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.

 

911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video!

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
But, if it comes from the "truth movement", they better damn well cross every T and dot every I or we have CameronFoxes who will jump at the opportunity to spout "Hey, look, the Truth movement F'd up".

I obviously disagree with you when it comes to conclusions, but I do agree that it is important to be as thorough as possible, whether it's the "official story" or an alternate theory.

The problem is, that the majority of truthers in my experience, haven't actually read the NIST report.

Have you? How much of it?




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Have you? How much of it?


I'll admit I haven't read all 10,000 pages. Have you?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Looking back, I misread part of your post. I just noticed that you said "9/11 Eyewitness", not "9/11 Mysteries". I guess I can take a gander at the original footage.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
I'll admit I haven't read all 10,000 pages. Have you?

Of course, I've read the important sections several times, a large number of the 10,000 pages are model results which you can 'gloss over' if needed.

It is worth going back and re-reading the whole thing, take your time and perhaps make a list of things they should have done, and find out if they did do them. For example I have seen many people insist most urgently that NIST should have conducted tests to determine how hot the fires actually were. What's funny is that this is completely covered in the reports including the test layouts, sensors, results, conclusions etc etc.

Can you give any examples of things they should have done? I don't think CameronFox would mind the topic in this thread, I'll have to talk to him at the next NWO Operative smoke break



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Can you give any examples of things they should have done?


Test WTC 7 steel that evaporated. You know, to find out if gypsum is a fire hazard in buildings.

Edit: Not just a fire hazard but can actually cause the steel to melt and evaporate? Especially since every single steel skyscraper is constructed with gypsum.

Maybe we found a real problem with our construction materials? But, no. Let's just ignore it and explain it away without any tests.


If that's not what NIST was hired to do, then I have no idea what they are there for.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz


But, if it comes from the "truth movement", they better damn well cross every T and dot every I or we have CameronFoxes who will jump at the opportunity to spout "Hey, look, the Truth movement F'd up".



Hey FN ... if YOU are accused of mass murder, wouldn't YOU want every i dotted and T crossed?

Get it?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Hey FN ... if YOU are accused of mass murder, wouldn't YOU want every i dotted and T crossed?

Get it?


So, AQ doesn't deserve the same? Aren't they being accused (and a heck of a lot more) of murder?

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Can you give any examples of things they should have done? I don't think CameronFox would mind the topic in this thread, I'll have to talk to him at the next NWO Operative smoke break


Just a few of the more egregious ones:
Failed to analyse a single piece of WTC7 steel.
Failed to analyse the dust.
Refused to release the parameters of their computer collapse modelling to independent scrutiny.
Failed to provide a scientific basis for their claim that the fireproofing was dislodged by the planes (firing bullets at a fire-protected steel plate proves no such thing).
Failure to give any account of the numerous reports of massive explosions within all three towers (Jennings, Hess et al).

For a longer list of omissions see: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

He mentions among others -
No proper timeline established.
Failure to supply witness or photographic evidence of what was happening to WTC 7 prior to collapse.
Failure to actively seek and collect witness statements.
Refusal to allow comment or answer questions during the investigation.
Using "government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding".
Refusal to investigate alternative hypotheses.
Failure to supply "evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings".



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Returning to topic...

Manipulative editing of picture and sound is, unfortunately, a daily occurrence in TV documentary program making. Most goes unnoticed and much is fairly innocuous. There's no equivalent of the physician's Hippocratic Oath in the film editor's creed. Reworking raw footage for brevity, message or entertainment, it is up to the ethics of the program makers as to where they draw the line. If the general public were more savvy to this, perhaps they would be less subject to mainstream propaganda.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
So, AQ doesn't deserve the same? Aren't they being accused (and a heck of a lot more) of murder?



They admitted to doing it... Really, are you that ill informed?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
Test WTC 7 steel that evaporated. You know, to find out if gypsum is a fire hazard in buildings.

