911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Please supply the quote where he says “conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous”. You didn't just make it up and place the words in his mouth I hope???

I did not quote him, so I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. As this article says, he has made it clear he does not support explosive demolition:
www.ae911truth.org...

That's right, instead of quoting him you presume to know what he believes. He has neither said nor indicated that he believes “conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous”. He has said, "I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way."

Let's hear him again:

From the start of the investigation NIST continually stated that the end
point of the process would be to present hypotheses according to their
probability of occurrence.

NIST original objectives stated:
•
What is the most probable collapse sequence?
•
What is the probability of the possible collapse sequences?

Instead, NIST lists one cause without equivocation. What happened to their
original plan?

He has said that he doesn't believe explosives brought down the towers, but he has also questioned how NIST was able to rule out them out, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives, so I don't know how they came to that conclusion."

Perhaps he was unaware of the NIST's formidable expertise in nanothermites: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites K Ryan, July 2, 2008

Originally posted by exponent
Don't get me wrong, I do in principle support your cause, but as so much of the reasoning is based on flimsy evidence, selective reading or just ignorance of the mechanisms involved I don't believe there is anywhere near a theory which can compete with that formulated by NIST.

Based on flimsy evidence? NIST produced their theory about WTC 7 without examining a single structural component of the building. Selective reading? They quietly dismissed numerous eyewitness reports of explosions within the buildings and molten metal beneath them.

As for ignorance of the mechanisms involved, I know of no mechanism that would induce the gravity-driven global free-fall implosion of three steel framed towers – other than controlled demolition. Nor apparently does anyone else, including NIST, who conspicuously refused to attempt it for WTC 1 & 2 and hid it behind an inaccessible computer simulation in the case of WTC 7.

Originally posted by exponent
For example, if I ask you to state a detailed alternate theory, could you? NIST has good explanations for the majority of occurrences with WTC1,2 and 7, and little remains unexplained compared to any current truther offerings.

If you're asking for details about precisely where the charges were placed, by whom and when – I can't oblige, but controlled demolition is an alternative theory which actually fits the evidence. NIST's explanations are not good because they ignore and distort it.


[edit on 13-6-2009 by EvilAxis]

It appears I have a lot to respond to in this thread, so for now I will take it point by point.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Who compared it to a typical fire scene? Dr. Quintiere said “Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation.” This was both a fire and unprecedented crime scene – making the destruction of the evidence a major crime in itself. That Giuliani was not prosecuted for it, is evidence of corruption at the heart of 9/11.

This has very little basis on the investigation though does it? Destruction of evidence is unfortunate but there was unlikely to be a legal case against the hijackers, and there would be no reason if it was actually a conspiracy not to prosecute Giuliani. You could well use it as evidence of people trying to protect their own, even when they have done wrong, and I wouldn't complain. It has very little bearing on the facts of the case though.

Originally posted by exponent
Spoliation was a result of searching for survivors in the initial stages.

No it wasn't. Spoliation is “the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, alteration or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.” That is what Dr Quintiere is referring to. Clearly the rescue priority meant the crime scene could not remain untouched prior to an investigation – there was an urgent need, from day one, to remove debris around WTC 1 & 2 (but not WTC 7). The crime was not the removal of the evidence from location, but its deliberate and methodical destruction thereafter.

So firefighters did not intentionally destroy evidence? I would say that they did, but with very good reason. Your point is fine with me though, I have no affiliation to any people involved in 911 and do not care for them if they get prosecuted for their actions.

You may doubt it, but it was the verdict of a peer reviewed study by an independent team of experts. No peer reviewed research has challenged it to date. Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse is currently the active ATS thread to debate it.

If you have followed this paper, there's little evidence it has actually been peer reviewed properly, and the idea that the team behind it are "independent" is pretty hilarious. How many of them are actually 911 truthers? How does that make them independent?

It was NIST's job under the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, to determine whether the dust had any bearing on the destruction of the towers. When called out on it, they could offer no defence for not testing.

Why would NIST have an obligation to carry out requirements from NFPA 921? NFPA 921 is a document to help people, it's no national standard as you say, it was simply produced by the National Fire Protection Agency which is a non profit organisation. Where is the statutory requirement?

