NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code, page 4

This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 06:30 PM by CameronFox
Originally posted by Griff The smell of jet fuel in the air does jack diddly squat in pin-pointing the exact cause of fires. This was only one statistic. There were many other reports of pools of jet fuel, people that were MANY floors below the impact point that were treated for burns and inhalation of jet fuel. Hmm. A real fire investigation would have answered your questions here. Is it possible? maybe. What do you think, finding out what the green flame was would do for the investigation? Did I say anything about thermite? You didn't I did. Hence the question presented to you. I am unaware that Thermite burns with a green color. Unless of course it is placed on copper or copper sulfate is added...but I can not be certain. Lots of pyrotechnics burn green and could also have been used for arson. Again. A real investigation would have answered these questions. Perhaps, but if this were the case, would not not see this more than once? I realize the fire video's of WTC-7 are not at a premium, but this is one brief time and only in one window. This leads me to believe that this was an isolated event. Anyway, I understand your frustrations with the investigation or lack there of. [edit on 17-12-2008 by CameronFox]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 06:36 PM by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox See my response to Griff regarding Nicole Brown Simpson's murder. You are off topic! What dose this have to do with NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code? I assume you didn't read any of the link I provided. Your assumptions are wrong as usal. Speaking of “RED HERRINGS”! Your entire post is a RED HERRING and here is the “proof”, what dose anything you have quoted have to do with, NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code? Please refer to my first point on this post. Anyone reading your posts can clearly see you are avoiding the OP topic! Your only answers to anything are see my above post! See what I posted to Griff! See what I posted in other post! Cashlink, all your answers have been answer in this tread and other threads! This is the same garbage you keep repeating over and over. Why do you continue to evade the issues with your own form of nonsense? Really! With what little sources you have given I have found most of them “not” creditable. You are still trying to prove a “lie”. You have found them not credible? Can you please tell me what criteria is involved in your process of determining what is and what isn't credible. You have not given me one single source to any discussion on this topic on (NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code.) Read back to all your post starting from page one to me thank you! You have not sent me one single “link” however everything you talk about has no foundation just personal attacks, and insults, and more snide remarks. Really! Care to prove that? Furthermore, “you” were ask the questions, and as always You imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Um, what? My OWN authority? Care to show me where I do that? Yes you do imply your own authority and you have an answer for every question for every truther who ask question. However the problem is you ( will not) provide credentials, and you will not address issues and cite sources. Do you really want me to go through your posts and point out your errors and your handwaving of evidence? Yes please do! Ironically, “you” have no room to talk! Practice what you preach, to make such a claim after reading all of your posts! That NIST lied. You will not be able to provide any evidence of this, so I won't even bother to ask for it. 9/11 CONSPIRACY: NIST CHIEF ENGINEER LIES ABOUT MOLTEN METAL www.youtube.com... Proof NIST lies; WTC1 did not damage WTC7 www.youtube.com... Kevin Ryan: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.(3) The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for several “responses to FAQs” on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three. However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, “We were very open to alternative theories.” But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following: • NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory. Molten metal? What molten metal? NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said “Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as “kind of melted.”(11) Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, “I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite? An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with the alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction, available in several useful variations for the purposes of cutting steel, can explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily. The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).(17) This hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by Professor Steven Jones.(18) When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture, called super-thermite or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied adequately in order to serve the purpose of a deceptive demolition. Sunder’s answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction to the fact that a number of the NIST WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like steel.