Edit: Not just a fire hazard but can actually cause the steel to melt and evaporate? Especially since every single steel skyscraper is constructed with gypsum.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C p229-233

This is not the FEMA 403 Appendix C WTC7 segment, but identifiable material from WTC1/2 (Steel from WTC7 was not uniquely marked)


Maybe we found a real problem with our construction materials? But, no. Let's just ignore it and explain it away without any tests.

Nobody ignored it, FEMA did not, NIST did not. Analysis was carried out on both parts and it is understood what caused this erosion. It is unlikely to have occured pre collapse.


Originally posted by EvilAxis
Just a few of the more egregious ones:
Failed to analyse a single piece of WTC7 steel.

True, but because they had no access to it. You can't blame NIST for this I don't think.

Failed to analyse the dust.

True, but deceptive, dust was analysed by a team of experts individually from the NIST report and it has no bearing on it.

Refused to release the parameters of their computer collapse modelling to independent scrutiny.

Untrue as far as I know, SAP2000 models have already been released, can you point me to their refusal?

Failed to provide a scientific basis for their claim that the fireproofing was dislodged by the planes (firing bullets at a fire-protected steel plate proves no such thing).

Incorrect, they did not fire "bullets" they fired representative debris at representative samples at correct kinetic energy scales. This is a common truth movement claim from people who've not actually read the report

Failure to give any account of the numerous reports of massive explosions within all three towers (Jennings, Hess et al).

Hess does not describe a massive explosion, and we know now that what the men experienced was the collapse of WTC2.


For a longer list of omissions see: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Not only does Quintire disagree with you, his initial complaints were based on a flimsy reading, if you had actually read the NIST report you would know many of his complaints were completely incorrect.

Why do people quote him so much, he thinks conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous, you obviously disagree with him on that so do you think it is beneficial to pick out his statement and go "AHA!" when he's actually saying that the WTC could collapse from fire alone?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Looking back, I misread part of your post. I just noticed that you said "9/11 Eyewitness", not "9/11 Mysteries". I guess I can take a gander at the original footage.

I'd like to hear your opinion after you watch it.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I only had to watch the 3 minute trailer to get my fill of the BS. Just another pathetic video created by another misinformed truther.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


It's only BS because you're too scared to watch the full original footage and have everything you believe about the official story turn into falsities. At least we know where you stand and that you will not look at all the evidence on both sides before making your now uneducated opinion.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C p229-233

This is not the FEMA 403 Appendix C WTC7 segment, but identifiable material from WTC1/2 (Steel from WTC7 was not uniquely marked)


From the NIST NCSTAR 1-3C p229:


Of all the recovered steel examined, this was the only case where this degradation was observed on a perimeter column or core column.


Really? What about the other sample from WTC 7? I guess that doesn't count since it's from 7?


Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degredation phenomenom had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building.


So, because it might interfere with our already pre-concieved notion that damage and fire on the upper floors caused collapse, we will simply state that this column from lower down must have been erroded in the debris pile. Even though there WAS NO testing performed on these samples to determine cause.

Also, we didn't even bother to mention the other column from WTC 7 ( except for a small mention) where the exact same thing happened.

Maybe we should find out if gypsum is a hazard that errodes steel at higher temperatures since we are the National Institute of STANDARDS and Technology? NAH.



Nobody ignored it, FEMA did not, NIST did not. Analysis was carried out on both parts and it is understood what caused this erosion. It is unlikely to have occured pre collapse.


Um yeah they did.
NIST ignored the WTC 7 steel.
NIST assumed that the column was in a horizontal position when erroded therefore couldn't have been pre-collapse because it goes against their pre-concieved theory.
NIST did NO further testing of these pieces (not to mention didn't even have the steel from WTC 7 at all)

Shall I continue? You people crap on Jones and his thermite studies but are all gung-ho when it comes to NIST who doesn't even do ANY testing and just assumes. Typical GL's.



True, but because they had no access to it. You can't blame NIST for this I don't think.


