Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some truthers suggest that because NIST does not test for explosives then this means that the NIST report is unscientific, and so nothing it contains should be believed.

    The same argument is made about the steel.

    I think there's plenty of science in the NIST reports (most of it really) that is independent of such tests. IN WTC7 in particular there was extensive analysis of the spread of fire, and the projected effects of fire on steel, and the way the building collapsed. No testing for explosives does not change the observations of the way the building collapsed, nor does it change the observations of how the first spread.

    NIST makes a very good case about how the building collapsed by fire. Characterizing one aspect of their investigation as "unscientific" does not alter the other aspect of the investigation.

    NIST Explains in a lot of detail why they do not think there were explosives, did not test for explosives, and other claims of evidence of explosives, and suggestions that they did not follow code, or they were not scientific:

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
    In addition, tests of the dust actually HAVE been conducted, and no evidence of explosive residue was found beyond, as NIST explained, elements that you would expect to find anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    There was physical evidence present that would have been instrumental in explaining the collapse of WTC 7 conclusively. A physical examination of the specific steel to have failed and catalyzed the collapse would have not only proven the source of the collapse beyond any shadow of a doubt, but would have been invaluable to future fire-safety developments. Why did NIST base their building 7 scenario on 6 years of observing, projecting, and hypothesizing based on exterior videos and personal anecdotes, when the physical evidence was readily available? Why wasn't the WTC steel treated as evidence in the first place? Why, when authorities realized this was happening, were no efforts made whatsoever to reclaim/catalog the evidence which had been tampered with? Why, if this evidence was truly irretrievable, was absolutely no one held accountable for its rapid destruction/no one questioned/investigated as to their reasoning for that choice?
    Can you at least admit that, in regards to the building 7 steel, a mistake was made in disposing of it before it was investigated/cataloged?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, however you've got to see that there were a lot of people involved with overlapping priorities that shifted over time. Priorities changed from rescue, to safety, to recovery of bodies, to getting the city working again.

    I think it's a shame that the WTC7 steel was not preserved. But "what lessons can we learn from the collapse of this building" was probably not a high priority for the people running the operation.

    And I know this does not sound reasonable to someone convinced it was controlled demolition, but I really think that the people running the cleanup did not actually suspect explosives, so it never even occurred to them to inspect or preserve the steel as if it were a crime scene.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Perhaps the FBI will 'shed' some light on it. They had the 'whole area' as a crime scene.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ten-years-after-the-fbi-since-9-11/by-the-numbers
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  6. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    They produce a case based on speculation while ignoring the physical evidence.

    So because they are the government institution charged with the investigation they only "have to explain why they don't think there were explosives"... they do that because they have the power.

    What grade do you think an applied physics students gets on their exam when they only explain why they think there is no need to a physical test... F is the answer.

    The fact you are still refusing to admit NIST was in error here does not do you reputation any good... a real debunker calls every and all bunk including NIST's.
     
  7. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    What physical evidence did they ignore?

    To me you are giving a F because the student didn't consider what the effect of a hollow Earth would have been on their experiment instead of accepting the molten iron core Earth theory.
     
  8. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Seriously, enough with the nonsensical comparisons. The very real physical evidence they admittedly ignored was the structural steel of the building 7 collapse, which was shipped away and disposed of before any investigative body had a chance to examine that. Because of this action, proving the cause of the WTC7 collapse, an unquestionably uncanny event, was made impossible. This was in spite of how vital it was that the collapse be explained promptly and comprehensively for the purposes of the investigation, not to mention how vital examining the catalyst to the collapse would be in understanding why it happened the way it did, in order to build better in the future. All these ludicrous comparisons; physics classes with fictional professors, hollow earth vs. molten core, guy throwing rock vs. meteor, moon-crater vs. moon-stadium, poisoning vs. gunshot wound, they all revolve around this idea that it was silly for NIST to look for explosives. Well, maybe that's true. Maybe you're right. Even if it is standard procedure to test for acceleratnts, perhaps this situation called for a bit of deviation. Sounds like a lame excuse to me, but if you're all so adamant about it, fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the universal failure to collect, document, catalog, or examine the physical evidence of the building 7 collapse in any respect whatsoever. Explosives scenario aside, there was a very real, EXTREMELY important question to be answered: why did that building fall down the way it did? Instead of going through the standard, essential, and legally required investigative process to come to a conclusion in that regard, all the pertinent evidence was destroyed with great haste, not a single soul was punished or even chastised for this obstruction of justice, and six years were spent dreaming up what a physical examination could have conclusively proven in months.
    It's a shameful miscarriage of the most important investigation perhaps in history, and there's absolutely no excuse for it... the most pathetic and offensive attempt at such an excuse being the suggestion it 'would have cost the tax-payers too much'. NIST's go-to excuse is an unfortunate mix-up... one that, well gee-golly-gosh, they simply couldn't think of a way to fix, so in the end decided really wasn't that big of a deal, what with all that footage they got and all their fancy computers. That might even be good enough, if a single person/collection of people had ever held accountable, let alone appropriately charged/investigated for any further involvement in the wake of that 'mix up'. As it is, we're all supposed to pretend its of no real importance that significant aspects of the investigation were blatantly botched/foiled before it could even begin in earnest, and that no one but the few perpetrators of the attack we're aware of are held remotely responsible for those, or any other of the multitude of failures that day.
    Mick at least acknowledges some of these failures, even finds them regrettable, but concludes (or pretends) that in the end, these failures are of no real significance, as the investigation was to his mind a general success in spite of them.
    You, Cairenn, refuse to even acknowledge there were any failures, to the point that, even after all the discussions we've had over so many months, you'd come out saying something so completely out of touch with the topic as this:
    You're not even listening to the positions being presented by people who disagree with you; rebutting, decrying, and admonishing stances you haven't even begun to actually consider. Trying to engage in a reasoned argument with you while you maintain this tunnel-vision is generally impossible.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    They did not LOOK for explosives because first---they had a excellent explanation without it and two, the one that the truthers keep ignoring is that there is no evidence of HOW that explosives could have been used.
     
