NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

Please list the questions I have dodged.

And yes, when you ask anyone what started the fires in the WTC... I believe you will get 99.9% of the people saying that it was two planes.

Now, if you ask then what caused the collapse, I would assume that this number may need some adjusting.

start here on the first page


back to TY-



So you can just say whatever you believe and I should believe it because you said it twice? So, when I ask what integrity your posts have when you seem to mistake what you think for facts, the answer is a repeat of the line that made me question it to begin with. OK Keep saying things you think until they become true. Please U2U me when it happens.

Can't you read, SPreston? Just where do you think the data came from that showed the dust was unsafe for everyone???? Out of the thin blue sky?



You mean this?


Can't you read, SPreston? "Obviously, you never bothered to research all of the independent studies done on the dust right after 9/11 to determine the dust's exact physical and chemical composition so as to evaluate the potential harmful effects to first responders and cleanup crews."

Are you going to continue to pretend that there were NO independent studies done to determine the toxicity of the dust in your effort to pretend the Federal Government suppressed dust studies and their toxic effects?

No wonder you won't do any research. Once again, I have to do all YOUR work for you. Get back to us after you have studied the following:

Health Effects from the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001

Health and Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Disaster

Health Effects from the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Materials characterization of dusts generated by the collapse of the world trade center

Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

YOUR hated EPA:

"The tragedy of the September 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers and other buildings in and adjacent to the WTC site produced a dust cloud that was visible from space and covered much of lower Manhattan in millimeters to centimeters of extremely fine powdered material. This material was inhaled and ingested by thousands of people on the day of the event and for several days afterward. In addition, thousands of apartments, offices, and public buildings were contaminated by the dust through a variety of pathways. The short-term medical effects of this exposure were manifested in what became known as the World Trade Center (WTC) cough, documented as respiratory and other health problems among many of those who were exposed (Gavett and others, 2003; Prezant and others, 2002). Potential long-term medical effects of this event may not be known for many years. Several studies have examined various components of the dusts generated by the collapse of the WTC (Meeker and others, 2005; Plumlee and others, 2005; Badger and others, 2004; Yiin and others, 2004; McGee, 2003; Offenberg and others, 2003; Chatfield and Kominsky, 2002; Lioy and others, 2002, Millette and others, 2002; Clark and others, 2001)."

Inorganic chemical composition and chemical reactivity of settled dust generated by the world trade center building collapse

THE GEOCHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND REACTIVITY OF DUSTS DEPOSITED BY THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE

Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001

Evaluation of potential human exposures to airborne particulate matter following the collapse of the world trade center towers

Health Consequences of the September 11 World Trade Center Attacks: A Review

Persistent organic pollutants in dusts that settled indoors in lower Manhattan after September 11, 2001

A comprehensive list of links on the dust studies at Ground Zero

So much for your claims that the "government" was trying to suppress dust studies when they've been there all along just for you.

So it was obvious that the fires in the other parts of the building (mainly the basements)where created from the plane crashes 80 some stories above?

That's just the towers.

How about WTC 7, where no plane hit? What started the fires in there? The fires in WTC 7 where on the lower floors. Did the burning debris from the towers keep lit for 70 some stories while falling in mid air to then start fires in this building? Had we had an investigation, we might (just might) be able to answer these questions.

BTW, what's that green flamed flare-up that Steve Spak recorded? Is that a normal office fire flare-up? Again, had there been an investigation, we might know the answer to this.

[edit on 12/17/2008 by Griff]

What confuses you about "the dust's exact physical and chemical composition?



What still confuses you about studies "to determine the dust's exact physical and chemical composition?"



See the list above in my previous post and get back to us if you don't understand something.

Show us the cover up and why you think there were NO independent studies done of the dust.

Show us that anyone, including the EPA, said there were NO health effects of the dust.

Would you like a little help? OK, here is what studies were showing:

July 2002:


Cover up, Griff?

Nice wording here.



Notice they don't just call it a collapse, but an explosion and collapse.




[edit on 12/17/2008 by Griff]

So, your evasion of the topic begins. I am not surprised.

edit to remove obnoxiousness and go and relax instead for a while.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Dude I remember watching an EPA representative walk down the streets of NY with a reporter on TV, saying it was perfectly ok to be out walking in the dust and breathing it.

1. Copyright 2008 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved

2. October 27-30 2002. 13 Months later

3. Volume 43 Issue 3 2009

4. 2005, vol. 919, pp. 190-237 [48 page(s) (article)]

5. 2007 Impact Factor: 2.106 (© Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports®, 2008)

6. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2004) 14, 164–172. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500310

7. The only thing I saw pertaining to sample reporting as I perused this site was an OSHA study in October 2002 13 months later.

8. 2005, vol. 919, pp. 238-276 [39 page(s) (article)]

9. October 27-30 2002 13 months later.

From this point on, I'm starting to see a pattern of you linking to about 4 different studies (included above) about 4 times each? Did you have to make the list longer by linking to the same article 4 different times?

Anyway, back to my point. Please show a report from when the workers were actually there. Because the closest thing you linked to was in October 2002. 13 Months later. And as Cameron already pointed out, the last steel was taken out in May of 2002. 5 months before any of your reports came out.

