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.

 

letter to NIST

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousgAs you have stated, it is okay for us to question. You see, the biggest complaint that many have is that they 'estimated' and used the 'available' evidence. The problem is, the STEEL should have been available. That steel should NOT have been moved anywhere other than a massive holding area for complete and thorough testing.

I don't entirely disagree, there are problems in things like identifying members, but in general yes it is always nice to have as much information as is possible.


It should never have been destroyed. It's evidence that could have provided MUCH of the data that NIST had to estimate.

I suspect this is a little bit hyperbole, can you list some data?


It's a tough situation to be in. I'm pretty sick of the arguing. Problem is, we want an independent investigation but we will never be able to investigate the evidence because it was removed and dispearsed and no longer available.

But neither was NIST, so you should at least be able to produce a document as rigorous as theirs.


It's actions like that which I find extremely suspicious. Sorry. Did NIST have anything to do with that? Nope. Not blaming them. Just supporting the argument that they GUESSED. Plain and simple.

You can call anything a guess, but it doesn't make it so. Do you think they picked a random column and determined that caused collapse?


Can we do better? Sorry, most of us don't have the resources available to us. Nor the time. It simply comes back down to "Trust us, we are your government. We would NOT lie to you." Then they cough and put in, "well, about this." Clear their throats.

So your complaint is that you don't trust anyone but you also can't reproduce this yourself? Well I think that is both valid and invalid. It's a pointless position to put yourself in, because you can dismiss any theory which is not self evident by this means.


You see? Certain elements of this government have been shown to have lied over and over. Why should we then all of a sudden trust them on their 'estimates'?

We shouldn't, none of the NIST reports have lied to you, and in fact many many non governmental people were involved with both NIST reports. In the same way I could dismiss any of your arguments by saying since Alex Jones has lied to people you can't be trusted.

You can rant at me all you like, and in a way I do agree with a lot of what you say, but you can't just then say "oh so this means we can handwave away the NIST report and just ignore its conclusions". Unless you have evidence that they have misled or are incorrect, then your arguments have no weight. Many public commentators dismiss the 911 conspiracy theories without evidence. They might say "oh look at these guys they just hate the government and are all crazy". This has the exact same level of evidence as "Oh NIST probably lied and after all it's just estimates" type of reasoning.

Both sides are wrong when they do it, and it gets nobody anywhere. If you have (for example) a picture of a connection in WTC7 which shows it had twice the number of bolts NIST has assigned it, that is evidence, and that I will listen to. You can't however expect me to give any weight to your personal feelings about the Government. I don't like the US Government either, but there's a list of names in each NIST report and you'll find these are mostly recognised civilian professionals.




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I have not submitted a FOIA request for any information pertaining to the World Trad Center complex. However, just becuase you are not aware of any denied requests for the information does not mean there weren't requests. Why else would we have obtained blueprints via whistleblower?
I plan to submit comments to NIST soon.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I have not submitted a FOIA request for any information pertaining to the World Trad Center complex.

Ok


However, just becuase you are not aware of any denied requests for the information does not mean there weren't requests.

Are you aware of any?


Why else would we have obtained blueprints via whistleblower?

Because there's no real reason that I can see for the NIST report to contain the full blueprints of every floor, there are thousands and thousands of pages, and blueprints don't tell you everything you need. There's also the fact that they are private information, and the distribution of them may be illegal. I don't know the US law on this though.

Considering you've not submitted any requests, and you haven't quoted any other requests, I can't see the substance of your complaint. You say that people can't conduct their own simulations because they don't have the data, but besides NIST there have been at least 4 other simulations I know of, and I have shown you structural data NIST have released. Not only this but you haven't even attempted to request any of the data you want.


I plan to submit comments to NIST soon.

Excellent, would you mind sharing them with us? I have a small list of formatting corrections that need to be made, but I have no substantial criticisms yet.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Yes, how exactly are you not getting this.


The really sad thing is you are not getting the point that fire has never brought down a steel buidling before, but we do have evidence that soemthing else might have brought it down.

Like the testinf that FEMA did and the fact of the molten metals and stelel in the basement and the debris pile.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The really sad thing is you are not getting the point that fire has never brought down a steel buidling before,

No I understand that perfectly. You're wrong. Fire has never brought down a skyscraper before, this is because the people who build skyscrapers are intelligent and build them to resist fire for as long as is feasible. Skyscrapers have suffered extensive structural damage due to fire before, but none have ever collapsed with fire alone as a direct cause. Just because something hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it can't. This is a ridiculous argument to make and I am not going to debate it any longer.


but we do have evidence that soemthing else might have brought it down.

Like the testinf that FEMA did

FEMAs tests don't support any sort of conspiracy theory, they show that normal fire temperatures existed.


and the fact of the molten metals and stelel in the basement and the debris pile.

Only steel would be any sort of evidence, if you could prove it was. Unfortunately most of these 'proofs' are in fact nothing of the sort. Am I to expect you to start claiming that thermal images taken from space show it to be really hot?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
this is because the people who build skyscrapers are intelligent and build them to resist fire for as long as is feasible.


So your saying the people that built building 7 were unintelligent and did not build it to resist fire?


FEMAs tests don't support any sort of conspiracy theory, they show that normal fire temperatures existed.


Who is talking conspiracy? I am talking facts and evidence that FEMA testing discovered material on the steel that showed higher then normal temperatures.

Do some reserch for a change, you might learn something.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So your saying the people that built building 7 were unintelligent and did not build it to resist fire?

No, WTC7 was built with fire protection, but when it was built they did not anticipate the failures which occurred. Their design complied with the required code specifications, which is why NIST are making recommendations to change them.


Who is talking conspiracy? I am talking facts and evidence that FEMA testing discovered material on the steel that showed higher then normal temperatures.

