NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Infoman
They have degrees and work in the field. We have had many talks about 9/11 and they were able to clearly explain how the planes brought the buildings down. The History Channel did a very clear and informative program on how the towers fell. While I personally do not have such a degree, I do possess a very high IQ and am capable of understanding the processes that felled the towers.

So are you saying that NIST and FEMA lied when the both stated the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

Oh, by the way were your frineds at the WTC, or did thet have access to the evidence to make a informed explination?

Originally posted by dark_matter06
2. 3 buildings did just that in 1 day. You are told this is normal by an administration that has been PROVEN to lie over and again.
[edit on 20-10-2007 by dark_matter06]

DM - Keep fighting the good fight!

Oh and for the record (4) buildings experienced a 'Global' collapse - dont forget about the Pentagon's stricken section. I am foggy now on if it was technically the same '24' hour day period after being hit and too tiired to go look it up,,, but all the same (4) buildings; three differnet structural types and two different material types - but fire got them all............

Originally posted by Infoman
reply to post by Griff

 

A degree in engineering? If this is true, then how is it you aren't aware of the fact that the towers didn't rely on columns but were instead supported by an steel exoskeleton?

Why so testy about structure my friend? Griff will probably flog me with his trusty calculator for this but its late so what the hell.

RU sitting down in a chair? Got a book on the floor nearby? If so tilt it up on end and prop up your feet for a little structural relaxation!! Ahh there thats better right?

That book is kinda like the exoskeleton your likening to the exterior wall system. Sure enough it was self supporting and taking some load off your feet and legs - which are kinda like the floor system ( if you were wearing concrete pants that is) - and that chair your sitting in assuming it has four legs is kinda like the core tower portion of the building. That's alot of kinda's sorry. But 911 was one of those kinda days.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by seanm

 

Nothing you have presented is what Griff is asking for. You are spreading vile and odious lies!! Why don't you show us where exactly these contruction documents are contained in this humongous NIST report?! Is it because you can't?!?!

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd already know that any "construction documents" you all think are "missing" are irrelevant to the fact that we know why the towers collapsed and that they were inevitable.

But reading comprehension amongst 9/11 Truthers is extremely poor.

First, you point to a thousands page long NIST report and claim "all the models and the math is in there."

Only in your wild imagination.

Then you turn around and claim that it's impossible to model the collapse, the one that you just claimed had been modeled 'somewhere' in the NIST report.

It is known, if you bothered to educate yourself, that modeling the actual collapses is neither feasible NOR necessary. The rest of your statement is a product of your imagination.

A clinical psychologist looking at your comments could diagnose you as suffering from Pathological Delusions based on the way you constantly contradict yourself and somehow simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs. Next, they would recommend administering a cocktail of strong Antipsychotic Medications, such as; Halidol, Thorazine, Chlorprothixene, and Quetiapine.

9/11 Denial afflicts you 9/11 Deniers. "Denial" is a pathological condition shared by all forms of deniers from flat-earthers to Holocaust deniers.

As I have to keep reminding you:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
- Michael Shermer, "Fahrenheit 2777 - 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories."

www.sciam.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Where did you say there is evidence of explosives, Ultima1?

I can't find the link anywhere.

Maybe you cannot find the link becasue i never stated anything about explosives. Do you have to put words in peoples mouths because you cannot prove the official story?

Please try to read post before posting.

So you don't actually have a point.

Nothing surprising there.

Originally posted by seanm
that we know why the towers collapsed and that they were inevitable.

I like how the people say they know what happend on 9/11 when we do not even have most of the official reports.

The FBI has not released most of the reports, photos or videos they have.


[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
that we know why the towers collapsed and that they were inevitable.

I like how the people say they know what happend on 9/11 when we do not even have most of the official reports.

The FBI has not released most of the reports, photos or videos they have.


[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Just because you refuse to read the NIST reports doesn't mean we don't have them.

Originally posted by svenglezz
And griff doesn't count' cause I tried to get proof he's a Civil Engineer with no proof given.......I could come on here to and pretend to be a Doctor when I'm not.

Whatever. I guess my transcripts aren't worth anything then? Give it up. No one is listening.

Originally posted by Infoman
reply to post by Griff

 

A degree in engineering? If this is true, then how is it you aren't aware of the fact that the towers didn't rely on columns but were instead supported by an steel exoskeleton? The only "columns" were the central ones necessary for the elevators. The floor and ceiling trusses held the exoskeleton together.

See why I don't say I'm an engineer anymore? The dumb comments that try to debunk me and my character. What, pray tell, would you call those 240 some "columns" on the exterior? Give it a break people.

Let's see what NIST calls them:

significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

Source: wtc.nist.gov...

But I'm the dumb one or not an engineer right?

[edit on 10/21/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by seanm
Just because you refuse to read the NIST reports doesn't mean we don't have them.

I have read the NIST reports and they usually contridict each other or the official story, but what does the NIST reports got to do with the FBI reports?

In case you did not know the FBI is the lead investigating agency and we do not have thier reports.

So please answer the question. How can people know what happend that day if we do not have the reports of what happened?

[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Seanm,

Get me the construction documents and I'll start listening to you. Construction documents include the as-built drawings and the specifications of how it was built.

Yeah, we don't need those because they fell because they fell because they fell. I'm sick of brick walls.

Until you can supply the documents, steel etc., you CANNOT claim that the evidence is there for the world to see.

A 10,000 page NIST report does not cut it. Sorry, that is not evidence, that is a freekin REPORT. Got it now?

Mods. Unless this person comes with some freekin evidence and starts to supply proof of his claims, I call for a ban. I wouldn't be allowed to sit here and outright lie. Remember Killtown? He was banned for far less.

