{"content":[{"text":"factually inaccurate, methodologically unreliable, scientifically unsound, illogical, and biased. \n NIST’s WTC 7 Report was not simply wrong, it blatantly violated the IQA and NIST’s own IQS \n requirements of objectivity, utility, transparency, and reproducibility.","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.092084,"width":0.7597090000000001,"height":0.05162699999999998}},{"text":"NIST asserts in its June 30th Response to the Requestors’ IQA Appeal that both NIST’s \n initial denial of the RFC and NIST’s rejection of the Requestors’ later appeal are justified \n because there are “differences” in NIST’s modelling, assumptions, and evidence collection \n approaches compared to those of AE and the other Requestors. Therefore, NIST argues, different \n results are to be expected. NIST’s Response appears to be in essence that reasonable people can \n use different approaches and reasonable people can disagree. That assertion may be true in other \n circumstances, but it hardly applies here. While it is true that if one party uses a scientifically \n incompetent, factually false, and/or dishonest approach and another party uses a scientifically \n competent, factually correct, and honest approach, that “different” results are to be expected, this \n does not mean that both parties’ analyses and results are accurate, honest, legal, or equally valid.","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.16122,"width":0.762225,"height":0.17431}},{"text":"Ignoring publicly available eyewitness accounts of explosions at the WTC, including at \n WTC 7, mischaracterizing and failing to replicate the actual behavior of the WTC 7 building \n during its collapse, such as the sudden initiation of 2.5 seconds of symmetric free fall, and \n eliminating from the model and analysis one or more known-to-be-present components of the \n WTC 7 structure (that would have strengthened the structure) — all of which NIST did — could \n certainly be described as using a “different” approach. But such an approach, while clearly \n “different,” is nonetheless arbitrary and capricious, if not outright dishonest. Such agency action \n is subject to being held unlawful and set aside by a federal court under the Administrative \n Procedures Act (APA).","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.346023,"width":0.756883,"height":0.156476}},{"text":"AE and the other Requestors’ RFC and Appeal show, based on undisputed facts, \n established scientific laws, and valid logic that NIST’s WTC 7 analysis and collapse sequence, \n which NIST takes great care to qualify as involving “estimates” and as “probable,” is actually \n impossible. That is, NIST’s WTC 7 collapse sequence cannot even be fairly described as just \n improbable; it has been demonstrated to be literally impossible by the Requestors. Only an \n analysis and model that includes the simultaneous removal/failure of multiple building columns, \n such as Professor Hulsey’s model, which is relied on in the Requestors’ RFC and appeal, can \n predict the WTC 7 collapse behavior actually observed and filmed. This simultaneous \n removal/failure of multiple columns in a building is, of course, the essence of a controlled \n demolition.","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.512993,"width":0.7558290000000001,"height":0.17405199999999998}},{"text":"NIST, in its Response to the Requestors’ Appeal, as in its denial of the RFC, fails to even \n provide a response to most of the specific relevant data quality arguments contained in the \n Appeal. This agency conduct is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. NIST’s own IQS \n requires NIST to provide a “point-by-point response” to any relevant data quality arguments \n contained in a request for correction.","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.697235,"width":0.7602390000000001,"height":0.08647599999999989}},{"text":"NIST’s conduct is also arbitrary and capricious under the APA because NIST’s analysis \n and computer modelling of the WTC 7 building collapse remains a “black box.” The contents of \n NIST’s model remain secret, notwithstanding having been repeatedly requested by AE and the \n other Requestors as well as by other independent architects, engineers, scientists, and \n investigators. NIST claims that its WTC 7 Report, its Initial Decision on the RFC, and its \n Response to the Appeal are all “transparent” and that NIST has also complied with the","bbox":{"left":0.118601,"top":0.801781,"width":0.7557450000000001,"height":0.10405200000000003}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.496399,"top":0.921404,"width":0.009142999999999957,"height":0.01701600000000003}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}