25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
P.S. Claiming the NIST and WTC7 report(s) are incomplete is the only card truthers have to play. They don't have a single shred of peer-reviewed evidence (not one thing) to present, six years and counting.

NIST is never going to do a report on WTC 7. NIST never recovered any steel from WTC 7 for testing.

You do mean the people that beleive the official story don't have a single shred of peer-reviewed evidence. Not 1 piece of phycial evidence and not 1 FBI or NTSB report to support the official story.

No Videos or photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No reports matching any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

reply to post by Griff




The basic flaw of your argument is that it is common practice to recreate an experiment during the peer review process. You are incorrect. That's not an opinion; it's a fact.

Here's why: the cost.

You are incorrect when you assert the process must be repeatable. It's the results that must be repeatable. Peer review involves other, widely accepted experts (not those you hand pick) in the correct field assessing your methodology, processes, control group(s) and conclusions, among many other factors.

I'm sorry, but it just isn't part of the review process to complete the entire study again. It is common practice to assess the quality of the study itself (through the various factors I just listed) and therefore it's conclusions. That's not me saying that. That's not my opinion. That's established protocol.

Your insistence that recreating the 9-11 events wouldn't be very hard is naive at best. To have any relevance to your own assertion that it's repeatability (not conclusions) that are important, everything must be the same. You must use the same aircraft (or are you personally stuck on the hologram theory?), the same fuel loads, the same velocities, the same angles, the same mass, the same structural materials, construction methods and on and on and on.

To me, the fact that you dismiss the importance of the details highlights this is nothing more than a straw man argument. That is, a carefully chosen argument you know will never be answered (that the question itself is in the realm of absurd matters not) and therefore you feel validated.

Your argument is juxta posed against itself. One the one hand you are arguing the most minute of details and on the other hand, claim that a full-scale test wouldn't be "...that hard...".

The rational question is thus: are the physical casualties (the result) of 9-11 repeatable? The answer is yes. There is a reasonable likelihood that if you reconstruct the twin towers exactly as they were, place all of the objects within the building exactly as they were, place human subjects in the exact locations they were in at the time of impact, use the same exact aircraft, fuel loads, velocities, angles of attack, etc, etc, etc the outcome would look a lot like what happened on 9-11.

Is this not a reasonable conclusion?

Did the various agencies use the correct methodology when studying the tragedy and therefore come up with reasonable explanations? If you don't think so, that's great! Just explain how or even how you think it should have been done.

You really don't have to take the time to /quote me line by line. It's quite stalkerish and more than a tad bit creepy.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


How do you know no parts matched the 9-11 planes?

As in the other thread, do you know which parts are serial-numbered and tracked? Why are they tracked? Which parts do you think were found that had their serial numbers (presumably) removed? Which parts at the various crash sites were recovered? Can you point out which page in the NTSB report highlights which parts were found, or which parts should have been found, and which serial numbers were, or were not present?

This kind of nonsense is what I am talking about. It just isn't true. Not even by a city mile. But yet, here we are day after day after day hearing the same claims that are so easily dismissed it's laughable. Claiming this is true is beyond truth seeking and squarely into the realm of advocacy in spite of what the truth actually is.

The only thing I struggle with is do you honestly, truly believe this claim or, are you just "keeping the hope alive" that some day a conspiracy will be proven and you can say you were on to it from the start?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
How do you know no parts matched the 9-11 planes?

There have been no FBI or NTSB reports released that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

Also i do know what parts are numbered becasue i was s crew chief in the Air Force, so i know what parts also can survive a crash.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar 1
Claiming the NIST and WTC7 report(s) are incomplete is the only card truthers have to play.

Claiming that they're incomplete? Can you not read the bias in your own words? It's not just a "claim," and they aren't just "incomplete." NIST hasn't even decided on a working theory yet. It's been years and they have nothing.

Meanwhile you can watch, at any time and at your own leisure, 24/7, the actual building dropping to the ground with a free-fall acceleration. And you don't think that counts for something?

I guess you'll be waiting for the next AP report talking about political corruption within the engineering community, right? So when it rolls around you can ignore it, too. And God Forbid you ever think for Yourself.




Edit: Sorry Ultima, I just butchered the code after I hit the "quote" button. I should have been paying more attention. Fixed it.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Claiming that they're incomplete? Can you not read the bias in your own words? .

You have the wrong person. I am the one that stated that NIST never recovered any steel from Building 7.

I have been proving the people that beleive the official wrong for years.,



[edit on 28-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You really don't have to take the time to /quote me line by line. It's quite stalkerish and more than a tad bit creepy.

I find it easier to respond to someone without having to remember their 1,000 word post.

But, here we go again.

