This is how normal people discuss 9/11

reply to post by geobro


Well then rather than debating it just now how about you send me a quick link to your thread once you have completed it

Thanks.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

no problem will do

reply to post by -PLB-

What evidence are you talking about specifically that prevents those expert from making their models?

What other researchers were allowed to conduct an extensive field study at the disaster site? And who other then NIST could get significant participation and/or coordination by other federal agencies?

Field and Lab Tests Typically, NIST researchers conduct an extensive field study at the disaster site to determine conditions before and after the structural failure. Documents such as drawings, specifications, and inspection reports, as well as eyewitness accounts and videos, are reviewed to gain information about the design and construction of the structure, and the events of the actual failure incident. When necessary, laboratory tests are conducted to determine physical properties of failed materials. NIST may fabricate mockups or replicas of structure parts and test these. In addition to laboratory tests, analytical models and computer simulations may help determine likely causes of failure. The NIST laboratories are well-equipped to conduct investigations. For example, NIST has several types of universal testing machines that can apply tension and compression forces on structural components up to 18 meters (60 feet) tall. Other labs include a large fire laboratory with the capability of conducting well-controlled experiments in fires releasing heat up to 10 megawatts (typical of a multi-room fire).

NIST may coordinate or participate in post-event studies. These types of studies may involve significant participation and/or coordination by other federal agencies with mission responsibilities and expertise.

But the most important question is who other than Director of NIST knows what was determined to be “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and therefor classified? In other words, I believe that in order to prove NIST wrong you would need to know what NIST knows.

Disclaimer No. 3 Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c). In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

And how is it possible that this group of researchers I linked to succeeded then?

Why do you think they succeeded? Who told you that theirs is more accurate then NISTs?

Its impossible to prove someone right and its not how science works.

The square root of 2 is 1.4142135623730951. I used a Square Root Calculator to get this result. Don't believe me? Calculate it yourself and check if I'm wrong.

Whenever NIST released their models, we all know what will happen. Some truther "experts" will find something in it which they claim make the model invalid. I predict there will be not one truther "expert" saying "ah yes that looks pretty good, now I understand, I now believe fire did it" as their mind is already made up. I am also confident that a lot of truthers who are laymen on the subject will believe these "experts" without much critical thinking. It would be a completely useless exercise.

I was getting an impression that you consider yourself to be more on a scientist side, but now I think you might actually be a psychic. Prove me wrong.

You do use the experts as an authority to support your position, but you do not mind that they have never produced anything relevant.

I use NIST. You keep bringing up all the other people for some reason...

reply to post by -PLB-

I don't really get this fixation with free fall. I have never seen evidence that demolition charges cause free fall. It seems more like one of those 911 truth memes.

Either you have seen no videos of any controlled demolition, or you have assigned a different meaning to the term, "free fall." If you watch any videos of any controlled demolition, you will see what is meant by the term, "free fall."

On the other hand, we now have the ideal way to bring down buildings, without the need to hire expensive demolition team experts. We can simply have the building owners of any high rise (after achieving the proper permits) seek out the NIST, ask them for the missing data, run the calculations within the same software. Then, with the results, have a precise idea of where to inflict damage to the exterior (with perfectly applied interior damage), with a follow up fire. Just a few key columns and fires on just some floors and presto! The building will come down. No need for the manpower and weeks of planning and analysis of the structure.

ETA: Of course, any building this is attempted on will need a 27th floor that is structurally capable of serving an entire city the size of New York as an Emergency Command Center. You know...the type that is designed to withstand bomb strikes in the area, direct assaults with heavy weapons, et.al. Gotta make it realistic...

reply to post by totallackey

ETA: Of course, any building this is attempted on will need a 27th floor that is structurally capable of serving an entire city the size of New York as an Emergency Command Center. You know...the type that is designed to withstand bomb strikes in the area, direct assaults with heavy weapons, et.al. Gotta make it realistic...

Can you provide links that say it was designed to withstand bombs/ assaults/ heavy weapons??

Even the pictures of the new one doesn't show it could even prevent a truck bomb from crashing through a metal fence.

The term you are using "Emergency Command Center" sounds militaristic.
From what I am finding the real name is 'Office of Emergency Management'.
Big difference. It's not a military fortress. Just an office to coordinate emergency response.
But then that doesn't fit the conspiracy. does it.

reply to post by samkent


Although I fail to see how the the term Emergency Command Center evokes a militaristic image in your mind, I stand corrected on the term. It was called, "Office of Emergency Management." For further edification, any such office (speaking from personal experience), must be fortified in order to sustain long periods of isolation and potential direct assaults, up to and including heavy weapons.