On a side note: I wasn't aware of some of those reports where they actually do list compounds and not just the elements. But, most of them just list the elements from what I saw scanning through your "list".

So, your derailment of the topic begins. I am also not surprised.

Remember we are talking about the National Fire Codes?

Your first post on page one. Notice the derailment has already begun.

I addressed that in my response to Griff.



I do not care what you think about the integrity of my posts. What do YOU think started the fires in the WTC?

Griff, if you want to get into a debate on the disbursement of the jet fuel, I suggest you re-open one of the many on going threads.

How do you know that the fires were started by the disbursement of fuel when there was no investigation into it? Could it not be possible for terrorists to light fires in all the chaos? If this is a possibility, then why wasn't it investigated?

If a plane crashes in a field and then there is a fire 2 football fields away, should we investigate the fire or just automatically blame it on the plane crash?

Especially if the fire looks like this?

reply to post by CameronFox

---

So as long as a page separates your responses, it is ok if they directly contradict each other? I read your response but since it did not match at all what you were originally saying, I guess I just assumed I was seeing things. You would not contradict yourself now would you?

I do not need not need to tell you what started the fires. It is your attitude of assuming 99.9% is accurate and assuming what started each and every fire. I would not assume so much but that is just me. I would have let the standard investigations happen to determine the cause of each and every fire that happened that day - as is usual protocol. I know, tinfoil hat wearing moonbat stuff right?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

I tell you what. Look at my name and avatar. You see that little word that say's "ignore?" I suggest you click on it.

Thank you.

I don't think he even read what he was posting, lmao.

jthomas, did you even read your links? I think someone has lied to you and convinced you that you know what you're talking about. How often do you challenge your own beliefs? Can you muster it now, or are you going to go through the motions for the 1000th time? We've said the same things so many times over and over you have to admit this is all just going through motions and you're not putting real thought or effort into your posts. You know it's actually a very healthy thing to practice, questioning your beliefs. You don't want Cranky Old Man Syndrome, do you? Like an old man that doesn't understand the world anymore and just doesn't want to, because he has stopped learning. You don't even know what you're posting anymore. Maybe it's time to stop going through motions?

The EPA lied to people when they said to carry on as usual, everything was ok and the air was safe to breath.

Now we know they were wrong. That's how we know they were lying. They found asbestos and all of that in their own samples, but they said it was ok anyway. They lied. They don't care about you. Are you going to sit there and continue to defend them, when they would stab you in the back like that? Just to argue with us?



I really don't understand what logic is supposed to be behind this mentality but it drives me nuts too. You don't go around "thinking" by looking at everybody else and mimicking them, and you don't build arguments like that either. You don't increase your odds of knowing what you're talking about that way. Every time someone explains what a "sheep" is, you either preach to the choir or it falls on deaf ears, and historical examples don't do much either.

Griff, it was investigated, and was mentioned in the NIST report:

wtc.nist.gov...

For the North Tower:

The Jet Fuel 2.4

Another fact:

Of the evacuees interviewed by NIST, 72% reported the smell of fuel fumes in the stairwells of the north tower, and 63% in the south tower. (NIST NCSTAR 1-7A p. 17)

In regards to terrorists running around starting fires? Dude... come on. You are SO much smarter than that. First of all...not one report of ANYONE seeing someone running around with accelerates starting fires.




I guess that all depends on if millions of people were watching the plane debris cascading across the 2 football fields.



Yes, I was the one who first posted the video of the green flame here at ATS... *takes a bow*

The green flame was actually pretty impressive. However not unusual. Can I explain it 100%? Nope, I am not a chemist or a professional firefighter. I do know that a good amount of copper will burn green like that. People actually make their own green fires by adding some copper sulfite to rolled up newspapers.

In addition to copper, a mixture of other chemicals can easily cause green flames. Methenol and Boric Acid (was this a storage room?)

I think it would be important to find out what floor that was and what offices were in there. Cubicles and computers are filled with copper wiring from typical A/C conductors to CAT-5 cable to computer hardware...lots of copper.

Again, I have no idea for certain what caused the green flame. Are you aware if indeed thermite burns a green color? Do any other types of accelerates burn green? Perhaps some other members here are knowledgeable with this?

Let me add once again Griff, I do agree that it is a shame that all the steel from WTC-7 was removed and not examined by NIST. Not only would answers be much more definitive, I would have to assume it would have saved us taxpayers a few bucks.

Ok thanks. I thought that when people contradict themselves to make their point that is usually because they have to lie to win their case. If pointing that out is a problem for you then I sure better hit ignore. I expect people here to be able to stand by the things they say, or own up to them. Thanks for letting me know you are not honest and will not be.

Really now, was it?



The smell of jet fuel in the air does jack diddly squat in pin-pointing the exact cause of fires.



en.wikipedia.org...



Hmm. A real fire investigation would have answered your questions here.



Did I say anything about thermite?



Lots of pyrotechnics burn green and could also have been used for arson.

Again. A real investigation would have answered these questions.