This may be so, but if peer review is an attempt to measure the overall quality of research in terms of originality, the appropriateness of the methods used, analysis of the data, and justification of the conclusions, then a complete lack of reproducibility is a problem. These specific assessments should be relatively objective and hence reproducible.

brain.oxfordjournals.org...

Peer review checklist: reproducibility and validity of a method for evaluating the quality of ambulatory care.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

Such internal agency studies must be subject to the OMB/DOL guidelines for peer review, reproducibility, and transparency.

www.whitehouse.gov...

To ensure the integrity of the scientific research information developed and disseminated by USDA, its agencies and offices will:

Record and maintain, for an appropriate period of time, all experimental results, data, and analytic procedures needed to reproduce the released information in accordance with established governmental standards or, where applicable, widely recognized scientific practices.

www.ocio.usda.gov...

i. If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by the petitioner in a particular instance. If agency-sponsored peer review is employed to help satisfy the objectivity standard, the review process employed shall meet the general criteria for competent and credible peer review recommended by OMB-OIRA to the President's Management Council (9/20/01) (www.whitehouse.gov...), namely, "that (a) peer reviewers be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies prior technical/policy positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector), and (d) peer reviews be conducted in an open and rigorous manner."

ii. If an agency is responsible for disseminating influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, agency guidelines shall include a high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.

www.treas.gov...

Shall we continue? Or are we done arguing?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The basic flaw of your argument is that it is common practice to recreate an experiment during the peer review process. You are incorrect. That's not an opinion; it's a fact.

Here's why: the cost.

NIST said the reason failure initiated was because of heated trusses/perimeter columns, so that an amount (but never precisely-defined) of deflection was created.

They built a recreation of a WTC truss/perimeter column setup in their lab, and put a fire under it for 2 hours. They never were able to achieve their hypothesis. How much do you think it cost them to do that? In total, the WTC investigation got less money allotted to it than Bill Clinton getting a BJ.

You're not making a very convincing argument. They had enough money as it was, they just didn't get what they wanted.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I think we have proven without doubt that:

a) There was additional "something" to help the towers come down.

or

b) The towers were of shoddy construction.

I wonder why we don't hear much from the actual workers on the towers? Or have I missed it? We always hear from the engineers and architects that designed them, but I'd like to hear from the iron workers, concrete pourers, etc. They are the ones with the real knowledge of what was built.

Originally posted by Griff
b) The towers were of shoddy construction.

But dion't you think if it was shoody construction there would have been more damage in the 1975 fire and in the first bombing?

^Also what would the motivation for the gov to keep shoddy workmanship secret? Wouldn't it be the best excuse for gov, to blame 1960's construction techniques, or lack of?

Also I don't see even shoddy workmanship allowing complete global collapse with no resistance. Even bad welds and sloppy bolt tightening does not answer the problem of the physics anomalies we see. Especially what happened to the top of WTC2.

If you can't get a 'model' to do what the towers did then even a badly built tower won't either. Fires did not, and could not have collapsed the central core, especially going by NIST's explanation. If the floor trusses failed then they were not connecting floors the the central columns, so there would be nothing left to cause them to collapsed. That central structure would have been left standing by itself. Those 47 box columns tied together with cross bracing were far stronger than the floors themselves, in fact the strongest part of the building and hardest part to collapse by whatever method.

Method and results are equally important to the scientific method. Method which consistently and transparently reproduces predicted results. Cmon that is fundamental to any science.

I only threw out shoddy workmanship as an alternative theory.

reply to post by Griff


I hear ya, wasn't knocking what you said just adding my 2c regarding...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NIST is never going to do a report on WTC 7.

This information is false. Please do some research before posting about things you do not know about.

from the NIST website:
www.nist.gov...

A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

The report is not complete at this time, but is due to be released.

Originally posted by Disclosed
This information is false. Please do some research before posting about things you do not know about.

NIST cannot release a proper report since they did not recover any steel from Building 7 to test. Please do research before posting.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Disclosed


Well you'd be foolish to hold your breath waiting for the NIST/WTC 7 report to come out on its (latest) (nonspecified) deadline.

As for the current working hypothesis:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet...

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

This is a startling development--NIST actually looking at "blast" scenarios?

Whatever will that bring?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
This is a startling development--NIST actually looking at "blast" scenarios?

But since NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 they cannot do any testing for explosives or chemicals.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I know; that's how they can use the word "hypothetical."

What scenarios will they come up with? Really this is quite bizarre.

And frankly they've missed their window of opportunity to get this thing out and not have everyone jump all over it (not that it wouldn't have happened anyway). But now with the ASCE probe going on, they'll be under even more scrutiny. The foot-dragging didn't pay off on this one.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by gottago]