NIST is considering "hypothetical blast events" for the

[QuettaKid]

building at the corner of W. Broadway and Vesey streets ( i.e.WTC7 )....nice to know that now they are at least considering it.

""NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.""

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[Sven77]

1. they are being pressured to reveal the truth

NIST To Probe Whether WTC 7 Downed By Bombs
Forced to issue response to 9/11 truth movement questions on official website

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is set to conclude its investigation of the World Trade Center complex by analyzing if bombs brought down WTC 7, the 47 story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in a controlled demolition style in under seven seconds.

NIST today released a page on its website that is intended to answer skeptic's questions about why the towers and WTC 7 were the first and only three buildings to collapse from fire damage alone.

Though the vast majority of the NIST rebuttal seeks to reinforce the notion that the twin towers were brought down from nothing other than jetliner impacts and heavy fires, NIST makes the admission that investigation into WTC 7 has been insufficient and that they are now, "considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

The report continues by saying that, "NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

While it would be a brave prediction to foresee NIST's investigation contradicting the official explanation for 7's collapse, this at least shows the growing power of the 9/11 truth movement in eliciting answers to longstanding questions.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/310806w...

[mirandapriestly]

4. I would really like to express appreciation to those who have

contacted NIST or worked in groups that hold conferences and make headway on this. The fact that it is even being mentioned by the Bush appointed scientists at NIST is remarkable. Although I have this feeling....

[LARED]

7. Your insistence that Bush appoints scientist at the NIST

is getting old. Do you have any evidence this is true?

[mirandapriestly]

8. Dr Arden Bement was appointed on Pearl Harbor Day

(December 7) 2001 as head of NIST. Bush appointed him to another science board and appointed William Jeffreys to replace him in 2005.

Bement's military industrial complex background
Purdue University faculty
vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980-1992);
deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979-1980)
director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976-1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976)
manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970)
and senior research associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).

(TRW was one of the first to work with UAV's btw, it was eventually taken over by the Blackstone Group which also took the debt on the WTC's.)

Dr William Jeffreys (new director)is interesting.
Previous to his appointment to NIST he served as senior director for Homeland and National security and the assistant director for space and aeronautics at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President. Earlier, he was the deputy director for the Advanced Technology Office and chief scientist for the Tactical Technology Office with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While at DARPA, Dr. Jeffrey advanced research programs in communications, computer network security, novel sensor development, and space operations.
He has also served as the assistant deputy for technology at the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, where he supervised sensor development for the RQ-1 Predator and RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's)and the development of common standards that allow for cross-service and cross-agency transfer of imagery and intelligence products. He also spent several years working at the Institute for Defense Analyses performing technical analyses in support of the Department of Defense.

(so I'll bet he knows A LOT about 9-11, lol)

[LARED]

10. What an amazing discovery Miranda

You found out Bush appoints the director if the NIST. I'm sure the director figured out a way to manipulate

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Your post stated you were amazed that Bush appointed scientists would even mention blasts as remarkable. Obviously you believe the director has extraordinary powers.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. Are you suggesting that a director has no influence on the direction

of research performed by a facility or organization? In addition, are you suggesting that a director has no influence on how that research is interpreted?

Ever worked in a corporate environment?

[LARED]

12. Are you suggesting that a director can cause

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

to lie, ignore evidence, falsify documents, perform sloppy work, attached their names and reputations to shoddy analysis, etc......

I've worked in a corporate environment for over twenty five years in highly technical manufacturing processes. The director is typically far removed from the day to day operation. Of course he/she can influence the direction an organization takes. In fact that is the main function of the director outside of fiduciary duties. To suggest that a director through cunning leadership and manipulation can cause hundreds of professional to take a dive for the Bush administration is ridiculous.

Have you ever worked in an corporate environment?

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Absolutely I have worked in a corporate environment

It has been my experience that corporations are not so much interested in the truth as they are interested in their bottom line, and many are willing to ignore truths that might interfere with their sales.

