Guess that was on my phone lol. FEMA does have engineers is what is was supposed to say.

President Barack Obama has promised that his administration will put an end to the Bush administration's policy of ignoring and distorting science to advance political ends.

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "We will restore science to its rightful place."

Within the first 50 days of his presidency, he issued a memorandum aimed at insulating the federal government's scientific reports from political influence. This policy implies that, if some federal agencies during the Bush administration issued reports on important topics in wihich good science was overridden by political considerations, those reports would need to be corrected.

One such report is the NIST report on WTC7, because in writing it NIST acted as a political rather than a scientific agency.

There are some basic principles of scientific method that the scientific community agrees should not be violated. Some of these principles were violated by NIST's report on WTC7. If the authors of this NIST report violated these principles deliberately, they were guilty of scientific fraud.

Scientific Fraud

At one time most people may have assumed that scientists, being devoted to the disinterested pursuit of truth, were seldom if ever tempted to engage in fraud. Several decades ago, however, we learned that scientists hired by tobacco companies had deliberately obscured the evidence that smoking causes cancer. More recently that scientists working for the Bush administration were willing to distort scientific data to support the administrations political agenda.

They (NIST) ignored the most likely hypothesis of explosives being involved in 9/11 and instead accepted the "challenge" of trying to determine if the total building collapse could have been caused by fire alone without the aid of explosives.

It may be supposed that deliberate scientific fraud are exceptions, that for the most part, scientists do not engage in fraud. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support this optimistic assumption.

A recent story in the International Herald Tribune was titled "Scientific Fraud: There's More of it Than you Think."

"A wide-ranging study of the incidence of scientific fraud in the United States has just been published, and the results are alarming: Scientists resort to fraud more commonly than we think."

Within the scientific world, the fact of scientific fraud has been the subject of some book-length studies. In 1985, for example, William Broad and Nicholas Wade published a book titled "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science." In 2004, Horace Freeland Judson published "The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science."

***

Scientific fraud in the strict sense is considered very serious. The National Science Foundation urges anyone aware of scientific fraud to contact NSF's inspector general, it even supplied an anonymous hotline.

The importance of exposing fraud has been explained by eminent biologist Richard Lewontin in his review of Judson's book. While acknowledging that scientists might disagree about many things, he declared:

Every scientist must agree that outright fraud is beyond the pale. Putting aside the issue of morality, scientific investigation would be destroyed as a useful human endeavor and scientists would lose any claim on social resources if deliberate falsifications were not exposed. So scientists must be on the alert, ready to detect lies arising from within their institution.

The NIST report on WTC7 should be exposed by the scientific community for committing scientific fraud in the strict sense.

Evidence should not be fabricated.

Richard Lewontin, in his review of Judson's book wrote: "Fabrication is the creation of claimed observations and facts out of whole cloth. These are just plain lies." By contrast he said: Falsification is the trimming and adjustment of the results of genuine experiments so that they come to be in agreement with a desired conclusion." As this distinction shows, Lewontin and Judson were thinking primarily of experimental sciences.

In preparing its report on WTC7, however, NIST did not perform physical experiments. It instead relied on computer-based simulations. These experiments were carried out on computers,with simulated fires, simulated steel beams, simulated shear studs, and so on. This entire procedure, in which NIST based its theory on computer generated models, could have been used for almost unlimited fabrication. As architect Eric Douglas wrote with regard to NIST's 2005 report on the Twin Towers:

"A fundamental problem with using computer simulation is the overwhelming temptation to manipulate the input data until once achieves the desire results. Thus, what appears to be a conclusion is actually a premise. We see NIST succumb to this temptation throughout its investigation.

***

Note:

In the official NIST report their disclaimer #4 states:

"NIST takes no position as to whether the design or construction of a WTC building was compliant with any code since due to the destruction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as built) construction, the properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the buildings.

In addition, NIST could not verify the interpretations of codes used by applicable authorities in determining compliance when implementing building codes. Where an Investigation report states whether a system was designed or installed as require by a code provision, NIST has documentary and or anecdotal evidence indicating whether the requirement was met, or NIST has independently conducted test or analysis indicating whether the requirement was met. "

**

Evidence should not be falsified.

Falsification is, to repeat the NSF definition, "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record."

Although it is not always clear whether particular violations of scientific principles should be classified as falsifications or fabrications, we will see that NIST's report does contain several claims that clearly appear to be one or the other. These include claims involving the location and duration of fires, the temperatures reached by fires, and the temperatures reached by steel. They also include claims about thermal expansion, failed shear studs, and column failures.

Metalwing stated:



Scientific work should be reviewed by peers before being published.

It is accepted practice that, before scientific reports are published, they should be reviewed by fellow scientists who are "peers" in the sense of sharing competence in the subject at hand. Whether the reports are intended to be published as books or as journal articles, editors will typically send them to two or three other scientists who have agreed to be reviewers.

If these reviewers indicate that the reports contain serious problems, the editors will hold up publication until the authors have responded satisfactorily.