  10. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Back to my previous post, which you seemingly didn't read...
    which leads back to my previous concluding statement,
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    They look for accelerates when the cause of a fire is unknown not when it is known. A fire starts in one home and burning wood shingles set other houses afire. They are not going to check those other houses for accelerant or bad wiring, as long as the fire STARTED on the roof. If someone reported smoke coming from a kitchen first, then the roof caught fire, they would.

    The tunnel vision is not on our side. We keep asking HOW explosives could have been used? and y'all ignore that there is NO way that they could have.
     
  12. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I apologize if it offends Cairenn, as it's not my intent, but my comment in regard to tunnel-vision was specific to you and the arguments you make, not a criticism of your 'side'.
     
  13. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    I'd suggest switching focus. The thread is heading into repetition territory.
     
  14. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    conspiracy theorists burning (sic) desire to create a case does not constitute any sort of evidence to support the theory that explosives were used.

    There is no such evidence - therefore there is no need to do tests to identify what explosives were used.

    One does not look for gunshot residue in a case where no guns were used or even present.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The question is not really "should they have tested or not".

    It's more "how much does it change things that they say they did not test?"

    i.e., if they said they tested for explosives,but found none, and said they examined all the steel, but it all looked consistent with fire and progressive collapse, then would that actually change the mind of any truther?

    Grieves? Would it help? If so, why do you think they did not pretend to do it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Glad to see that acknowledged.

    If a proper investigation had unfolded in the following moments/days/months/years which had adequately addressed the terribly uncanny nature of the triple-collapse-and it had, indeed, proven the nature of the triple-collapse to have been a dreadful coincidence as a result of the terrible circumstances, my opinions on this matter, much like the narrative surrounding it, would be entirely different. Not just because the coincidence would be proven, but also because doing so would have required behavior from authority figures and investigative bodies that would have been far less suspect. THAT was the real clincher for me. Not the baffling way in which all three buildings were outright leveled, that was shocking and confusing to be sure, but the way the narrative warped in the ensuing days/months/years, and the way the investigations seemed to follow this narrative, from a shockingly inexplicable triple-collapse in which 'bombs' was on the tip of every newscasters tongue and thorough investigation was essential, into an open-and-shut case of 'planes+fire+Osama=declaration of endless, physical war on an emotional state', with a great host of suspicious decisions made by authorities, and the obvious impediments to/obstructions of any proper investigation. The way the National narrative just gave up on the really baffling questions, shrugged off all the highly suspicious circumstances and turned any questioning of the obviously incomplete official account into a grave taboo while at the same time traipsing off on a bloody, revenge-based campaign in countries that evidently had little to nothing to do with the attacks, is what gradually leaned my thought-process in the direction of high conspiracy. They seemed not only too willing, but also too -ready- to use the attacks, and FAR too willing to 'forgive and forget' the grave failures surrounding both the attacks themselves and the deliberately limited, botched investigation.

