Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on W

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on W; Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final R
Topic Started: Sep 14 2008, 02:37 AM (1,073 Views)
infowarpatriot	Sep 14 2008, 02:37 AM Post #1
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08	Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIl4ySTfX8g Also, here is a 9/11 tribute video I put together to Gary Jules cover of the song Mad World... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEX1KsYS_Bg Edited by infowarpatriot, Sep 14 2008, 02:38 AM.
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08


Miragememories	Sep 14 2008, 09:07 AM Post #2
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	infowarpatriot "Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on WTC 7" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIl4ySTfX8g The testimony from Air Force medic and 9/11 first responder, Kevin McPadden, was particularly damning. "Explosions, now we're talking about bombs, because, there-like ba-BAM, because you know you get that like 'ba-BAM'. You know there's a little explosion and then the force and you could feel it coming through the ground, it was vibrating. Like, like a lot of bass. It jiggled. It jiggled the ground. You could feel the vibration move through things because it's like a different wave that is coming off of it. And then..boom boom boom boom boom...that was the building coming down. Not the explosions. So there's two distinct sounds that were happening." MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Chris Sarns	Sep 15 2008, 05:26 AM Post #3
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	infowarpatriot Sep 14 2008, 02:37 AM Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIl4ySTfX8g Also, here is a 9/11 tribute video I put together to Gary Jules cover of the song Mad World... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEX1KsYS_Bg That second one by Gary Jules is spellbinding.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


arie	Sep 15 2008, 12:35 PM Post #4
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #814 Joined: 08/25/08	Although these video's deal with the leaked, confidential and predecisional document about WTC7, the analysis are applicable to the new officially released WTC7 report: made by achimspok
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #814 Joined: 08/25/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 09:54 AM Post #5
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	This is just a short post showing a NIST diagram illustrating the key areas of damage to WTC7 as a result of the collapse of WTC1. The critical column, #79 (unlabeled), in the lower left, can be seen to be well away from the damage zones. This is why NIST eliminated WTC1 debris damage as a contributing factor in the WTC7 collapse. It's interesting to note that NIST continues what appears to be a deliberate habit, showing WTC7 illustrations rotated 180 degrees from the familiar north face view commonly seen in photographs and videos. The above NIST Figure 5-95 has had been 'corrected' by myself to match the view that is most familiar to the public. To view it the way NIST presented it, rotate it 180 degrees, remove the clearly labeled direction references, and when observed by the those not that attentive, the illusion is now created that the damage zones appear close to critical column 79. They frequently re-orient WTC7 diagrams whenever the change in presentation can add emphasis to their argument. MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 6 2008, 03:49 PM.
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 11:22 AM Post #6
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	The NIST in their final WTC7 Report explanation for column 79's failure, argue that "Sections of Floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the northeast region around Columns 79, 80, and 81." Based on NIST's theorizing, for floor 13 to collapse, floor 12 would have to have collapsed, or been the source of the fire heating floor 13. This obviously raises the question of what was the fuel supply like in the north east area of the 12th floor of WTC7. According to the NIST, floor 12 was almost entirely U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission walled offices. Consider that the NIST also states, the library, file and supply rooms were located at the other side of WTC7, on the west side of the core. Consider that the fires on the 12th floor were in recession after 4 p.m.. on 9/11. MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 6 2008, 12:00 PM.
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Oct 12 2008, 01:01 PM Post #7
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Another comparison between computed and live views of the collapse of WTC7. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Chris Sarns	Nov 9 2008, 02:23 AM Post #8
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders. Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes: 1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13. 2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6. 3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building. This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs. Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph): June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter] Most of the beams and girders* were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59] Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for** [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders. http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case: August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87] At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams. http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4 http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1164/figure124ic1.jpg * "on center" - a term that means “apart” Posted at 911Blogger - by Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns http://www.911blogger.com/node/18406#comment-200334 Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 9 2008, 02:28 AM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Nov 9 2008, 10:14 AM Post #9
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Nice examination Chris! You corroborate my concerns about how the NIST blatantly mishandled facts to create a politically acceptable WTC7 collapse initiation determination. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 9 2008, 11:43 AM Post #10
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	It's entirely possible that no shear studs were used on the girders. They were probably able to determine whether there were any or not from the original construction photos and/or the debris remains of the girders themselves.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Nov 9 2008, 07:43 PM Post #11
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "It's entirely possible that no shear studs were used on the girders. They were probably able to determine whether there were any or not from the original construction photos and/or the debris remains of the girders themselves." Chris Sarns "This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs." Debris remains of WTC7 steel? Where have you been Grit1645? You say no shear studs used on the girders is entirely possible? But the NIST acknowledged in their 2004 WTC 7 Preliminary Report that shear studs were used with both beams and girders, but that many of the core girders did not show shear studs in their drawings. NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT "Most of the beams and girders* were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."* "Typically, the shear studs* were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."* "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of* the core girders."* The NIST, in their 2008 WTC 7 FINAL REPORT, incorporating their previous report's original language where ever possible, chose to make a couple of "edits" to the original 2004 text. "Most of the beams --- -------* were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."* "Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - -- --* 2 ft on center [apart]."* "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for ---- --* the core girders."* These are a serious omissions. All the more so because it clearly establishes that original report material (2004), was altered without any appendix explanation. We end up with two critically different translations. The 2004 original wording undermines the NIST Official Story. The 2008 edited wording, supports the NIST Official Story. In effect, we have the NIST saying in 2004, that most of the girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 1-2 feet apart. And that many of the 'core' girders did not show shear studs in the design drawings. In 2008, we have the NIST in effect saying, most of the beams, but not most of the girders, were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 2 feet apart. And that none of the 'core girders' showed shear studs in the design drawings. I'm basically restating Chris Sarn's work here because you are pointedly ignoring the importance of what he was revealing Grit1645. The NIST's duplicity is all too obvious to those without closed minds. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 9 2008, 10:34 PM Post #12
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	My point, MM, is that you have zero knowledge of whether there were shear studs on the relevant girders or not. You are making a categorical statement based on some modifications to a report. There either were studs or there weren't, but either case is possible from an engineering standpoint. As for the report, it was probably worked on by different engineers in 2004 and 2008, each of whom would have their own way of expressing things. A couple of minor modifications to a report are meaningless without proof that they actually misrepresented the details of the structure.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


noeffects	Nov 9 2008, 11:02 PM Post #13
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	well,.... what photos and plans did NIST use for these different reports? what evidence led them to believe otherwise in 2008 ? will they let you know?
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Chris Sarns	Nov 9 2008, 11:57 PM Post #14
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Grit1645 Zero knowledge? "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for *many of the core* girders. Inherent in this statement is: There were studs on all the floor girders. Also, there is this clear and unequivocal statement: SHEAR STUDS WERE SHOWN ON PLAN - TYP INTERIOR BEAM OR GIRDER Quote: As for the report, it was probably worked on by different engineers in 2004 and 2008, each of whom would have their own way of expressing things. Dude, it's the same paragraph with key words missing. This was not two different writers. Edited by Chris Sarns**, Nov 10 2008, 12:06 AM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Grit1645	Nov 10 2008, 06:36 AM Post #15
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	CS "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for *many of the core* girders.** Inherent in this statement is: There were studs on all* the floor girders.* No, not really. That's your interpretation, because it suits you. Quote: Also, there is this clear and unequivocal statement: SHEAR STUDS WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN - TYP INTERIOR BEAM OR GIRDER The unequivocal part of the statement is WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN. Find the structural plan and SEE whether they were specified on the relevant girders or not. Quote: Quote: As for the report, it was probably worked on by different engineers in 2004 and 2008, each of whom would have their own way of expressing things. Dude, it's the same paragraph with key words missing. This was not two different writers. You obviously have no idea how these things are done. And they are only "key words" because it suits you to believe that. IMHO they are wishy-washy words and were probably removed as such. Edited by Grit1645, Nov 10 2008, 06:38 AM.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Nov 10 2008, 09:05 AM Post #16
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "My point, MM, is that you have zero knowledge of whether there were shear studs on the relevant girders or not. You are making a categorical statement based on some modifications to a report. There either were studs or there weren't, but either case is possible from an engineering standpoint. As for the report, it was probably worked on by different engineers in 2004 and 2008, each of whom would have their own way of expressing things. A couple of minor modifications to a report are meaningless without proof that they actually misrepresented the details of the structure." Your intent Grit1645, appears to be, oppose anything that disagrees with your opinion without applying any serious thought. In the NIST 2004 WTC 7 Collapse Report, the NIST obviously felt their investigation's findings were sufficiently accurate and well worded, that the report was ready to be submitted for scrutiny by the public as well as the professional community. It also contained the NIST's 'then' working theory for the collapse of WTC 7. In 2008, the NIST released their Final WTC 7 Collapse Report which dramatically altered the working theory for the cause of WTC 7's collapse. In this report, the NIST re-used extensive, as originally written, portions of their 2004 Report. What we have pointed out, and you have chosen to ignore Grit1645, is that the NIST deliberately, and without any explanation, deleted important, previously NIST-approved wording, where that wording undermined their new theory. The relevant girder, with respect to the failure of critical column 79 was a floor girder for which the NIST never contradicted the existence of shear studs which were clearly shown in the WTC 7 design drawings. From an engineering standpoint Grit1645, there is definite evidence that shear studs were used in the floor girders, and no evidence provided that suggests they were not. What we have is a NIST WTC 7 Final Collapse Report whose NIST authors go out of their way to alter the original report in a way that denies the existence of shear studs on any girders. Unlike the 2004 report, the 2008 report now states that, where shear studs did exist, they were all 2 feet apart [unlike the 1-2 feet apart stated previously]. And, the NIST changed their statement to say none of the core girders showed shear studs in the design drawings, when in 2004 they stated they were not indicated in many of the design drawings. Yet you still refer to this as "A couple of minor modifications to a report are meaningless without proof that they actually misrepresented the details of the structure." And you claim to be a structural engineer? MM Edited by Miragememories, Nov 10 2008, 10:44 AM.
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 10 2008, 01:08 PM Post #17
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Nov 10 2008, 09:05 AM The relevant girder, with respect to the failure of critical column 79 was a floor girder for which the NIST never contradicted the existence of shear studs which were clearly shown in the WTC 7 design drawings. From an engineering standpoint Grit1645, there is definite evidence that shear studs were used in the floor girders, and no evidence provided that suggests they were not. Where are the PLANS indicating that there were shear studs on this particular girder, and how many? A couple of words in a report is hardly "definite evidence" that they were present. Absence of evidence is not evidence. Edited by Grit1645, Nov 10 2008, 01:09 PM.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


JFK	Nov 10 2008, 02:11 PM Post #18
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Grit1645 Nov 10 2008, 01:08 PM Miragememories Nov 10 2008, 09:05 AM The relevant girder, with respect to the failure of critical column 79 was a floor girder for which the NIST never contradicted the existence of shear studs which were clearly shown in the WTC 7 design drawings. From an engineering standpoint Grit1645, there is definite evidence that shear studs were used in the floor girders, and no evidence provided that suggests they were not. Where are the PLANS indicating that there were shear studs on this particular girder, and how many? A couple of words in a report is hardly "definite evidence" that they were present. Absence of evidence is not evidence. That is indeed a very good question Grit. One would think that since the building has been destroyed the blueprints would be freely available.... Unless of course the ones in possession of them have something to hide. However the only set of blueprints which is available is for the north tower, and those are available because a whistleblower who had a conscience and had access to them released them. A copy of those may be found here - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html Like you said absence of evidence is not evidence, and that knife cuts both ways. You have no evidence that that shear studs were not used. Edited by JFK, Nov 10 2008, 02:12 PM.
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Grit1645	Nov 10 2008, 05:38 PM Post #19
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	JFK Nov 10 2008, 02:11 PM That is indeed a very good question Grit. One would think that since the building has been destroyed the blueprints would be freely available.... Unless of course the ones in possession of them have something to hide. However the only set of blueprints which is available is for the north tower, and those are available because a whistleblower who had a conscience and had access to them released them. A copy of those may be found here - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html Like you said absence of evidence is not evidence, and that knife cuts both ways. You have no evidence that that shear studs were not used. And I have not claimed that they weren't, jfk, although I could point out that we are both using the same documents for evidence. Some changed words in a report is not enough to determine they were or were not used as fact. There are plans, shop drawings, and most likely photographs and/or other records which would show for sure. Even the North Tower plans you have linked don't seem to include the structural plans, BTW. On a different note, the shear studs in these pictures are certainly less than 1 to 2 feet apart: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7grid.html Edited by Grit1645, Nov 10 2008, 05:39 PM.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Nov 10 2008, 06:09 PM Post #20
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "Where are the PLANS indicating that there were shear studs on this particular girder, and how many? A couple of words in a report is hardly "definite evidence" that they were present. Absence of evidence is not evidence." As JFK so nicely pointed out, the NIST has not made the WTC7 Design Plans available. The NIST WTC7 Final Collapse Report makes frequent reference to the WTC7 Design Plans, so you have to assume the NIST is either trapped in a foolish lie, or they actually have the plans as they claim. I accept they have the plans, but Grit1645, you are welcome to distrust the NIST all you want. In 2004, the NIST unequivocally stated that most of the beams and [floor]girders had sheer studs. Their only other comment was a specific reference to the core girders, indicating shear studs were not shown in all the design drawings. This is a really important, because the NIST placed special importance on the existence, or lack of, those shear studs. The NIST, without explanation, removed "and girders" when they re-issued their original statement; "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." in 2008. Well I contend that the real reason for this deliberate omission lies in the conclusions presented in the NIST WTC7 Final Report; From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment "Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint." "Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: (4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders." I believe the argument for non-core girders having shear studs has not been contradicted. MM Edited to clean up typos and awkward language. Edited by Miragememories, Nov 11 2008, 08:22 AM.
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 10 2008, 09:12 PM Post #21
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Nov 10 2008, 06:09 PM The NIST WTC7 Final Collapse Report makes frequent reference to the WTC7 Design Plans, so you have to assume the NIST is trapped in a foolish lie, or they actually have the plans as they claim. I accept they have the plans but Grit1645, you are welcome to distrust the NIST all you want. In 2004, the NIST unequivocally stated most of the beams and [floor]girders had sheer studs. The only other comment was specifically about many of the core girders which the NIST indicated did not show shear studs in the design drawings. This is a really important, because the NIST placed special importance on the existence, or lack of, those shear studs. The NIST, without explanation, removed "and girders" when they re-issued the original statement; "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." in 2008. Well I contend that the real reason lies in their closing statements; From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment "Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint." "Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: (4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders." I believe the argument for non-core girders having shear studs has not been contradicted. MM Where did I ever say that NIST didn't have the plans? You are the one that distrusts the NIST completely. Clearly they would not have gotten too far without the building plans. And obviously these report comments are adequate proof for you that there WERE studs and that NIST then denied it. Sorry if it offends you that this is NOT adequate proof for ME.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


JFK	Nov 10 2008, 11:03 PM Post #22
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Grit1645 Nov 10 2008, 09:12 PM Miragememories Nov 10 2008, 06:09 PM The NIST WTC7 Final Collapse Report makes frequent reference to the WTC7 Design Plans, so you have to assume the NIST is trapped in a foolish lie, or they actually have the plans as they claim. I accept they have the plans but Grit1645, you are welcome to distrust the NIST all you want. In 2004, the NIST unequivocally stated most of the beams and [floor]girders had sheer studs. The only other comment was specifically about many of the core girders which the NIST indicated did not show shear studs in the design drawings. This is a really important, because the NIST placed special importance on the existence, or lack of, those shear studs. The NIST, without explanation, removed "and girders" when they re-issued the original statement; "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." in 2008. Well I contend that the real reason lies in their closing statements; From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment "Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint." "Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: (4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders." I believe the argument for non-core girders having shear studs has not been contradicted. MM Where did I ever say that NIST didn't have the plans? You are the one that distrusts the NIST completely. Clearly they would not have gotten too far without the building plans. And obviously these report comments are adequate proof for you that there WERE studs and that NIST then denied it. Sorry if it offends you that this is NOT adequate proof for ME. Perhaps you should take the initiative Grit.... http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Chris Sarns	Nov 10 2008, 11:48 PM Post #23
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Grit1645 Denial means never having to admit the government lies. You will not believe any evidence that NIST is lying until you hear it from Bill O'Riley. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 10 2008, 11:49 PM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


noeffects	Nov 11 2008, 01:08 AM Post #24
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	get those plans Grit. woo- hoo! I'm so proud of you
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Grit1645	Nov 11 2008, 01:32 AM Post #25
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	noeffects Nov 11 2008, 01:08 AM get those plans Grit. woo- hoo! I'm so proud of you Being in pursuit of truth, it goes without saying that you have already tried, noeffects/jfk/csarns. Why would I have any more luck than you have?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2