The 9-11 Passenger List

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, no steel building over 40 floors has collapsed from fire.

Why do you say "No" and then agree with me?

What evidence, show me actual evidence that i have denied?

NIST NCSTAR 1. You can find it at wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by exponent
Why do you say "No" and then agree with me?

So are you calling a buidling that is 40 floors a skyscraper?

NIST NCSTAR 1. You can find it at wtc.nist.gov...

NIST is not an official investigsating agency for 9/11, do i have to keep reminding you who is? Also NIST reports like the building 7 report have been debunked.

I asked for actual evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So are you calling a buidling that is 40 floors a skyscraper?

Sure.

NIST is not an official investigsating agency for 9/11, do i have to keep reminding you who is? Also NIST reports like the building 7 report have been debunked.

I have already shown you that NIST is in fact an official investigating agency, and your claim that they have been debunked holds no weight. Like I said, you deny the evidence, you've asked me to show you some evidence, which I have, and you have denied it. This is quite clear from your post!

You keep going round in circles ULTIMA. You need to start setting some sort of standards rather than simply denying any and all evidence.

Originally posted by exponent
Sure.

Please show me where you get a 40 story buidling is a skyscaper.

I have already shown you that NIST is in fact an official investigating agency,

Sorry but the FBI and NTSB are the only official investigating agencies for 9/11. Try agian.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Skyscraper:

1. a relatively tall building of many stories, esp. one for office or commercial use.
2. Architecture. a building of exceptional height completely supported by a framework, as of girders, from which the walls are suspended, as opposed to a building supported by load-bearing walls.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
2. Architecture. a building of exceptional height completely supported by a framework, as of girders, from which the walls are suspended, as opposed to a building supported by load-bearing walls.

So you consider 40 floors an exceptional height

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Sorry but the FBI and NTSB are the only official investigating agencies for 9/11. Try agian.

Proposed Plan National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Building and Fire Safety

Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Goals:

* To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that combined to cause the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.

* To serve as the basis for:
+ Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, and used; and
+ Improved tools, guidance for industry and safety officials, revisions to codes and standards, and improved public safety.

www.nist.gov...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


What does the 1st definition state Ultima?

Thank you.

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What does the 1st definition state Ultima?

Please show me the law that states NIST must be an investigating agency for a crime scene.

OOPPPS thats right there is none, only for the FBI and NTSB.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me the law that states NIST must be an investigating agency for a crime scene.

We are just going in circles, the law is the National Construction and Safety Team Act. It was signed into law on 1st Oct 2002:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) is authorized to establish National Construction Safety Teams (in this Act referred to as a ‘‘Team’’) for deployment after events causing the failure of a building or buildings that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Please show me the law that states NIST must be an investigating agency for a crime scene.

OOPPPS thats right there is none, only for the FBI and NTSB.

Here you go Ultima:

Under the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCST), signed into law in October 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used.

Some major investigations include the building and fire safety investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center fire and building collapses, and the investigation of the fire at The Station nightclub in West Warwick, R.I. on February 20, 2003. The NCST Advisory Committee provides advice to NIST on its investigations.

www.nist.gov...

I was a little late on my post EXP.

Oh well.

Originally posted by exponent
We are just going in circles, the law is the National Construction and Safety Team Act. It was signed into law on 1st Oct 2002:

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Here you go Ultima:

Oh by the way wasn't the WTC buildings and Pentagon destroyed in 2001, a year before the law was signed?

Where is the part about authority of crime scenes?

[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh by the way wasn't the WTC buildings and Pentagon destroyed in 2001, a year before the law was signed?

Yes, this law was brought into force so an official investigation could be conducted by NIST.

Where is the part about authority of crime scenes?

It occupies one and a half pages in the law, see Section 4.

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, this law was brought into force so an official investigation could be conducted by NIST.

Oh, a year later later after most if not all the evidnece is gone

It occupies one and a half pages in the law, see Section 4.

I did not see anything about crime scene authority but i did not notice this.

The fact that NIST has no autority over evidence, and is not supposed to even touch it.


[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh, a year later later after most if not all the evidnece is gone

Luckily enough there were other teams "on the ground" that day and the debris was kept long enough for well over 100 pieces to be identified and retained. I've already explained why this was unfortunately not the case with WTC7.

You seem to have implicitly accepted now that this is the law, and that NIST is authorised. Is this the case or do you plan to continue arguing that somehow NISTs investigation is not 'official' despite a law being passed specifically for it.

edit:

I did not see anything about crime scene authority but i did not notice this.

Section 4 of the law contains the information you are looking for

enter property where a building failure being investigated has occurred, or where building components, materials, and artifacts with respect to the building failure are located, and take action necessary, appropriate, and reasonable in light of the nature of the property to be inspected to carry out the duties of the Team under section 2(b)(2) (A) and (B);

[edit on 21-9-2008 by exponent]

Originally posted by exponent
I've already explained why this was unfortunately not the case with WTC7.

So you agree the investigation on buidling 7 was not a proper investigation?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you agree the investigation on buidling 7 was not a proper investigation?

Not at all, NIST did exactly what they should have done. There was nothing more they could have done. By any reasonable standard they conducted a "Proper investigation". One may argue that their investigation was not as comprehensive as it should have been due to a lack of steel, but you can hardly blame this on anyone but the initial confusion as to the processes that should have been underway. This is far before NIST was involved.

Originally posted by exponent
By any reasonable standard they conducted a "Proper investigation".

How could they do a proper investigation without evidence?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How could they do a proper investigation without evidence?

Have you read the report or is this supposed to be a rhetorical question? They used photographic, videographic and firefighter eyewitness accounts to construct their model of damage, they had a large amount of information on building construction and quite a lot of videos of fire and collapse.

This is all evidence.