Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
As we all know the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were investigated by taxpayer funded NIST and FEMA. It took years to complete and millions of dollars were spent. And the conclusion of those investigations are that the twin towers collapsed as the result of one commercial airliner deliberately crashing into each of the towers and caused severe structural damage. But that the collapse itself happened due to severe heat from burning jet fuel and office supplies weakening the steel and the buildings went into a progressive total collapse.

Some supporters of the official version of 9/11 conspiracy bring up a good point when they say that a new investigation would be a waste of a lot of money (millions of dollars). I happen to agree that with the economy and government spending huge amounts of money on God knows what it is not a good idea to waste any money at this time.

Fox news freelance journalist by the name of Mark Walsh, AKA “psycho Mark” explained what happened to the towers on TV hours after the buildings collapsed. the same exact way as NIST and FEMA.



They start talking about Mark Walsh at 3:40 mark in the video below..


and

According to a guy on this blog which was updated real time on 9/11/01, NPR interviewed a Berkeley engineering professor, he also explained what happened the same way as NIST.

LINK


Wes Felter: "I'm hearing rumors that gas prices have doubled and tripled during the day in some places. Has anyone witnessed that?" Wes says: "I didn't understand how they could have collapsed; the buildings didn't look damaged below the crash sites." NPR interviewed a Berkeley engineering professor, he explained what happened. Basically the steel in the top 20 stories got very hot and softened, and collapsed on the lower 90 stories. They couldn't handle that kind of load, so they collapsed too.


I'm wondering why did we need NIST or any other agency to investigate in the first place since the cause of the WTC towers was known on 9/11? Maybe some of the expert warriors AKA debunkers here on ATS can clear this up?








edit on 2-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thanks for posting the Opie & Anthony segment, Psyco Mark, interesting...

Im not on the all-star debunker team, but I'll try answer your question why did we need NIST: Well, thats so the debunker trolls can link to it like its the definitive source on 911 and suspend laws of physics and any sort of logic??.

Must be their day off?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Forget NIST.

Here's my own personal little 9/11 investigation that I did on my own time and offer up for FREE!

Above, in my little animated avatar gif challenge I show conclusively that no plane hit the North Tower, now, does anyone want to start laying bets as to whether or not any plane hit the South Tower? Didn't think so.

Btw I'd like to mention here that this is MY OWN ORIGINAL 9/11 RESEARCH done solely and entirely by Yours Truly, ergo, I came up with this all on my own.

So NO, I didn't get this info or 'evidence' from anyone, I didn't get it off any "Truther" site or from any individual(s) such as Jones, Gage, Fetzer, Shack, Hall, or Jayhan et al.

I didn't get this evidence and notion off of any so-called 'damn fool conspiracy site'.

NIST and Popular Mechanics had no input and were neither consulted nor referenced.

I consider what I present in my screen cap animated gif as OBVIOUS FACT and in no way merely my own personal opinion.

Six months ago I was involved in a thread that was trying to determine what the flashes were as the 'planes' entered the buildings, this necessitated looking at the various video clips etc.

While doing so and looking at the available Naudet clips I noticed two distinct anomalies. The most significant of which is described here in that tiny animated gif that I made (above left) from a screen capture of the Naudet clip.

You see that isolated "bump" on the very right of the pic? The one that is where the right wing tip would be on a passenger jet?

Yeah well, see, the tip of a jet's wing is not an ISOLATED phenomenon.

It is attached to an ENTIRE WING structure, it (the wing tip) being at the furthermost end etc.

At no time therefore, while crashing head on into something flat would a 'wing tip' make an ISOLATED damage "bump".

The wing it is attached to, which also includes, in this case, the right engine, which it so happens is further forward on the plane than the wing tip and would therefore first make a gash in the facade from the center point outward progressively until its forward motion included and thoroughly encompassed even the wing tip, which, considering the "tapered" nature of airplane wings, would be the last bit of damage witnessed to have been made.

