9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

reply to post by dbates

So speaking of laying the evidence on the table (the subject), what would be a good example of a difference between NIST and others?

THIS :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this is the thread title and link to its page 1 :
I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this thread has additional posts on the subject, especially this one where you can see the real comparison at the same scale, at last, between LDEO's seismic graphs :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is that thread's title and link to its page 1 :
Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I compared SOLELY the facts provided by two government institutions publications, LDEO and NIST, and proved human intervention in the three WTC collapses.

This is my original thesis :
www.studyof911.com...


I repeat, and will keep doing it, until someone will be able to prove me wrong, or until this subject will get the attention it deserves in main stream media in the US or outside :

Prove me wrong on my WTC 7 thesis, and you then subsequently prove me wrong on my inevitable WTC 1 and 2 conclusion.
That conclusion being, that all three LDEO collapse seismograms show human intervention, in other words, explosions.

That's my evidence, very much on topic, and you will all have a hard time to prove me wrong.
(I predict, you can't.)



MOD EDIT: Please submit complaints using the complaint feature

[edit on 1/30/08/30 by junglejake]

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
YES! from this page : killtown.911review.org...
here you go:
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE / PREPARATION

Very nice, but i was talking more along the lines of this.

cicentre.com...

Early '01 Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat
….The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings, but its full contents had not been disclosed…..(Reuters, 12 Feb 05)

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings
U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings….(Reuters, 10 Feb 05)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You just don't get what I am trying to say do you?

Yes i do. I am just stating there are obvious things that do not have a "could have meant this or could have meant that"

The point is they did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing (period)

As a reply to:

And yes there are any number of reasons why they didn't do that.
Perhaps it was anticipated it would be questioned and help lead to the LOVELY mess we have now in the 9/11 forums (just being an example)?

So thusly I ask this. You just dismiss it out right as meaning ONLY what you say it could mean.
What possible argument that you have not offered I might add do you have against such an scenario?

I have tried offering the fig branch only to be spit at in the face multiple times now.
I can live with agreeing to disagreeing.
I would like it noted.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

In reviewing everything you have written, since I asked my topic questions, it is clear you have no intentions of explaining what science NIST personnal used, to convince you they are correct and others are wrong. At this point, I have no other choice, but to consider you are accepting NIST report at face value. You have given me nothing to say otherwise through, at the very least, your last 5 posts.

At the same time, and until you present valid science as requested, I respectfully request you do not request I prove anything either. Can we agree on that?

Absolutely, I have given up expecting you to prove anything you say, a long time ago. We definitely have an agreement my friend

[size=10]FINAL WARNING

FOR THIS THREAD




Any members who are unable to contribute to the topic, and instead focus on each other will be subject to an immediate posting ban.




[size=10]FINAL WARNING

FOR THIS THREAD

Wow, they are getting serios on this guys/gals.....

I know there are a lot of threads on 9-11 and there is an immense ammount of information that one would have to sift through in order grasp everything that has been discussed in the 9-11 forum.

My goal with this thread is to get the evidence that motivates you as an indivudual towards your beliefs on the topic. i think that we are getting somewhere, slowly.

The thing that really makes me question what happened that day is the testimony of William Rodriguez.... I know that I have mentioned this before, and I dont think that I have heard anyone give me a reasonable explanation of how this man is lying....or heard something that did not really happen. Can anyone tell me how the claims of this man could be taken out of context...or perhaps fill me in on what it was that he possibly heard and felt, and mistook for explosions.

For those who have not heard the man, and I doubt there are any on this thread, here is the link to his testimony:

video.google.com...

Thank you in advance for comments regarding this.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Jeff,

In addition to William's account I would like to include these compilations I brought together of first responder official reports, radio transmissions, and survivor accounts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well calling people names and questioning their IQ based on whether they believe 9/11 was an inside job or not- is exactly the kind of bullschitt the moderators do not need. People can get inflamed and pissed off then leave the site or whatever.

People will believe what they believe to be true. No one can be convinced of something they do not believe- so arguing about it does seem rather pointless because the only potential loss would be a member, which is cause for concern by the owners of this website.

I get that.

What bothers me is all the warnings of how to behave and whats okay to say and what's not and to whom and how. It sounds a lot like our government, religions, and the rest of "controlling" interests respond.

I wonder if a website exists in which you can just state how you feel in the most democratic and free forum which is supposed to be what our constitution is all about.

The closest I have come to is digg. Next would be ATS.

Flamming trollers are obvious to spot and should be removed immediately. The moderators know who they are and so do we, but it is allowed.

My question is why?

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Just curious but what about the Popular Mechanics article isn't reasonable?

Here's the article
www.popularmechanics.com...

It seems to be pretty well presented. I've noticed a few people saying that it has been debunked and if it has, that is fine but I've never seen actual evidence debunking the article.

Thanks for you input.

Originally posted by jfj123
It seems to be pretty well presented. I've noticed a few people saying that it has been debunked and if it has, that is fine but I've never seen actual evidence debunking the article.

It actually isn't debunkable. You know why? Because the whole thing is built on easily debunkable strawmen.

I'll take a crack at it...I've never read this article before, but I'm only on the fourth paragraph and there are major issues.

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies.

No it wouldn't have. Burning fuel sets things on fire. Burning fuel does not blow 20 foot marble slabs off walls in the lobby or cause collapses in the B4 level. You cannot have an FAE when you have burning fuel - they are mutually exclusive.

As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

I believe this statement 100% and I believe that occupants of certain elevators were in fact tragically and severely burned by "cascading falls of burning fuel" as was reported by witnesses from day 1. But see my comment above - burning fuel (and burn victims) do not blow 20 foot marble slabs off walls in the lobby or cause collapses in the B4 level.

