I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

That means no P or S waves.
No cookie.


Hey, I demand that friggin' cookie. It's going to be a Snickerdoodle, too.

Yes, there are ALWAYS P and S waves, and, they move faster than ground waves... and are smaller in amplitude than your surface-waves because a surface wave's energy is kept close to to the ground, and radiates itself in a different manner.


No, these huge pre-collapse spikes on the WTC 7 graph are not P or S waves, since these are much smaller in amplitude than Rg waves, the surface ones mainly received by LDEO on 9/11.


*points to his previous post about P, S, and surface waves* I think we have a reading malfunction.


If the main collapse would have been shown in the WTC 7 collapse graph as a spread-out signal packet from a real time event which was seconds shorter in duration, like in another type of seismogram from LDEO, then it would still be totally impossible for the spread-out graph, to have bigger than collapse signals in front of the collapse signals.


*perks eyebrow* Vex me, you, in your ways of speech.

If I can sort through what you're saying, Master Yoda, then I assume you are saying that the receipt of multiple types of waves would result in an indecipherable rumble... or something.

Which... like I said - P-waves are very fast in comparison to S-waves, and S-waves are slightly faster than surface waves.

And, because the method of travel is different for the various waves, you end up with different paths for the 'sound' to take before it can reach the seismograph.

For instance, surface waves cannot travel across the ocean - so, if there is no direct land-path to the seismograph, it must reverberate to get there - which can increase the distance the surface waves need to travel before being monitored by several fold (thus increasing the time, greatly). S-waves cannot travel through water, either (but they can travel through the ground under the water) - which causes some interesting dynamics. And, finally, your P-waves can be transmitted through water, but at a different rate than they transmit through the ground - which can create an echoing effect.

And, in an area with a very complex geography involving water, land-fill islands, rivers, and a mountain backdrop (as you go west) - you can and will receive many echoes. It's like being a submarine in the middle of a harbor - it's a hall of mirrors mixed with a kaleidescope and a healthy dose of '___'.

And, with all due respect, you still have yet to prove that this is the result of a bomb. Do remember that these seismographs are omnidirectional devices and provide no real direction.

And, demolition bombs would not really register on any seismograph. If there were bombs capable of registering on a seismograph, we would have seen them, for sure, as half a city block spontaneously exploded in all directions.

Why don't you compare the seismic evidence of 9/11 to seismic evidence from an actual controlled demolition? If you could prove some sort of strong correlation, there, then it would go farther than saying "What is this spike right here?" Perhaps it was some redneck in Maine blowing up his back yard for the hell of it - and it just happened to coincide with what was going on at the time. Or it could have been any number of things going on in that city at that time.




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Great Job Laptop (but you already knew this).

As far as my input about NIST and their FAQ. Something's fishy IMO.

First, we have FEMA comming out with a report that the structural steel was not only melted but evaporated and stating that more testing needs to be done because it was "unique", "unusual event", "no clear explaination". What if this may have been a cause of collapse? Even without a conspiracy, NIST should have tested the steel.

www.fema.gov...

But, what do we get from NIST and what they have to say about testing.


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


wtc.nist.gov...

Remember that the residue found in the FEMA steel is a residue that could be from thermate or it could be from gypsum (unlikely IMHO). So, if they didn't test for thermate residue (the same residue found from FEMA), they didn't test the steel for anything related to what FEMA found.

In their own words they are telling us that (as an agency tasked with safety and safety codes) they didn't bother to test the steel to see what may have caused this. Even though it would be beneficial to structural engineers and architects throughout the world to know what not to specify for this "unique" reaction to happen in the future.

This (among a plethora of other things) tells me there's something being kept from us. And read my signature to see how well I enjoy being lied to. Cheers Valhall.


p.s. Starred and flagged.

[edit on 12/18/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Do you realize how many chemical compounds are in an office environment? You've got hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, silicon wafers, human fat (which burns hot enough to melt steel, mind you - why oven fires are so dangerous), and countless other elements, compounds, and potential for any type of various reactions.

You also have the magnesium and titanium in the aircraft structure - both are HIGHLY flammable metals that will burn a hole through concrete, given the time. You've got all kinds of potential for any number of chemical reactions.