In a progressive tearing puncturing sweeping motion from LEFT TO RIGHT.

Indeed, where the wings are concerned, the right wing tip, because of it being angled further back, would be the VERY LAST bit of damage seen, occurring LATEST and also being the most extreme right in terms of position.

None of which is, of course, apparent in the video clip or even in the single screen capture. As anyone can plainly see.

The configuration of the 'damage pattern' is clearly "wrong."

Which leads naturally to the conclusion that the right wing shaped gash in the North Tower visible first on the Naudet clip and later on the likes of CNN and other network station coverages, couldn't possibly have been made by an actual wing of a plane OR by the actual wing on a Boeing passenger airliner.


Cheers



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

I'm wondering why did we need NIST or any other agency to investigate in the first place since the cause of the WTC towers was known on 9/11? Maybe some of the expert warriors AKA debunkers here on ATS can clear this up?

The proximate cause was known. That was not the purpose of the investigation.

The specific objectives were:

Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;

Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and

Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

www.nist.gov...

Improving public safety in regard to the construction of very large buildings was the purpose.

These 40 code changes were adopted less than five years from the release of the final report on WTC 1 and WTC 2, and less than two years following the release of the final report on WTC 7. This is an extraordinarily rapid pace in the code making and approval process.

The code changes addressed areas such as:

increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings;
increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises;
strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as “fireproofing”);
improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (i.e., automatic sprinklers);
requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway;
making exit path markings more prevalent and more visible; and
ensuring effective coverage throughout a building for emergency responder radio communications.

In addition to the code changes adopted by the ICC, 15 changes have been made to key National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) fire standards based on the NIST WTC investigation recommendations.

edit on 6/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



Btw I'd like to mention here that this is MY OWN ORIGINAL 9/11 RESEARCH done solely and entirely by Yours Truly, ergo, I came up with this all on my own.



I was doing my own research and I uncovered who the real hijackers were.... And it's not who they told us.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartenz
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thanks for posting the Opie & Anthony segment, Psyco Mark, interesting...

Im not on the all-star debunker team, but I'll try answer your question why did we need NIST: Well, thats so the debunker trolls can link to it like its the definitive source on 911 and suspend laws of physics and any sort of logic??.

Must be their day off?


lol, I think you got it right.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

I'm wondering why did we need NIST or any other agency to investigate in the first place since the cause of the WTC towers was known on 9/11? Maybe some of the expert warriors AKA debunkers here on ATS can clear this up?

The proximate cause was known. That was not the purpose of the investigation.

The specific objectives were:

Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;

Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and

Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

www.nist.gov...

Improving public safety in regard to the construction of very large buildings was the purpose.

These 40 code changes were adopted less than five years from the release of the final report on WTC 1 and WTC 2, and less than two years following the release of the final report on WTC 7. This is an extraordinarily rapid pace in the code making and approval process.

The code changes addressed areas such as:

increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings;
increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises;
strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as “fireproofing”);
improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (i.e., automatic sprinklers);
requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway;
making exit path markings more prevalent and more visible; and
ensuring effective coverage throughout a building for emergency responder radio communications.

In addition to the code changes adopted by the ICC, 15 changes have been made to key National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) fire standards based on the NIST WTC investigation recommendations.

edit on 6/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Oh I get it.. So they took psycho Marks theory and made some code changes. Okay that makes sense.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The fact that the results of the thorough investigation were consistent with the snap judgements of a few, cherry picked people should not come as a surprise.

I'm sure we could dig up a few knee jerk responses that conflict with the NIST report; people claiming there must have been bombs in the towers, for instance. Since the NIST report contradicted them, would you then consider the investigation as money well spent?

A valid criticism of the investigation could be made, I suppose, but simply noting that it came to similar conclusions as a few casual observers does not impugn the integrity of the investigation at all.