    'They' didn't pretend to do it because pretending to do it would A.) be unnecessary, 'they' by no means have to convince everyone, and B.) because it would have acknowledged the possibility. What's been done is exceedingly clever, a circular argument that you, a purportedly science-minded fellow, are content to live with. "Did you test for explosives?""Of course not!""Why not?""Because there was no reason to test for explosives!""Why not?""Because it's impossible, and there was nothing to indicate explosions!""These witness reports...""Are inconsequential.""Why?""Because we've found absolutely no evidence of explosives.""Did you test for explosives?""Of course not!""Why not?"....ad infinitum. Also tests can be checked, verified, or discredited by other experts, which, if there was something to hide, would pose a major complication. The unfortunate early disposal of all that evidence serves as a 'the dog ate my homework' in that regard. Nothing to test means no tests, which means not having to bother with forging tests.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    "bombs on the tip of every newscaster's tongue" ? Really ? In reference to the loss of the buildings? I don't remember that, except in referring to the earlier bombing and to the Murrah building bombing.

    Even then it's reporters not experts.

    It reminds me of when during the BP blowout, some reporter asked a Navy underwater demo guy about the Navy stopping the blow out. He said they could, when in fact he had NO expertise in what would be needed. The Russians had managed to stop one well by exploding it shut, when they tried a second time, they made that one worse. The Navy guy said that BP wouldn't allow that because it would destroy their investment in the well. The well was destroyed by pumping it full of cement.

    There is a reason that you don't ask you auto mechanic about your brain surgery, or you brain surgeon about how to fix you wiring.
     
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    It did - you begging the question dose not make it otherwise.
     
  19. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    On the day of the attack, mention of bombs being detonated, bombs being involved, and bombs being present were frequent. I remember it quite clearly while watching the news, but if you don't, a bit of youtubing on the subject would help.

    The reporters were reporting what they were being told by correspondents on the ground. That's what reporters do. The correspondents were observing the situation and interviewing witnesses/survivors/authorities. That's what correspondents do. The witnesses/survivors/authorities were talking about bombs and explosions, as can be seen in many, many witness accounts of bombs and explosions. The testimonies can be explained away, but unless properly investigated and ruled out, they are clear evidence of the potential for explosives involved in the collapse. Doesn't matter if you think they're wrong/lying/crazy, they still exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    So no destruction of evidence, no limitations of access, no highly detrimental time/resource constraints, no disregarding of testimonies, no conflicts of interest... just good old fashioned gumshoein', straight down the line?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not acknowledging "they should have tested", I was trying to explain what the point of the thread was. The question "should they have tested?" is an oversimplification of a complex situation

    Sure, but you are extending things far beyond the scope of testing dust and steel.

    Is the non-testing on test and steel significant? And what does it signify: cover-up, incompetence, cost issues, circumstance? A combination?

    Looking at the actual steel would have been great, but the steel got moved, the WTC7 investigation did not start for a while, it was not labeled. But are you suggesting that at some point someone made the decision to hide all the steel?

    The dust tests I can understand NIST not testing for explosives as there was no indication that explosives were a possibility. It would have been great if they did. But then tests have been done since!!! So what's the big deal? Were they covering up something that was not even there?

    You can't conflate these things with hiding info about Saudis, or the pretexts for wars. Either these things are suspicious in themselves for their own reasons, or they are not.

    And how would it even work?

    Illuminati Guy: "get rid of all the steel as quickly as possible, and drop any suspicious bits off the side of the barge"
    10,000 workers: "yes sir"
    Illuminati Guy: "oh, and vacuum up all the dust so nobody can test it for explosive residue ever".
    10,000 workers: "what? there's hundreds of tons of it"
    Illuminati guy: "oh right, never mind. Hey NIST, when you investigate in two years, DO NOT TEST THE DUST!!! Okay?"
    NIST: "why not, now I want to"
    Illuminati guy: "because I'll kill your family if you test the dust".
    NIST: "got it".
    Illuminati guy: "Lowers and Meeker, that goes for you too"
    Lowers and Meeker: "whatevs"
    Illuminate guy: "and nobody else in the world test the dust either, okay?"
    Rest of world: "..."
    Illuminati Guy: "And NIST, in your report, make it look like the buildings collapsed by fire"
    NIST: "didn't they?"
    Illuminati Guy: "Of course they did, just make sure that's the only conclusion okay, or we will kill your family"
    NIST: "got it, but what if someone else spots the omission? What if someone else analyzes the fires?
    Illuminati Guy: "No problem. Hey, 10,000,000 scientists and engineers, DO NOT LOOK INTO THIS OR WE WILL DAMAGE YOUR CAREERS A BIT!!!"
    10,000,000 scientists and engineers: "got it"
    Illuminati Guy: "Except for you Richard Gage, but do it with stupid shit like cardboard boxes, and keep saying Pyroclastic Flow, and Nanothermite, so nobody takes you seriously."
    Richard Gage: "Got it!"
     
