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: 9
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Red Herring. The fact is NIST didn't have to repeat tests already done of the chemical composition of the dust.


NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris. That study was done to test air for contamination, things like asbestos. And they even lied about that and said it was safe to breathe.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris.

Your right about that bsbray.

From wtc.nist.gov...



12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.


So NIST didn't test for these residues and, rather than making it easy on us and just say "Previous tests concluded there were no explosive residues," they refer us to their responses from other questions. So what reasons does NIST give in these other responses for not looking for explosives or thermite? It's not because of the the dust sample tests, thats' for sure. Here's my paraphrasing:

Question 2. Their team of career and leading experts have so much experience and did so much work.

Question 4. Compression did it, I tell ya...compression...though we didn't even run our models long enough to confirm or deny this.

Question 5. The spikes on the seismograph didn't show up until after the collapse began.

Question 11. It was the aircraft melting and falling out the window.


No where do we see NIST's response as "Tests were all ready done" or "It's been previously concluded there were no explosive residue."

Then we come to the most obvious question which really makes the claim ridiculous, ludicrous, and completely incoherent, as if it were ramblings of a seriously desperate individual:

If the dust sample tests were in fact conclusive that there were no explosives, why then would NIST do their half-baked "blast scenarios" for WTC 7? Shouldn't the dust sample results alone have ruled explosives out? By them doing these tests didn't NIST indirectly admit that explosives in WTC was an "Other Possible Hypothesis" even after the dust sample tests were performed?

I think some people on this board would rather make up illusory motives and reasonings for NIST, rather than actually taking the time to read what they wrote. But that's all right I find that most people I come across haven't read it and only think they know what they claim.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Then we come to the most obvious question which really makes the claim ridiculous, ludicrous, and completely incoherent, as if it were ramblings of a seriously desperate individual:

If the dust sample tests were in fact conclusive that there were no explosives, why then would NIST do their half-baked "blast scenarios" for WTC 7?

Shouldn't the dust sample results alone have ruled explosives out? By them doing these tests didn't NIST indirectly admit that explosives in WTC was an "Other Possible Hypothesis" even after the dust sample tests were performed?


According to this logic you're stating NIST was actually remiss in considering "explosive demolition", contrary to the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement who criticized NIST for not doing so in the investigation of WTC 1 and 2.

In other words, you want NIST to do something you claim they didn't do and should have done while rejecting what NIST actually did and claiming they should not rely on previous scientific studies done by others. That logic is classic for the 9/11 Truth Movement. It points to the Truther habit of claiming there are "unanswered questions" based entirely on its notion that something should have been done, wasn't done, and therefore makes the investigation "invalid." While, of course, ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence Truthers cannot deal with or refute.

As I stated in another thread, "It is the conspiracy theorist habit of looking at "theories" in isolation from the prerequisites and implications of those theories that undermine all of Truther claims about the 9/11 attacks."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In fact, NIST has a whole section, 3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS, in NCSTAR 1A, wtc.nist.gov...


3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS
Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D). As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of
explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.

[...]

ES.3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION

"Simulations of hypothetical blast events show that no blast event played a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse."

[...]

3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS
Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.


As I have said repeatedly you are welcome to refute the NIST report with evidence. And you can also demonstrate your claims that its blast scenario is "half-baked."

Good luck.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris.


Your right about that bsbray.



But apparently, it's a perfectly acceptable method for Steven Jones?

What a bunch of hypocrites



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
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 of a determined government loyalist desperately trying to fill the gaping holes in the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions left by NIST.

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.

Now I'm giving conversation with you another chance, but you have all ready made false assumptions about my stance. So to clear up my position:

NIST was remiss in not saving more evidence which they could have easily done as they were part of the collection process early on.



"Dr. J Gross, a structural engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and a member of the FEMA/ASCE BPS Team, was involved in these early efforts." - NCSTAR 1-3B page 3

"Volunteers from SEAoNY, with assistance from additional NIST personnel, continued their presence at the recovery yards and identified, catalogued, and shipped steel specimens to NIST through October 2002." - NCSTAR 1-3B page 4


So they say they were part of the process starting in October of 2001 until October of 2002. They even admit to breaking the law by removing evidence:



"Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002." - from wtc.nist.gov...