(19) NIST’s new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to explosions, the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction, by several major media outlets, that the building was coming down well before it actually did. www.prisonplanet.com... At lease I give answers, and address issues, and cite sources! My opinion is, because the Bush administration who was behind putting the 911 commission together and the 911 commission hired NIST to do their part of the Government story using Pseudoscience to hide the truth. (The reasoned the national standard was not applied) is because it would have “revealed” the truth. Maybe so, however, I was only given an “opinion” not a fact. Would you care to talk about the rest of my “opinion” that I also made. ( I didn’t think so) Not "maybe," it is a fact. You are basing an opinion on false information. You information that you gathered to form your opinion is not accurate. Really! If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Besides my wrong opinion, who aloud NIST to investigate the WTC. Ashamedamerican, you are right however, NIST was hoping that we where[sic] all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it, hoping we where diluted in Brittney Spears and all the media spoon-fed lies. Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic] by using the propaganda machines the Media. You do not have the right to add (sick quotes in my post!) NIST was hoping that we where[sic] all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it, Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic] CameronFox, You added these sick [sic] quotes to my “post”! (shame on you.) Look Cash, you have been hounding be regarding my posting of sources. You know I do a great job of this. I take it kind of personal when you accuse me of not being honest regarding my posts. Therefore, you put me in a position to point out to you that if you are going to speak about the intelligence of someone, you should at least use spell check. I do apologize if this upset you and I will refrain from it in the future. I know I make mistakes, and I know my writing skills are poor but I do my best! However, as of your writing skills you have no room to talk, I have came across several miss-spelled words in your posts. Look here camronFox, don’t you know when “you” need to jump ship when it is sinking! [edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink] [edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink] [edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 06:44 PM by CameronFox
reply to post by cashlink Cash, I think you're a nice guy. I am attempting to be as civil as possible. You are having a hard time grasping what I am writing. Perhaps I should just avoid having discussions with you? -CF
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 06:48 PM by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox CameronFox that is a wonderful idea! That will make my day thank you! you have a nice day! Why is it only you and jthomas having such a problem with the truth! When no one else is. [edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 07:19 PM by thedman
I have talked to the Captain in charge of the Passaic County New Jersey (where I live) Bomb Squad who along with his team spent nearly a month at the WTC scene doing search and recovery. He reqularly lectures to ours and other fire departments concerning bombs and explosive devices According to him there was no evidence of explosives /bombs /minnukes /Star Wars Death rays or whatever lunatic conspiracy theory. As for NIST - The WTC site was cleared months before NIST even received their commission to begin investigating the causae of the collapse. Even then pieces of steel and other wreckage had been preserved for analysis
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 08:03 PM by cashlink
reply to post by thedman Can you show proof that there was not explosions in the WTC? Captain in charge of the Passaic County New Jersey So essentially, your captain in charge is saying, all these Firemen are “lairs”? Explosions Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories 911research.wtc7.net... Multiple Explosions The oral histories contain numerous testimonies with reports of more than one explosion. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."27 Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician, reported the same thing about the north tower, saying: "I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now."28 Somewhat more explosions were reported by firefighter Thomas Turilli, who said, referring to the south tower, that "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."29 Even more explosions were reported by Craig Carlsen, who said that while he and other firefighters were looking up at the towers, they "heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down."30 www.911truth.org... He reqularly lectures to ours and other fire departments concerning bombs and explosive devices According to him there was no evidence of explosives /bombs /minnukes /Star Wars Death rays or whatever lunatic conspiracy theory. Wow! That is a strong statement to make however that is his “opinion” but since your Captain is making such accusations maybe he like to stand in a room with these scientists, architects, engineers, and others. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST Official response to NIST's Final Report on WTC 7 by sixteen scientists, architects, engineers, and others 15 Sept. 2008 9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers By Dr. Steven E. Jones Seminar at Utah Valley University 10 Sept. 2008 RADIO INTERVIEW Radio Interview with Richard Gage, AIA & Angie Coiro 960 AM KKGN San Francisco, CA Thursday, September 11, 2008, 3:00 PM PAPER Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones August 4th, 2008 Published in The Environmentalist PAPER The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin R. Ryan July 2nd, 2008 PRESENTATION Analysis of the Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center Slide Presentation by Dr. Crockett Grabbe at the American Physical Society Meeting St. Louis, Missouri, April 15, 2008. stj911.org... At lease, I do post credible sources for those whom like to make claims that I don’t. [edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 08:25 PM by thedman