Originally posted by Griff
Seanm,

A 10,000 page NIST report does not cut it. Sorry, that is not evidence, that is a freekin REPORT. Got it now?

I got it in 2002.

You just admitted that no matter how much evidence is presented, nor how much NIST's methodologies and conclusions are supported by the evidence, it is nonetheless entirely inconvenient for you.

What more evidence do we need, Griff, that you have no interest in what the truth really is?

Originally posted by seanm
You just admitted that no matter how much evidence is presented, nor how much NIST's methodologies and conclusions are supported by the evidence, it is nonetheless entirely inconvenient for you.

Look man, its simple, what evidence are you talking about? What evidence is in the NIST report that does it for you? Are NISTS methodologies and conclusions supported by photographic and video evidence? Or physical evidence? Because if its the former, its the same thing that most have been doing here.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Just because you refuse to read the NIST reports doesn't mean we don't have them.

I have read the NIST reports and they usually contridict each other or the official story, but what does the NIST reports got to do with the FBI reports?

In case you did not know the FBI is the lead investigating agency and we do not have thier reports.

So please answer the question. How can people know what happend that day if we do not have the reports of what happened?

[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Give us some examples of these contradictions please. And show us some examples where the FBI has EVER given reports of an ongoing investigation. Show us ANY agency that has.

We know what happened because it has been explained in great detail on scientific and investigative levels. We have seen much of the evidence from the first trials, we have heard the reports from investigators.

To expect an agency to disclose all of their evidence in an ongoing investigation is a completely unrealistic and unreasonable request. And the reason for it is because you know it's impossible and thus allows you to maintain a perpetual conspiracy theory. The whole mentality is that so long as you don't know something, you are justified in making up anything you want.

You just admitted that no matter how much evidence is presented, nor how much NIST's methodologies and conclusions are supported by the evidence, it is nonetheless entirely inconvenient for you.

What NIST reports are supported by the evidence. Maybe you should read this,

wtc.nist.gov...

Highlights:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Ultima, stop right there, you are forgetting seanm's evidence that you must refute. Massive evidence...what evidence? I dont know... but by golly im sure he will post it soon enough/next year.

Originally posted by snoopy
Give us some examples of these contradictions please. And show us some examples where the FBI has EVER given reports of an ongoing investigation.

We know what happened because it has been explained in great detail on scientific and investigative levels. We have seen much of the evidence from the first trials, we have heard the reports from investigators.

Now you just contridicted yourself, you state that you know what happened in detail because its been explained in detail on scientific and investigative levels AFTER stating that the FBI has not given out details on an ongoing investigation.

How can you have the investigative details if the FBI has not released them? Why must you lie?



[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Griff

Mods. Unless this person comes with some freekin evidence and starts to supply proof of his claims, I call for a ban. I wouldn't be allowed to sit here and outright lie. Remember Killtown? He was banned for far less.

AGREED! Now, i fully support people's right to disagree. But this crap is just plain disruptive.

Now, there are numerous examples of people that disagree with the "inside job" theory that actually bring something to the table. For instance, Damocles, he totally disagrees about the controlled demo theory, and he uses his experience to explain why and he actually makes reasoned, and levelheaded arguments.

Seanm, however, just says, "no, no, no! You're wrong! You're lying! Read the 10,000 pages NIST report! It's all in there [somewhere]."

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Griff
Seanm,

A 10,000 page NIST report does not cut it. Sorry, that is not evidence, that is a freekin REPORT. Got it now?

I got it in 2002.

You just admitted that no matter how much evidence is presented, nor how much NIST's methodologies and conclusions are supported by the evidence, it is nonetheless entirely inconvenient for you.

What more evidence do we need, Griff, that you have no interest in what the truth really is?

I did no such thing. What I did admit to is the lack of evidence that is forthcoming from NIST.

It's like me trying to investigate if man A shot man B. Man A has all the forensics and physical evidence but will not share it with the investigators. Man A has written a report stating how he could not have killed man B. Should we just accept man A's report as valid and just say "oh well, it happened, he has a report that says he didn't do it, that's good enough for me"?

Is that logical? Because that's the exact same scenario we are dealing with the NIST, FEMA, Silverstein reports.

GOT IT NOW??????????????

Originally posted by sp00n1

Originally posted by Griff

Mods. Unless this person comes with some freekin evidence and starts to supply proof of his claims, I call for a ban. I wouldn't be allowed to sit here and outright lie. Remember Killtown? He was banned for far less.

AGREED! Now, i fully support people's right to disagree. But this crap is just plain disruptive.

Now, there are numerous examples of people that disagree with the "inside job" theory that actually bring something to the table. For instance, Damocles, he totally disagrees about the controlled demo theory, and he uses his experience to explain why and he actually makes reasoned, and levelheaded arguments.

Seanm, however, just says, "no, no, no! You're wrong! You're lying! Read the 10,000 pages NIST report! It's all in there [somewhere]."

The evidence from all sources, those sources that you refuse to acknowledge, all converge on the conclusion that Arab hijackers were responsible for the destruction on 9/11 and do not have to be repeated ad infinitum under any circumstances just because you don't like them.

Until and unless you can refute NIST, ASCE, FEMA, thousands of eyewitnesses, and their conclusions; and unless you can bring irrefutable evidence of your own, we will remind you as often as necessary that the onus is and remains on you alone to bring evidence to the table. You never have after six years of asking you to. Zero, zilch, nada. Nothing form you but so-called anomalies, claims, assertions, but you do not bring any evidence to the table.

Despite your attempts to shift the burden of proof, we will remind you that you cannot get away with it.

Any questions?