So we have an agency with no legal authority and volunteers determining which evidence to preserve in the biggest crime case of the 21st century. Were these volunteers trained in the proper procedure of gathering evidence? It makes me wonder if that has anything to do with this:



"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway." - from www.house.gov...


But anyway, why was it that the only physical evidence we have from WTC7 is a corroded steel column which was not analyzed in NIST's report? NIST says they could not "unambigously" identify any of the components, which I don't understand as it's so vague.

Is it because they couldn't determine if they were from the building? I don't think so, as when I read the following, it seems to me the debris was sorted on disposal from ground zero:



"During the first two months a that Fresh Kills was operated as a recovery site, debris from the area around where Building 7 stood was sifted through to assist the [REDACTED] and the USSS, which had offices in Building 7. The debris from Building 7 was searched in a special location at the landfill." - from www.justice.gov...


Sure they admit there was cross-contamination, but that's only because:



"All members of the Minneapolis ERT described the management at both Ground Zero and Fresh Kills as chaotic and unorganized. They said there was no real chain of command at either site, and no one knew who was in charge." - from www.justice.gov...


I suppose we should expect that, especially when we have an agency with no legal authority and volunteers, either trained or untrained, running around the place.

But anyway, to continue. Or is the reason for no saved pieces from WTC 7 because they couldn't determine where in the building the pieces came from? I don't think this is the case either as we find they saved "ambiguous" pieces from the towers.



"A final sample, C-83, was also found among this group. While no markings were found on the sample, it was recorded as a core column due to it's shape, which was very similar to C-90." - from NCSTAR 1-3B page 26.

"The as-built location of the other 12 components could not be determined nor confirmed that they were part of the structural steel used in the WTC towers." - from NCSTAR 1-3B page 26


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. And since NIST, FEMA, the Justice Department and everyone else involved directly or indirectly with the investigation is not my girlfriend, nor my momma, nor my pappa, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to question every move, action, utterance, reasoning, theorizing and publication they make.

Continued in second post below



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
And it's only my contention about the explosive residue tests that, to steal a phrase from pteridine about DSC traces in an inert atmosphere, they are the "key experiment that must be done first." They were done for flight 93 when there were only a couple of reports of a bomb on board, why not with WTC 7 with all the reports of explosions which a lot of people thought were bombs at the complex? But now it is impossible to do because, in part, of the very actions of members of NIST. And since NIST, FEMA, the Justice Department and everyone else involved directly or indirectly with the investigation is not my girlfriend, nor my momma, nor my pappa, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to question every move, action, utterance, reasoning, theorizing and publication they make.

But anyway, enough of that, and back to the dust sample test and your claim that NIST relied on this partly to determine there were no explosives. I'm here ready and willing to read and examine any evidence that you have that shows NIST took into consideration that the dust sample tests were sufficient and because of which they did not need to do their own tests. I believe you said they didn't want to repeat anything, so there must be evidence somewhere that they were aware of the test results and their reasoning of why an explosive residue test on the surface of the steel would be a repeat of the dust sample test. Until you post this, I think you are completely wrong about it and I will refrain from moving on to explain why I believe their hypothetical blast scenarios are "half-baked."



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Steven Jones ranks right up there with NIST, FEMA, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, Homeland Security, the Executive Department, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, JThomas, Joey Canoli, and discl0sur3 (just a random member I picked) in my eyes. None of them are my girlfriend, mamma, pappa, brother or sister. If you have something to say I'll read it and consider it, but as to trust automatically... no chance.

I categorically do not consider it a question between whether Dr. Jones is right or if NIST is correct. I believe neither of them have yet to prove their case thoroughly.

So Joey Canoli, if you have evidence that NIST used the dust sample test in their reasoning as to not do their own explosive residue tests, please post it. Otherwise I would rather not deal with your black-or-white, us-or-them simplistic feeble minded attempt at a discussion.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


The dust was tested for anything unusual, IIRC.

Most rational people would put explosive residue under the subset of "unusual".

Maybe it's just me though.

Maybe I'm just too rational, and not paranoid enough to suspect FEMA, etc of being either incompetant or in on it....



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Please post evidence that NIST feels the same way you do as they were the ones responsible for determining how and why the buildings fell, and it was not you or "most rational people".