What? The FEMA BPAT team became the NIST team. So, why would they have no access to the steel? Also, I keep hearing from the GL's that there are plenty of pieces of steel still at fresh kills. So, why didn't NIST have access to the steel especially when they had subpeana power?


Untrue as far as I know, SAP2000 models have already been released, can you point me to their refusal?


They refuse to release the other SAP2000 models that don't show collapse.


Incorrect, they did not fire "bullets" they fired representative debris at representative samples at correct kinetic energy scales.


They fired a shotgun at it. Is this really representative in your mind? If so, I really don't want to hear from your mouth about Jone's work and the oxygen testing.


Why do people quote him so much, he thinks conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous, you obviously disagree with him on that so do you think it is beneficial to pick out his statement and go "AHA!" when he's actually saying that the WTC could collapse from fire alone?


Maybe you should actually realize that Quintiere doesn't feel that the towers would collapse from fire alone. He states that the NIST testing on the fireproofing is erroneous and he feels that the thickness was insufficient. Not that it was dislodged. It was insufficient to begin with. Yet, we have the government covering up that fact. Why? Because there are probably more buildings with insufficient fireproofing?


[edit on 7-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I only had to watch the 3 minute trailer to get my fill of the BS. Just another pathetic video created by another misinformed truther.


So, you haven't even watched the video that you are crapping on? Typical GL.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Foxy Nutz has covered much of this but...


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Just a few of the more egregious ones:
Failed to analyse a single piece of WTC7 steel.

True, but because they had no access to it. You can't blame NIST for this I don't think.


I don't blame NIST for Mayor Giulian's decision to recycle the WTC steel before investigators could examine it, but like Dr. Quintiere, I do blame NIST for not headlining this massive hindrance to their investigation.


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?


A coroner asked to perform an autopsy, would be guilty of gross negligence if he confidently diagnosed a cause of death without accessing the body, particularly if he did not make it very clear that, in absence of such vital forensics, no confidence should be placed in his diagnosis - but this is precisely what NIST have done in their WTC 7 report.


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failed to analyse the dust.

True, but deceptive, dust was analysed by a team of experts individually from the NIST report and it has no bearing on it.


The independent team of experts you refer to were not analysing the dust as part of an investigation into the cause of the demolitions. Another independent team of experts did so and found evidence of thermitic material in the dust. Your statement that the dust has no bearing on the destruction is merely your opinion without scientific basis. NIST did not analyse it because in their opinion without scientific basis:


Dr Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator into WTC 7
In order for a thermate reaction to take place, there has to be materials... You would have had to place about 100 lbs of thermite right in proximity to the column and it had to have always adhered to the column...

www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Refused to release the parameters of their computer collapse modelling to independent scrutiny.

Untrue as far as I know, SAP2000 models have already been released, can you point me to their refusal?



Ala Tabiei, a professor at Cincinnati University with advanced degrees in aeronautical and aerospace engineering, asked the National Institute for Standards and Technology for a copy of the LS-DYNA input file for the airplane models used in the twin tower computer simulation.

NIST denied the request of Tabiei, a specialist in impact simulations, on the basis that publication of NIST's mathematical model could jeopardize public safety. NIST staff members had also opposed release of the data because their method was said to incorporate proprietary information. However, Tabiei wasn't given the option of asking the cooperation of whatever firm might have supplied a proprietary algorithm.

The NIST transferred the six files to a secure location under control of its Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

Experts can't verify key 9/11 experiment

SAP2000 models for WTC 1 & 2 have been obtained with difficulty via FOIA requests by some individuals, but one must ask why an investigation funded by the government, ostensibly in the public interest, would not release this data as a matter of course (perhaps charging a reasonable fee to interested parties).

However, the SAP2000 models of WTC 1 & 2 do not model structural collapse.
World Trade Center Computer Models from NIST


NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester, UK, professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.

'NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost, ' he said.


WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation New Civil Engineer, 1 November, 2005

In January this year, NIST replied to a FOIA request from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for the raw data used in their WTC 7 collapse model. The estimated fee is $824.98 for the data. (Commercial ANSYS LS-DYNA software is required to run the simulations).

www.ae911truth.org...

