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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Are you on this thread to discuss WTC7? If not I suggest you start a thread in regards to the engineers that are for or against 911 truth etc.


Why? Because your entire argument on any 9/11 subject boils down to you pointing at other people. I think it's entirely relevant to any subject you post on.


And again, the number of engineers you try to assert agree with you is always totally unfounded on every level. There have been no surveys to begin with, to my knowledge. On top of that, I am pretty damned confident that most engineers do not even know what the NIST report on the WTC Towers says, or FEMA or the ASCE for that matter, except vaguely and probably inaccurately (NIST's hypothesis after all is NOT "pancake theory"). They certainly have not seen any evidence, because it is apparently not for public viewing. And still further, the percentages of people that have been surveyed and say they have questions about 9/11 is enormous compared to the biased 0.01% you just pulled out of your ass. I'm sure you've seen the Zogby polls I'm thinking of. This is the real world, and no amount of bias on your behalf is going to change that. You can't just make stuff up because you "believe" it.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by bsbray11]




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Oh, you are right, there is nothing to discuss here, you have all the answers!

We all can move on now, you have solved WTC7.

ThroatYogurt you can close your thread now its official the WTC7 just fell all by it self right in its very own footprint.

Yes ThroatYogurt, it pancake floor by floor every bracket on every floor joyce broke simultaneously.

WTC7 fell so slow and the rest of the folks are liers.

The firemen who say they heard explosions are liers.
The policemen who heard explosion are lieing.
The first responders that say they heard explosion are lieing to.

The NIST report on 911 is the Government 911 Bible and you believe every word.

99.99% of all civil engineers in the world, believe every word of NIST 911 report.

(SEI/ASCE) can NOT make mistakes and never have, even when they were hired by the Government to do the Government report on 911.

NIST, (SEI/ASCE) Did "Not" look in to explosion at the WTC because they were ??????????

You are right ThroatYogurt, the rest of us, need to stop asking question.
We should not "ever" question NIST,(SEI/ASCE) that something could be wrong with thier report.

How dare us!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Bringing up peer review is a diversionary tactic. What major engineering journal would dare put its head above the parapet by publishing a theory that almost pre-supposed government complicity in the horrors of 9/11? In an ideal world, scientific merit would be the issue. In the real world, the panel will protect the political and financial well-being of its journal. When the stakes are this high, the peer review process is more or less a gatekeeper's charter.

It's like saying there's a 99% consensus that the 9/11 Commission produced an accurate and comprehensive report because no mainstream television channel has broadcast a documentary suggesting otherwise. When the German ZDF public network aired "Sept. 11, 2001 -- What Really Happened" the company was rounded upon by other mainstream media in a vitriolic attack, the management who approved the film issued a statement the following day saying it was full of lies and fired the film makers. Only 27% of viewers believed bin Laden was responsible for the attacks in ZDF's poll. Der Spiegel attributed this to "public stupidity".

I'm not an architect, structural engineer or demolition expert, but I've studied the opinions of those who are and am able to come to common-sense conclusions based upon the manner in which the 3 steel-framed skyscrapers collapsed that day.

Common-sense can sometimes mislead so I consult the scientists for an explanation of what I see. Again, I'm not a scientist but I understand the scientific method.



NIST's work on the collapses simply fails on its own terms as a scientific analysis.

QUESTION: What caused the buildings to collapse the way they did?
NIST attempts to answer instead how fire and damage caused collapses to initiate, thereby limiting the scope of what it must explain and embedding the hypothesis it seeks to prove in the question.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH: In the case of WTC 7, NIST's statement that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" more or less nullifies the investigation.

TEST WITH AN EXPERIMENT
NIST abuses this in two ways. Firstly experiments must realistically emulate processes being tested. Blowing fireproofing off a steel plate with bullets is not an accurate simulation of the effect a plane may have upon a building's fire protection. Secondly, when experiments using parameters derived from the background research fail to support the hypothesis, you rethink the hypothesis - you don't alter the parameters to try and match it. See NIST's Workstation burn tests.

Crucially, it's un-scientific to ignore data that undermines or does not accord with the hypothesis. See FDNY Oral Histories.

When NIST lead engineer John Goss was questioned about "the pool of molten steel that was found at the bottom of the towers", he does not say, "it wasn't steel" (which I'm assuming it wasn't); he doesn't say, "we looked at it and realized it was X" or even "we didn't look at it because it wasn't relevant to the investigation". What he does say is "I know of absolutely nobody, there's no eyewitnesses who have said so, nobody who has produced it, er I was on the site, I was on the steelyards... so I can't... I don't know that that was so".

