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.

 

US Government admits botched job of WTC investigation

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


My basic point is that you have major steel members with obvious fire damage. Right there that is a very interesting statement, it raises lots of flags; you want to know what it was and how it occurred.

Re: NIST, If I follow correctly, Griff maintains they don't officially acknowledge having examined the steel, to maintain plausible deniability. Are you saying that they do acknowledge an examination then?




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


To my knowledge, NIST examined a few hundred pieces (out of tens of thousands) of steel from WTC 1 & 2 (280 some if I remember correctly) but none from 7. At least that's what impression I get from their statements.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Nice try Griff.
1 US rep DOES NOT speak for the entire "US Government" as your misleading title claims.
This thread is much ado about nothing, nice try bud.
It is though very revealing how far you will strech to accuse the US Governemnt of mass murder.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


IT is NIST's website that posts the FEMA article. (you started the thread here.

The FEMA article is found here:

wtc.nist.gov...

This is in regards to the evaporated steel.

Interesting stuff.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 


Hey Bobert:

Bush signed it into law. Therefor it had to past though the proper channels of government. Two politicians sponsored it (14 co-sponsored it). MANY more had to pass it.

I will say the only thing about the title that may be misleading is the "botched" job. This was an unprecedented event where mistakes may have been made in the investigations. Not atypical for such a catastrophic event.

I think botched is not the proper term. (IMO) Botched means ruined by clumsiness. I think the investigation was not perfect and that was due to ignorance.

the law was also written because:


The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 4687 with the en bloc amendments to be offered by Chairman Boehlert, which help ensure that the National Institute of Standards and Technology will not take on an inappropriate regulatory role.
www.whitehouse.gov...


And:


Under the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCST), signed into law in October 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used.


www.nist.gov...

[edit on 30-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Ok my mistake.
I guess risked alot by signing that exposing a coverup!



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Nice try Griff.
1 US rep DOES NOT speak for the entire "US Government" as your misleading title claims.
This thread is much ado about nothing, nice try bud.
It is though very revealing how far you will strech to accuse the US Governemnt of mass murder.


I find it hilarious that somehow this has turned into me acussing anyone of murder?

How about reading the thread and staying on topic? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Yes interesting. I'd like to know what caused it though. Conspiracy or not, this happens to affect me and my profession. Are we building death traps?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I think botched is not the proper term. (IMO) Botched means ruined by clumsiness. I think the investigation was not perfect and that was due to ignorance.


How about "bungled" instead?


bun·gle Audio Help /ˈbʌŋgəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[buhng-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -gled, -gling, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to do clumsily and awkwardly; botch: He bungled the job.
–verb (used without object) 2. to perform or work clumsily or inadequately: He is a fool who bungles consistently.
–noun 3. a bungling performance.
4. that which has been done clumsily or inadequately.


dictionary.reference.com...

I believe that fits better. So, if the mods want to change the title, they are free to do so.

But, in my defense.


botch Audio Help (bŏch) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. botched, botch·ing, botch·es

To ruin through clumsiness.
To make or perform clumsily; bungle.
To repair or mend clumsily.


dictionary.reference.com...

Just sayin.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
you don't trust anyone. Seeing that you are a secret agent, perhaps you have the skinny on what they are up to. Why are you asking me?


I do not trust anyone (like NIST) who has already shown that they can not be trusted.

Please answer the question. How can we trust their report of buidling 7 if they did not recover any steel for testing?



[edit on 1-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by gottago
 


To my knowledge, NIST examined a few hundred pieces (out of tens of thousands) of steel from WTC 1 & 2 (280 some if I remember correctly) but none from 7. At least that's what impression I get from their statements.


And also Ultima's post above:

So just to get this clear: the steel from WTC 7 that had "obvious fire damage" that the clean-up guy put aside for inspection in the NY Times article that I quoted above--NIST didn't examine it? Nothing from 7?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hahaha.... Bungled works for me!

Griff, I just started reading about some aluminum on the WTC facades that combusted prior to collapse. I was told that the heat was quite intense. I am leaving with the family fora few days, so I wont be around much. I will post the info as I get it.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The question is Ultima....

How can you NOT trust anything you haven't even seen?

That is why your statements are so silly sometimes. You have made up your mind and NOTHING will change it. You have already dismissed the WTC-7 Nist report because you know it will not say what you want it to.

Now, since you are NSA, you should be able to get a copy of the final report before all of us.

For the rest of us, the latest rumors are September of this year. The BBC was going to attempt to coincide their documentary with the release of the NIST report. Unfortunately, NIST told the BBC that they can not guarantee a release date.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Griff, I just started reading about some aluminum on the WTC facades that combusted prior to collapse. I was told that the heat was quite intense. I am leaving with the family fora few days, so I wont be around much. I will post the info as I get it.


Please do. Also, have a safe and fun trip.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
So just to get this clear: the steel from WTC 7 that had "obvious fire damage" that the clean-up guy put aside for inspection in the NY Times article that I quoted above--NIST didn't examine it? Nothing from 7?


I know for a fact that NIST states in their report that no WTC 7 steel was recovered and/or analyzed. But, for some reason, it's getting harder and harder to find where?

I believe it's in NISTSTAR 1-3 but can't find it for the life of me at the moment.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC7.



No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.


wtc.nist.gov...


WTC 7 steel was not evaluated in this study of the tower damage and failure modes.



wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 7/1/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Wow, so that steel could literally be covered in evidence of what really brought that building down, and no one is even going to look at it to even offer us so much as a chemical analysis.

And I guess that settles the question as to whether the report is going to address the vaporized steel, I guess, too.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The funny thing is that this isn't the first time the government has "bungled" an investigation and then promised that they would take the necessary steps to make sure that it didn't happen again. WACO comes to mind.

Remember how much of the physical evidence that the Davidians claimed proved that they were fired on first came up missing, such as the front door. And then there was the fact that the building was literally demolished before proper physical evidence could be taken.

After the investigation, the government admitted to gross negligence in both the handling of the situation and the handling of the evidence, and assured the American people that steps would be taken to make sure that it didn't happen again.

And this is just one example. It seems as if every time their is an investigation into the government or a politician, evidence comes up missing and the public is told its a coincidence and that it won't happen again.

It all seems way to convenient for me. And even if the government didn't intentionally cover things up, they are obviously enormous failures that I no longer feel can competently protect us, or conduct proper investigations.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The question is Ultima....

How can you NOT trust anything you haven't even seen?


Maybe its becasue of the facts of the reports that i have seen.

Like the fact that NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing, so how can we trust a report that is not going to have all the facts?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I know for a fact that NIST states in their report that no WTC 7 steel was recovered and/or analyzed. But, for some reason, it's getting harder and harder to find where?

I believe it's in NISTSTAR 1-3 but can't find it for the life of me at the moment.


wtc.nist.gov...


Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join