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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 10
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

I'll disregard your comments about the truth movement as I don't give a damn about it anyway, but it is interesting your remark about their target audience.

I read this at www.nist.gov...:



NIST established a secretariat to coordinate NIST-level activities in support of the investigation and to maintain ongoing liaison with the Executive Branch, Congress, the public, and the news media. NIST has maintained an ongoing liaison with the professional community, the public, and local authorities over the course of the investigation through briefings, presentations, and opportunity for comment on key investigation reports. NIST also assigned a special liaison to interact with the families of building occupants and first responders.

A Web site dedicated to the WTC investigation has been maintained at wtc.nist.gov.... The final report on the WTC towers is available there in its entirety (43 documents totaling some 10,000 pages).

The Web site also provides access to the WTC investigation archives where the public can follow the complete history of the effort so far, including the two interim progress reports, two public updates and 22 news releases issued during the WTC towers portion of the investigation, as well as documentation from eight public meetings, eight media briefings, seven meetings of the NCST Advisory Committee, and the September 2005 technical conference on putting the NIST recommendations from the WTC towers study into practice.


After reading that, one could take a guess and really assume that the public was part of the target audience. Now that is a broad term.

But that's getting off track, can you please post your evidence that NIST took into consideration that the dust sample tests were sufficient and because of that they did not need to do their own explosive residue test on the steel.

And also please post your evidence that when NIST stated they started collecting steel samples on their own that they really meant FEMA.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NIcon

And the rational among us realize there is a chance they are wrong, so we analyze what they did, we go over their reasoning, and we deconstuct their work until such a time as we're satisfied.


This is the only reasonable thing that I've seen you post.

And get this - doing this is exactly what we've been asking for the TM to do.

There is nothing to point to.


I'll just point this out again for you Nicon.

You state that you are checking on NIST.

Show us what you've got.

Show us why NIST should have looked for explosive residue on the steel.

Show us why after doing the dust work and finding nothing to indicate explosives, that they should test for explosives.

I know you can't.....



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

After reading that, one could take a guess and really assume that the public was part of the target audience. Now that is a broad term.



Yes, taking wild guesses is what truthers do best.

Whereas rational people would read that and get quite another impression.

Carry on.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

That's a lot of demands, Joey Canoli, from someone who refuses to show us what they have themselves. I believe I have been asking for "what you've got" for the last 20 or so posts. Now why, oh why, should I submit so easily to the demands of someone who has never even tried in the slightest to answer one of my demands?

Or, am I wrong, did you actually show me all that "you've got" all ready? In the last 10 of your posts in this thread?

I believe I have stated my case pretty well so far, with proper quotes and references, so feel free to review the last 20 or so posts as a refresher course.

But to further this coversation, and to perhaps correct a misperception:



"Show us why after doing the dust work and finding nothing to indicate explosives, that they should test for explosives."


I just would like to point out that that National Institutes of Health put out the "dust work" and NIST was the one responsible for determining the reasons for the collapse of the buildings (i.e. whether explosions were used or not). I just wanted to point this out as the above quote is worded so poorly that an unaware person might assume that the same entity who did the "dust work" is the same entity that we're trying to determine why they did not do their own tests for explosive residues.

So to rephrase what I have been asking: Is there any evidence that NIST used the work of NIH to base there decision to not do their own explosive residue tests?

And just an aside: Is there any evidence that when NIST stated that they started collecting their own samples that they really were talking about FEMA?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

That's a lot of demands,


Not really.

I'm asking what you've got.

You stated that you're checking NIST. That's a good thing.

But you haven't explained why they should have done as you ask for.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

I would suppose rational people could debate about why NIST would include the term "public" four times in a statement about who and how they kept interested parties informed of their activities. I personally don't find much value in such a debate, but I suppose arguments on both sides could be made.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Were you aware that the report is really for 2 purposes?

The chapter summaries are for the public comsumption, but contain weak details.

The other parts are what contain the details that are written for the pros.

Rational people would realize that the parts written for pros may not contain info that they don't need to be informed on.

And that the for public parts are for general info only, and assumes that if they had any questions, would refer to pros to get their questions amswered.

This isn't how the TM operates however. They know little, and don't trust the pros for info. Instead, they either think that Google university is good enough, or that any pro that gives them info they don't like is "in on it".

And conversely, if someone tells them what they want to hear, even though they can't provide proof of their professionalism (like A&E) they take it as da truth.

