New Investigation

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To me, any genuine investigation is goign to be based heavily on the physical evidence

So, according to your own words, NIST's WTC 7 investigation is NOT genuine as they didn't even look at a single piece of steel from WTC 7.

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

www.nist.gov...

But, I'm sure you'll argue that NIST's investigation was somehow genuine though.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

where are you getting your facts from?

The video in the previous post was the one that started it for me. This is not a building that collapsed due to fire, it was demolished, clear, plain and simple. Demolished. If you feel more comfortable believing something else that is your prerogative, I have tried to state the case as simply and clearly as possible.

Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are just two people out of millions that know something is not right. This is a complex issue and people are trying to find their way through it the best way they can. Just search through the internet, there are many stories and pieces of the puzzle around. Some are clearly wrong, some are clearly right and a lot of hazy details in between. It has taken years or research through many sites and different views of events.

Here's a first step to consider- after the 9/11 attack, the US gave its intelligence showing it was an Al Qaida attack to our NATO allies, and after comparing it to what their own intelligence agencies were reporting, they found it credible enough to invoke article V for the first time in history. It's the whole reason why their armies are in Afghanistan along with ours. How do you explain this, ...

America has an economy based on war, it is your main export and takes about 50% GDP or about the same military spending as the rest of the world combined. A lot of business are established to kill people, its a job. To lose 3000 and a few buildings to start a war and keep the profits flowing is a small price to pay for some. I do not agree with it, but it is how I see it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Who mentioned anything about Bush?

All your fellow conspiracy theorists, actually. Why do you people make so much ado about Marvin Bush and WTC security if Bush had nothing to do with the conspriacy?

This is a conspiracy website isn't it? What are you doing here, you come across as really baffled. People come here because they have questions.

So far you haven't provided any answers.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by FDNY343

 

There have been a few different Judicial Reviews attempted www.ae911truth.org... . Most of them have failed and need to read the article for why.

the International Center for 9/11 Studies successfully sued NIST under FOIA, forcing the release of documents and other records used by NIST in preparation of its reports that purported to explain the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

In May 2009 this attempt was made with some videos and other data released. The data released can be found at 911datasets.org... . A peer reviewed analysis of the work performed by NIST "The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7" www2.ae911truth.org...

No, I am talking about the model data and imputs on the ANSYS system.


The paper you cited from Mr. Brookman is unscientific tripe at best.

Page 4 specifically I see a major problem.

straight down in classic controlled-demolition style.

First off, 7WTC did not fall straight down. Not in any sense of the word. In fact, it his 3 other buildings on three different sides of the building. (Fitterman Hall, The Verizon Building, and the US Post Office building)

Would you consider that "straight down"? I certainly don't.

How many CD's do you know that start with the collapse of one part of the structure, then progress? ( The Eastern Mechanical Penthouse)

How many CD's do you know of that use an incendiary?

reply to post by Nutter

I don't want a new investigation. I wanted a thorough, non-biased investigation to start with.

OK, whatever. Its just easier to type "new".

Volunteers that are not on any pay roll.

Well, I'm assuming that there won't be any draftees, but how do you get someone who is not "on any payroll" or I am assuming you mean not financially beholden to anyone. Fine - Paris Hilton?

If you have to ask what to investigate, then I have no help for you.

Not what generally, what specifically.

Laboratories, offices, in the field?

Fine - here in the US? Overseas? Where's the headquarters - D.C.?

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

But how long are you willing to go on if there is no evidence that anything happened besides the 19 hijackers, etc.?

That's a tricky one. Maybe Silverstein can let go of one his billions that he made?

That's cute - but seriously, who's money do you want to take to conduct this thing? Taxpayer's?

Full forensic power.

Political and legal power?

A truelly independant investigation would have no agenda.

An investigation always has an agenda, that is to say a schedule, outline, gameplan.

Why not? NIST was.

I'd double check that if I were you.

Peer review.

By who? What peers?

The global stage.

Same level of accountability as the previous investigations, which everyone is satisfied with.

I'm sure in your mind (and the other 3 resident debunkers here) that being a "truther" would disqualify a person, while having a vested interest wouldn't (NIST).

Need something a little more concrete than that.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
Now you resort to using the term truthers! Hysterical really considering the website you choose to spend your time on.

Just calling a spade a spade. What's your point?

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

Those pilots were not capable of flying those aircraft, maybe you think you know better than the flight school attendant who advised them to leave but i beg to differ, stating that they did not have the skills to be pilots of even single engined aircraft.