It's not superseded by the FOIA releases. The plane crash simulations professor Tabiei tried to obtain have never been released as far as I'm aware. Moreover, it is also correct to say NIST refused to release the SAP2000 models. They did not place them in the public domain and the individual who obtained them, had to take the extraordinary measure of filing a FOIA to force NIST to release them.

It is superseded, because you cannot claim they do not release models, when they have in fact released models! That's like saying I don't allow kids on my lawn, other than the 2 kids I let on already, and the other ones have yet to ask my permission.

Neither is a FOIA that extraordinary, it is in fact very much ordinary as it is the default mechanism for attaining information unreleased by government agencies which you have a right to.

As you said yourself, there's no valid reason why they would withhold the data. If they had nothing to hide, surely they would actively encourage peer review. To date it would appear that no independent group has had access to the WTC 7 computer simulation parameters.

I'm sure they would, but I am also sure they don't want to go through the exhaustive steps of uploading several terabytes to their webserver and having every layperson download it, attempt to run it in whatever bastardised version of the software they have, and claim it is an inside job when they misunderstand what a particular BEAM element is used for.

If they do release these models, then your criticism is irrelevant, and they have.

The video of the lobby does not show large chunks of WTC 2, but light debris and a coating of fine dust - consistent with an internal explosion:
“No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating.” NIST Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse - Final (page 15)

Yes, the video does not show large chunks of WTC2, but we know very well it occured after WTC2 collapsed. So what exact point are you making here? That WTC2 did in fact look very much like an internal explosion to people unfamiliar with the scene? That is exactly my point, so I agree.

After the "big explosion", Jennings said:
...
Hess describes thick smoke, not dust:

Both of these quotes match up exactly with what I said, Jennings did not actually see WTC2 standing, and to try and draw a distinction between smoke and dust is pretty hilarious, I do not think Mr Hess was examining it with a microscope.

To disguise the sudden demolition of the building and make it look more like a progressive, fire-induced occurrence? To ensure certain documents did not survive the demolition? Because explosives were detonated earlier than intended by the fire?

Let me get this straight, according to your theory, they needed to preweaken WTC7 to make it look more like a progressive fire collapse, so their strategy was this:

• Detonate loud and violent explosives before there is any plausible mechanism to damage things "naturally"
  
• Do this before the collapse of either tower for some unknown reason
  
• Design the collapse of WTC7 so that in fact it does look like a controlled demolition to laymen

Is this what you are seriously suggesting? They set off bombs before either tower in order to do something which they actually didn't end up doing anyway? This makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that you were harsh – you were entirely incorrect. Dr Quintire was involved in collecting evidence even before the 9/11 families forced the government to commission the NIST investigation, and followed it throughout. He was on the team of the original ASCE investigation. Significantly he was not on the payroll of any government funded body.

Indeed I may have been way too harsh about Quintiere, I simply haven't paid enough attention to him it seems. I have no great argument with the potential for a fire-only collapse conclusion, and he has yet to make any claims similar to 911 truthers, so I apologise to him for my inaccurate characterisation.

I have only one quote to reply to in this post, because it indicates the dichotomy of thought in the truth movement:

If you're asking for details about precisely where the charges were placed, by whom and when – I can't oblige, but controlled demolition is an alternative theory which actually fits the evidence. NIST's explanations are not good because they ignore and distort it.

How can any theory possibly 'fit the evidence', when you don't even know

• What the theory is
  
• What the evidence it fits is

This is so typical of the truth movement I am going to use it as a perfect example in the future. You don't know what charges were, or where they were placed, or as a result of that, how they took down the building. But you know that they fit evidence? What evidence do they fit! If you don't know what they are, you cannot know any of the blast effects or physical effects of them. If you don't know where they were placed you cannot make any structural calculations.

What evidence do they possibly fit other than "Fire could not destroy the building, explosives are not fire, therefore they can?". NISTs theory is developed over hundreds of various modelling situations, actual physical tests on full scale and reduced scale reproductions, and identifies not only what, when, where and how, but indeed to some extent why. You have admitted yourself that you cannot explain what, when, where and how, and have only speculation for why. You think this is a better theory?