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Please post evidence that NIST feels the same way you do as they were the ones responsible for determining how and why the buildings fell, and it was not you or "most rational people".



I notice you avoided rebutting my statement that explosive residue would have been found by testing the dust. And that explosive residue would be contained in the "unusual" set.

BTW, NIST did in fact determine how and why the buildings fell.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

And I'm noticing that you are avoiding posting evidence for your claims and just your opinions and feelings of what may or may not be facts. I would rather not go down the road of opinions and feelings as that might possibly lead us into discussion of your feelings of how you were neglected as a child or perhaps how you were overly pampered as a child or perhaps how you had a perfectly normal childhood. All three of those options are of absolutely no concern to me.

So 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.

Edited to add: For the case of WTC7, they did not determine how and why the building fell, but only came up with a "Probable Collapse Hypothesis" and did not give what probability they thought of this. Was it 90% probability? Was it 50%? 25%?

If it were 100% I don't think the ultra-concisely worded scientists would call it either "probable" or a "hypothesis" but rather something along the lines of "Absolute Collapse Sequence."

[edit on 24-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

So 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.


So let me get this straight.

According to you, testing the dust for anything unusual, and then NOT finding anything unusual like explosive signatures, should have been addressed by NIST in their report, even though this particular stupid line of reasoning came AFTER the report was already finished.

IOW, your expectation is that NIST should have been clairvoyant as to what insane questions that someone will ask......

Sorry dude, but that makes zero sense to anyone rational.

Case in point here is the subsequent report on 7. By that time, NIST had received criticism from the irrational side of the fence that they didn't use explosive scenarios to explain the collapse of the towers. So they humored those kooks by demonstrating that explosives were not possible in the subsequent report.

Again, it takes a rational person to realize that similar conditions in 7 and the towers would be necessary if explosives were indeed used.

My prediction:

This will have zero impact on your quest for clairvoyance from NIST.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Edited to add: For the case of WTC7, they did not determine how and why the building fell, but only came up with a "Probable Collapse Hypothesis" and did not give what probability they thought of this. Was it 90% probability? Was it 50%? 25%?


Again, you're seeking clairvoyance from NIST.


If it were 100% I don't think the ultra-concisely worded scientists would call it either "probable" or a "hypothesis" but rather something along the lines of "Absolute Collapse Sequence."


The rational among us realize that unless they had video cameras and temp sensors set up on every piece of steel in 7, that there is no way for any estimate to be 100%.

Which is why there exists the repeated call frm debunkers for the TM to refute scientifically what the NIST report has theorized.

Believe me, we will listen. But after nearly 9 years, the TM is stuck going in circles, able to accomplish nothing more than just ask questions about trivial aspects in those reports that, as I have pointed out, would require clairvoyance on the part of NIST in order to anticipate.

The report weren't written for laymen. They were written for professionals. The fact that they leave out these rather obvious thiings is testimony to that fact.

But the TM as a whole is too suspicious of their own shadows and too paranoid and too in love with their own perceived knowledge of structural engineering to understand that.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Okay, let's get this straight.

According to me, NIST did not use the dust sample tests as a basis for their reasoning to not do their own explosive residue test on the steel.

I do not believe NIST is in anyway clairvoyant, but are actually a responsible government agency which can make decisions of what should and should not be done in an investigation. I don't have to agree with their decisions, nor do I have to accept them if I find them lagging in rigor.

I posted what I believe their reasoning was by quoting words from "the horse's mouth" which I took from their own website. Which was also in direct response to a question put to them in the form of "Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?."

No where on that page did they mention anything about dust test samples taken into consideration, nor in the approximately 10,000 pages did they state this. Now that's a lot of room and space and opportunity to have stated their reasoning. What I noticed is they gave other reasons besides what is being claimed here.

But are you now being clairvoyant saying that they did take the dust sample tests into consideration even after I quoted their reasoning?

This does not seem like the act of a rational person, but rather a determined government loyalist desperately trying to fill the gaping holes in the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions left by NIST.

And, just to get things straighter than straight. I noticed that you still have not posted any evidence that NIST took into consideration the dust sample tests in their reasoning to not do their own explosive residue tests on the steel.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

"Again, you're seeking clairvoyance from NIST."


