9/11 & The Strangest Fires Ever Told

News anchor Dan Rather’s reaction to the THIRD total building collapse on 9/11

AE911Truth

So, as you can see, despite the extreme flexibility of it’s modeling tools, not only was NIST unable to model the actual collapse with it’s simulations it couldn’t even show a realistic initiation sequence, not even after four extra years of trying.

AND, in the same vein, NISTs simulations were also unable to model the actual collapse of either of the Twin World Trade Center towers, thus ignoring two other elephants in the room.

On the other hand, a more detailed analysis using up-to-date modeling software, strongly suggests there’s no way fire could have caused Building 7 to collapse the way the videos show it did.

But the final affront is that, fighting off a persistent string of FOIA requests using the national security blanket thrown to it on Monday, Aug. 4, 2008 by Obama’s Executive Order 13470, NIST refused to release 74,777 (about 80%) of the key simulation files it used to come up with its shall-we-say-to-be-kind, dubious Column 79 hypothesis.

This makes replication, the back-bone of science, not to mention checking its work for logic, rigor, errors and fibs etc. impossible.

NIST’s excuse for not releasing the key files? Their release “might endanger public safety.” They may have that right if bureaucrats and certain politicians in the stocks or hanging from trees and lamp-posts, etc. is dangerous to public safety.

Or do they wish to assert their work proves U.S. skyscrapers are so delicate that, as another compadre quipped, “They’re afraid terrorists will realize they can bring down our high-rises by setting a wastebasket on fire in the parking garage?”

You can find much more thoroughly detailed and documented critiques of NIST’s less-than-forth-coming shennanigans with its approach, data, and technique, here, here, and here for starters.

You can find an extensive list of what else was ignored and hidden — and how it was done — HERE.

It’s clear that none of the NIST personnel wanted to be “the first bureaucrat on their block to suggest — let alone prove — demolition brought down even one building on 9/11.”

Given their career path and the political implications, can you blame them for trying to hide it? Well can you?

And did NIST provide the hellacious proof that would convince Carl Sagan of their extraordinary claim that fire was the ultimate cause of those three — count ’em, THREEdifferent completely unprecedented collapses upon which the Police State is being constructed?

And of course, their work, shabby as it is, is moot anyway since they failed to seriously investigate the most obvious prima facie explanation, controlled demolition.

Or, now that its foundation has been compromised, is it time to start deconstructing the Police State? Is it time to throw sand in the gears of the out-of-control machine and indict some of its psychopathic minions? As they have in Malaysia. What do you think?

For updates, comments, and corrections, see The Strangest Fires updates, comments, corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

The post 9/11 & The Strangest Fires Ever Told appeared first on LewRockwell.

Share DeepPol