Sad....



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

So are you now saying that NIST actually had 2 target audiences, one being the public and one being the professionals? And are you claiming that NIST released only "weak details" to the public on purpose? And that if some in this public are not satisfied with the "weak details" they should search out a third party for clarification rather than get it from the source? And that this third party would then be aware of details not included even in the professional side of the report but somehow would be telekinetically aware of NIST's reasonings?

Or to paraphrase: "If the public doesn't like our details, let them eat cake?"

But just two quick questions:

Which audience was the "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" written for? Here's the link: wtc.nist.gov...

Did NIST take a risk assessment analysis to see how much damage through "misrepresentation" of their work would occur if the public turned to unreliable professionals for clarification? Did they consider that through this particular action they would therefore be spreading more disinformation rather than clarifying?

Edited to add because I really did forget to include this:
Is there any evidence that NIST used the work of NIH to base there decision to not do their own explosive residue tests?

Is there any evidence that when NIST stated that they started collecting their own samples that they really were talking about FEMA?

[edit on 25-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Another interesting question would be:

I wonder why I have a full set of draft copies of ALL.... let me emphasis that AAAAALLLLLL... their reports with the words, in about 24 point and bolded, "For Public Comment" written on each of their covers?

Didn't NIST realize that the more detailed ones were for professionals only?

Edited to add:

Just to make sure people know what I'm talking about I uploaded a picture and circled in red what I meant:




Those kooky NIST people really need to learn how to keep their audiences straight.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

So are you now saying that NIST actually had 2 target audiences, one being the public and one being the professionals?


Thx for confirming what I've suspected all along.

You have no idea that the summaries were written for laymen, and that the individual chapters were written for the pros.

No wonder the TM can't get anything right when they totally miss this simple and stated fact.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

That question was just for clarification purposes as you previously implied that NIST's targeted audience was only the professionals. But can you now show me where it's a "simple and stated fact" that the summaries were written for laymen and the individual chapters were written for the professionals?

All I could find was this wtc.nist.gov...



These are the final reports on the Investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) and into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), conducted under the National Construction Safety team Act. These reports summarize the reconstruction of the events on September 11, 2001 and how NIST and its contractors and collaborators developed this information. The reports conclude recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved building evacuation, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training.

Extensive details are found in the 44 supporting reports, which provide technical details of all aspects of the investigation.


From reading this it seems the individual chapters are just supporting reports providing the technical details of the investigation. No where do I see NIST state that they were specifically written for the professionals or that the main report was written for laymen.

Also I found this as a description for the main report - wtc.nist.gov...


This is a summary report that contains the investigation's principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices.


All I can make out is that it's a summary of their prinicipal findings. No where can I find it stated that this is the dumbed down version for the public and that the 44 supporting reports are for the smart people.

Gee willickers, Joey Canoli, I really am being torn between believing what you are telling me and what NIST is telling me.

Can you please show where the "simple and stated" fact is written that the summary is for laymen and the chapters are for professionals?

And also can you show me you're other assertion that when NIST claims they started collecting and saving their own samples in February of 2002 that they really meant FEMA?

And can you also show me where NIST states that they used the "dust work" of the NIH as a basis of their reasoning not to do their own explosive residue tests on the surface of the steel?

I really would like to believe everything you say, but, honestly, I really must stick with what the big boys at NIST tell me. Until you show me otherwise, that is.


[edit on 25-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It's funny. A professional engineer like "Valhall" or "Griff" that both used to post around here, both take NIST for granted until they read it, and find problem after problem with it and end up with more questions than answers.

An "armchair debunker" that likes spending time on a daily basis arguing with people on the internet reads the report (or not), never finds anything wrong with it, and spends hours of his time trying to polish a turd for strangers that by every appearance have a better grasp of the report than s/he does to begin with.








All you have are bad excuses Joey.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I think the argument was heading to maybe the existence of a NIST sanctioned list of authorized professionals that the uncouth public could turn if it had the gall and nerve enough to perhaps come up with a question or two about the authoritative reasoning of the report. I'm not sure, but that may be where it's going.

It's obvious enough that "Griff" and "Valhall" didn't have NIST's Good House Keeping Seal of Approval.

And I wouldn't exactly call them bad excuses put forth so far.

My description would lean nearer to: "shallower than a bullfrog pond near the end of a century long drought."



