It appears I have a
lot to respond to in this thread, so for now I will take it point by point.
Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.
This has very little basis on the investigation though does it? Destruction of evidence is unfortunate but there was unlikely to be a legal case
against the hijackers, and there would be no reason if it was actually a conspiracy not to prosecute Giuliani. You could well use it as evidence of
people trying to protect their own, even when they have done wrong, and I wouldn't complain. It has very little bearing on the facts of the case
though.
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.
So firefighters did not intentionally destroy evidence? I would say that they did, but with very good reason. Your point is fine with me though, I
have no affiliation to any people involved in 911 and do not care for them if they get prosecuted for their actions.
If you have followed this paper, there's little evidence it has actually been peer reviewed properly, and the idea that the team behind it are
"independent" is pretty hilarious. How many of them are actually 911 truthers? How does that make them independent?
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.
Why would NIST have an obligation to carry out requirements from NFPA 921? NFPA 921 is a document to help people, it's no national standard as you
say, it was simply produced by the National Fire Protection Agency which is a non profit organisation. Where is the statutory requirement?
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.
It is superseded, because you cannot claim they do not release models, when they have in fact released models! That's like saying I don't allow kids
on my lawn, other than the 2 kids I let on already, and the other ones have yet to ask my permission.
Neither is a FOIA that extraordinary, it is in fact very much ordinary as it is the default mechanism for attaining information unreleased by
government agencies which you have a right to.
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.
I'm sure they would, but I am also sure they don't want to go through the exhaustive steps of uploading several terabytes to their webserver and
having every layperson download it, attempt to run it in whatever bastardised version of the software they have, and claim it is an inside job when
they misunderstand what a particular BEAM element is used for.
If they do release these models, then your criticism is irrelevant, and they have.
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)
Yes, the video does not show large chunks of WTC2, but we know very well it occured after WTC2 collapsed. So what exact point are you making here?
That WTC2 did in fact look very much like an internal explosion to people unfamiliar with the scene? That is exactly my point, so I agree.
After the "big explosion", Jennings said:
...
Hess describes thick smoke, not dust:
Both of these quotes match up exactly with what I said, Jennings did not actually see WTC2 standing, and to try and draw a distinction between smoke
and dust is pretty hilarious, I do not think Mr Hess was examining it with a microscope.
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?
Let me get this straight, according to your theory, they needed to preweaken WTC7 to make it look more like a progressive fire collapse, so their
strategy was this:
- Detonate loud and violent explosives before there is any plausible mechanism to damage things "naturally"
- Do this before the collapse of either tower for some unknown reason
- Design the collapse of WTC7 so that in fact it does look like a controlled demolition to laymen
Is this what you are seriously suggesting? They set off bombs before either tower in order to do something which they actually didn't end up doing
anyway? This makes no sense whatsoever.
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.
Indeed I may have been
way too harsh about Quintiere, I simply haven't paid enough attention to him it seems. I have no great argument with
the potential for a fire-only collapse conclusion, and he has yet to make any claims similar to 911 truthers, so I apologise to him for my inaccurate
characterisation.