And yet, he states that he fully believes that once the plane was airborne, that there was no doubt they could hit the building. The reason they wouldn't rent planes to them is because they were not able to speak English well enough, among other things.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
Go put your had back in the sand. Ignorance is bliss after all.

You owe me an irony meter. My last one just broke.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
You chose to swallow the official story 100% that is up to you, I personally do not.

Jumping to conclusions. Have I ever stated that? No. In fact, if you ask me, I have my own doubts, but of course, you haven't asked me that, you just assume.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
The questions are blatant.

Blatent to fools and the uneducated, sure.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
Get back to me when you manage to rustle up some evidence that supports the official theory because so far there has been diddly squat.

No wonder the world is going to ruin with blind parrots like you on board X

edit on 20-1-2011 by WeMoveUnseen because: Spelling

Damn, if only I still had my irony meter.......

reply to post by FDNY343

First off, 7WTC did not fall straight down

Are you serious? Did you see the video posted in one of my replies? "This is an orange".

How many CD's do you know of that use an incendiary?

Have you even looked at the evidence about nanothermite? I am finding it very difficult to take you seriously.

Originally posted by kwakakev

Are you serious? Did you see the video posted in one of my replies? "This is an orange".

Yes, I did. Please click on this and tell me if it's "straight down" or not.

i63.photobucket.com...
i63.photobucket.com...

And these ones too. (Fitterman Hall)
i63.photobucket.com...
i63.photobucket.com...
i63.photobucket.com...

Thanks.

Now, what CD hits the ROOF of another building?

Originally posted by kwakakev
Have you even looked at the evidence about nanothermite? I am finding it very difficult to take you seriously.

Yes, extensively. It is still an incendiary, no matter what you do to it. It's reaction is sub-sonic. Explosives are super-sonic.

You are having a hard time taking me seriously? Oh, my bad. Here's my serious face.

Originally posted by hooper

Why not? NIST was.

I'd double check that if I were you.

Checked. Double checked. And my statement is accurate.

The NCST Act gives NIST the authority to subpoena information or witnesses during an investigation. Was the power used in the WTC investigation?
If the quality or completeness of an investigation is impeded by the lack of specific data, NIST will use the subpoena power under the NCST Act to access that information. To this point in the WTC investigation, NIST has been able to obtain all of the data it needed through teamwork and negotiation, and without the need of a subpoena.

www.nist.gov...

Care to try again?

reply to post by hooper

they assume the author is not lying. Not that lying is impossible, but that level of scrutiny would hobble the system to the point of paralysis.

Peer review is a self regulating process. Sometimes it is not feasible to check every detail, sometimes it is vital that everything is doubled checked. It all depends on what is being reviewed and available resources.

I really don't follow your point here. But I generally think you may have some misconceptions about the purpose of peer review vs. community feedback. The purpose of peer review, in the case of publication, is to get important information and ideas to the community that have been past through at least some level of intellectual filter. A lot of what I think you are refering to is the work the community does with the published material after publication. Peer review basically tells the rest of the community "here - this material is worthy of your time".

In terms of periodicals this is a common approach. The information that is published is considered to have scientific integrity and is used by other researchers in their work. Sometimes information that is published is publicly debated and contested.

Thats where there is the disconnect with regard to material like the NIST report and 9/11 commission report comes from. Some have and still are trying to equate "peer reviewed" with "tested and confirmed" hoping to make the argument of inverse association that since the government's publications were not subject to "peer review" they are therefore untested and wrong.

Many people are having trouble with this, different organisations have different procedures for peer review. When you look at the history of the NIST investigations there has been pretty much the same people involved with the study throughout it's history and progression through other departments. On the opposing side there are currently about 1,400 professionals contesting the findings by NIST. The 9/11 commission was more of an inquiry. Once the inquiry is finished it is case closed, the public and other professionals can still review the events, but cannot change the inquiries findings. A new inquiry can still be launched though.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To me, any genuine investigation is goign to be based heavily on the physical evidence

So, according to your own words, NIST's WTC 7 investigation is NOT genuine as they didn't even look at a single piece of steel from WTC 7.

I didn't say it wasn't genuine, I said it was an estimate based upon what evidence was available. They took a look at the building collapse footage and they interviewed the people involved to determine what might have happened. Moreover, in appendix D is states they attempted to model the known procession of the collapse via different methods including controlled demolitions. Not only would CD have caused it to collapse differently (the whole building would have collapsed as one section, rather than from the inside out), it would have caused additional features including explosive flashes, pyroclastic emissions, and broken windows, none of which were seen on any video or by any witnesses.