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

I think the argument was heading to maybe the existence of a NIST sanctioned list of authorized professionals


Are you truly this paranoid?

that's pretty sad.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

No, I'm not paranoid, not at all. That was my facetious attempt at a prediction of your possible future response to my comment about the possibility of NIST relying on unreliable professionals to answer the public's questions about the NIST report.

I'm really not sure what your response might be, as one day you tell me the reports weren't written for laymen (posted on 24-4-2010 @ 01:17 PM) and then the next you tell me parts were written for laymen and parts were written for professionals (posted on 25-4-2010 @ 10:49 AM). So I suppose I should not even attempt to predict, but I was feeling spunky at the time. Sorry.

I suppose a better attempt at a humorous prediction would have been something like:

"I think the argument may be heading towards that the NIST report was written for the sad clowns at Barnum & Bailey's. But just the sad clowns. If the happy clowns had any questions they could go to the sad clowns for clarification."

That may have have been a bit more humorous, but I'm not so sure.

But anyway: Did you come up with any evidence that NIST relied on NIH's "dust work" in their reasoning not to do their own explosive residue test? Or that when they said they collected their own samples that they really meant FEMA?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

But anyway: Did you come up with any evidence that NIST relied on NIH's "dust work" in their reasoning not to do their own explosive residue test?


The reason why they would not specifically state the reason is obvious.

They are not idiots.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's funny. A professional engineer like "Valhall" or "Griff" that both used to post around here, both take NIST for granted until they read it, and find problem after problem with it and end up with more questions than answers.


Well, assuming that they both PE's, then they should be able to make a cogent argument about specific points.

If not, then that means that they're in over their head, and don't have the qualifications to be rendering an opinion.

I guess that's where the whole "just asking questions" thing comes from though. Unqualified folks that only THINK they are qualified to form an opinion.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

I see we want to move the conversation to something other than just the dust sample tests.


Your post served as an illustration of the problems Truthers have in making the claims they do.


But lets stick to how completely wrong you are with your dust sample claim. Why are you wrong? You are wrong because until such a time as you provide evidence that NIST "rel(ied) on previous scientific studies," or in particular, the dust sample study to somehow determine there were no explosives, your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking...


You've illustrated another consistent problem 9/11 Truthers have: trying to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders for your claims.

This started when another poster insisted repeatedly that "testing the dust to determine what it's chemical components are" is not an accepted method for testing for the chemical signatures of explosives. Despite frequent and repeated requests for the poster to demonstrate why it wasn't and asked to point us to the supposed "accepted method", the poster never did.

Determining the chemical components of a sample to determine if there are signatures of explosives, themselves a mixture of different chemicals is how investigators rule in or rule out both the use of explosives and, importantly, what type of explosive was used if the chemical components for explosives are present.

No one has yet invalidated the dust study I presented earlier as incapable of detecting the signatures of explosives. I would welcome any evidence anyone has that invalidates the dust study for that purpose.


Now in my post above I directly quoted NIST as to their reasoning for determining there were no explosives or thermite, but as to their reliance on the dust sample tests in their reasoning, we have not a whit of evidence for that.


First, the reasons you gave were specious. I actually quoted NIST. Second, the issue is different than you represent. The issue has been testing the chemical components of the dust as a valid method for determining the presence of explosive residue.


But just in the case you are a mind reader and were actually able to read their minds to determine their reasoning, or if you are actually a part of some governmental agency which actually handles evidence which NIST was privy to but the rest of us are not, I could be wrong. But I see no reason to believe that NIST either considered the dust sample tests or was even aware of its existence, and until such a time as evidence is presented, I consider your claim as most definitely wrong.


Let's examine what I am stating.

1. Testing the dust to determine the chemical components of the dust is a valid methodology. Tests were done before NIST's investigation started.

2. One poster claimed that testing the dust is not a valid methodology but he would not demonstrate how or why or present what IS a valid methodology.

3. The same poster concluded that NO testing for explosives was done. Period. Therefore, a new investigation is needed since "explosives have not been ruled out."

4. NIST did not itself test dust for explosives. It could have relied on the earlier testing of the dust until and unless someone demonstrates that the methodology is invalid.

5. As I showed you above, NIST devoted an entire section to considering explosive demolition. You can see that NIST relied on other evidence and did not need to rely on the dust studies.

