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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

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?


And Donald Rumsfeld admitted that a missle hit the pentagon and flight 93 was shot down. Do you really believe everything you hear without investigation into it?




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

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

Thank you for proving my point. You are not open-minded, you have no interest in truth, you have no interest in looking at the evidence on both sides fairly before making an educated opinion. Thank you for showing your true colors and letting everyone know that you will continue to remain biased and close-minded.

Oh by the way, since you won't take the time to look at the full evidence on both sides, you have no business even commenting on it. Same with people who don't vote. If you didn't get out and vote, you have no business complaing about who was elected.




Originally posted by CameronFox
My opinion is based on FACTS.

Your opinion is based on what you in your mind think are facts. If you won't take the time to look at the full evidence on every side, then you are not making a decision based on any facts except what you may have been spoon-fed by a single source instead of multiple sources on both sides.



Originally posted by CameronFox
You, however watch goofy videos like the one you presented to get "educated".

That video is evidence that you won't take the time to view. And you are afraid to view it because it will make you question your beliefs. You are now an open book.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz


And Donald Rumsfeld admitted that a missle[sic] hit the pentagon and flight 93 was shot down. Do you really believe everything you hear without investigation into it?


So, did you investigate Rummy? Since the planes were used like "missiles," it is not out of the question that he misspoke.

AQ on the other hand has admitted to what they have done. Do a little google search "hijacker video wills."

Osama Bin Laden, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Colvin Reid, Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

Any of those names ring a bell? When it comes to investigating... what exactly have you done?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Thank you for proving my point. You are not open-minded, you have no interest in truth, you have no interest in looking at the evidence on both sides fairly before making an educated opinion.


Bonez. Please tell me how many videos filled with truther drivel and lies to I have to watch before you consider me.. "open minded?"

Truther Drivel I have watched:

Loose Change
Loose Change 2nd addition
Loose Change Final Cut
911 Mysteries
Who Killed John O'Neil
TerrorStorm
9/11 Coincidences
In Plane Site
Pentacon
The Ultimate Con
Zeitgeist
Press For Truth

Truther Leaders that I have read:

Alex Jones
Steven Jones
Waterboy Ryan
Griffin
Gage
Blood
etc.



I have watched press conferences. I have read speeches, I have spoken with FEMA members that were at GZ. I have spoken to victims family members. I have read several books. I have spoke to Structural Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Metallurgists, airline pilots (both military aetc.
nd commercial) I have spoken to the attorneys that represented UA regarding flight 93. I have also read peer reviewed papers regarding the tower collapses.

You see, my research reached out beyond the laptop I lug to and from work with me every day.

Besides you being suckered into paying for Richard Gage's vacations around the globe, you have done really nothing. (besides showing the no planers who ridiculous they are)


Oh by the way, since you won't take the time to look at the full evidence on both sides, you have no business even commenting on it.


Again, I have watched my fair share of watching truther garbage. If, however you will point out some evidence contained in the video in question, I will be more than happy to look into it.





[edit on 7-6-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Osama Bin Laden, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Colvin Reid, Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

Any of those names ring a bell?


Sure do.
OBL - Denied being a part of 9/11
ZM - Wanna-be AQ.
RCR - The shoe bomber? How does that fit into 9/11?
MMJ - Again, what does this man have to do with 9/11?
KSM - Confessed to being the mastermind of 9/11 after being tortured for months. Also confessed to being the mastermind of EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST attack against the US since and including the '93 bombing of the WTC.

Real good list there to prove your point throatyogurt/captain obvious.




When it comes to investigating... what exactly have you done?


My, aren't we just ready to jump to conclusions.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Bonez. Please tell me how many videos filled with truther drivel and lies to I have to watch before you consider me.. "open minded?"

I would suggest "9/11 Eyewitness" and a newer documentary called "ZERO: An investigation into 9/11"

But, since you've already watched an extensive list of videos and nothing has turned on the light bulb, I'd say it wouldn't matter. You're too biased and too blinded by your denial that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented before you. You will never believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 no matter what.

Since you're already in that mindset and nothing will change it, why are you here? Are you here for entertainment? You can't counter the evidence and won't change our minds so one has to wonder why you waste so much time here on these threads.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Besides you being suckered into paying for Richard Gage's vacations around the globe, you have done really nothing.

Here you have a serious problem. You presume to tell me what I have and have not done when you have no idea who I am or what I do day-in and day-out since you're not with me 24/7 to know.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Since you're already in that mindset and nothing will change it,......


What do you mean nothing will change it. Give me some evidence. Been 8 1/2 years. You got nothing. I am here to answer the question some people may have.

What evidence has not been countered?

