911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video! , page 4

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.

Reasonable comment, although no real argument can be made where you compare WTC1,2 or 7 to a 'typical' fire scene.

Who compared it to a typical fire scene? Dr. Quintiere said “Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation.” This was both a fire and unprecedented crime scene – making the destruction of the evidence a major crime in itself. That Giuliani was not prosecuted for it, is evidence of corruption at the heart of 9/11.

Originally posted by exponent
Spoliation was a result of searching for survivors in the initial stages.

No it wasn't. Spoliation is “the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, alteration or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.” That is what Dr Quintiere is referring to. Clearly the rescue priority meant the crime scene could not remain untouched prior to an investigation – there was an urgent need, from day one, to remove debris around WTC 1 & 2 (but not WTC 7). The crime was not the removal of the evidence from location, but its deliberate and methodical destruction thereafter.

YouTube Link

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Burning Questions...Need Answers: FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse Fire Engineering, 4 Jan, 2002

Presciently, the editor in chief of Fire Engineering also predicted:

unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
The independent team of experts you refer to were not analyzing 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.

The first part of this is true, however there is some significant doubt to the second.

You may doubt it, but it was the verdict of a peer reviewed study by an independent team of experts. No peer reviewed research has challenged it to date. Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse is currently the active ATS thread to debate it.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
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:

My statement was merely in regard to the independence of this study from the NIST investigation. Not a comment on the conclusions of this or other studies.

In response to my criticism of NIST's failure to analyse the dust as part of their investigation into the destruction of the towers you said, “dust was analysed by a team of experts individually from the NIST report and it has no bearing on it.” It was NIST's job under the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, to determine whether the dust had any bearing on the destruction of the towers. When called out on it, they could offer no defence for not testing.

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?

(rest of quote snipped)

Originally posted by exponent
This is interesting, I don't see what valid reason they would have, but I see only a report here without much information, do you know more? I also would like to point out that this criticism is superceded by the information you post further in your reply.

It's not superseded by the FOIA releases. The plane crash simulations professor Tabiei tried to obtain have never been released as far as I'm aware. Moreover, it is also correct to say NIST refused to release the SAP2000 models. They did not place them in the public domain and the individual who obtained them, had to take the extraordinary measure of filing a FOIA to force NIST to release them. As you said yourself, there's no valid reason why they would withhold the data. If they had nothing to hide, surely they would actively encourage peer review. To date it would appear that no independent group has had access to the WTC 7 computer simulation parameters.