It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
But, if it comes from the "truth movement", they better damn well cross every T and dot every I or we have CameronFoxes who will jump at the opportunity to spout "Hey, look, the Truth movement F'd up".
Originally posted by exponent
Have you? How much of it?
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
I'll admit I haven't read all 10,000 pages. Have you?
Originally posted by exponent
Can you give any examples of things they should have done?
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
But, if it comes from the "truth movement", they better damn well cross every T and dot every I or we have CameronFoxes who will jump at the opportunity to spout "Hey, look, the Truth movement F'd up".
Originally posted by CameronFox
Hey FN ... if YOU are accused of mass murder, wouldn't YOU want every i dotted and T crossed?
Get it?
Originally posted by exponent
Can you give any examples of things they should have done? I don't think CameronFox would mind the topic in this thread, I'll have to talk to him at the next NWO Operative smoke break
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
So, AQ doesn't deserve the same? Aren't they being accused (and a heck of a lot more) of murder?
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
Test WTC 7 steel that evaporated. You know, to find out if gypsum is a fire hazard in buildings.
Edit: Not just a fire hazard but can actually cause the steel to melt and evaporate? Especially since every single steel skyscraper is constructed with gypsum.
Maybe we found a real problem with our construction materials? But, no. Let's just ignore it and explain it away without any tests.
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Just a few of the more egregious ones:
Failed to analyse a single piece of WTC7 steel.
Failed to analyse the dust.
Refused to release the parameters of their computer collapse modelling to independent scrutiny.
Failed to provide a scientific basis for their claim that the fireproofing was dislodged by the planes (firing bullets at a fire-protected steel plate proves no such thing).
Failure to give any account of the numerous reports of massive explosions within all three towers (Jennings, Hess et al).
For a longer list of omissions see: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Looking back, I misread part of your post. I just noticed that you said "9/11 Eyewitness", not "9/11 Mysteries". I guess I can take a gander at the original footage.
Originally posted by exponent
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C p229-233
This is not the FEMA 403 Appendix C WTC7 segment, but identifiable material from WTC1/2 (Steel from WTC7 was not uniquely marked)
Of all the recovered steel examined, this was the only case where this degradation was observed on a perimeter column or core column.
Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degredation phenomenom had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building.
Nobody ignored it, FEMA did not, NIST did not. Analysis was carried out on both parts and it is understood what caused this erosion. It is unlikely to have occured pre collapse.
True, but because they had no access to it. You can't blame NIST for this I don't think.
Untrue as far as I know, SAP2000 models have already been released, can you point me to their refusal?
Incorrect, they did not fire "bullets" they fired representative debris at representative samples at correct kinetic energy scales.
Why do people quote him so much, he thinks conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous, you obviously disagree with him on that so do you think it is beneficial to pick out his statement and go "AHA!" when he's actually saying that the WTC could collapse from fire alone?
Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by _BoneZ_
I only had to watch the 3 minute trailer to get my fill of the BS. Just another pathetic video created by another misinformed truther.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Just a few of the more egregious ones:
Failed to analyse a single piece of WTC7 steel.
True, but because they had no access to it. You can't blame NIST for this I don't think.
Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failed to analyse the dust.
True, but deceptive, dust was analysed by a team of experts individually from the NIST report and it has no bearing on it.
Dr Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator into WTC 7
In order for a thermate reaction to take place, there has to be materials... You would have had to place about 100 lbs of thermite right in proximity to the column and it had to have always adhered to the column...
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Refused to release the parameters of their computer collapse modelling to independent scrutiny.
Untrue as far as I know, SAP2000 models have already been released, can you point me to their refusal?
Ala Tabiei, a professor at Cincinnati University with advanced degrees in aeronautical and aerospace engineering, asked the National Institute for Standards and Technology for a copy of the LS-DYNA input file for the airplane models used in the twin tower computer simulation.
NIST denied the request of Tabiei, a specialist in impact simulations, on the basis that publication of NIST's mathematical model could jeopardize public safety. NIST staff members had also opposed release of the data because their method was said to incorporate proprietary information. However, Tabiei wasn't given the option of asking the cooperation of whatever firm might have supplied a proprietary algorithm.
The NIST transferred the six files to a secure location under control of its Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester, UK, professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.
'NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost, ' he said.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failed to provide a scientific basis for their claim that the fireproofing was dislodged by the planes (firing bullets at a fire-protected steel plate proves no such thing).
Incorrect, they did not fire "bullets" they fired representative debris at representative samples at correct kinetic energy scales. This is a common truth movement claim from people who've not actually read the report
NIST 9/2005, pp. 83, 263-274
The test results support the assumption that, within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM [i.e., fireproofing] used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failure to give any account of the numerous reports of massive explosions within all three towers (Jennings, Hess et al).
Hess does not describe a massive explosion, and we know now that what the men experienced was the collapse of WTC2.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by EvilAxis
For a longer list of omissions see: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Not only does Quintire disagree with you, his initial complaints were based on a flimsy reading, if you had actually read the NIST report you would know many of his complaints were completely incorrect.
I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all... I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
He is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
• The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
• The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
• The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
• The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
Originally posted by exponent
Why do people quote him so much, he thinks conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous, you obviously disagree with him on that so do you think it is beneficial to pick out his statement and go "AHA!" when he's actually saying that the WTC could collapse from fire alone?
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
.....you're too scared to watch......
At least we know where you stand and that you will not look at all the evidence on both sides before making your now uneducated opinion.