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.

 

New Investigation

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

What's stopping me personally from conducting my own investigation? Easy, and feel free to remedy my situation. 1) Money (enough to contract panels of various experts, hire writers, etc).


Well, gage makes $75K/yr traveling around and producing absolutely nothing original. Put him to work and have him produce something.


Oh yeah, just put Gage to work for me. Thanks for making things easier on me, "Joey"; maybe you should have been a comedian.


Produce something that indicates that there is a reason to give this power. So far, no organization has succeeded in even nudging the needle. Except on my irony meter. They've broken that many times.


Good thing your opinion wouldn't make a difference anyway. I was asked what was stopping me from doing my own investigation. So you're "debunking" nothing right now. Congratulations on not being able to stay within a single context at all.


1- did NIST do an accurate evaluation of the plane speeds and angle? Anybody could do this.


Right, and anybody can change Flight 175's impact angle to maximize core damage and fallaciously bolster their hypothesis too, just like NIST did.


2- did NIST do an accurate evaluation of expected impact damage? There are some details lacking on the ext columns - ksi ratings and bolts that held it together - and connection details of the core columns, so there is a reasonable case to be made by truthers to whine about this. (They absolutely would) But there is no reason a bounding estimate couldn't be made with available info.


The problem is that these "bounding estimates" become exercises in "how extreme can I make this to justify my argument, if my argument depends on it?" NIST could have showed all of their work but instead they'd rather the public not know, and just have to guess at critical variables. I wonder what the logic behind that, could have possibly been.



3- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on how much thermal insuation would be removed? It would depend on the above analysis, but again, a bounding condition cold be done.
4- did NIST do an accurate evaluation of load redistribution from the plne impacts? One could start with the NIST case and do an FEA from there to check.


No, you couldn't do a FEA because you don't have all the structural documentation. Architectural drawings/blueprints aren't what an SE would need, either. To model the total stress on the perimeter and core columns, you need plans of at least that entire floor. NIST didn't give out this information and neither has anyone else.


5- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fuel - as in paper, carpeting, etc - loading in the towers? Anybody could do this.


Right, and what they showed there didn't support their own hypothesis. Why don't you look over that part again?


6- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fire temps and spread? ANyone could do this with the proper software program.


And anyone could keep cranking up the parameters like they did until they achieved their desired result, too. The only physical test they did resulted in nothing even remotely approaching their failure mechanism hypothesis.


7- did NIST do an accurate evaluation of how the steel was heated by the fires? Again, this could be done by anyone using the right software, once a conclusion was reached on thermal insulation removal.


Again, after elevating parameters in case after case in the computer software until they reached the result they were after, and matching no physical evidence at all.


8- did NIST do an accurate evaluation of load transfers and column failures due to creep and strain rates from the fire damage? Again, this could be done by anyone with the right software.


Again, no, not without fuller structural documentation. Go ahead and try it.


Ain't gonna happen, cuz they're only interested in fleecing the flock. Not in any truth.


Why does that phrase make me think of what you're trying to accomplish here?




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
5- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fuel - as in paper, carpeting, etc - loading in the towers? Anybody could do this.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Right, and what they showed there didn't support their own hypothesis. Why don't you look over that part again?


Would you care to explain this a little bit please? This is my area of interest, and would love to discuss this further.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
5- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fuel - as in paper, carpeting, etc - loading in the towers? Anybody could do this.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Right, and what they showed there didn't support their own hypothesis. Why don't you look over that part again?


Would you care to explain this a little bit please? This is my area of interest, and would love to discuss this further.

Thanks.


You'll of course note that he showed zero technical studies to back his statements. Therefore, they can be discarded as rubbish.

Good luck getting a straight answer out of him. He believes that during 1's collapse, that the stairwell survivors stated that the wind was blowing UP, despite what Komorowski has stated.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Good luck getting a straight answer out of him. He believes that during 1's collapse, that the stairwell survivors stated that the wind was blowing UP, despite what Komorowski has stated.


Komorowski the president of Poland?


More information:


In Dennis Smith's book, the first account from this group of survivors is the most compelling. Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was somewhere around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse. He described the wind as being "fierce" and that it almost lifted his body. He notes that he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off. As an instructor to new fireman, he routinely drilled into them the importance of snapping their helmets in place, and yet here he was, without his helmet snapped on, so that he was having to hold it by hand to keep it on. That particular comment lends high credibility to him as a witness. It involves being truthful enough to admit to having broken his own rules. And the wind was strong enough to demand his full attention and action. A downward wind would not have caused this risk of helmet loss, nor coaxed him to reveal his non-compliance with safety rules.