To date, this data is not in the public domain (where it belongs).


[edit on 7-6-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failed to provide a scientific basis for their claim that the fireproofing was dislodged by the planes (firing bullets at a fire-protected steel plate proves no such thing).


Incorrect, they did not fire "bullets" they fired representative debris at representative samples at correct kinetic energy scales. This is a common truth movement claim from people who've not actually read the report


NIST conducted a series of fifteen tests. In the tests projectiles were fired at fireproofing mounted on 12 inch x 12 inch plates, and steel bars with a one inch diameter. The fireproofing used in the tests was Blazeshield DC/F, one of the two grades of fireproofing used on the impact floors. In thirteen of the tests the projectiles were buckshot, which was fired at the steel samples from a modified shotgun at a distance of 29.5 ft. The other two tests used steel bolts and hexagon nuts, fired with less velocity and at closer range. According to NIST:


The test results support the assumption that, within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM [i.e., fireproofing] used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.
NIST 9/2005, pp. 83, 263-274


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Failure to give any account of the numerous reports of massive explosions within all three towers (Jennings, Hess et al).

Hess does not describe a massive explosion, and we know now that what the men experienced was the collapse of WTC2.


Numerous witnesses describe "massive" explosions in WTC 1 & 2. Of WTC 7, Hess said "there was an explosion" and Jennings said there was a "Big explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor, and I turned to Hess and said 'this is it - we're dead'." The man who rescued Jennings said, "Both staircases - the backside was completely blown away." Jennings described how as he entered WTC 7 the lobby was undamaged but when he left it "was in total ruins". How did this occur without massive explosions? Why was NIST silent on the matter?

NIST claimed that what the men experienced was the collapse of WTC2, but the witness himself said that when he heard the first explosion, “Both [of the Twin Towers] were still standing.” He also described hearing multiple explosions while in WTC 7.


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
For a longer list of omissions see: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Not only does Quintire disagree with you, his initial complaints were based on a flimsy reading, if you had actually read the NIST report you would know many of his complaints were completely incorrect.


Dr Quintire's comments were not based on a flimsy reading of the report. He took an active interest throughout the investigation and submitted many formal queries which went unanswered. His criticisms were not off-the cuff, but formed part of a formal presentation before the Committee on Science House of Representatives 1009th Congress:
THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS


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.


He has an exemplary reputation in his field – your attempt to smear his damning criticism of the NIST's work won't wash.


Dr. Quintiere is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
He is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
• The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
• The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
• The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
• The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association



Originally posted by exponent
Why do people quote him so much, he thinks conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous, you obviously disagree with him on that so do you think it is beneficial to pick out his statement and go "AHA!" when he's actually saying that the WTC could collapse from fire alone?


Please supply the quote where he says “conspiracy theories around the towers are ludicrous”. You didn't just make it up and place the words in his mouth I hope???

He has his own hypothesis about insufficient fireproofing, but he's not claiming to have conducted scientific research which supports it. If he believed the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, it would have been dangerous in his position to say so.

What he does say:

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


The reason he is often quoted is that, as a highly qualified and experienced former Chief at NIST, he is the ultimate insider – yet even he is unflinching in his criticism of NIST's WTC investigations. He has indicated a lack of confidence in their conclusions and has called for an independent review of the investigation.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

.....you're too scared to watch......


Please BONEZ ... the only thing I am scared of, is losing more time watching more idiotic drivel.


At least we know where you stand and that you will not look at all the evidence on both sides before making your now uneducated opinion.


My opinion is based on FACTS.

You, however watch goofy videos like the one you presented to get "educated". Congratulations BONEZ, you have graduated from Google University and U of YouTube.

Other truthers claimed that 911 Mysteries (including Rosie O'Donnell) helped prove it was an inside job. Sofia and her company were proven to be deceptive liars. That is what the TM does. Lie, distort, cherry pick..etc.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 




I wish I could give triple stars. Star for that post. Well done.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join