Howard, you just don't get it do you?

"FEDERAL Building and Fire Safety Investigation..."

Sorry, but just keep showing us the same stuff over and over from the NIST
report is not gonna convince any of us that 9-11 was NOT an inside job.
Something called "conflict of interest"??

Is that the best you can do Howward?

Sigh. No, you just don't get it.

The world is not filled with evil sociopaths all working together to enslave you

Just because someone works for the United States government, does not meant that they are part of a secret conspiracy.

Yes, NIST is a federal agency, but the work that they do is duplicated and expanded on by scientists and engineers around the country, around the world for that mater.

When will you get it that it is impossible for this sort of data to be faked or biased.

Science is built on accurate data and experiments. Future experiments by others will be built upon the results of those tests. If the NIST tests were biased of skewed, then the future experiments by other researchers around the world will expose and reveal those flaws in the NIST tests.

BTW, if you even bothered to follow the link and read the report (which I know you did not, in your blind insistence on ignoring any real scientific data) you would have noted that many of the findings are or will shortly be published in relevant scientific and engineering journals.

If a scientists or an engineer is caught publishing bogus findings, his career is over.

There are plenty of engineers and scientists out there that are no friends of the U.S., but even they won't risk their careers suporting a bogus conspiracy theory.



[edit on 21-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are plenty of engineers and scientists out there that are no friends of the U.S., but even they won't risk their careers suporting a bogus conspiracy theory.

As I've said before...There are plenty of engineers and scientists out there that are no friends of the U.S., but even they won't risk their careers to talk publicaly about any doubts they have regarding the official story.

And obviously I clicked on the links and read some of the report, other wise how did I know what it was?

FYI for anyone interested in information on how hot the fires could potentially get

Btw Howard, looking over that pdf, it looks like the alleged temps have been dropped a bit from those incredible initial claims, at least for the office fires, anyway. Must be disappointing. I fail to see how they took into account the altitude and air temperatures surrounding the fires, as well as the fires' access to oxygen. It seems to be a trend of NIST's to over-emphasize the supposed great damage caused by the little fires, but coming from a government agency I suppose you can expect no less.

The manufacturer reported accuracy for thermocouples employing SLE wire is 1.1 °C for temperatures between 0 °C and 293 °C. and 0.4 percent between 293 °C and 1,250 °C.

I just thought this bit from page 62 was amusing. Since when is accuracy measured in degrees Celsius?

[edit on 21-7-2005 by bsbray11]

So basically the difference between me and you is that I am saying that scientists and engineers don't support the conspiracy theory because to do so would expose them to censure and ridicule from their peers. Even those who dislike the U.S., or live in countries that are anti-American are still vulnerable to this.

You believe that scientists and engineers don't come out in favor of conspiracy theories because they are cowards who are afraid of the U.S. government, even those that do not live in the U.S. How is the U.S. government going to persecute someone who lives in Egypt, France, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Japan, India, China? Where are the scientists and engineers from these countries?

That is the fundamental and core tenet behind conspiracy theories. You believe that people are a bunch of sniveling cowards except for those that believe in the conspiracy theories.

The conspiracy believer has a highly exaggerated mistrust of everything. There is no program of persecution here.



[edit on 21-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

If a scientists or an engineer is caught publishing bogus findings, his career is over.

There are plenty of engineers and scientists out there that are no friends of the U.S., but even they won't risk their careers suporting a bogus conspiracy theory.



[edit on 21-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Truth is a matter of debate, and is constructed by societal definition of sanity.

The only people commenting on the conspiracy theory of the WTC's collapse are the people who have something to gain, (authors, and conspiracy personalities like Alex Jones) or those who have nothing to lose (anonymous posters on websites, politicians with retired careers).

What could someone possibly gain from publicly announcing they think that 9/11 was an inside job?

A: A lot of weird stares.
B: Reputation for being insane.

What professional, whose career floats in the sea of society, wants to rock the boat? The reward vs. risk in this case is not even in question. There is no point in contradicting the official story.

The truth of what happened to the Twin Towers is never going to be objectively proven. The steel is long gone and the crime scene is sanitized. The only thing left is conspiracy theory vs. the official story.