Those who cry "No Conspiracy!" have to explain why a government funded scientific study into the collapses was anti-scientific to the point of lying about the evidence.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
James Quintiere, Ph.D., University of Maryland, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, over 35 years of fire research, including 19 at NIST, founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (the principal world forum for fire research) made these comments during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, August 21, 2007.

Published in the 122 year old: Fire Engineering magazine.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

While not supportive of the controlled demolition hypothesis he's highly critical of NIST's methodology.


“In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

“And that building was not hit by anything... It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

"They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all... I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"


THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

I apologise for the long quotes but this is important. When a highly qualified insider like Professor Quintiere cries foul, it's time to stop playing word games and demand some real answers.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Cash,

Please point out where I made mistakes. I assure you, I will fix them. I don't have all the answers to what happened at WTC7. Again, using my judgment, I have chosen the best hypothesis.

I never called firefighters liars.
I never called policemen liars.

I never said there wasn't any explosions.

I never said the collapse of WTC7 was "slow."

:TY:



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Hi Evil,

This was a very interesting article. Thank you for bringing it up.

There are many that are critical of the NIST conclusions. This is true. I just thought that this quote would be interesting:


Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the TwinTowers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”


www.opednews.com...

Dr. Quintier has written a few papers regarding the WTC collapse:


A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers-J. G. Quintiere M. di Marzoa and R. Beckerb

Abstract

An analysis is presented that calculates the temperature of the steel truss rods in the World Trade Center towers subject to a fire based on the building ventilation factor.


Dr. Quintier was also one of the 300 experts that assisted P.M.:


James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

www.popularmechanics.com...


:TY:



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Just because Dr. Quintiere doesn't support the explosive CD theory doesn't mean he agrees with what NIST has done with this investigation.

But, to "debunkers" the NIST report is the end all be all. Even though one of their own has cried fowl on their investigation.

BTW, Throat, did you include Dr. Quintiere in the "truther" side or the "official" side in your estimate of 99.9%? I'd say he's a truther since he questions NIST's report.



[edit on 7/7/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,

There is a difference. If you read a little more. I believe he states that the fireproofing had a larger roll in the collapse of the towers. But you know what ...I would have to agree that since his is very critical of NIST. I will agree that he possibly could be part of the .01%
(not a truther though)

He has written a few papers on the collapses. Read them. Let me know where he thinks it was a CD.

Oh... and please do me a favor. Lets not get into a pissing contest about the engineer 99.9% crap. I am done with it.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I wasn't trying to get into a pissing match. Just pointing out that he is one of the 49,999 engineers in ASCE that you failed to mention who questions the NIST report. That's all.

Plus, I'm starting to come to the same conclusion as Quintiere. I think the fireproofing was skimped on. The hand written dead load calculations for the core columns include many different types of fireproofing. In the NIST report, I've only read about the spray-on and gypsum board mentioned. NIST even admits that the information on the fireproofing of the core columns is missing and they assummed the thickness for their report on the previous reports of the elevator column fireproofing. Problem was that the elevator columns were the only ones without gypsum enclosure (which is why they couldn't tell the thickness). I think this issue should be looked into more extensively.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by cashlink
 


Cash,

Please point out where I made mistakes. I assure you, I will fix them. I don't have all the answers to what happened at WTC7. Again, using my judgment, I have chosen the best hypothesis.

I never called firefighters liars.
I never called policemen liars.

I never said there wasn't any explosions.

I never said the collapse of WTC7 was "slow."

:TY:


(Please point out where I made mistakes.)
The min you open your mouth! lol

(I assure you, I will fix them.)
How! you wont close your mouth! lol

(Again, using my judgment, I have chosen the best hypothesis.)
What "JUDGMENT"!


(I never called firefighters liars.)
So they are telling the truth then!

(I never called policemen liars.)
Then if they are not lieing, Then they are telling the TRUTH! "EXPLOSIVIOES"

(I never said there wasn't any explosions.)
So there "could" have been explosions!

(I never said the collapse of WTC7 was "slow.")
AH! then they "could" have been very fast!



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


My answers are in the bold font.

(Please point out where I made mistakes.)
The min you open your mouth! lol
I am assuming you are joking?

(I assure you, I will fix them.)
How! you wont close your mouth! lol
I'll give you that... I like others in here ...am very determined

(Again, using my judgment, I have chosen the best hypothesis.)
What "JUDGMENT"!

We all have our own...if you claim mine is non existent..thats your opinion.


(I never called firefighters liars.)
So they are telling the truth then!

They are recalling the tragic events of that day...yes I believe they are telling the truth.

(I never called policemen liars.)
Then if they are not lieing, Then they are telling the TRUTH! "EXPLOSIVIOES"
try not to resort to quote mining here, explosions are not necessarily explosives.