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

Even though they didn't have a stitch of specimen data to back it, or a fire model result to back it. Yep - they don't mind using that figure because that's the figure they had to jack the temperatures to to get the building to start failure.

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

And my mother built both buildings by herself.

NO - "the weight of all the floors above the collapse zone" did NOT bore down on the highest intact floor, not if you are going to believe the NIST explanation for how the floors collapsed. And not if you are going to do like the NIST did and completely ignore the core columns. Even if you don't ignore the core columns, using the top floors of the building as a big building block of mass that fell in unison completely contradicts what the NIST says happened in the "progressive failure" (even they don't use "pancake" anymore).

Those are the issues I have with the article you linked. The rest of the stuff in it I don't necessarily take issue with. BUT - I'm curious why you are linking this article as if it is a SECOND source that has findings that some how reinforce the NIST findings. IT IS NOT A SECOND SOURCE. That article is a review of the NIST findings. It just restates what the NIST states - then it gets a quote from some one and sticks them together.

Let me give a specific for instance:

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Mr. Farid Alfawak-hiri speaks the truth. But that hasn't got anything to do with the facts reported in the NIST report - which state there were no specimens of core columns taken from WTC 1 or WTC 2 that exhibited evidence of being exposed to temperatures in excess of 250C. So what the heck has Farid's comment got to do with it?

That tactic is probably called something, but I'm not sure what. Reinforcement through arbitrary association would be a good term for it I would think. Take a fact, stick with a dubious statement that has SOMETHING in common with it, and then pretend the two reinforce each other.

But they don't. Because Farid can state all the facts he wants and it doesn't change the FACT that the NIST jacked the temperatures up in their model FAR ABOVE any test data they obtained from specimens retrieved from WTC 1 and WTC 2. And they basically ADMIT in their report that they did this because they couldn't get floor truss failure at the lower temperatures.



[edit on 1-30-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by jfj123

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

That's all well and good but they ignore the molten and corroded steel in the rubble piles. As found and documented by FEMA. So, what was that again PM about the melting temperature of steel?

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Seems like they don't even get their FACTS correct. NIST doesn't support "pancake" collapse anymore.

Shall I continue or is this enough yet?

Edit: Looks like you beat me to it Valhall.


[edit on 1/30/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
It seems to be pretty well presented. I've noticed a few people saying that it has been debunked and if it has, that is fine but I've never seen actual evidence debunking the article.

It actually isn't debunkable. You know why? Because the whole thing is built on easily debunkable strawmen.

Then it is debunkable. Either the information is correct or not. If it is not, I would like to know why not. This isn't a challenge or an invitation to argue with anyone. I am simply interested in knowing whether or not the article has any science behind it or not. Thanks for your response. By the way, I am in no way implying you want to argue, it was a general statement to anyone/everyone.

I hope you don't mind me answering when you're talking to Griff, but as I stated in my post above, YES, they do, in fact, go out and get factual quotes from people. But those factual quotes don't necessarily have any real relevance to the NIST claims they are sticking them with.

It's like me coming up to you and telling you that your pear tree is a nice apple tree since it has fruit on it, and you trying to correct me that it is not an apple tree, and then me going and getting a Botanist who states

"Apple trees bear fruit."

And then me looking at you and saying "See?"

reply to post by jfj123


The thing is that they set up simple and easy "questions" to explain. They ignored the real hard questions.

Like why NIST has not investigated the unexplainable corrosion of the steel found in the debris. Even as stated by FEMA that they don't know if it could have contributed to collapse. You'd think NIST would want to know if something contributed to the very collapse that they were paid to find out what happened. Right? Well, why ignore something then?

The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

www.fema.gov...

maybe this is a stupid question, but here goes:
in most of the videos from the top of the tower falling you can see the antenna (or whatever) fall straight downward... like in an implosion. it veers neither to the left nor right. if the structure of the building was impeded on one side or the other by heat, destruction of structure, etc, wouldn't the antenna fall to that side?

reply to post by Valhall


I don't mind at all I appreciate all sincere posts. I'm just interested on everyones perspective of the article. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond.

Originally posted by tadlem43
maybe this is a stupid question, but here goes:
in most of the videos from the top of the tower falling you can see the antenna (or whatever) fall straight downward... like in an implosion. it veers neither to the left nor right. if the structure of the building was impeded on one side or the other by heat, destruction of structure, etc, wouldn't the antenna fall to that side?

If the building fell due to the collapse of the external columns (as NIST states), then in order for a near vertical fall of the antennae the situation would have to be such that the exterior columns all failed at the same time along the same horizontal plane (same floor). One would assume that would need to take place at the floor with the maximum damage to the external columns.

But then, we have WTC 2 that had its top tilt some ridiculous amount prior to collapse, but once collapse initiated it righted itself and fell near vertical. That presents a new set of issues becaus in order to tilt as far as it did, we have to have localized failure on one to two sides allowing the tilt, but then we have to revert back to the instantaneous failure along that same line completely around the building, as well as a righting moment, to get the vertical descent for the top portion of the building.

[edit on 1-30-2008 by Valhall]

Wow! This subject just wont go away! There are two sides of the fence here and neither will be able to convince the other, a bit like no matter how you argue to someone who believes in god that there is no god, there faith is still there in him, no matter what logic you use, i doubt that they could be swayed even if the pope said it was all a joke gone to far! So please do me a favour and drop this tired old subject and let those people have there peace!

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Pro-genetic]