That is why this is 'unique' - we don't have aircraft crashing into buildings and combining the elements of aircraft fires with structural fires (and the two are quite different, I can tell you from my training on fighting fires on a flight deck - the fundamentals are the same, but there are a number of more concerns in an aircraft fire that you don't have with structural fires... such as that fuel, ordinance (if present), and the engine components (which can catch fire... and are bad, bad, BAD when they do)).

Magnesium is often used in the landing gear, and can easily be ignited by a jet fuel fire or standard office fire when left unchecked as in the events of the WTC. Those magnesium fires could also set the titanium on fire in the jet engines. As I said - each of those burn hot enough to burn through concrete, and will go through steel like a hot knife through butter.

I'm sure the abundance of human fat present in that environment (which is also different from a number of other fires - as structures are usually vacant or become vacant before anyone gets the chance to catch on fire) could also trigger such flammable metals, as well.

There are simply too many factors involved here to say "unusual residue" is any sort of indication of bombs. BOMBS, or KNOWN reactions would be very quickly identified. And since there are virtually no unknown chemical reactions of that genre - you're left with mythical fusion devices - which would also leave rather distinct traces that would be identified.

What you're dealing with is a number of various compounds oxidizing, being broken up, reformed, and all kinds of crazy stuff. You are going to get some awkward residues - especially with the presence burning proteins, which are known for containing elevated amounts of potassium and sodium when compared to an office fire that did not contain burning human bodies.

If you knew anything about chemistry, or read your Anarchist's Handbook (the earlier generations, not this sissy one they put out today), you would know that Sodium and Potassium are very commonly used in bombs. Which is why residues containing elevated amounts of potassium and/or sodium would be of curiosity. And when you have a number of other hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, etc all burning together... you are going to get some rather peculiar and random residues.

And unless you're willing to let me set someone on fire in a laboratory to prove this to you (when it would just be more simple for you to take a couple classes on chemistry and biology), then I guess I could set a rump roast on fire instead.... *imagines a bunch of guys in lab coats extending lit lighters towards a rather surprised and disgruntled test subject* ..... I know it would be horrible.... but that is just a funny image.... one of those "what would you do in that situation" type of things.

Sorry... enough sadistic humor.

Anyway, burden of proof is on you to prove that this is, in some way, linked to explosive devices, or some sort of 'controlled demolition' or something implying a conspiracy.

So far, all it is is "Hmm... isn't this suspicious"..... possibly. But when there are other, perfectly logical explanations out there that don't begin pushing the bounds of reality with black ops setting explosive charges of some sort in the building - you need to provide something rather solid as to how this could only be what you are suggesting. .... If you can, first, figure out what it is you are suggesting.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I was going to go point by point with this post. But, It's just too funny to even consider.

BTW, I CAN go point by point with you and disspell ALL your arguments with REAL science. Not just something I picked up from "debunking 9/11".

Let me know if you want me to, because I'm more than happy and willing to.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Aim64C
 
BTW, I CAN go point by point with you and disspell ALL your arguments with REAL science. Not just something I picked up from "debunking 9/11".

Let me know if you want me to, because I'm more than happy and willing to.


You think this is about me, or you? That clears something up.

Anyway - why would you bother asking such a silly question?

Go ahead. Bring out the science-hammer of doom on my statements. Hit me with everything you have.

Don't allow me to use this as a 'you're just chickening out' event.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Isn't the first sample FEMA talks about in their report from WTC7? As far as I know no plane parts went into that building. Did any jet fuel make it there? And wasn't it evacuated before it was even damaged by the collapsing towers?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Aim64C, this is the original essay by the scientists from LDEO Columbia University :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Have a look at their Figure 4 at page 9 from 9.
Note the P-wave and S-wave positions and amplitudes in the Earthquake in Manhattan diagram.
Note the absence of these waves in the Second WTC collapse, North Tower diagram.

This combined with the excerpt I offered you in my last post to you at the bottom of page 1 of this thread, would normally convince any logical thinking individual of their erroneous thoughts.
Your problem is, you seem not to understand what a seismologist means by using the term "body-waves".

You then choose to totally ignore provided links and arguments, and keep going on in a pub-like drinking rant, debating style manner.
I must admit, its somewhat comical to read, and enlightens my days at times, but it has nothing to do with honestly searching for real facts, using real science.