However the WTC 7 fell, it was NOT controlled demolitions, leaving the thermal expansion model the most likely reason. Perhaps some day the thermal expansion scenario may be disproved and some third as yet unknown reason for the collapse may be discovered, I don't know.

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

You already answered your own question. At the time the priority was to clear the wreckage out to rescue survivors. They weren't thinking at the time that they would need to address these paranoid accusations of sabotage and they would someday need to examine samples to placate them. Not that it matters, since samples of the WTC were saved and are being stored in a hanger in JFK as we speak, and such evidence still isn't enough to placate them.

Here's a question for YOU- the ground crews clearing out ground zero consisted of steel workers, demolitions specialists, construction crews, and a thousand other people who would be able to recognise something suspicious about the steel they're picking up when they saw it, and not one reported any signs of sabotage. Plus, there are enough photos of the steel at ground zero (I.E. via Joel Meyerowitz) to show us what they were seeing, and we don't see any signs of sabotage either. How do you explain this?

reply to post by FDNY343


This look like it fell straight down to me with all the debris where the building was i63.photobucket.com...

And what did happen to throw all those big steel girders into another building i63.photobucket.com... . Looks like some type of explosive force was going on.

As for the other photos it is difficult to put things into perspective. I do find the videos provide a much clearer sequence of events.

Yes, extensively. It is still an incendiary, no matter what you do to it. It's reaction is sub-sonic. Explosives are super-sonic.

Well it does explain some comments that the usual loud bangs with building demolition was not present being a sub sonic oxidizer, still gets hot enough to slice through solid steel beams in the blink of an eye. I defiantly would not want to be next to the stuff when it goes off.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

 

This is a conspiracy website isn't it? What are you doing here, you come across as really baffled. People come here because they have questions.

Not really. ATS is a conspiracy discussion forum, where anyone on either side of the debate can come and have their say. True conspiracy web sites (like Dylan Avery's Loose Change) have an in-house conspiracy that they promote using disingenuous behavior up to and including censorship and outright lying, and I can give you all the examples of this as you'd like.

If ATS were a true conspiracy web site, I would have been banned long ago for posting information contrary to what the moderators wanted people to know. I know because I was banned from the Loose Change forum for posting how none of the other known videos of the plane impact support Avery's claims that the plane had missile pods. I might have been banned for pointing out Avery's claim that the mysterious blue tarp covered thing being brought out of the Pentagon was really a triage tent being brought IN, I forget.

So far you haven't provided any answers.

So then ask a question.

reply to post by Nutter


No, no, thats fine. The Director of the NIST has the authority, under the NCST act, to issue subpeonas. But only the Director.

reply to post by kwakakev

On the opposing side there are currently about 1,400 professionals contesting the findings by NIST.

If you are refering to the folks over at AE911truth then you would be hard pressed to find anyone there that would be considered a peer. And there certainly not 1400 "professionals".

The NIST report has been out there for more than awhile. I have yet to see a point by point critique of the report. Since this is pretty much the cornerstone of the conspiracy construction wouldn't at least be polite before demanding a new investigation to prove that you have at least looked at the old investigation?

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

where are you getting your facts from?

The video in the previous post was the one that started it for me. This is not a building that collapsed due to fire, it was demolished, clear, plain and simple. Demolished. If you feel more comfortable believing something else that is your prerogative, I have tried to state the case as simply and clearly as possible.

No demolitions job in history has ever demolished buildings from the inside out, like how WTC 7 had collapsed and as your own video link showed.

Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are just two people out of millions that know something is not right. This is a complex issue and people are trying to find their way through it the best way they can.

I suppose I can agree with that to some extent, but the problem is when such resort to outright lying to get others to believe what they themselves want people to believe. I can give you as many examples of this as you'd like.

Here in the US we had a guy back during the revolution named Paul Revere, and when British soldiers were on the march he rode through towns warning that the Redcoats were coming. He did NOT say that something dreadful was coming and he'll only tell them what it was for $19.95.

America has an economy based on war, it is your main export and takes about 50% GDP or about the same military spending as the rest of the world combined. A lot of business are established to kill people, its a job. To lose 3000 and a few buildings to start a war and keep the profits flowing is a small price to pay for some. I do not agree with it, but it is how I see it.

That doesn't answer the question. You have to know Australia have 1100 troops in Afghanistan, and even Denmark has some 800 troops there, and noone in their right mind would accuse Denmark of having "an economy based on war". Why are they contributing to the war in Afghanistan if this is all one big US orchestrated conspiracy? Are Australia and Denmark all bumbling idiots and utterly servile to the US, or are they actively involved in the coverup and the conspiracy too?

