NIST's claim of a 5.4 second collapse over 18 stories for WTC 7 is not merely fallacious, but indicative of deliberate scientific fraud.
ABSTRACT
NIST, in its draft report for public comment, initially denied that WTC 7 collapsed at the acceleration of gravity with the claim that an overall collapse time of 5.4 seconds was 40 percent longer than a free-fall time of 3.9 seconds for the first 18 stories. After being confronted with analysis of the collapse clearly demonstrating that free-fall had occurred, NIST acknowledged this fact in its final report, yet still maintained that the overall collapse time was 5.4 seconds. NIST explained in the final report that this measurement was obtained by examining a single pixel of a video towards the center of the roofline. It is argued in this paper that NIST’s chosen methodology for determining the point in time representing the onset of global collapse is not merely fallacious, but indicative of a willful and deliberate effort to deceive the public and obfuscate the implications of free-fall through scientific fraud.
Most puzzling in this story is that not a single professional association of civil engineers has never brought this to the public’s attention. Yet, as Hammond demonstrates, it is not rocket science.
Not puzzling in the least, Dan.
Many have tried. Many more are terrified.
But, look at A and E for 911 Truth. They have done as good a job as possible of informing the public of the salient facts.
The real culprit here is the mainstream media who refuse to touch this story or any related to it.
We do NOT live in a land with a “free press.” Sadly, that illusion collapsed with the three WTC towers.
Joseph Ciolino: “The real culprit here is the mainstream media who refuse to touch this story or any related to it”
You hit the nail on the head there. I have had personal experience of that. I have written polite notes, including links to relevant research, to the Guardian Comment Is Free site, for example, and had the majority of them deleted, before I was placed on “pre-moderation”. My comments were careful, moderate, polite and did not point fingers at any one – nevertheless The Guardian CiF moderators blocked them on various occasions.
The BBC Editors Blogs’ site is another site that remained very wary of 911 truth-related comments. Though to give them their due, they allowed thousands of comments to accumulate beneath Mike Rudin’s “BBC Conspiracy Files” blog. [The “Conspiracy” part of the title gives you a clue as to the overall slant].
But at the end of the day, Rudin never engaged with the hundreds of people who pointed out the discrepancies in the BBC’s limited hangout on the issue, which subtly favoured the US Department of Commerce body, NIST.
Let the mainstream media one day acknowledge the part it has played in blocking/censoring these stories.
My guess, though, is that once the truth breaks through and the floodgates open you’ll be hard-pressed to find a mainstream, corporate journalist who won’t tell you that, of course, they always KNEW the narrative didn’t stack up.
Editors will suddenly be bursting to tell you the full story with massive headlines – keen to rake in the huge, associated profits.
Excuse me for sounding cynical. But after Nelson Mandela was released and the apartheid gig was over, journalists and editors who had towed the repressive apartheid regime’s censorship and propaganda line were suddenly very difficult to find. Overnight, they were suddenly keen to sell you a new story about freedom and equality – quick to persuade you they had ‘always known’ apartheid was evil after all…
The Republicans were busy in taking the revange while it was the duty of the Democrats to provide for the truth to the USA and the rest of the world about the facts of 9/11 yet they are busy, again, in taking revange instead of providing the truth about 9/11