Big thanks to Phage for posting actual evidence that was responsive to the OP question, and fact based.
edit on 6/3/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
The fact that the results of the thorough investigation were consistent with the snap judgements of a few, cherry picked people should not come as a surprise.

I'm sure we could dig up a few knee jerk responses that conflict with the NIST report; people claiming there must have been bombs in the towers, for instance. Since the NIST report contradicted them, would you then consider the investigation as money well spent?

A valid criticism of the investigation could be made, I suppose, but simply noting that it came to similar conclusions as a few casual observers does not impugn the integrity of the investigation at all.

Big thanks to Phage for posting actual evidence that was responsive to the OP question, and fact based.
edit on 6/3/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)


Except that NIST Had the outcome first and simply adjusted the "evidence " to fit the already established result. Why else would they rule out explosives without looking for them? (My opinion)
edit on 3-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
The fact that the results of the thorough investigation were consistent with the snap judgements of a few, cherry picked people should not come as a surprise.

I'm sure we could dig up a few knee jerk responses that conflict with the NIST report; people claiming there must have been bombs in the towers, for instance. Since the NIST report contradicted them, would you then consider the investigation as money well spent?

A valid criticism of the investigation could be made, I suppose, but simply noting that it came to similar conclusions as a few casual observers does not impugn the integrity of the investigation at all.

Big thanks to Phage for posting actual evidence that was responsive to the OP question, and fact based.
edit on 6/3/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)


The only knee jerks reaction I ever see are from 'debunkers' who have spent years of their life on forums making themselves look stupid.

How did NIST contradict something they never actually investigated?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Except that NIST Had the outcome first and simply adjusted the "evidence " to fit the already established result. Why else would they rule out explosives without looking for them? (My opinion)
edit on 3-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

NIST's outcome was not 'collapsed by fire' though. It was a series of specific actions and failures they identified, and recommendations for fixing this in future buildings, so they do not collapse in the same way.

You could argue they only looked at one hypothesis and produced a theory from that, but until we have some useful evidence of explosives then they'd be wasting time and money by looking for phantoms. (in my opinion)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Except that NIST Had the outcome first and simply adjusted the "evidence " to fit the already established result. Why else would they rule out explosives without looking for them? (My opinion)
edit on 3-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

NIST's outcome was not 'collapsed by fire' though. It was a series of specific actions and failures they identified, and recommendations for fixing this in future buildings, so they do not collapse in the same way.

You could argue they only looked at one hypothesis and produced a theory from that, but until we have some useful evidence of explosives then they'd be wasting time and money by looking for phantoms. (in my opinion)


Their theory was given to them, and that's why they didn't even look for explosives. The evidence that NIST was given the theory is psycho Mark.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 

You mean where he says the cause was "structural failure due to fire". That's a very detailed analysis. I'm sure that never would have occurred to anyone. Thanks Mark! You're right the NIST study was a waste of time.

How do you know they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition?
edit on 6/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Improving public safety in regard to the construction of very large buildings was the purpose.


Yes it was also for this reason after the Empire State Building incident? Because the new physics had to be more calculating?

There's just too many pieces remaining in an unsolved puzzle.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 

So you think there was no point in studying the building collapses too. Ok.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


There were no 'new physics'. After the Empire State Building incident, building codes were indeed revised. I'll trust you to research that and find out what happened.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by loveguy
 

So you think there was no point in studying the building collapses too. Ok.


Hi, thanks for your reply.

All I'm saying is that as an individual, the OS failed to resolve the issue that effects everyone everywhere everyday.
I like you Phage. I wish you well.

When will we be massacring Saudi's for their oil?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by loveguy
 


There were no 'new physics'. After the Empire State Building incident, building codes were indeed revised. I'll trust you to research that and find out what happened.


Isn't it nice how the towers just disintegrated to the ground, after these "revisions"?
C'mon guys!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


You're right.
The writing is on the wall...



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


When will we be massacring Saudi's for their oil?

I don't know.
I guess when we use up all that oil we got from Iraq.






top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join