WOW - real rogues gallery of loons here - Steven "Thermite" Jones, Kevin "Water Boy" Ryan, Richard "Little Boxes" Gage My friends in the bomb squad spent several weeks crawling through the rubble - they are experts in spotting evidence of explosives. They found no wiring, shock tubes, det cord, blasting caps, metal banding to attach carges to columns or unexploded charges, Jone's "evidence" consisted of handfull of dirt supposedly from WTC sent to him and some metal slag filed off a piece of steel to be used as a monument Prof. Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate , used for “cutting” the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below. In these shots can see cleanup workers cutting up steel using thermal lances - A thermal lance or thermic lance or burning bar is a tool which burns iron in an oxygen rich environment (n.b., not thermite) to create very high temperatures for cutting. It consists of a long iron tube packed with iron rods, which are sometimes mixed with aluminum or magnesium rods which increase the heat output. One end of the tube is placed in a holder and oxygen is fed through the tube. Burning iron and aluminium leave slag rich in aluminium and iron oxides - same as thermite Jones is a fool .... Critizing NIST for "mishandling" evidence while allowing Jones to base his crackpot theories on questionable "evidence" gathered under dubious conditions is height is laughable...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 08:35 PM by Anonymous ATS
If you will check the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 you will see that it is a guide NO WHERE will you find that it is a STANDARD. It is NOT a standard it is only a guide. I have been investigating fire for over 30 years, Please get your info right.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 08:52 PM by Griff
Originally posted by thedman My friends in the bomb squad spent several weeks crawling through the rubble - they are experts in spotting evidence of explosives. They found no wiring, shock tubes, det cord, blasting caps, metal banding to attach carges to columns or unexploded charges, How experienced are they with thermobarics? I'm not ridiculing or asking in a derogatory way. I'm truly interested.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:18 AM by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by cashlink reply to post by CameronFox CameronFox that is a wonderful idea! That will make my day thank you! you have a nice day! Why is it only you and jthomas having such a problem with the truth! When no one else is. Your English may not be the best but overall your posts are very informative and always interesting to read. The problem here is that debunkers are getting backed into that corner where they just cannot answer all the questions they should without somehow contradicting themselves. You have a couple fans that want to prove you wrong soooooo badly and yet have not been able to. Kudos to you. I do not understand at all why the same people that love to throw SOP around when it applies to their side but who needs it when there are fires all over the world trade center. I would think that if SOP is good for one thing, it is good for all. That is why it is called standard. [edit on 19-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:50 PM by CameronFox
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo Your English may not be the best but overall your posts are very informative and always interesting to read. The problem here is that debunkers are getting backed into that corner where they just cannot answer all the questions they should without somehow contradicting themselves. You have a couple fans that want to prove you wrong soooooo badly and yet have not been able to. Kudos to you. Cash has not been able to corner anyone with any of his cut and paste jobs from his favorite truther sites. He offers the opinions of other truthers and cries "Inside Job!" or "Liars" without EVER backing it up with facts. What SOP's are thrown around? What are you talking about?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 03:13 PM by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by CameronFox Originally posted by angel of lightangelo Your English may not be the best but overall your posts are very informative and always interesting to read. The problem here is that debunkers are getting backed into that corner where they just cannot answer all the questions they should without somehow contradicting themselves. You have a couple fans that want to prove you wrong soooooo badly and yet have not been able to. Kudos to you. Cash has not been able to corner anyone with any of his cut and paste jobs from his favorite truther sites. He offers the opinions of other truthers and cries "Inside Job!" or "Liars" without EVER backing it up with facts. And so far you have what? Insulted Cash? Wow, you really put truthers to shame with this post. Pure genius! What SOP's are thrown around? What are you talking about? Well, you must be in a corner to resort to posts that are nothing but tearing down other posters. Nice info you provided in this post, sure sheds some light on things don't it? [snip] What SOPs, apparently you missed all that talk of SOP in fire investigation that was ignored? [edit on 19-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo] Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link. [edit on 20-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 09:00 AM by jthomas