I'll try to drive it home one more time, to see if I can get through to you, if not, I will cease to react to your posts, since then, you're not worthy of my attention :


Page 2 and 3, from 9 :
Comparison with Signals from Earthquakes, Gas Explosion and Mine Collapse.

The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different.
Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake.
The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg,

(page 3)

which is so prominent for the collapse. The difference in the excitation of higher frequencies also can be attributed to the short time duration of slip in small earthquakes compared to the combined source time of several seconds of the complex system of the towers and foundations responding to the impacts and collapses. The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away. (LT: because it was not coupled to the ground, but instead on the floor of a truck, above ground!)
An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observable P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse 2. Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km. AMNH also recorded a prominent seismic arrival at the time expected for an atmospheric acoustic wave. We know of no microbarograph recordings of either that explosion or the events at the WTC.
Many people asked us if the arrivals at seismic stations from the WTC events propagated in the atmosphere. We find no evidence of waves arriving at such slow velocities. Instead the seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period surface waves, i.e. seismic waves travelling within the upper few kilometers of the crust.


If you don't grasp that coloured and bolded text by now, then you're a lost case to science.

By the way, your dis-respectful writing style is a prime example of the way you should NOT debate at the ATS science based forums.
Join Above Politics to enjoy that kind of debates there.


Let's proceed :
Another interesting excerpt from page 5 :

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least
10^11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10^6 to 10^7 J. Hence, only a
very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy
went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.


Those interested, should also read my posts regarding the Jim Hoffmann essay, in the other parallel thread going on momentarily :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and its other former pages.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Do you realize how many chemical compounds are in an office environment? You've got hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, silicon wafers, human fat (which burns hot enough to melt steel, mind you - why oven fires are so dangerous), and countless other elements, compounds, and potential for any type of various reactions.


So why wouldn't an agengy tasked with finding out what happened actually find out what happened? I.E. This steel evaporation is still a mystery. Why?


You also have the magnesium and titanium in the aircraft structure - both are HIGHLY flammable metals that will burn a hole through concrete, given the time. You've got all kinds of potential for any number of chemical reactions.


Again. Why hasn't this theory of yours been proven with scientific modeling? Just so we can know what not to do in the future?


That is why this is 'unique' - we don't have aircraft crashing into buildings and combining the elements of aircraft fires with structural fires (and the two are quite different, I can tell you from my training on fighting fires on a flight deck - the fundamentals are the same, but there are a number of more concerns in an aircraft fire that you don't have with structural fires... such as that fuel, ordinance (if present), and the engine components (which can catch fire... and are bad, bad, BAD when they do)).


Again. Why hasn't this theory of yours been tested?


There are simply too many factors involved here to say "unusual residue" is any sort of indication of bombs.


Where have I stated that the only conclusion is bombs? BTW, bombs wouldn't produce it either.

Thermate would though. Or a natural eutetic reaction. Of which, NIST should have at least looked into so that I don't spec the wrong things in my next building. Right?


BOMBS, or KNOWN reactions would be very quickly identified. And since there are virtually no unknown chemical reactions of that genre - you're left with mythical fusion devices - which would also leave rather distinct traces that would be identified.


Wow. I've seen the obfuscation from you before, but this takes the cake. Now we're talking about fusion bombs? I thought this was just about NIST not testing steel that FEMA said should have been tested?


What you're dealing with is a number of various compounds oxidizing, being broken up, reformed, and all kinds of crazy stuff.


Please provide empirical and/or physical proof of these claims.


You are going to get some awkward residues - especially with the presence burning proteins, which are known for containing elevated amounts of potassium and sodium when compared to an office fire that did not contain burning human bodies.


Your burning human body theory may have some merit. But, again, how does burning human bodies sulfidate steel and evaporate it?


If you knew anything about chemistry,


Nice jab. BTW, I know plenty about chemistry.


or read your Anarchist's Handbook (the earlier generations, not this sissy one they put out today), you would know that Sodium and Potassium are very commonly used in bombs. Which is why residues containing elevated amounts of potassium and/or sodium would be of curiosity. And when you have a number of other hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, etc all burning together... you are going to get some rather peculiar and random residues.


Again. Empirical and/or physical proof of your statements please.


And unless you're willing to let me set someone on fire in a laboratory to prove this to you


What's wrong with a cadiver?