(I never said there wasn't any explosions.)
So there "could" have been explosions!
no, there absolutely WERE explosions.

(I never said the collapse of WTC7 was "slow.")
AH! then they "could" have been very fast!

they? IT... was it fast? Well that depends. How fast would YOU think a building should take to fall after it was showered with literally tons of debris from a burning skyscraper, then left to pretty much burn on its own for 7 hours?


Thank you,

:TY:



[edit on 8-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

They are recalling the tragic events of that day...yes I believe they are telling the truth.

Isn't that the most amazing thing about human nature?

1. They tell many stories, some that support the OS and some that don't.
2. There is no reason to disbelieve them.

Therefore the OS did and did not happen.

That is the logical conclusion I have reached. It is damning to the OS.



[edit on 8-7-2008 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No reason to disbelieve them. Agreed.

Could their recollections be inaccurate? Yes, it's very possible.

Is it possible some statements are taken out of context. Sure.

I recall my mom coming into my room when I was a young boy saying... "Looks like a cyclone went through here."..... anyway...you know where I am going with that.

Like I stated to Cash, you take ALL of the evidence. You form a judgment from what evidence is available. You draw your own conclusions, hypothesis, or theory... whatever you want to call it.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
All of their recolections being innacurate could be possible but not plausible. Consider that some of the recolections are video/audio recorded and the possibility becomes infinitely small.

Some statements being taken out of context would not effect the premise. I said their stories, i.e. what they state they witnessed in its entirety.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by jprophet420]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I recall my mom coming into my room when I was a young boy saying... "Looks like a cyclone went through here."..... anyway...you know where I am going with that.


No, where are you going with that?

I would assume your mommy isn't a professional weather observer?
You know where I'm going with that?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
A WWII bomber hit the empire state building in '45....78th floor...one of the engines went down the elevator shaft to the basement floor and started a fire....and parts of some engine gear and landing gear went through the building across the street.....on a 13 story building causing a fire

here's the site with the infamous photo......

www.evesmag.com...

heres more on that subject....

The impact of the plane created an 18 x 20 foot hole in the side of the tower. This crash caused extensive damage to the masonry exterior and the interior steel structure of the building. The 102-foot building was rocked by the impact. Many people who were in the street at the time saw flames shooting from the point of impact, which was at the 913-foot level. The impact was heard as far as two miles away. Flames and dense smoke obscured the top of the structure. Later on a wing was found on Madison Avenue, one block away.

the above was taken from here

www.withthecommand.com...


in 1945 we were able to save the empire state building from a bomber crash, that left a considerably large amount of damage to the building....
but, the NYFD managed to save the building and other fires caused from this in the surrounding areas within 4 alarms.....In 1945!!!!!!!!!

it was due to this incident that the Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 aircraft.

here are the general characteristics of the B-25 that hit the empire state

Crew: six (two pilots, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
Wing area: 610 sq ft (57 m²)
Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h)
Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)
Combat radius: 1,350 mi (1,170 nm, 2,170 km)
Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)
Service ceiling 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Rate of climb: 790 ft/min (4 m/s)
Wing loading: 55 lb/sq ft (270 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)

Armament

Guns: 12× .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
Rockets: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) bombs + eight 5-inch high velocity aircraft rockets (HVAR)
Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)



Chew on that for a while......and explain why the empire didnt fall....but the twin towers did......



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sorry you missed out on JP's conversation with me. Sorry you can't comprehend an analogy.

"Wow sounded like a bomb went off."

"Your room looks like a bomb went off"

"Your room is a disaster area!"

"Hot as Hell"

"Cold as ice"

So, next time you jump in Anok. Try reading the entire conversation. We were not discussing professional assessments.

"



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No reason to disbelieve them. Agreed.

Could their recollections be inaccurate? Yes, it's very possible.

Is it possible some statements are taken out of context. Sure.

I recall my mom coming into my room when I was a young boy saying... "Looks like a cyclone went through here."..... anyway...you know where I am going with that.

Like I stated to Cash, you take ALL of the evidence. You form a judgment from what evidence is available. You draw your own conclusions, hypothesis, or theory... whatever you want to call it.



(Could their recollections be inaccurate? Yes, it's very possible.)
So "could" some of the Government witness be inaccurate?

(Is it possible some statements are taken out of context. Sure.)
Do you think,"some" of the Governmnet statements are taken out of Context?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
So, next time you jump in Anok. Try reading the entire conversation. We were not discussing professional assessments.


LOL I knew you'd miss my point.

You need everything spelled out to you don't you?

I'm beginning to understand why you don't understand basic physics.




top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join