For me, there are two choices:

The hijackers were able to pull off these attacks without being discovered in the process by anyone who could affect it, NORAD stood down completely, and a thousand other improbable coincidences...

Or...

A few high government officials orchestrated the attacks and then lied.

I'm betting on the simpler of the two explanations.

Yes, NIST is a federal agency, but the work that they do is duplicated and expanded on by scientists and engineers around the country, around the world for that mater.

When will you get it that it is impossible for this sort of data to be faked or biased.

This is the biggest load of bullcrap you've posted in a while. Of course these tests can be biased - and they are! They start off with a conclusion and then working backwards trying to figure out a way to explain their conclusion. NIST has not once even entertained any other ideas as to how the buildings collapse, or bothered to propose any problems with alternate theories. How is that not biased?

If I started off a massive paper assuming the towers came down by demolition, and then geared everything in the report towards that end and that end alone, would that paper not be biased? No, Howard, that is most certainly biased, and further, these tests are not in the least conclusive.

What you fail to understand, is that the US government at its head has absolute control over these agencies. If somebody higher up wants a report to say something, it'll say it. If someone higher up wants all evidence to be planted around a pre-conceived conclusion, it will happen. If it does not, people are simply fired and the project goes along anyway. There's no denying who these agencies answer to.

If there's a conspiracy here, and I belong to a large group of people here that believe this is exactly the case, then you do not count on the very government in question for reliable information. This is what you expect us to do. This information is not only biased, but it's all completely fixed around the notion that the WTC buildings came down from fire and structural damage. Nothing else is entertained; nothing else is considered even for a moment.

Their conclusion is the only one they give you to pick from, and it doesn't add up. It's because it doesn't add up that there are so many of us here denying ignorance.

There are too many problems with the WTC collapses for NIST to conveniently entertain only one theory of collapse, and that's the core problem with these reports. They make assumptions on faulty data, starting from a conclusion and ending with 'evidence' fixed around that conclusion.

That is the fundamental and core tenet behind conspiracy theories. You believe that people are a bunch of sniveling cowards except for those that believe in the conspiracy theories.

The conspiracy believer has a highly exaggerated mistrust of everything. There is no program of persecution here.

You shouldn't stereotype, Howard. Believe it or not, some of us know ourselves better than you do.

What, did I hit a little too close to home there buddy?

- - -

You can not deny that I am right about the scientists and engineers.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How is the U.S. government going to persecute someone who lives in Egypt, France, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Japan, India, China? Where are the scientists and engineers from these countries?

How are scientists in countries outside the US able to come to any conclusion as to what bought the buildings down, when scientists in the US do not even have access to evidence from the site?

They usualy don't release papers on personal feelings and doubts.

How can NIST make a final decision when all evidence was removed?

Don't "scientists" have to have concrete evidence before they release their conclusions? Scientifically provable evidence?

There is none!

That's what makes your federally controlled NIST report bogus at best.

Their conclusions came from what little evidence there was and speculation, so in other words it is biased. Intentionally done by NIST or not. They may fully believe in what they say, what are they going to do?
1. Fill in the blanks with conspiracy theory, or 2. fill in the blanks to fit the official story? Because the NIST believes the official story without question, it's answer 2.
They made a report using what they had, and what they had was what the federal government wanted them to have.

Have you ever been in the military howie?
If you have you will understand the way large government organisations work. Lot's of people in the organisation might know or suspect something is not as the gov say, but just like any body else they keep quite in fear of losing their job, being blacklisted, having their reputation ruined, self doubt etc...
No one has enough of the picture to really come forward and expose the federal government for what it is, and what it does.
And those that do know the full picture are part of the picture.

Are you getting this yet howwie?

AP&F...

Let's say that fires did get hot enough to melt the steel to cause a complete failure.

How is it that the fires in the first tower took 45 minutes longer to achieve this? Did the second tower have more cubicles?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

North tower collapse = 102 minutes
8:46 - hit
10:28 - collapse

South tower collapse = 57 minutes
9:03 - hit
9:59 - collapse

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I don't know why any of you are talking about *IF* the fire got hot enough, I mean obviously if you look at the fire, at some points it is a decent fire.

However considering no fire has ever destroyed a steel building, it would take a raging inferno to bring down the WTC.