Whether or not NIST did its own dust study or relied on earlier studies is irrelevant to the conclusion that no evidence of explosives ever materialized nor that evidence that should have been present ever showed up.


So it's my contention that the collection of evidence from the buildings was compromised early on, either intentionally or not, but in my view this taints and throws into suspicion everything that followed.
Continued in second post below


You're under the mistaken assumption that all of this has something to do with the causes of the collapses. That is a red herring.

You're left with the same problem of demonstrating that the NIST report is wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

And this is a typical post by a government loyalsit desperately trying to fill the holes in the evidence, methodologies and conlusions left by NIST by weaseling out of the claims you made because they are just based on delusions.

I believe the whole thing started here www.abovetopsecret.com... in the "Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?" thread where you offered as positive evidence to a comment about no one looking for explosive residues the tests done by the City of New York in October of 2001 and studies by other medical groups.

So you are not even representing correctly how "this started" in that it did not start when "when another poster insisted repeatedly that 'testing the dust to determine what it's chemical components are" is not an accepted method for testing for the chemical signatures of explosives' but rather when you offered these tests as a rebuttal to that same poster claiming no one searched for explosive residue. When you said "Incorrect." and offered the tests as being correct, I believe that is a claim. And it's no one else's claim as I did not see any of them bring the dust sample tests before you.

And since you had brought them up I believe the burden of proof was and is still on you to show that these are adequate tests and that the people that performed them either concluded that explosive residues was either found or not found.

Despite frequent and repeated requests from posters for you to demonstrate that this was an accepted method or that they concluded anything at all about explosive residues from these tests. You still have not. Or to put it another way, you have provided no sources to validate your claims which is why we have no reason to accept them.

And since such time you have been trying to avoid the responsibility of your own claim. But the funniest part is that you don't follow your own logic in a post that I actually agree with you.

In this post, www.abovetopsecret.com... you stated:



"If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them."


I 100% agree with this statement.

So when here, www.abovetopsecret.com... you stated "There were several subsequent studies done by medical groups that found no traces of explosives."

I agree with you but, using your logic above, because they didn't comment on explosive residues, which means they didn't speculate on them, in the end means they never looked for them.

And then again here www.abovetopsecret.com... you actually posted the NIH report.

I agree again. Those professionals never commented on explosive residue, which it then follows they never speculated on them, which means they didn't look for them.

Again you said here www.abovetopsecret.com... that "Other testing had long since been done by others."

I agree again, but since they didn't comment on explosive residue, it then follows they never speculated on them, which means they didn't look for them.

And then again here www.abovetopsecret.com... you said "Testing was done in October 2001 to determine the chemical composition of the components in the dust. No signatures of any type of explosives were found."

And I agree again. Since they didn't comment on them it follows they never speculated on them which means they never looked for them. I'd like to point out that in this post you said "And I've already shown you are wrong." which is not correct as per you previous logic if a professional does not comment on something then it follows they never speculated on them which means they never looked for them.

I could go on and on with your posts. But then here www.abovetopsecret.com... you responded to one of my posts where you stated "There is no necessity to list everything not found." Which I sort of agree on, but only to the point they don't have to list everything they did not speculate on, but they do have to list everything they did speculate. So using your logic from above, if they don't comment on it then it follows they never speculated on them which means they still didn't look for them.

So we can consider it as a fact, based on your previous stated logic, that no one looked for explosive residue, because they never commented on it which then follows they never speculated on them which means they never looked for them. NIST is the only one that ever commented on them to state that they didn't conduct the tests, so it's still a fact that no one looked for explosive residue.

I'm not sure why you got on my logic before about how NIST "should not rely on previous scientific studies done by others" but now you are saying it's totally irrelevant. I suppose I can swish and sway with the logic of a desperate government loyalist.

And no, I'm not mistaken about it having to do with the causes of the collapses. This all has to do with the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of the reports which I'm finding not to be very thorough.

And to close, it's not my problem demonstrating the NIST report is wrong, it's NIST's problem to demonstrate they are correct. Which the fact that no one looked for explosive residue does not help one bit.


Edited to fix a whole lot of spelling and grammar: I hope I got it all... please excuse if I did not.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Yes it is obvious, because they never took into consideration the "dust work" in their reasoning to not perform their own explosive residue tests.

And I agree they are not idiots, they are smart enough to list it as a reason if in fact it was a reason.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join