Are you going to tell me what evidence is in this video we are discussing? You have told me I am closed minded for not watching another video, yet you have not supplied me with evidence was shown in that video to prove a massive conspiracy.



Here you have a serious problem. You presume to tell me what I have and have not done when you have no idea who I am or what I do day-in and day-out since you're not with me 24/7 to know.


I have the problem??? YOU spend your hard earned money paying for a man to fly around the world and spread lies. A man you do not know! Again... WHO has the problem Mr. Sustaining Member?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Been 8 1/2 years.


Really? And how researched are you?

Sept. 2001 + 8 1/2 years = February 2010

I must have went through a time warp as I was thinking it was only June of 2009.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz

Originally posted by CameronFox
Been 8 1/2 years.

Really? And how researched are you?
Sept. 2001 + 8 1/2 years = February 2010
I must have went through a time warp as I was thinking it was only June of 2009.

Now now, don't pick on CameronFox's mathematical error, Foxy!

Former member ThroatYogurt used to make very similar, basic mathematical errors as well.

In fact, we've all made the odd mistake on occasions!

We're big enough to forgive CameronFox for making a mistake, right?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Called a typo you genius. (the 7 is right next to the 8 on my laptop.) Now... anything relevant to add to this thread?

I didn't think you did.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Now... anything relevant to add to this thread?


Yes. 9/11 Mysteries can't be trusted as they have been caught manipulating film/audio. Happy?

I thought I already said my oppinion about both films?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Called a typo you genius.

Who's the genius, me or Foxy? Maybe you meant both of us?



(the 7 is right next to the 8 on my laptop.)

Coincidentally, so is mine. Like I typed, CameronFox, you're forgiven for making the mathematical error/typo. I was more harsh on ThroatYogurt, though, as his errors were definitely not typos. Maybe you remember that thread from a long time ago?



Now... anything relevant to add to this thread?

Yeah, someone broke copyright and is being sued for it... meh... More profit for the lawyers and a waste of time in the courts. Just as well she wasn't trying to peddle the official story and she's only a nutjob truther, huh?



I didn't think you did.

You obviously didn't think about it hard enough. I gave you my opinion above.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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

Indeed, the primary focus of this report was on WTC1. I fail to see how there is a substantial difference?


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.

But there was testing? The source for information about these steel pieces is from FEMA 403 Appendix C where they were tested. NIST did not simply assert that the column must have been eroded in the pile, it was the only available conclusion. The attack on the steel occurs from a liquid mix of elements which must remain in continuous contact at high temperatures for an extended period. How else could this erode a beam flange without it being horizontal? If it cannot, how can this occur while the building was still standing?


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.

As I pointed out, the testing had already been done, nothing suspicious has been found with regards to this steel, and while thermite has been proposed as a cause, information available indicates that thermite would simply melt the steel in its entirety. I am certainly no chemist though, and my knowledge of this is not authoritative in any manner.


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?

I don't know if NIST had subpoena power, but I did phrase that badly. NIST would have had access to the eroded WTC7 sample, but it would have been addressed in the WTC7 report if needed. However, the second sample was analysed as part of the WTC1/2 investigation and found to be a result of prolonged heating post collapse.

What information do you have which indicates this steel is indicative of some sort of demolition?


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

Cite?


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.

They did not just "fire a shotgun", and what tests would you have them do?


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?

"should actually realize"? What gives you the impression in the first place? What facts are you calling upon in criticizing NIST?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

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. Spoliation was a result of searching for survivors in the initial stages. Still more information is always good, and the less debris moved the better off everyone would be.


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.

The first part of this is true, however there is some significant doubt to the second. The evidence discovered was steel, aluminium and various other compounds. Many of us sceptics feel that very little work was done on actually eliminating other factors, especially because the paint used on WTC columns matches very closely the flakes found. I am sure you are aware of the other arguments, but this is a case yet to be solved. I am confident it will result in a conclusion that it is paint with metal scale, as what use would a microscopic layer of thermite be against a column with sheet steel several inches thick?


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.


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)
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.


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).
...
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).



Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.

I am glad you actually know the material from which you quote, it is enjoyable when I don't have to explain it.


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.

You know exactly how it occured without massive explosions, as you say, by the collapse of WTC2. There is even video of the lobby in this condition.

As far as I know however, Mr Jennings never directly stated he viewed both towers, only that he saw firemen retreat twice for the collapse of the buildings. However, constructing a timeline of his movements it seems extremely likely that it was indeed WTC2 that collapsed. I assume you'll make the claim it occured earlier in the day, but there was only a brief period in which WTC7 was empty other than Mr Jennings + Mr Hess, and no other account exists of this type of event other than accounts of the collapse of WTC2.

Tell me, what purpose would detonating a large explosive in WTC7 before either collapse have, when the building did not collapse for a further 7 hours?


