders why he bothers.)

[Grizzly Bear]

I'd say that what I have read of NIST has been relevant to the field I'm studying. For anything I've found to be irrelevant on NIST's part I've studied myself...

crazy chainsaw,
Although the official story is transparently false and impossible, it is still too painful for most to come to grips with the fact that the death and destruction wrought on 9/11/01 could only have been caused by weapons that are among the most secret and most lethal known to mankind.

Curious, just what field of expertise are you going into? :|

[pomeroo]

crazy chainsaw,

There is much merit in what you have written and you have pointed to some of the flaws with NCSTAR 1. 9/11 is virtually unparalleled in heinousness. I can think of no single word to describe the awfulness of what was done to us.

I can go one step further, too. It was so awful that it is well nigh impossible for Americans to consider that it was done by rogue elements of the American power structure. Although the official story is transparently false and impossible, it is still too painful for most to come to grips with the fact that the death and destruction wrought on 9/11/01 could only have been caused by weapons that are among the most secret and most lethal known to mankind. And guess who has them? Hint: Niether 19 Arabs with boxcutters, nor located in caves somewhere is the right answer. However, if "box cutter" is a military acronym for DEW, just as "daisy cutter" is for a powerful conventional bomb, then there may have been an element of truth in the official story, after all.



It's fascinating that the Bush-Cheney crime family has these wonderful toys that are unavailable to the military and the Democrats in Congress don't seem to care. I wonder why people regard you as insane.

Wouldn't it be great if the jihadists stopped bragging about their victory?

[pomeroo]

[quote=R.Mackey;3797346]
QUOTE]

R.Mackey,

With all due respect, you're exposing yourself as being willing to engage in cheap semantics for no good reason. If you'll check your dictionary, you'll see that 'consternation' and 'dismay' mean the same thing:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consternation



ARA, SAIC are quintessential corporate members of the MIC. Do you self-identify as being an individual member of it?



If that is what you said in what you wrote, then small wonder you did not submit it to anyone in authority. All that does is smack of someone who is opinionated and who is following very closely to the recognition that "whatever person A says about person B reveals information about A, not B." You don't want to be known as a moron, I assume. Therefore, I suggest you moderate your language.

Neither NIST nor the MIC defendants could gain much from a simpleminded observation like that.



You do not know what you're talking about.



You appear not to have read NIST's response. It clearly admits fraud and I do not have to spoon feed you or anyone else on this issue. I will, however, provide you with the link to NIST's response and give you a hint that the admission of fraud is found on page 1. By the way, I read the NIST response as being quite respectful and not at all dismissive. But, hey, that's just me.

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/%40doc/%40os/%40ocio/%40oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004161.pdf

Read it, R. Mackey.



What on earth are you talking about, do you know?



Yes NIST did admit fraud and I've shown where it did so.



You need to stop lying. NIST has neither committed nor admitted fraud.

[beachnut]

How ironic that most of you tell truthers to read the report when a large percentage of you havent. Tisk , tisk. 9/11 truth could read NIST, over and over, and still not understand the reality of 9/11. Looks like 9/11 truth can use your expert insight into NIST and 9/11. Look at how a beam weapon person fares when he thinks he has something, but fails to produce evidence to support his idea.

Well, posters, it appears that certain of the "Truthers" not only read the NIST report, they also understood it was a fraudulent undertaking and they then told NIST as much in officially submitted, and published, requests for correction:

You may find the full content of those challenges to NIST on NIST's website at:

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

How many of you have read the RFCs?
Have you read what you posted? Morgan has insane ideas of holographic planes!

Judy Woods, like you, has an insane idea of beam weapons.

Your post clearly indicated you have no real expertise at physics, energy or engineering. This is funny stuff!

I like how NIST is very kind and tells Morgan
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/morgannist1.jpg
Morgan says NIST is making it up! What we saw live, what people saw with their eyes, Morgan insanely says it is not so! NIST is nice...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/morgannist2.jpg
You have failed to understand these requests were the real fraud, and you failed to understand 9/11, and NIST. You are 100 percent wrong. A perfect record in the negative.

I could go on and show you more examples of crazy fantasy ideas of Morgan and Wood, but it only exposes you as unable to make logical conclusions.

If you read NIST, and these requests for Corrections, you have failed to comprehend reality.

[T.A.M.]

I can go one step further, too. It was so awful that it is well nigh impossible for Americans to consider that it was done by rogue elements of the American power structure. Although the official story is transparently false and impossible, it is still too painful for most to come to grips with the fact that the death and destruction wrought on 9/11/01 could only have been caused by weapons that are among the most secret and most lethal known to mankind. And guess who has them? Hint: Niether 19 Arabs with boxcutters, nor located in caves somewhere is the right answer. However, if "box cutter" is a military acronym for DEW, just as "daisy cutter" is for a powerful conventional bomb, then there may have been an element of truth in the official story, after all.

The bolded, as well as much of the rest of your little TRUTHER mini-rant, just declared you a full blown promoter of speculative crap, and as a result, has earned you a place on my ignore list. Too bad, as to start out on this forum, you actually exhibited a little bit of reasonableness.