Although the peer-review process works only imperfectly, it is far better than nothing. Scientists tempted to fabricate, ignore, or otherwise falsify evidence will be less likely to do so if they know that independent experts will be reviewing their work.

They will also be more likely to avoid the other unscientific practices including the ones I listed in the above posts, such as dismissing the most likely hypotheses, attacking straw-man arguments, and making implausible claims without good reasons, attributing common occurrences to unprecedented causes and implying that laws of nature have been broken.

NIST's WTC7 report was not, however, submitted to a peer-review process. NIST did invite the general public, and thereby fellow scientists, to offer "comments" on it. But there was no neutral adjudicator to require NIST to respond in a responsible way to the criticisms it received. And NIST for the most part simply ignored these critiques -- thereby failing to show even pro forma respect for the standard review process of the scientific community.

When you "hire" someone, you are then of course their "boss." FEMA did more than "hire" them. They controlled all the evidence and did not allow any independent investigation that did not meet with their approval.

The importance of discovering the truth about WTC7 is paramount because it is the first chip to be dislodged in the giant conspiracy and cover-up behind the event on 9/11. The towers have fallen according to a long term plan that began before 1993, and the truth will be revealed about the lies and the cover-up.

But first thing's first. Unravel the truth about WTC7 and the whole official story will come crumbling down just as the twin towers came crumbling down.

Then discovering the reasons and motives behind the event will be the next mystery to solve. There will be hundreds of "conspiracy theories" about that. Very few people will know the real reason.

How often have you worked for a company contracted by the government? I worked for a defended contractor and all the government said is "this is what we want you to do". They are not your boss they are your customer. You can chose to stop the contract etc. The government didn't control the outcome of the investigation.

According to NIST's theory, WTC7 collapsed because of fires fed by office furniture and other ordinary combustibles. These fires did their damage by heating steel beams up to temperatures high enough to cause some of them to expand and others to weaken. This theory requires that fires on some floors became very hot and remained that way for many hours. They claimed that fires on six floors endured for seven hours.

The existence of long-lasting fires on these floors is essential to NIST's theory because of its computer simulations indicated that the crucial damage, which caused WTC7 to collapse, would have occurred with fires had been burning at high temperatures for about four hours.

This theory has many problems. There is no evidence of four-hour fires.
NIST's claim that fires burned for seven hours on six floor is purely speculative, unsupported by empirical evidence.

The actual video and photographic evidence provided by NIST would be consistent with fires enduring on these floors from 40 minutes (floor 9) to three hours and 20 minutes (floors 11 and 12).

The available empirical evidence does not support the four-hour fired required by NIST's computer simultions.

I'm sure you would like to believe that ... on faith. According to testimony, yes they completely controlled access to the evidence.

Then they must have told NIST:

"This is what we want you to do... figure out how WTC7 could have been totally demolished by fire without the use of any explosives and write that report."

Accept the ASCE wouldn't do that and if the government asked for anything like that you would from it from the ASCE engineers. They never worked for the government so they are at no risk. There was no evidence of explosives. But keep saying there was maybe that wild make it true.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


since you never commented on it, i thought i would repost it for you, JB

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES.

Apparently you don't even read my posts.
According to the evidence, explosives is the MOST LIKELY HYPOTHESIS according to "textbook" features in the NFPA manual. It states that investigators should look for evidence of explosives whenever there is "high-order damage" which is define thus:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet.

When ASCE was asked if they looked for evidence of explosives, they answered "NO."

Is that not plain enough? They can say the found no evidence of explosives BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EVEN LOOK FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES.

That is ignoring the features of what NFPA describes as feature of a texbook description of a controlled implosion.

NFPA = NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION.

If you are going to "discuss" the points of my posts, then at least read them and address them. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

So if you don't address my points I'm just going to ignore your remarks.

Oh God, now you are going to force her back to the aliens and evil ray gun theories.

For the record, it is against State and Federal law to tell certain types of engineers how to do their jobs or what the outcome will be. In general, these are the engineers with PE after their names which means they have a license and must conform to state ethic requirements. In Texas we have to take a hour of ethics every year to maintain the license as well as fifteen hours of continuing education.

The comments about hiring engineers and being their "boss" is just silly and show no knowledge of the industry at all.

It would be much like hiring a brain surgeon and telling him how to operate.

I did comment on it. But what would you like me to specifically comment on? It is a very nicely put together website. It is written in a slightly sarcastic tone. I haven't read every page, so there is a lot to "comment on." If you want to pick a single subject or page on that site to discuss I will be happy to discuss it with you.

That last remark explains exactly where your awareness is.
Any corrupt administration who conspires to kill thousands of people would not give a rats butt about what is against State and Federal law. --- its really frustrating but in a sense, hilarious.

Now I know who I am talking to. Do you really think they would obey the laws? How naive are you anyway?





Oh goodness, they had to go to an hour of ethics class every year to maintain their license. YEP That should do it. That should make them into honest ethical people.

That is so funny.

Now I'm thinking that they will defend their false hypothesis with vigor because if they don't, they could all loose their licences.

It's really sad that you are unable to understand even the basics.