Here's the problem I have with the conspiracy scenarios- rather than attempting to answer any questions, all they do is generate more questions. Dylan Avery and Alex Jones don't care becuase their goal is to foster abject paranoia, not find out the truth behind the 9/11 attack. I have said many times that the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is based upon the drivel these con artists are putting out and I have yet to see anything that shows the position is incorrect.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

 

This is a conspiracy website isn't it? What are you doing here, you come across as really baffled. People come here because they have questions.

Not really. ATS is a conspiracy discussion forum, where anyone on either side of the debate can come and have their say. True conspiracy web sites (like Dylan Avery's Loose Change) have an in-house conspiracy that they promote using disingenuous behavior up to and including censorship and outright lying, and I can give you all the examples of this as you'd like.

If ATS were a true conspiracy web site, I would have been banned long ago for posting information contrary to what the moderators wanted people to know. I know because I was banned from the Loose Change forum for posting how none of the other known videos of the plane impact support Avery's claims that the plane had missile pods. I might have been banned for pointing out Avery's claim that the mysterious blue tarp covered thing being brought out of the Pentagon was really a triage tent being brought IN, I forget.

So far you haven't provided any answers.

So then ask a question.

You are obsessed with Dylan Avery, it's all you go on about and i think you may have a problem. Fear not, God loves all. Try talking to someone it's nothing to be ashamed of X

reply to post by hooper

If you are refering to the folks over at AE911truth then you would be hard pressed to find anyone there that would be considered a peer. And there certainly not 1400 "professionals".

The current 1,419 have been verified as architects and engineers. There is also 11,084 other supporters. www.ae911truth.org... . I acknowledge that they may not all agree with what exactly did happen, but they are concerned enough that something is wrong with the official story and have collaborated a lot of information over the years to aid in uncovering the actual events.

The NIST report has been out there for more than awhile. I have yet to see a point by point critique of the report. Since this is pretty much the cornerstone of the conspiracy construction wouldn't at least be polite before demanding a new investigation to prove that you have at least looked at the old investigation?

I have looked into it along with many others. There are many resources around so to help get to the point try
nistreview.org...

Originally posted by kwakakev

This look like it fell straight down to me with all the debris where the building was i63.photobucket.com...

Did you not see the first two stills? They show a VERY clear lean. Take of the "truther" blinders.

Originally posted by kwakakev

And what did happen to throw all those big steel girders into another building i63.photobucket.com... . Looks like some type of explosive force was going on.

7WTC fell down while twisting. That is what caused it. It's called gravity.

Silent explosives? LOL!! Funny. But not correct.

Originally posted by kwakakev
As for the other photos it is difficult to put things into perspective. I do find the videos provide a much clearer sequence of events.

No, they certainly do not. Compressed 14th generation video on YouTube are garbage. Do you see 7WTC fall onto Fitterman Hall in the videos?

What perspective? Do you need help understanding the photos?

Originally posted by kwakakev
Well it does explain some comments that the usual loud bangs with building demolition was not present being a sub sonic oxidizer, still gets hot enough to slice through solid steel beams in the blink of an eye.

Not quite. ~5 second +/- 1 second is not quite "blink of an eye". That would be an explosive.

Not to mention the fact that you would have to time these (assuming) dozens upon dozens of contraptions to go off precisely the same time, and for them to cut through the steel in the same amount of time.

Originally posted by kwakakev
I defiantly would not want to be next to the stuff when it goes off.

Most people with 2 brain cells to rub together wouldn't. However, it wouldn't kill you, nor cause serious damage to you. Burns? Sure. Barotrauma? No. Concussion? Nope. Broken bones? No. Explosives would do those things. Thermite cannot.

reply to post by kwakakev

The current 1,419 have been verified as architects and engineers. There is also 11,084 other supporters. www.ae911truth.org... . I acknowledge that they may not all agree with what exactly did happen, but they are concerned enough that something is wrong with the official story and have collaborated a lot of information over the years to aid in uncovering the actual events.

From the AE911 website on their verification process:

"Many petition signers are not able to find their diplomas, but are able to give us their birth date, name of the university and discipline in which the degree was earned. Mark Phillips is able to take this information and get proof of credentials for them."

hmmm.

Besides, its been years now and not one detailed paper about the NIST report and yet all the 'truthseekers" are scrambling for a new one and haven't even looked at the old one.