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.

I may have been a little harsh, I don't want it to seem like I have no respect for Dr Quintiere. He may very well be correct in his theory, and I just dislike seeing him used as an example by truthers of someone who supports their cause, when of course he does not.


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???

I did not quote him, so I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. As this article says, he has made it clear he does not support explosive demolition:
www.ae911truth.org...

Don't get me wrong, I do in principle support your cause, but as so much of the reasoning is based on flimsy evidence, selective reading or just ignorance of the mechanisms involved I don't believe there is anywhere near a theory which can compete with that formulated by NIST.

For example, if I ask you to state a detailed alternate theory, could you? NIST has good explanations for the majority of occurrences with WTC1,2 and 7, and little remains unexplained compared to any current truther offerings.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
NIST has good explanations for the majority of occurrences with WTC1,2 and 7, and little remains unexplained compared to any current truther offerings.


Hi exponent, could you please enumerate the list of phenomenon which you believe (sic) are unexplainable by NIST report.

This will go a long way towards bridging the gap between "truther" & "debunker" communities and promote mutual understanding. Since it looks like the difference between these two communities is only the length of the list of unexplained phenonon related to 911 events..

While "truther" consider the list of unexplained phenonon related to 911 events. to be significant enough to warrant a new independent investigation. You, on the other hand, acknowledge the existance of unexplained phenonon related to 911 events., but consider them to be rather insignificant.

So, I think you would be the ideal person who can play the role of middle man. Why don't you list the unexplained phenonon related to 911 events. which "debunker" community itself considers unexplainable , truther community can take it from there, they may add some of their own unexplained phenonon related to 911 events.. But this can be a good starting point.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neil_86
Hi exponent, could you please enumerate the list of phenomenon which you believe (sic) are unexplainable by NIST report.

A tough challenge! The first thing that pops to mind would be the spontaneous fire observed on the 107th (108th?) floor. NISTs theory is that this was collected fuel vapour igniting, but it is one of many possibilities.

The question really is what you mean by "unexplainable". Do you mean something we currently cannot explain, or something which is, in principle, unexplainable?

There are many which fit criteria #1, and i'm sure many that fit #2 too. Some examples I can give

1. Puffs of smoke (pre-collapse) in the towers, hypothesized to be floor collapses and supported by images of increase floor disconnection
2. Bright liquid flowing out and over the external facade of WTC2. Thought by truthers to be steel, thought by debunkers to be a potential mix of aluminium, organics, lead, glass etc.
3. The "dark spot" on WTC1

I could probably go on, but I am sure you understand that while some of these we can guess at, we will never be able to actually prove them. However, if I were to list some of the similar problems on the average 'truther' side they are obviously slightly more serious

1. Demolition mechanism is currently unexplained
2. Demolition sequence is currently unexplained

I mean these alone create serious problems for anyone doing more than "Just Asking Questions".


You, on the other hand, acknowledge the existance of unexplained phenonon related to 911 events., but consider them to be rather insignificant.

I'm not sure that's fair. Insignificant is probably not the best word, I simply don't think any currently unexplained or unproven phenomena have a chance of casting doubt on NISTs conclusion. Some of them may be significant, floor disconnections are in fact quite important to NISTs conclusion, but ultimately it's hard to know.


Thanks in advance.

No problem, I expect you were perhaps wanting a longer list, but I think it's probably best suited to its own thread. Still there are 3 for a start.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'd like to hear your opinion after you watch it.


I got around to watching the whole thing. I had all kinds of problems with the stuff they brought up after Rick's video, but I'll just stick to the Rick video since that's what you were wanting me to watch.

With the south tower, I didn't hear anything for about 50 seconds before the collapse. I don't recall seeing any controlled demolitions where the last boom happened that long before the collapse.

As for the north tower, there was a boom about 10 seconds before it fell, although that boom shouldn't have been responsible for the building's collapse considering the fact that the police noticed the north tower was in danger of collapsing about 7 minutes before it happened.

The main problem that I have with these booms is that they are preceded by rumbles. This would indicate to me that we are listening to parts of the building collapsing. I'm not aware of any explosives that rumble before they go off.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
With the south tower, I didn't hear anything for about 50 seconds before the collapse. I don't recall seeing any controlled demolitions where the last boom happened that long before the collapse.

It is necessary to have a subwoofer hooked up to your computer to appreciate the booms. Further, you're talking about the booms 5,6,7,8,9 before the south tower collapses. Did you not hear the rumbling of the actual collapse of the south tower? If not, you should watch it several times. Also note that the online version's sound isn't synched with the video. The DVD version will have better synchronization.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
As for the north tower, there was a boom about 10 seconds before it fell, although that boom shouldn't have been responsible for the building's collapse.