Originally posted by Griff Originally posted by jthomas So much for your claims that the "government" was trying to suppress dust studies when they've been there all along just for you. 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. I didn't realize you did not understand the difference between publication dates and when the samples were collected. Now I understand your confusion.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 09:48 AM by CameronFox
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo Well, you must be in a corner to resort to posts that are nothing but tearing down other posters. Nice info you provided in this post, sure sheds some light on things don't it? Idiot! I don't tear down posts sir. I will however, show the poster where they may be in error. As I have done countless times with Mr. Cashlink. As I have stated in the past, I will offer sources with posts unless they are my opinion. I have not been hostile to Cash at all. In a previous post I told him that I decided not to argue with him. It's not my fault he doesn't get what I post. You also have been reported for your personal attack. Being a skeptic here, I have to abide by the rules. So should you. Thank you.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 11:58 AM by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by CameronFox I don't tear down posts sir. I will however, show the poster where they may be in error. As I have done countless times with Mr. Cashlink. OK, I have no desire to debate this with you as your ill mannered attacks are littered everywhere. As I have stated in the past, I will offer sources with posts unless they are my opinion. I have not been hostile to Cash at all. In a previous post I told him that I decided not to argue with him. It's not my fault he doesn't get what I post. You also have been reported for your personal attack. Being a skeptic here, I have to abide by the rules. So should you. Which attack? Asking you a question? Pointing out that you dodged it? or restating it here for you? You reported me for pointing out that SOPs were ignored? How about for reminding you which SOP I was thinking of at the time? Report away! Let me remind you where we left off before you decided the best you could do was try to get my post deleted. ThroatYogurt -"What SOP's are thrown around? What are you talking about? me - "What SOPs, apparently you missed all that talk of SOP in fire investigation that was ignored?" Am I wrong? I would be genuinely interested in a response that is not another one of your empty posts that is only about the other poster. Like the one I am replying to that is clearly off-topic. See if you can manage.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 12:00 PM by GenRadek
reply to post by cashlink Cash, I see once again you are continuing to spread disinfo with regards to the firefighter quotes, but it does not surprise me, since you ignored it in the other thread on FDNY comments on "explosions". Once again, you are using cut, edited, and manipulated quotes, out of context, to forward more disinfo. As a result, I am forced to add the original sources of these quotes IN context and UNmolested so the readers can see the comments in full, and realize what was ACTUALLY being said. graphics8.nytimes.com...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 12:07 PM by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff I don't understand how someone can see a plane impact a Tower, witnessing jet fuel spilled over multiple floors, fires spreading to higher floors (as fires usually do), and the reports of a strong smell of jetfuel after the impacts, come to the conclusion or even idea of a "thermobaric" explosive used to bring the towers down..
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 12:31 PM by CameronFox
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo OK, I have no desire to debate this with you as your ill mannered attacks are littered everywhere. No you don't have any desire to debate me? You must find it extremely difficult to debate anyone that uses facts. Which attack? Asking you a question? No, calling me an idiot which was snipped from your post. I am not looking to get anything removed from anyone's posts. That is up to the mods to decide. Now, back on topic: My opinion in regards to the NIST investigation violating the National Fore Code? They did not gain jurisdiction to the crime scene until a major part of the clean up had been completed. There are many posts I made regarding this topic. I am not dodging anything as you claim. If I am in error, please point out where and I will make any necessary apologies or retractions. [edit on 20-12-2008 by CameronFox]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 12:35 PM by Griff
Originally posted by jthomas I didn't realize you did not understand the difference between publication dates and when the samples were collected. Now I understand your confusion. I am not confused. You claimed that the EPA etc. wasn't trying to hide anything in the beginning. Well, even your own sources weren't published before the workers were out of the area. It does not matter when the samples were collected (BTW, I did read when they were collected but that has nothing to do with publication...i.e. the reporting of their analysis etc.) www.cbsnews.com... Here she is backpeddling in saying that the samples were taken around GZ and reflected the air quality in lower Manhattan. But, listen to what she says about the rubble piles and the workers there. They DID NOT tell us of this distinction when they said the air was ok to breath. And now she wants to say it's the workers fault for them not mentioning this distinction? Please.
copyright & usage