TAM:)

[jammonius]

This thread has been subtlely changed by merging it into a poll format. Doing so has altered the tone and tenor of the thread and has now made it functionally useless as a vehicle for finding out what NIST actually did.

That is too bad. The change occurred just as proof of NIST and contractor fraud was being posted.

We were also on the verge of finding out who had read the report versus who had not. However, even that bit of information gathering has been preempted by a simple poll designed to illicit who supports and who doesn't the NIST report.

Once the element of polling got introduced, this thread became hopelessly politicized.

Thus, further discussion designed to delve into the fraudulent nature of NCSTAR 1 has been thwarted.

Those who read NCSTAR 1 could not help but notice that it was tasked with finding out why and how the Twin Towers were destroyed.

Yet, right at pg. xxxvii (pdf pg 39), one cannot help but notice that NIST admits it did not do that.

This is what NCSTAR 1 actually says:

"2 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."

That is an admission that NIST did not investigate much of anything at all. So much so that one has to ask, if they didn't investigate the actual event itself, what exactly was the 10,000pgs for? Answer: For fraud. For deception. For making it seem as if an investigation had been done, when, in fact, a slick (or, rather, sick) coverup had been perpetrated on the American people.

Anyone reading that 10,000pgs can reasonably be expected to come away from the process thinking, "well, the answer to what happened must be in there somewhere, it must be me who couldn't keep track of the thread over that many pages" or someting like that. And, therein lies the nature of the fraudulent scheme. It was an obfuscation job.

Too bad the alteration of this thread occurred in a manner that has resulted in yet another obfuscation of the process of revealing NIST and contractor fraud.

And, oh, by the way, before the thread was changed by virtue of merging it into a poll that people could vote on and thereby define an orthodoxy, I posted a link to NIST's further admission that goes well beyond the quoted footnote 2, just in case there are those of you who might want to argue the semantics of what quoted footnote 2 means.

I can tell you it means NIST did not investigate the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers. (period)

Thus, the query that 77% of you sided with is quite plainly the wrong answer, cannot be based on the report itself and is nothing more than a political outcome.

I think doing that is too clever by a half. I now know the case of fraud has been proven.

For that confirmation, I am grateful.

Here, for reference is the question 77% of you answered without reference to what the report actually says:


"The NIST Report is not perfect, but has answered everything that it was originally tasked with. Expecting more is unfair and illogical."

Anyone, and I mean anyone at all who has read NCSTAR 1 has to know, without any doubt whatsoever, that NIST admitted, straight up, without any equivocation whatsoever, that it did not answer everything it was originally taksed with, and specifically stated this.

However, now that the matter has been politicized the issue has been changed from what NIST did, and said it did, to the issue of what posters BELIEVE NIST did.

This is the exact cannard used to start wars on false pretenses. Iraq had no WMDs, but Western governments, at the behest of the USA, were able to trade fraudulent intelligence data between and amongst themselves and conclude that everyone BELIEVED Iraq had WMDs.

OK, it is too bad this thread has been diverted in that manner, but I understand the necessity to defend the standard version of 9/11 no matter what.

[jammonius]

Poster ktesibios, in the thread on the flatness of the GZ debris pile, at post # 374, gave us this gem:

Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

That is precisely what NIST admits it did not do, posters, because NIST avoided even looking at, let alone providing information involving the effects of the destruction of the WTC complex, because, in their own words, "they did not investigate the actual collapses."

Thank you, once again, ktesibios for having articulated elementary forensic requirements early enough so that that statement could not be politicized. It is too bad we didn't reach this point BEFORE this thread got turned into one where a defined orthodox belief got foisted upon us.

I'll tell you what, posters, this thread offers ideal proof that fraud was committed and that even in a public forum, efforts are made to obfuscate that fact, as I see it.

I am very pleased to have this information archived.

[rwguinn]

jamonius:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[beachnut]

How many of you have read the RFCs?
Did you read the RFC? Judy Wood had nothing! Why did you bring up RFC that prove your ideas on 9/11 are far out crazy?

[jammonius]

Dr. Judy Wood asserted that NIST committed fraud by curtailing its investigation so as not to provide any analysis, let alone facts, and still less any conlcusions about what could have caused this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/dirt/dirtpics/bubbler.jpg

NIST's 10,000pg report excludes the timeframe in which the above was taking place.

That is fraud, posters, could more of you but realize it.

This is my final post in this thread. Turning it into a "poll" based thread was, in my view, an improper diversion.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/12541.jpg

[rwguinn]

I see that, in typical troof fashion, ju...erm..jammonius has abandoned the "flat" argument and now has placed the "DEW" on an aircraft that couldn't even carry the battery for such a weapon, much less the projector--and is abandoning this thread also.

[Hokulele]

Bumped as mchapman was making an accusation in another thread that only Gravy on this forum has read the entire NIST NCSTAR-1. Shortly after this poll was opened, I decided to read the whole thing, which was documented in another thread. There may be a few others who have read it who never answered this poll.