(when it would just be more simple for you to take a couple classes on chemistry and biology),


Again with the jab about my intellegence and/or education huh? Is that all you got?


Anyway, burden of proof is on you to prove that this is, in some way, linked to explosive devices, or some sort of 'controlled demolition' or something implying a conspiracy.


The burden of proof is definitely NOT on me to proove anything of the sort. The burden of proof is on NIST to find out what did this to the steel. You know, the agency tasked with "investigating" the incident so that safety codes and building codes could be re-written if need be? But, they are just going to ignore it?


So far, all it is is "Hmm... isn't this suspicious"..... possibly. But when there are other, perfectly logical explanations out there that don't begin pushing the bounds of reality with black ops setting explosive charges of some sort in the building - you need to provide something rather solid as to how this could only be what you are suggesting. .... If you can, first, figure out what it is you are suggesting.


See, this is where you are having a problem understanding.

I am NOT out to prove there were explosives/thermate/a conspiracy with this. All I'm out for is that MY tax paying money be used to find out what actually happened. NOT just what they "think" happened.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Isn't the first sample FEMA talks about in their report from WTC7? As far as I know no plane parts went into that building. Did any jet fuel make it there? And wasn't it evacuated before it was even damaged by the collapsing towers?


Thank you NIcon for bringing up very good points.

So much for the human body, jet fuel, jet titanium burning theory.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just a couple of questions:

Given the omnidirectional nature of seismic vibrations, was WTC7 the only detectable source of activity in that area at that point in time (pre-collapse)?

An interesting question, but given the speed of the seismic waves, and the time record for collapse vs. recording of vibrations, probability steps in and says that it was WTC 7, even if other sources were around at that time. If there were multiple events simultaneously, they would add (or cancel) each other in the recordings. There are clearly defined quiet periods, and periods of activity that when compared with the time record, show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was WTC 7, and not another seismic event.


Apart from the mechanism involved in a total failure of the truss over the 5 story high substation within the building, could an internal collapse of a major part of the core of the building into the substation have been the cause of the precollapse signal?

Unlikely due to the size of the spike. The Richter Scale is logarithmic. www.seismo.unr.edu... Scroll to the bottom of the page for a comparison using regular TNT as a guide to the differences in energy for each step in the scale.

To put it into context, the seismic recordings show a magnitude 2.3 (WTC2) and 2.1 (WTC1) for the WTC collapses. Assuming you dropped all 500,000 tons of building (one tower, estimated weight) onto the floor from 75 m (~250 ft), the GPE = 500,000 x 9.81 x 75 = 367,875,000 Joules of energy.

2.0 on the richter scale is the equivalent of 0.631E+08 Joules of energy, or 63,100,000 Joules.

In that instance, I'd have to drop the entire structure, simultaneously, from 12.8 meters (~42 ft) to get the same kind of energy. We know this did not happen (far from it in fact).

I invite you to invalidate my maths.

I know you're going to say that parts of it fell from much higher up the tower, but that only serves to reduce its mass, so the energy involved is far less. In addition, the huge spikes recorded prior to the collapse time could not have occurred due to a collapsing building, as the building was not collapsing at this time.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

You've got hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, silicon wafers, human fat (which burns hot enough to melt steel, mind you -

I'm sure the abundance of human fat present in that environment (which is also different from a number of other fires - as structures are usually vacant or become vacant before anyone gets the chance to catch on fire) could also trigger such flammable metals, as well.






posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What are you highlighting?

[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What are you highlighting?

[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


Aim64'c accelerant



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I thought it might have been, but I couldn't see anything.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
www.wtc7.net...
This is a note at the bottom of chapter 5.5.2 (Collapse of WTC 1) of the earliest official report, which was publicized by FEMA :


According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.


It is quite unbelievable in the case of a NIST proposed deep gash in the center of the south facade of WTC 7, caused by fallen debris from the WTC 1 north tower collapse, that the eventual gash would have been cut through the whole south face, covering also floors under the two extra reinforced 7th and 5th floors.
But NIST tried to propose a failure in two main columns to occur, originating at the 5th floor level, caused by debris damage and intense fires.
That is impossible, and probably NIST knew this, when you account for this firefighters testimony.

