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.
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.
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.
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.
"Show us why after doing the dust work and finding nothing to indicate explosives, that they should test for explosives."
Originally posted by NIcon
That's a lot of demands,
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?
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.
This is a summary report that contains the investigation's principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices.
Originally posted by NIcon
I think the argument was heading to maybe the existence of a NIST sanctioned list of authorized professionals
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
"If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them."