Jim McLean from Engine 39 was between the 1st and 2nd floors when the building began to fall. He also described a "rush of air going up".

Officer Dave Lim of the Port Authority's Police K-9 unit said that when building began to collapse, he was on the 4th floor, where he had stopped to help Josephine. He used the expression "huge windstorm" but the report of his experience in this book does not mention a direction of up or down.



The particular point of interest in this case is the report of a very strong wind going through the stairwell. Though there are a few contradictions among the individuals’ accounts, a careful review of their statements explains these differences and creates a cohesive conclusion: a powerful wind was going up the stairs as the building was collapsing down.


www.greaterthings.com...


There is more to the story than what you enjoy pointing out. I've seen other evidence in the past, but for now you can argue with that website for all I care. Maybe ask a few rhetorical questions based on logical fallacies, you know, the usual.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
5- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fuel - as in paper, carpeting, etc - loading in the towers? Anybody could do this.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, and what they showed there didn't support their own hypothesis. Why don't you look over that part again?


Would you care to explain this a little bit please? This is my area of interest, and would love to discuss this further.


Jim Hoffman has some good relevant commentary here:

911research.wtc7.net...


Highlights are, they suggest the temperature of the fires was always within the temperature range of a flashover, they simulated different cases of fire on computer where they increased the intensity of the fires systematically until getting what they were looking for and then saying that case was the valid one, they used a megawatt powered electric burner to rapidly heat the trusses to 700 C in a calibration test when they found no steel heated even remotely to that temperature (and this mode of heating is obviously fabrication for the test itself) and still didn't get the perimeter deflection they hypothesized, they calibrated their computer models assuming all the steel members were isolated and thus could not conduct heat as they normally would be able to do very well, and none of the steel they analyzed was heated to more than 250 C. Also the amount of heat being applied by that megawatt burner during their calibration test, was producing more heat in that confined area than scores of conventional stoves would, all packed in the same area.

What's missing that's also of note, is actual evidence of steel being heated by fire to any significant temperature, a physical demonstration of their hypothesis as the scientific method would require (especially since this is not at all impossible, and they already set the right experiment up for testing it, just to "calibrate" computer models instead
), and any consideration whatsoever of their less severe simulated cases which looked very much more like typical office fire temperatures, ie without the "elevated" parameters. Just like Bazant, as soon as real data gets in the way of NIST's one and only hypothesis, that data suddenly gets ignored and is no longer considered.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
5- did NIST do an accurate evaluation on fuel - as in paper, carpeting, etc - loading in the towers? Anybody could do this.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, and what they showed there didn't support their own hypothesis. Why don't you look over that part again?


Would you care to explain this a little bit please? This is my area of interest, and would love to discuss this further.


Jim Hoffman has some good relevant commentary here:

911research.wtc7.net...


Highlights are, they suggest the temperature of the fires was always within the temperature range of a flashover, they simulated different cases of fire on computer where they increased the intensity of the fires systematically until getting what they were looking for and then saying that case was the valid one, they used a megawatt powered electric burner to rapidly heat the trusses to 700 C in a calibration test when they found no steel heated even remotely to that temperature (and this mode of heating is obviously fabrication for the test itself) and still didn't get the perimeter deflection they hypothesized, they calibrated their computer models assuming all the steel members were isolated and thus could not conduct heat as they normally would be able to do very well, and none of the steel they analyzed was heated to more than 250 C. Also the amount of heat being applied by that megawatt burner during their calibration test, was producing more heat in that confined area than scores of conventional stoves would, all packed in the same area.

What's missing that's also of note, is actual evidence of steel being heated by fire to any significant temperature, a physical demonstration of their hypothesis as the scientific method would require (especially since this is not at all impossible, and they already set the right experiment up for testing it, just to "calibrate" computer models instead
), and any consideration whatsoever of their less severe simulated cases which looked very much more like typical office fire temperatures, ie without the "elevated" parameters. Just like Bazant, as soon as real data gets in the way of NIST's one and only hypothesis, that data suddenly gets ignored and is no longer considered.


Wow. Jim Hoffman? This guy couldn't figure out his rearend from a hole in the ground. Especially with this statement.

(From your own link)
[quote=Jim Hoffman]Elsewhere the Report notes that the Towers used "an innovative framed-tube concept." While it is true that this design was relatively novel when the Towers were built, today, most of the tallest skyscrapers employ such a design -- a framed tube with long trussed floor spans connecting the core to the perimeter.

Wow. He obviously has no clue on common architecture. In fact, the ONLY building that I am even remotely aware of that were built like the WTC Towers were them, and one in the Midwest somewhere. Kansas IIRC.