I think it is important to look at how the WTC collapsed, I would like to know why the WTC shook several seconds before it collapsed, does that make any sense? How is that a pancake demolition...If you want the video look through this thread, I posted a link...

I think fire could of brought down the towers, however NOT that fire.
And there is no way in hell fire caused the damage that happened to the towers.

I mean basically what you have is steel that has been ripped into pieces that is extremely hot.
Some molten pools of steel in the basement of the WTC.

And of course pulverized concrete.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
However considering no fire has ever destroyed a steel building, it would take a raging inferno to bring down the WTC.

Not true. A number of steel buildings have been destroyed in fire. The McCormick place fire in Chicago in 67 is a classic example of a building with no fireproofing that collapsed in a fire.

I think it is important to look at how the WTC collapsed, I would like to know why the WTC shook several seconds before it collapsed, does that make any sense?

no.

How is that a pancake demolition...If you want the video look through this thread, I posted a link...

I think fire could of brought down the towers, however NOT that fire.
And there is no way in hell fire caused the damage that happened to the towers.

I mean basically what you have is steel that has been ripped into pieces that is extremely hot.
Some molten pools of steel in the basement of the WTC.

And of course pulverized concrete.

1) there is no hard evidence of molten steel in the basement. Molten metal, maybe, but I have seen no proof that it was steel.
2) It was not nessessary to melt the steel for the building to collapse, just heat it up to the point where it was no longer able to support the normal loads plus the additional loads on it caused by the aircraft impact.
3) The fire, like all structural fires, was entirely capable of reaching temperatures hot enough to soften the steel.
4) The aircraft impact dislodged the ceiling tile system and the sprayed on fireproofing. Thus the floor trusses were completely exposed to the heat of the fire.
5) The floor slabs were only 4 inches thick, 208 feet long by 208 feet wide and made of lightweight concrete. It would not have taken much energy to crack and pulverize that concrete.

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
Truth is a matter of debate, and is constructed by societal definition of sanity.

The only people commenting on the conspiracy theory of the WTC's collapse are the people who have something to gain, (authors, and conspiracy personalities like Alex Jones) or those who have nothing to lose (anonymous posters on websites, politicians with retired careers).

What could someone possibly gain from publicly announcing they think that 9/11 was an inside job?

The issue here is the NIST reports on the fires and the collapse of the towers.

You are wrong. A lot of people have a lot to gain or to loose from these reports. Scientists and engineers designing new buildings will need to make changes to those designs based on the findings and recommendations of those reports.

Building owners and insurers will have to deal with the knowledge that their buildings might be vulnerable under similar conditions, thus possibly forcing them to make expensive renovations to existing buildings.

Fire departments will have to re-evaluate how the approach and fight fires in these buildings.

Tenants are going to have to evaluate weather they still want to lease space in these buildings.

What professional, whose career floats in the sea of society, wants to rock the boat? The reward vs. risk in this case is not even in question. There is no point in contradicting the official story.

As I stated above, there are many potential costs issues involved. What competent professional would not evaluate the legitimacy of those issues?

NIST never tested WTC materials for explosives.

They never determined what temperature the steel reached.

They examined about 0.05 of the buildings' steel.

No reconstruction of the accident took place.

Their report proves nothing.

Originally posted by bsbray11

FYI for anyone interested in information on how hot the fires could potentially get

Btw Howard, looking over that pdf, it looks like the alleged temps have been dropped a bit from those incredible initial claims, at least for the office fires, anyway. Must be disappointing. I fail to see how they took into account the altitude and air temperatures surrounding the fires, as well as the fires' access to oxygen. It seems to be a trend of NIST's to over-emphasize the supposed great damage caused by the little fires, but coming from a government agency I suppose you can expect no less.

What would the altitude have to do with anything? The fires were only a few hundred feet above sea level. Btw, they tests were deficient in one regard, the failed to account for the additional fuel load from the aircraft cabin components.

The manufacturer reported accuracy for thermocouples employing SLE wire is 1.1 °C for temperatures between 0 °C and 293 °C. and 0.4 percent between 293 °C and 1,250 °C.

I just thought this bit from page 62 was amusing. Since when is accuracy measured in degrees Celsius?

Well since the thermocouple measures the temperature in degrees, its accuracy would be a plus or minus value of that measurement.

Just in case anyone's lost.