The loud boom was also followed by many smaller booms and they were the direct initiation of the collapse of the north tower. Watch the video over and over listening to the booms. Keep your eye on the smoke on the left and right sides of the tower at the collapse zone. Just before collapse and during the smaller booms, you will see the smoke become disturbed a second or 2 before collapse. The smoke becoming disturbed right before collapse and during the booms tells me the booms are weakening the structure at the impact zone and thus precipitating collapse. Then the rest of the series of detonations destroy the lower structure allowing full collapse.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
The main problem that I have with these booms is that they are preceded by rumbles. This would indicate to me that we are listening to parts of the building collapsing.

Not all of the booms have the rumbling preceding. I believe the "rumbling" is actually smaller booms happening before the larger ones. Besides, at 2 miles (3km) away, you won't hear the actual building itself collapse. You will only hear the detonations.

Thanks for watching the whole thing and posting your opinion. You should watch the collapses a few more times and with a subwoofer and bass turned up for the full effect of the booms.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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.




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.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.

You know exactly how it occured without massive explosions, as you say, by the collapse of WTC2. There is even video of the lobby in this condition.


The video of the lobby does not show large chunks of WTC 2, but light debris and a coating of fine dust - consistent with an internal explosion:
“No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating.” NIST Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse - Final (page 15)

The reporter's voice-over at the start of the video (which is cut short) even says, “...explosion happened, um, the debris, uh, that was caused by that began to fall everywhere and everyone began running...”


Originally posted by exponent
As far as I know however, Mr Jennings never directly stated he viewed both towers, only that he saw firemen retreat twice for the collapse of the buildings. However, constructing a timeline of his movements it seems extremely likely that it was indeed WTC2 that collapsed. I assume you'll make the claim it occured earlier in the day, but there was only a brief period in which WTC7 was empty other than Mr Jennings + Mr Hess, and no other account exists of this type of event other than accounts of the collapse of WTC2.


After the "big explosion", Jennings said:


The firefighters came, they came to the window and they... 'cause I was going to come out on the fire hose – I didn't want to stay there any longer - it was too hot. I was going to come out on the fire hose. They came to the window and they said, they started yelling, “Do not do that! We'll hold you.” And then they ran away. See, I didn't know what was going on. That's when one, the first tower fell. When they started running the first tower was coming down. I had no, I had no way of knowing that. Then I saw them come back. Now I saw them come back with more concern on their faces. Then they ran away again. The second tower fell.
.......
All this time I'm hearing all types of explosions. All this time I'm hearing explosions.


Hess describes thick smoke, not dust:


there was an explosion and we've been trapped on the 8th floor with smoke – thick smoke all around us.



Originally posted by exponent
Tell me, what purpose would detonating a large explosive in WTC7 before either collapse have, when the building did not collapse for a further 7 hours?


To disguise the sudden demolition of the building and make it look more like a progressive, fire-induced occurrence? To ensure certain documents did not survive the demolition? Because explosives were detonated earlier than intended by the fire?

Speculation about what we cannot know is a distraction from what we do know – countless witnesses reported explosions inside WTC 1, 2 - and two reliable witnesses reported explosions inside WTC 7 - before they imploded.


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.

I may have been a little harsh, I don't want it to seem like I have no respect for Dr Quintiere. He may very well be correct in his theory, and I just dislike seeing him used as an example by truthers of someone who supports their cause, when of course he does not.


It's not that you were harsh – you were entirely incorrect. Dr Quintire was involved in collecting evidence even before the 9/11 families forced the government to commission the NIST investigation, and followed it throughout. He was on the team of the original ASCE investigation. Significantly he was not on the payroll of any government funded body.


•September 2001: presented seminar to NIST for conducting a scale
model simulation of the impact and fire
•Nov 2001: spoke out against sale of steel in news media, NY officials
•Dec 2001: affiliated with the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (SSC)
•Feb 2002: assisted NIST in accessing NY Times photo archives
•Attended all NIST public hearings, submitted extensive comments and
questions
•Attended all Congressional Hearings on WTC
•Published and presented papers on WTC in peer-reviewed venues
2002-2005
•Conducted tests on insulation in cooperation with Isolatek
•Co-led student project to simulate floor fire of WTC 1
•Investigated fuel load on Marsh & McLennan floors of WTC 1

QUESTIONS ON THE WTC INVESTIGATION

Dr Quintiere supports the cause of discovering the truth about what destroyed the towers and is not satisfied that NIST have supplied it. In my eyes, anybody committed to a genuine, scientific search for the truth is a “truther”. I would like to think you are too.


[edit on 13-6-2009 by EvilAxis]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join