Most use concrete cores, and steel-reinforced concrete. I question his ability to do basic research after that.

Not that it matters MUCH, but a "website engineer" is hardly educated on fire protection engineering. But, that's ok, it matters not WHO he is, but what he says.

[quote=Jim Hoffman]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

This is absolutely false. Many fires in residential structures will produce temperatures of 1200 deg. F for long periods of time.

See here.
www.fire.nist.gov...

The fire is extinguished at 300 seconds in the graphs. Just FYI.

I could on for days and days, but I don't have the time right now.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Wow. He obviously has no clue on common architecture. In fact, the ONLY building that I am even remotely aware of that were built like the WTC Towers were them, and one in the Midwest somewhere. Kansas IIRC.

Most use concrete cores, and steel-reinforced concrete. I question his ability to do basic research after that.

Not that it matters MUCH, but a "website engineer" is hardly educated on fire protection engineering. But, that's ok, it matters not WHO he is, but what he says.


Right, which is why I'm not even going to bother with these attacks on his credibility.



Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.


This is absolutely false. Many fires in residential structures will produce temperatures of 1200 deg. F for long periods of time.

See here.
www.fire.nist.gov...

The fire is extinguished at 300 seconds in the graphs. Just FYI.

I could on for days and days, but I don't have the time right now.


The link you just posted debunked yourself.

Hoffman's talking about 800 C - 1100C (1472 F - 2012 F) -- you're taking about 1200 F.

And the pdf you just posted has a graph showing temperatures that briefly peaked at a little over 700 C, and was sustained around 600 C after that.


What was all that tripe about you not trusting Hoffman's research abilities?

edit on 26-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The link you just posted debunked yourself.

Hoffman's talking about 800 C - 1100C (1472 F - 2012 F) -- you're taking about 1200 F.

And the pdf you just posted has a graph showing temperatures that briefly peaked at a little over 700 C, and was sustained around 600 C after that.


Wow, time-temperature cureves are so confusing aren't they?

This fire specifically was extinguished. If allowed to burn, the temperature would continue a steady increase.


Originally posted by bsbray11
What was all that tripe about you not trusting Hoffman's research abilities?


I still stand by them.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OllyP

Failing that, an answer to why two of those guys refused to go under oath to the 911 comission, why they insisted upon being interviewed together and why the questions they were asked were pre-approved beforehand.


Does anyone fancy a go at answering this?
Have your handlers told you to specifically ignore this question?
I and others have posted this question before and it is NEVER answered. I wonder why?
If you don't know the answer, thats fine, just say so.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
id love to also know this dont hold your breath though mate



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OllyP

Originally posted by OllyP

Failing that, an answer to why two of those guys refused to go under oath to the 911 comission, why they insisted upon being interviewed together and why the questions they were asked were pre-approved beforehand.


Does anyone fancy a go at answering this?
Have your handlers told you to specifically ignore this question?
I and others have posted this question before and it is NEVER answered. I wonder why?
If you don't know the answer, thats fine, just say so.


I'll have a go - the Chief Executive rarely 'testifies" to any other branch of government. The CE was going to be asked direct questions with regard to security matters and may have needed to, well, lie. I know you think that statement is just so much fuel for your little fire, but its not that big of a deal. Security and intelligence matters are touchy, what you don't know can be as revealing as what you do know. The CE may have had to misdirect the panel to protect intelligence abilities and assets. Therefore taking an oath is unethical and potentially a perjury trap.

As to Bush/Cheyney being interviewed by the commissioner members together - whats the big deal? They represent the CE branch of government. They are the only two members of that branch that are elected. As to the idea that it was so they got their stories straight - well that's kind of slow. The time, manner and place of the interviews were at the discretion of the CE. It could just as easily been the President and then the VP with enough time in between to check "stories". This wasn't some cop show where you put the perps in separate interview rooms and sweat them. They could have just as easily told the commission to go pound sand. And I wouldn't have blamed them. Then was not a good time to go pointing fingers, alienating half the intelligence, law enforcement and security community and having the other half playing CYA.

As for pre-approved questions, I don't know if that's true or not, either way its irrelevant. It was an interview. It needed an agenda, thats how those things work best. If everyone knows what they are there to talk about then they can prepare. It was not a court of law and they were not witnesses. It was one equal branch of government talking with another equal branch of government.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
wow i am amazed you truely will just about twist every last piece of information so it fits in to your OS fairy tale

your 100% brain washed

but hey at least you gave it a bash eh



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
You don't need a new investigation, the answers can be found with the witnesses. But of course the government ignores thaaat


I feel sorry for anyone who still thinks it was an act of, as Bush would say, "TERRism bah EL KIDA"
Sheep always get led to the slaughter.
edit on 27-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
wow i am amazed you truely will just about twist every last piece of information so it fits in to your OS fairy tale

your 100% brain washed

but hey at least you gave it a bash eh


What information was twisted exactly? Were Bush and Cheyney not the only two elected members of the Executive branch of government? Are you aware of many instances of the CE testifying under oath to the Legislative branch? What exactly did I twist?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Wow, time-temperature cureves are so confusing aren't they?