Higher than average, I have shown you several graphs with temperatures well in excess of what FEMA reported. Higher than average temperatures exist in every fire, because otherwise they would be the maximum temperature.


Do some reserch for a change, you might learn something.

Thanks for the advice, can you suggest some reading I should do?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent which is why NIST are making recommendations to change them.


Funny, how can NIST make recommendations about building 7 when they did not do any proper investigation or testing?


Higher than average,


So what casued the higher temps?


Thanks for the advice, can you suggest some reading I should do?


Sure i have a lot of information, pages full and some CDs where would you like to start?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Funny, how can NIST make recommendations about building 7 when they did not do any proper investigation or testing?

They seem to think they did, and they are better qualified than you to say so. While it's obvious you disagree, you still haven't realised that you disqualify all CD theories inherently with your statement.


So what casued the higher temps?

Fire did, how can you not understand that any fire creates both greater than and lower than average temperatures? That's what an average is. If I take 5 numbers like this:
1 2 3 4 5

The average for those numbers is 3, both 4 and 5 are higher than average.


Sure i have a lot of information, pages full and some CDs where would you like to start?

Perhaps you can show me your research on what caused the east penthouse of the building to fail first.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
They seem to think they did, and they are better qualified than you to say so.


Well its easy to to know that they did not do a proper testing and invetigation when their own reports state they did not recover steel for testing.


Perhaps you can show me your research on what caused the east penthouse of the building to fail first.


Well i do know the building collapsed in on the middle when there was supposed to be so much damage on 1 side , it should have fell to that side we have engeeners and domolition experts who state buidling 7 was a demolition.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i do know the building collapsed in on the middle when there was supposed to be so much damage on 1 side , it should have fell to that side we have engeeners and domolition experts who state buidling 7 was a demolition.


Are you talking about pre-screenwall progression? I am confused by your statement.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The building did finally fall with a bias toward the damaged side leaving its pile of rubble across the street into the main WTC area, the bias just isn't enough for a lot of people. There's a pic posted in another thread here somewhere showing this clearly.

As for temperatures, we've been over that more than a few times and there's a good correlation between the AVIRIS hotspot scans, the FEMA tests and the NIST fire experiments showing what those temperatures were and it's in the region of 700C to slightly over 1000C. Those temperatures are fairly ordinary for a building fire or in the rubble of a collapsed building.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The building did finally fall with a bias toward the damaged side leaving its pile of rubble across the street into the main WTC area,


Thats funny if you watch all the videos it shows the building collapsing starting with the center of the buidling bowing in and the building falling in on itslef.

Are you saying all the videos are lies?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Thats funny if you watch all the videos it shows the building collapsing starting with the center of the buidling bowing in and the building falling in on itslef.


Lets just make sure we're absolutely correct on what you're saying.

Are you saying that the absolute start of the WTC7 collapse occurs in the "centre of the building" and that all videos show this?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
But neither was NIST, so you should at least be able to produce a document as rigorous as theirs.

The NIST document is not rigorous.

Along with ommissions, such as verifiable data from the steel and verifiable data from the internal fires, there are also grammatical errors and typographical errors.

This is not a rigorous document.


Originally posted by exponent
We shouldn't, none of the NIST reports have lied to you, and in fact many many non governmental people were involved with both NIST reports.

The document doesn't lie, it can't, as NIST don't use any definitive words. There's always a deliberate grey area that can be achieved, when the use of words like 'probable' and 'likely' are inserted into concluding statements.

NIST state that the document is valid only for the parameters that they have available. Their own admission about how little verification they can perform from the computer data to the real world data, precludes them from telling lies. They can't lie about guessing. Similarly, there's no way that we can know how accurate their guess is. It's a guess. The whole report is an estimate about what might have happened. There is nothing authorative or definitive in this report.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The collapse started near the centre but the videos didn't capture the entire collapse due to other buildings being in the way and the dust obscuring it.

Take a look at the remains of the building after the dust had settled - it's distributed across the street in the direction of where the towers were (south I believe). It's been a frequent discussion here as to how WTC7 fell without falling on the buildings around it on 3 sides but if there'd been a building equally close on the south side it would have been flattened. Fortunately there was a roadway and a relatively open area in that direction.

When I have more time I'll try to search for that pic showing it clearly.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Are you saying that the absolute start of the WTC7 collapse occurs in the "centre of the building" and that all videos show this?


Not the start, the start is the top penthouse. But the main collapse of the buidling is from the middle and the building collpases in on itself.

NOT to the side that was damaged.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Along with ommissions, such as verifiable data from the steel and verifiable data from the internal fires, there are also grammatical errors and typographical errors.

What data could they have included which they did not and you are not happy about? The grammatical and typographical errors are likely due to this being the draft version of the report. You are encouraged to submit comments.


This is not a rigorous document.

If this is true then it should be possible for the truth movement to produce a superior document?


The document doesn't lie, it can't, as NIST don't use any definitive words. There's always a deliberate grey area that can be achieved, when the use of words like 'probable' and 'likely' are inserted into concluding statements.

So your complaint is that they don't lie?


There is nothing authorative or definitive in this report.

If that is the case, I restate my question above, should it be possible for the truth movement to far exceed the NIST report?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Not the start, the start is the top penthouse. But the main collapse of the buidling is from the middle and the building collpases in on itself.

So do you have any theories or any evidence to show why the penthouse collapsed first?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Not the start, the start is the top penthouse. But the main collapse of the buidling is from the middle and the building collpases in on itself.

NOT to the side that was damaged.


So you're agreeing with the NIST finding that column 79 appears to be the source of that initial collapse movement based on the observation of the east penthouse collapse? That's exactly where that column was.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join