I would like to introduce you to the following "absurd FEMA story", written by the unknown writer of the red coloured comments in the above linked FEMA Report :


So we have been presented with the following absurd story:

1. Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.
2. Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.
3. Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time.
4. Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
5. Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower.
6. Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall.
7. Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
8. Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires.
9. Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all.
10. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
11. Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity.
12. Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?


Now we go to the other side, the official theory followers :
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri
terrorize.dk...


Seems like the demolition crews were quite busy all day.


16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors www.thememoryhole.org... page 69


So this guy heard a FDNY Chief at circa 11 a.m. saying that "the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent." And heard at that time already the work of the demolition crews, deep inside WTC 7.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. www.record-eagle.com...


Mr Jennings and Hess are interesting witnesses. Some people think they witnessed an initial blast inside WTC 7, and not ""[the collapse of the north tower].""

I'm still waiting for further interviews with mr Jennings, since mr Hess doesn't comment. Alex Jones and Dylan Averey announced that mr. Jennings interview would be the main piece in their next production.

Nothing to find there, yet......



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

diesel

What do we know of the properties of diesel?

* You can take as many matches to it as you like - it won't ignite

* To light it with a match, you're best bet is to heat it up to about 500 °F first, but it is still no guarantee

* Diesel poured onto an already hot and burning diesel fire won't light - it will put out the existing diesel fire. If it is being pumped in large quantities as suggested in WTC 7, then this is only more likely.

* Diesel burns best under compression (think diesel car) - it doesn't burn well in an open atmosphere, so resulting fires are cool, and produce copious amounts of black smoke, like an oil fire.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Have a look at my last post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and view the video.

If you, the readers, can't see the demo signs, you don't want to see them, in my humble opinion.

Mirageofdeceit, it is a shame that anybody still does want to bring up the diesel card as a trump-card in any 9/11 argument.

As you know, even NIST does not really hang to that theory anymore, but they seem to be pressed by the NIST director to keep repeating a few vague sentences about diesel, to keep the fate of the masses, still believing the big lies hidden behind a wealth of good and solid research by many NIST scientists, upright.

The directors of NIST....
Look into them, how they were exchanged from free thinkers to political appointed parrots of the party lines and corporate America.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


So if one can't disprove a negative, then the only possible conclusion is the one you are asserting? That's not how logic works.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
There is a Youtube video I saw recently that shows a few firemen on 9-11 standing around a pay phone calling loved ones to assure them they were OK. All of a sudden there is a tremendous explosion, BOOOOM!!, and the men jump..BUT one man nearby, some boss, say " Don't worry about it ', and you can tell exactly what the deal is: He is telling the guys to call their Mom's, and not to worry about the blasts..he knows that there are numerous explosiuons going on in Bldg. 7, and is privy to the fact that they are safe where they are: he knows the source of the blasts.

Then, the ' countdown ' where several emergency workers state that the building is ' getting ready to come down ', and many more obvious signs of a controilled demolition. Teams were in there blasting away to make it happen: No way on earth could the very perfect symmetrical ' collapse ' we see on film be caused by a lopsided damage area..impossible. It could NOT have come straight down if supports had given way one by one, and there is nothing to account for them all going at once, except for explosives. it is beyond obvious.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
The directors of NIST....
Look into them, how they were exchanged from free thinkers to political appointed parrots of the party lines and corporate America.


Very good idea.


The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment.


www.nist.gov...

William Jeffrey


He comes to NIST from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), where he was senior director for homeland and national security, as well as assistant director for space and aeronautics.

Before serving at OSTP, Jeffrey worked at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as deputy director for the Advanced Technology Office and chief scientist for the Tactical Technology Office. According to the NIST press release, his work at DARPA involved research in communications, computer network security, development of sensors and space operations.

Jeffrey's experience prior to DARPA includes positions with the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office and the Institute for Defense Analyses. He has served on review panels addressing national security issues, and chaired a national panel that proposed a technology investment strategy to support NASA's planetary missions.



Jeffrey responded that NIST has a very active role in homeland security, taking the lead in the World Trade Center investigation and participating in the investigation of the anthrax sent to Senate offices, as well as other security issues.



www.aip.org...

Why would the National Institute of Standards and Technology be investigating the anthrax attacks and other security issues? Wouldn't that be the FBI's job? When did the istitute tasked with standards for technology become an institute tasked with homeland security?




[edit on 12/20/2007 by Griff]





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join