Between Dave Cole, (kawika) Larry McWilliamsIt's still odd "kawika" didn't object.
He was active on the Let's Roll board as recently as July 2013. "Kawika" was active at "Let's Roll" and 911blogger for years, something one commenter seems uncomfortable with. That brings us back to the point of this post: it doesn't matter if he's really Mickey Mouse. The fact is he's running a scam with the 911blogger admins and readers, while for years moonlighting at Let's Roll, a board that takes extreme conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook and fake "vicsims" seriously.
Also of note is that Jayhan has not commented on Kawika's 911blogger presence. These are the people who will accuse random passers-by as "shills" and "agents" on the slightest provocation. Jayhan is displaying unprecedented restraint....The fact is these are all con men.
EDIT ENDS Dec 27th
If it wasn't bad enough the website owners were caught trying to trick NIST and fool readers(potential site donors):
http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/kawika-nist-thread-from-google-cache.html
kawika compounds this by starting a thread, approved by the mods, calling attention to the retconned thread:
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry
This thread is also retconed, having been published originally on November 6th, not Nov 11th:
http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/cache-of-911blogger-mods-and-kawika.html
Again he laughably links back to the retconned thread, original date still recorded in the url as Sept 24th. Given the date kawika posts the responding email is Oct 19th, and kawika hadn't seen fit to update his 60 days no response thread, the possible motive for this convoluted fraud presents itself:
Knowledge that NIST had responded was about to leak to all the little dupes being fleeced at 911blogger.
That is just a theory.
Another discrepancy: Kawika claims it is his inquiry. The NIST letters address a David Cole. kawika however is not David Cole, though they are friends. kawika is Larry McWilliams, of the Letsroll911 website run by Phil Jayhan:
http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html
Between Dave Cole, (kawika) Larry McWilliams and myself, we have spent hundreds of hours studying this occupancy FOIA request over the last 6 months or so, and we haven't even scratched the surface yet. We would like to request that all of you as a group take lots of time studying this so that collectively we miss nothing. This FOIA is a goldmine. It's the gift that keeps on giving, a mine that never runs dry. We believe that we have given you an accurate overview of the material so that you will know and be able to scour the spreadsheet as we did and know how to spot things. We need all of your help.
To say that there were occupancy issues is a gross understatement. The official story seems more then just a little bit hollow.
Cheers-
Phil Jayhan, Dave Cole & Larry McWilliams
And then these new comments are dated Nov 7th, which is a clue to the real November 6th publication date.
The Text of http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry
.....................................................................................
NIST Replies to Stiffeners Inquiry
Posted by kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 12:55am
I am pleased to offer the following email from
Public Affairs Officer Michael Newman, dated 25 OCT 2013. The inquiry
actually began in March 2012 immediately following our discovery of the
stiffeners on girder A2001. Despite what the answer says, I made my
inquiry on 26 JUL 2013 and followed up on 24 SEP. No reply was received
so I sent a final letter on 19 OCT.
Background on this inquiry can be found here:
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply
************************************************************************************
From: michael.newman@nist.gov
CC: wtc@nist.gov
Subject: RE: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:55:28 +0000
Dear Mr. Cole,
Following your e-mail of September 24 (see below), a set of responses to your questions were prepared. Unfortunately, the partial shutdown of the federal government delayed our getting these responses to you. With our apologies for tardiness, here are those responses:
A) In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create:
Figure 8-21?.................1091, 9114
Figure 8-23?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-26?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-27?.................E12-13
Figure 11-16?...............E12-13, E120
Figure 11-19?...............None
Figure 12-24?..............1091, 9114
Figure 12-25?..............1091, 9114, E12-13
B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?
The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.
Again, we apologize for the length of time it took to get this information back to you.
Thank you for your interest in the NIST World Trade Center investigation.
Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs Office
Background on this inquiry can be found here:
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply
************************************************************************************
From: michael.newman@nist.gov
CC: wtc@nist.gov
Subject: RE: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:55:28 +0000
Dear Mr. Cole,
Following your e-mail of September 24 (see below), a set of responses to your questions were prepared. Unfortunately, the partial shutdown of the federal government delayed our getting these responses to you. With our apologies for tardiness, here are those responses:
A) In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create:
Figure 8-21?.................1091, 9114
Figure 8-23?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-26?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-27?.................E12-13
Figure 11-16?...............E12-13, E120
Figure 11-19?...............None
Figure 12-24?..............1091, 9114
Figure 12-25?..............1091, 9114, E12-13
B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?
The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.
Again, we apologize for the length of time it took to get this information back to you.
Thank you for your interest in the NIST World Trade Center investigation.
Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs Office
- Login to post comments
Good Work, Kawika
http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM13/BGSCM008/Misc/BGSCM008050...
From the drawing it is clear that these stiffener plates would clearly resist this "web crippling" from occurring at this location. But how in God's name would these same stiffeners NOT ALSO prevent girder walk-off? A lie of omission?
Crippling Analysis
If you did an analysis and purposely left off the plates, then you would surely see flange failure, not web crippling.
This is very strange logic.
Yes
Well, njes, njes, but...
At minimum it is a good thing to have the admission on record that the plates where omitted, and also having gotten a glimpse at the kind of tricks NIST will try in court.
How much of a bother would it be to do our own computer model of the supposed failure zone - not the whole building - with all the omissions included and all the distortions corrected? Would this not be the kind of evidence that stops the show?
Technically, NIST's statement is true, but it's a red herring
There's a good explanation of the phenomenon here: http://gfestructures.wordpress.com/2013/01/
NIST is using web crippling as a red herring to disguise the fact that those same stiffeners would have resisted the curling of the lower flange as the girder reached the outer limit of its walk-off.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong:
1) I believe that NIST claims that the thermal expansion of the beams was sufficient to push the girder off even if there was a stiffener plate.
2) I believe Mr. Szamboti and Mr. Sarns have done calcs to show that the actual thermal expansion of the beam was not sufficient to push it that far.
3) I believe Mr. Brookman asked NIST for their thermal expansion calcs and was refused on public safety grounds.
A glimpse of the kinds of tricks yes...
So, they respond by writing a mere three short sentences to wrap it all up; the stiffeners were not included because their function is to prevent web crippling failures, which the structural analysis of WTC7 did not show. Satisfied now?
I also liked the "Thank you for your interest in the NIST World Trade Center investigation.".
Can I ask, what kind of response did anyone expect from NIST regarding this crucial issue? Again, they obviously believe they can get away with this kind of response. For me, it's the audacity, the nerve to think they can get away with answers like this, that worries and frustrates me (and quite frankly infuriates me if I'm honest).
I wonder now, what's next? Is mr. Cole going to write them again and ask if the stiffeners, which were omitted, maybe, just maybe, would have prevented the girder walking off its seat? Or ask them if they can verify that, had the stiffeners been included, the outcome would still have been the same (which is what they claim if I read their response correctly)? And how long will we have to wait for a response on that?
Open Opportunity
When it gets to be a blizzard of inquiries, they may take steps to run the analyses again and report back what was learned once the critical structural elements are included.
The interesting thing is the draft report in Aug 2008 underwent a limited, informal peer review. Here is a link to the comments received.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/combined2008publicComm...
Pay particular attention to PDF page 9.
If NIST did not address the many concerns of this organization, then you can imagine what kind of evidence you will have to present to get their attention. The stiffeners and beam stubs fit that evidence set.
CTBUH
NIST
"JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY".
Based on this ludicrous statement we should not expect anything reasonable from NIST's official responses.
I only wish an Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake or Sibel Edmonds had done a stint at NIST.
I commend your work.