No, I'm not having any trouble. Are you?


This fire specifically was extinguished. If allowed to burn, the temperature would continue a steady increase.


That's not what the graph shows. It shows the fire peaking at less than 1400 F, never going any higher than that,and then holding a steady temperature before that before it was extinguished. The temperature would not necessarily continue to increase anyway.


And no comment on how you showed the wrong temperature range? What you were trying to show (1200 F) is already a lot less than what Hoffman was pointing out from the NIST report.


I still stand by them.


It might be time for pot and kettle to meet, after posting fire temperatures lower than what NIST assumed and debunking your own argument.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
How about tests for explosives and accelerants are performed? After all it was a TERRORIST ATTACK ferchristsake. I am sure the taxpayer will understand if the money spent on such tests yield a negative result.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



How about tests for explosives and accelerants are performed? After all it was a TERRORIST ATTACK ferchristsake. I am sure the taxpayer will understand if the money spent on such tests yield a negative result.


OK, test what for what? Hundreds of thousands of tons of material. Where do you start? What do you test? Test all of it? Test some of it? Sampling? What are you testing for? Even if you managed to test 10%, which could take years or decades, and the test are all negative then what? You'll just claim the remainder was contaminated.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
How about tests for explosives and accelerants are performed? After all it was a TERRORIST ATTACK ferchristsake. I am sure the taxpayer will understand if the money spent on such tests yield a negative result.


Here is the problem testing for accelerants and it being conclusive.

I can tell you, that without a doubt, every test for accelerants would be positive. Why you ask? Jet fuel is an accelerant. ~10,000 gallons were dumped in each tower.

Would a test for accelerants find JetA? Yes.

Gasoline/Diesel. Gasoline/Diesel is an accelerant. There were 93 FDNY vehicles destroyed on 9/11. This does NOT include any NYPD, PANYNJ PD vehicles, or any personally owned vehicles.

Would a test for accelerants find diesel/gasoline? Yes.

Now, we move on to EXPLOSIVES.

Was there any ACTUAL evidence (meaning physical evidence) of an EXPLOSIVE? No.
Was there any CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of an EXPLOSIVE? Yes.

Ok, now, can we rule out the DOZENS of things that go BOOM in a fire? No, we cannot.

So, why would we test for EXPLOSIVES when there is no PHYSICAL evidence of an EXPLOSIVE?

Do you realize how labor intensive and expensive that would be? Do you not understand that it would be POINTLESS? A waste of TIME and ENERGY to run these tests?

You are welcome to contact Mr. Jones to ask him for his dust sample. (hint: He won't give it to you, I've asked)

What makes you think that anyone was required to test for explosives?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OllyP
Failing that, an answer to why two of those guys refused to go under oath to the 911 comission, why they insisted upon being interviewed together and why the questions they were asked were pre-approved beforehand.

Does anyone fancy a go at answering this?
Have your handlers told you to specifically ignore this question?
I and others have posted this question before and it is NEVER answered. I wonder why?


I don't see what that should be any grand mystery. The reason Bush gave is that he wanted to testify behind closed doors to protect sensitive information that would be disastrous if it were ever leaked to the public, such as the methods we're using to eavesdrop on Al Qaida. The REAL reason is obvious- Bush knows he's a little boy who was sent to Washington to do a man's job and he knew he was going to be called onto the carpet to document how badly he screwed up on 9/11 so he wanted Cheney to hold onto as a security blanket.

Bush was a complete idiot. You know he was a complete idiot. I think deep down even he knows he's a complete idiot. Why are you asking questions on how a complete idiot would behave?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


You dont think they did search for such evidence?

The bomb squad from the local sheriff (Passaic County NJ) spent 3 weeks at the WTC doing search and
recovery - they didnt find anything. Spoke to a few I personally know.....

If they were any traces of explosives (wiring, detonation cord, timers, etc) don t you thing bomb squad personal
would recognize them?

Also ALL the debris, after the steel was separated, was trucked to Fresh Kills and sifted for traces (human
remains, Id, personal items) by experiences police detectives . Again nothing from a bomb/explosives was
found.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join