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Lots of confusion on the day of.

    Does it now seem plausible that they asked everyone later if there were bombs, and figured out there were not? That they reviewed the video and saw and heard no bombs. That only a tiny fraction of the people there were in the bomb camp?

    Where is the audio or the video of these bombs?

    Why don't we get thousands of identical accounts of the same explosion? Thousands of people were there. Explosions are incredibly loud.

    I think you see these scattered account of "explosions" as evidence because you are already convinced there were bombs. I think that a few people thinking they heard bombs is quite understandable.

    And again, how did this cover-up go down? How said what who? How exactly is it supposed to work?
     
  23. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Although the steel of WTC 1 and 2 was under-examined according to at least one highly skilled expert conducting the examinations, an assertion supported by the time-scale and budget afforded those examinations, that steel was none the less treated, to whatever limited extent, as evidence in a crime. That the WTC7 was omitted from this is much like Jazzy's 'blind eye crime-scene', where a massive swath of pertinent material is entirely dismissed on the basis that nobody died there. I can understand how someone might have made the mistake the day of, during all that panic, to start clearing the WTC7 site without treating it as evidence. I can even understand how that effort might have run through the night without it occurring to anyone that 'oh yeah, that's evidence!' but the clean-up of building 7 went on for days. I cannot believe that in all that time, while all that steel was being shipped off and lost in the shuffle, absolutely no one in authority realized they were impeding the investigation. Obviously it had to occur to them, as it's been an issue with many 'Truthers' from the start. Many seem to often forget that among those labeled 'Truthers' are a fair deal of men and women who put on uniforms and risked their lives/sacrificed their health during the day of the attack and the cleanup to follow, witnessed the events surrounding that cleanup and the collapses, and derive their suspicion with the official account from those personal experiences. I think it's a given that, even if it began as an innocent oversight, a decision had to have been made at some point to continue with that disposal in spite of what it meant for the investigation. Rather than exploring who exactly made that decision/the decision to start disposing of it in the first place, why that decision was made, and leveling the necessary punishments against those/the one who made it, there seems to be general acknowledgement that evidence was destroyed, that it did hinder the investigation to a degree, but that we shouldn't worry about it, no big deal, everything's all figured out now in the long run away, just look at our fancy simulation! An inadequate/failed investigation is one thing. Covering for that inadequate/failed investigation and calling it a success is to me highly suspicious.

    Explosives in the basement levels of WTC7 would make minimal exterior noise, and wouldn't show on footage shot from the exterior at a distance. If the collapse of a random single column at a lower level could induce wholesale structural collapse of the entire building, its ridiculous to suggest well placed bombs on selected columns on an even lower level couldn't.

     
  24. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    What has any of those got to do with it not being a proper investigation?

    Evidence is often destroyed after an investigation (or returned), there is NEVER unlimited access to crime scenes, there are ALWAYS resource and time constraints, when testimonies disagree some must be discarded - that is why there are defence and prosecution witnesses with different stories, and every person on earth has some conflict of interest.

    And yet yes - proper investigations still get done and one was done in this case

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to have anyone treat it seriously.
     
  25. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I am going to post another excerpt from the implosion experts. Please notice that they had their experts working the 'pile'. These are folks that KNEW what to look for in debris for an implosion.

     
  26. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Brilliant.

    That's highly comic. Working it through. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Explosives dissipate energy at an average of 8000m/s. That energy has to go somethere and I would expect that if there were 'bombs in the basement' it would firstly cause a seismic spike (any reported, anyone?) and secondly would send a ripple of broken windows up the building - of which there are very few from the footage, and those are sporadic which would be in line with a building slowly losing its integrity as it cannot hold itself up any longer. Underground or not, I not sure how one would musffle the sound.

    I respectfully disagree with your basement demolition theory.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    No seismic spikes. FACT
     
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Absolutely. And one does not look for drugs in an obvious case of falling from a helicopter... it's just crazy.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/fbi-agents-died-fall-helicopter-va-coast
     
  30. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The question has to be WHY did someone fall out of a helicopter? Where they pushed? drunk? high? where they dead before they fell? any evidence that they looked for gunshot residue?

    Poor example it seems to me
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How would you if they were drunk or high without toxicology tests?

    You'd do a toxicology test in any accident where the cause of the accident might be related to the effects of drugs in their system.

    But it's not routine. Here's what one doctor says:

    http://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/toxicology-and-the-autopsy/

    Relating that back to the World Trade Center, I would not say the cause of the collapse was unknown. It was the planes flying into the buildings and the fire. The unknowns were just exactly how it happened.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So you are saying: 'