October 6th, 2009

NIST releases 9/11 photographs

M

p7-6 copy

M

Engineer friend Eric Douglas, who penned a definitive rejection of the National Institute of Standards & Techonology’s best-guess-within-prescribed-limits as to how/why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11/01 …

Yes, that Eric Douglas writes that he has received a lot of photos from NIST under an FOIA request, and supplies this link thereto.

NIST was the federal agency tasked to explain the exceedingly odd collapses of 9/11. Eric’s December 2006 critique of their report on WTC 1 and 2 (the towers) may be found at the Journal for 9/11 Studies.

In a nutshell:

– NIST did not address the question: How did the towers collapse?

Rather: What’s the best Likely Story that may be assembled as to how an airliner strike could cause a Twin Tower collapse?

– NIST did not “substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions …”

– “There are several examples where NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based on inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated data.”

– “There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations …”

And more.

After dismantling the NIST positive argument, such as it is, Eric then appends a long list of items of evidence that contradict that positive argument.

Masterfully done. And Eric, of course, is not alone.

Everybody should read his analysis — and then think again about current arguments for escalating the apparently Aimless war in Pakghanistan.

Here’s a small seleciton of the photos.

M

dream43

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0

2 comments

  1. ed says:

    For several years after the 9/11 attacks I pursued the bemusements of the official story … bemused. Clearly it’s a Big Lie, but little else is clear.

    Yet, when one considers the sequelae, running their chronic course, the urge to have another go at comprehending the “catastrophic and catalyzing event” stirs, as reliably as blood.

    Deduction and analogy might help, founded upon loyal reading of accounts of past Great Game deceptions, particularly those written by the magicians who enacted the illusions. But whatever one may hazard here is not News Fit to Print in the New York Times.

    And so we muddle on, merely muttering as we pass the Big Lie looming unseen in plain sight in the park like the statue of an old cavalier general.

    But to touch an even more basic quandary, we return to 1929, signal year, and “Remarks on Progress” by Paul Valery:

    Common sense, a hundred times confounded and belied by successful experiments, is no longer invoked save by the ignorant. The value of average, common evidence has fallen to nothing. The fact of being generally accepted, which once gave an invincible strength to judgments and opinions, depreciates them today. … To the type of certainty given by the agreement of the opinion or witness of a great number of people is opposed the objectivity of recorded facts, checked and interpreted by a small number of specialists.

    END QUOTE

    And so it is that we walk about in acceptance if not belief that, eg, each Twin Tower collapsed at the speed of Galileo’s ballot into a pile of matchsticks and dust, utterly pulverized in its own footprint, thanks to no force other than Newton’s, and seven hours later Building 7, showing minor damage, the same. Official experts were hired and said it was so.

    It’s as if we’ve transported the bemusements of quantum mechanics, laid out in the fabulous fashion of the Tuesday Science Times, to our own more lawful level of organization, where they’ve abolished all confidence in perception and what it taught us across decades before the day when, we are given, three steel towers went poufy and poof.

    Some two hundred floors — each an acre of reinforced concrete — are pulverized so purely they pour like water into the Hudson.

    It takes experts — the architects and engineers gathered, say, here and here — to authorize again belief in one’s eyes.

    M

    valery

    October 10th, 2009 at 12:47 am

  2. ed says:

    all these dumb comments of course are by robots. let me see if I can delete them …

    September 8th, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Leave a comment