NIST's bogus response points to a greater underlying problem
The other question here - and this is not to decry the greater proportion of the workforce at NIST who do honest work: "Is it realistic to expect NIST, a federal agency (within the US Department of Commerce) to come to an official conclusion regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC#7 that points away from, or implies a different scenario from what we have been "informed" by other agencies and persons within the US Government?
If that is indeed the case, and government agencies (in this case NIST) are complicit in protecting rogue elements ie criminals, terrorists, mass murderers and traitors within our own power structure, then we have the makings of a failed state on our hands. What means are at the disposal of we the people to rectify that?
the top 10 connections..
The 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST have all put a thick coat of "whitewash" on all the reports so far, so it is fair to question their motives, and the general ability of any federal identity to produce honest and unbiased investigations.
This is very apparent from another angle, which is to consider the "inside-job" option which entails controlled demolition and nanothermite, since we know that leads to prominent federal labs(cited in Harrit´s nanothermite paper) and even NIST according to Kevin Ryan´s article about the NISTical connections to nanothermite development.
I am pretty sure many here have followed the "investigation" into the officially acknowledged fact that the Anthrax attack was an inside-job, so we do have a precedent for how efficient federal-grade whitewash really is, and perhaps even the mold for how the "lone nut" explanation for made-in-the-USA nanothermite would play out.
Re: the top 10 connections..
verified?
Secondly, I don´t know how you came to your conclusion, but the "issues" we put forward are in the form of documented evidence: published papers, eye-witness testimony, testimony from experts, etc - pretty much the AE9/11 evidence brochure, and this includes a lot of evidence for nanothermite. Real skeptics will respond with papers that attempt to refute or better explain our evidence, and this is how the debate proceeds until some theory is finally officially "verified". Given dust full of iron spheres, extreme temperatures data, and molten metal flowing like lava, the thermite hypothesis is very strong. And especially with Harrit´s paper, the nanothermite hypothesis is still the best explanation of the data.
Re: verified?
Neither should be presented in a court case against NIST. Just one allegation determined to be false could get the case thrown out of court. It will be difficult enough to get a court to consider the matter of NIST's modeling indiscretions without introducing dubious hypotheses into the case.
If AE9/11 is pushing the nanothermite hypothesis, then AE9/11 is on the wrong track, imho.
You are missing the point
And again, you personal opinion about what is and is not the real culprit is irrelevant. You are using the same kind non-reasoning as NIST used as an excuse not to investigate the steel and dust and look for nanothermite evidence.
Finally since you provide nothing to back up your claim of "no reliable evidence" for nanothermite, I am forced to dismiss it. No-one has challenged a single point in Harrit´s paper or provided a better explanation for dust full of spheres, and both AE9/11 and Consensus911 support Harrit. Why do you think the JREF loud-mouths backed away from having the Millette Debunking Paper published? Hmmm?
Re: the top 10 connections..
I agree about focusing..
Determining what happened is far down the road, perhaps a few years, and most likely in the venue of academic papers before returning to court. I am not even sure that we will have to go to court to officially validate controlled demolition, reviewed papers should be enough. Establishing who planned and "did it" is another matter that is even further down the road and that is something that will hopefully end up in court.
However, returning to my original point, once we have nullified the WTC7 report, there will be a point where someone(perhaps the judge) appoints someone to handle the new investigation of 7´s demise, and at that point this someone will have to know of the conflicts of interests that should prevent governmental labs, and labs that have gov connections, from getting the job.
At this point there will be no need to prove that nano-thermite was the culprit; enough to establish that it is one of the suspects. That´s it.
Once again, they do the "NIST sidestep".
Newton says that the forces on the plate works both ways. Just like a brace under a bookshelf is designed to hold the shelf up, that same shelf brace will also help brace the wall in the highly unlikely event that some strange additional force pushes sideways on the wall. Yet that's not the reason that the "shelf designer" put the brace there.
It's the physics of the forces that the brace resists that must be factored in to any honest analysis, not the "intent" of why it was put there, that matters.
But of course when it comes to 9/11 , we really don't expect much of an honest analysis from NIST.