What potential purposes did you think it was going to serve while located on the 27th floor of WTC 7? A response to a strike by the Girl Scouts, resulting in a massive riot over a lack of Thin Mints?

reply to post by samkent

Can you provide links that say it was designed to withstand bombs/ assaults/ heavy weapons??

I can. I thought it was common knowledge.

The center, which will be staffed round-the-clock, will be where city leaders meet if there's ever another man-made act of terror. It will be used for natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, heat waves and blackouts as well.

"The city is better prepared than it ever has been in its history," said Jerry Hauer, director of the center.

The facility's command center is on the 23rd floor. Its walls are reinforced to withstand wind gusts of up to 160 miles per hour. It's also bulletproof and bomb-resistant, with its own air supply, an 11,000 gallon water supply and three backup generators.

reply to post by samkent


By the way, do you have any idea why the center which was supposed to be staffed round-the-clock was abandoned before any of the towers collapsed? Do you know or think that Barry Jennings was confused about that too?

reply to post by whatsecret


What I want to know is:

1. Was the center abandoned before the planes hit, or did people evacuate after they hit? If they left after the attacks, it could be that the staff were concerned that the area was no longer safe to run a command center in, and left. If they weren't even there before the planes hit, that would be highly weird.

2. If the center was staffed after the attacks, but evacuated after the collapses, then it could be again, the area was no longer safe. There were fires in Building 7. Given that the collapses had taken out the water mains in the area, there was no longer any means for the fire department to douse the fires, the area was covered in pyroclastic ash.

3. Was the center normally manned 24/7, 365 days a year, or had it changed in the recent past?

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Have you heard Barry Jennings interview?

reply to post by whatsecret


Yes I have, years ago. I wanted to know if there was a site of information confirming that it was indeed a 24/7 operation there, 365 days a year. Like an official source.

It's not that I disbelieve Mr. Jennings at all. My purpose was for the sake of fully clarifying and understanding the full nature of the operation and its relevance to the events of 9/11.

reply to post by whatsecret

. Its walls are reinforced to withstand wind gusts of up to 160 miles per hour. It's also bulletproof and bomb-resistant, with its own air supply, an 11,000 gallon water supply and three backup generators.

That is not ready for an armed insurgency.
More like a hurricane with wind blown debris.

reply to post by whatsecret


There are apparently many people who simply can't stand being challenged on a belief. Any belief. At any time. I actually started a thread about that recently, because of a "discussion" with a family member. No matter what the topic, whatever my opinion is, hers is different, and she acts as though I am "stupid", "paranoid", "gullible", etc. This from a person that watches TV news and believes every single word she's told, even if they contradict themselves. Mostly, I simply bring things up to have interesting conversation, but it's not possible with some people. They seem incapable of simply discussing, offering their point of view and supporting data, and listening to your point of view.

I get the idea that"normal" in this crazy world is people that act like them, since they are the usual sort found, and that "abnormal" people are people that can be civil and simply talk. S&F

reply to post by samkent

More like a hurricane with wind

What part of bulletproof and bomb resistant do you need clarified?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
seems that presstv are carrying a story about youtube having videos abouty chemical attack being uploaded before it happened and i saw the same about sandy hook being tweated before it happened you just cannot get the staff these days

reply to post by geobro


Never trust time stamps, especially from PressTV, the propaganda mouth of Iran.

And again it doesn't make anything regarding your claims about 9/11 any more true.

PS: still waiting on that thread.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by geobro

 

Never trust time stamps, especially from PressTV, the propaganda mouth of Iran.

And again it doesn't make anything regarding your claims about 9/11 any more true.

PS: still waiting on that thread.

and i am still waiting to see how many people you asked what time did you hear

reply to post by geobro


Its not like I have counted but I have discussed 9/11 in depth with at least 50 or so people in person and countless other online.

you are the only person who I have ever heard of who claims that 9/11 was being reported in the UK press before the attacks actually happened (other than that thread you keep going on about likes it proof).

Now please, stop derailing threads with this confused claim that you have, if you wish to discuss it further go and write a thread about it.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
i have messaged someone who was in spain and stated that the buildings were down by 9.30 am new york time awaiting their reply . but this will be good as it does not need thermite or planes