How would this be clairvoyance? They would only have to take their own self-described "Probable Collapse Hypothesis" and determine the statistical probability that it is correct. That's all... no astrological mysticism, no phrenology, no palm reading. Just analyze their own report, which at the correct point in the process, would have been in the past and not in the future.



The rational among us realize that unless they had video cameras and temp sensors set up on every piece of steel in 7, that there is no way for any estimate to be 100%.


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. What does not help with my satisfaction is a bunch of opinions about NIST's reasonings from a poster on a conspiracy board.




Which is why there exists the repeated call frm debunkers for the TM to refute scientifically what the NIST report has theorized.

Believe me, we will listen. But after nearly 9 years, the TM is stuck going in circles, able to accomplish nothing more than just ask questions about trivial aspects in those reports that, as I have pointed out, would require clairvoyance on the part of NIST in order to anticipate.


And I think you are confusing me with a person who gives a damn about the truth movement. I've stated in one of my previous posts exactly why I'm here, so if you want you can go find it, but I'll let you know it has nothing to do with any truth movement.



The report weren't written for laymen. They were written for professionals. The fact that they leave out these rather obvious thiings is testimony to that fact.


Was their "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" written for professionals, too? You know the one that I quoted their reasoning for not doing their own explosive residue tests. You know the one that does not mention dust samples.



But the TM as a whole is too suspicious of their own shadows and too paranoid and too in love with their own perceived knowledge of structural engineering to understand that.


Again with the TM.... ahh well... a simple minded black and white feeble argument doesn't get any better, I guess.


But anyway to close this post, do you have any 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. I'm really starting to think you don't.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Oh I found a misunderstanding which explains where your "clairvoyance" comment came from.

When you stated:

"According to you, testing the dust for anything unusual, and then NOT finding anything unusual like explosive signatures, should have been addressed by NIST in their report, even though this particular stupid line of reasoning came AFTER the report was already finished.

IOW, your expectation is that NIST should have been clairvoyant as to what insane questions that someone will ask...... "

I really didn't know exactly what you were talking about, but I think you should really keep abreast of what's being discussed Joey.

The dust sample test did not come up AFTER the report but before as this report was put up as the evidence:

ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

And if we look at the bottom of what's labeled page 703 we'll see it clearly states "Received 15 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002."


It was first brought up by JThomas here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Oh I found a misunderstanding which explains where your "clairvoyance" comment came from.

When you stated:

"According to you, testing the dust for anything unusual, and then NOT finding anything unusual like explosive signatures, should have been addressed by NIST in their report, even though this particular stupid line of reasoning came AFTER the report was already finished.

IOW, your expectation is that NIST should have been clairvoyant as to what insane questions that someone will ask...... "

I really didn't know exactly what you were talking about, but I think you should really keep abreast of what's being discussed Joey.

The dust sample test did not come up AFTER the report but before as this report was put up as the evidence:



No, when i say that "after the report was already finished", I'm referring to how the TM comes up with stupid questions after the NIST report is done, NOT after the "dust report" was done.

It's all a game of gotcha from the TM.

Examine the NIST report, whivh as I pointed out, wasn't written for them in the first place, and then ask stupid questions about why NIST didn't spell this or that out, when the target audience doesn't need any explanation.

Like I said, the TMerz here think they have superior knowledge to the professionals with 20-40 yrs experience. They believe that Google University is superior.

That's stupid.....



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon


But anyway to close this post, do you have any 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. I'm really starting to think you don't.



This is so sad.

If you knew anything at all, you'd know that FEMA selected the steel of interest. NIST came later.

Therefore, NIST has zero steel to test, except for the steell that STILL sits in a hangar in NY.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

I know it is sad that you can not read my previous post of how NIST states that Dr. J Gross and other NIST personnel were involved in the collection process early on.

It's also sad that you rely more on your very limited knowledge of the process and don't read where I quoted NIST stating that in February of 2002 they started collecting their own samples even though they didn't have the legal authority to do so.

Rather than asking you to scroll up in this thread I'll post it again along with the link to where they stated such:



"Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002."
-from wtc.nist.gov...


So are you claiming that when NIST says that they started identifying and saving steel samples on their own, that they really meant FEMA?

Please post your evidence that when NIST stated such they really meant FEMA.

And while you're at it, 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.



[edit on 24-4-2010 by NIcon]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join