For a report as important as the NIST report, I don't think it can be ruled out that, at the very least, what was selected to be emphasized in the report was influenced by political concerns.

[LARED]

14. Fairies magically controlling the NIST can't be ruled out either

but outside of your feelings on this, do you have any evidence that the NIST reports were politically manipulated.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Yes. The bush administration has a long shameful record of

politically manipulating science.

From global warming to the EPA, to the Forest Service, science has taken a backseat to political considerations.

Do you believe there is evidence to show that NIST is somehow the exception?

I can't understand why, when you ask miranda for evidence of political control of NIST and she provides it, you have to resort to sarcasm and ridicule.

It's as if the facts are uncomfortable for you and ridicule is your self imposed prison on your mental processes.

[LARED]

16. What are you talking about?

The Bush spin misters manipulate the interpretation of the reports issued by those agencies.


Miranda provided information that the President appoints the director of the NIST. That is not evidence of political manipulation of the NIST.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I'm talking about the

EPA suppressing the reports on air quality in NY post collapse, I'm talking about the Forest Service suppression of fire science to get the cut out, I'm talking about the career dead end for government scientists who don't toe the political line on global warming and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If you are naive enough to believe it's just spinning the good science produced by government employed/dependent researchers by bush political hacks, then that's your problem.

[Grateful for Hope]

19. Resort to the mystical attacks, LARED. I see a lot of that in this forum.

Of course there is no evidence, but, this does not mean this is not a possibility. I am not suggesting that it is the reality, but, I am open to possibilities.

edited to add personal anecdote: In the mid 1990's, I worked for a large company that manufactures, among other things, a very popular brand of cigarette. I have a statistical background, and was working in their market research department where I regularly ran statistical tests and wrote reports of the results of surveys, as well as sales forecasts.

At that time, there were allegations that a competitor was tampering with it's tobacco to make the tobacco more addictive. The director of our department, obviously agitated, made a concerted effort to visit our cubes very frequently to attempt to convince us that cigarette smoking was not addictive. This went on until I moved on to another company. I was a smoker, and I knew full well how addictive smoking is, but, I wondered at the time how vulnerable the non-smokers were to the propaganda the director was spreading. I also wondered if their interpretations of the results of their analyses would in any way be affected by these same efforts.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. The 5th Floor of WTC 7 was a very interesting place

that housed banks of generators and had a pressurized fuel system feeding the generators. The fuel tanks and generators were not part of the original design and were added during the 1990's. The 5th - 7th floor was that strongest part of the building and contained the trusses that went over Con Eds substation and held up most of the building. Take out the trusses and the building comes down. Also there were no windows on this floor, so any fires would not be visible from outside.

Two 6000 gallon fuel tanks in the lower level fed the system on the 5th floor and other day tanks in the building. The two tanks were found damaged but empty. Very little fuel was spilled around them and none was found under the slabs.

Something is this system blew that afternoon. The question is how did it blow? And whether or not it was deliberate or accidental?

[mirandapriestly]

5. and the 7th floor just so happens to be where a fire was

and where people were found and escorted out after it was evacuated at 9AM

[mirandapriestly]

3. Of course they've found no

evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, they didn't test for explosives!

[hack89]

6. How could they ...

they were not part of the initial investigation. Now, can you show that the FBI failed to test for explosives?

[John Q. Citizen]

17. No, but neither can NIST, apparently.

There is, however, extensive documentation that the bush FBI failed to test for the presence of terrorists prior to 9/11.

So if they did fail to test for explosives post 9/11 that would hardly be surprising to anyone except the very naive.

[rman]

9. hypothetical (not real) blast events caused real collapse..

sure.

Perhaps they misspoke and meant to say they are considering the hypothesis that "blasts events" brought down the building? Makes me wonder what they think caused those blast events; exploding diesel fuel tanks, exploding office furnish?

[greyl]

20. .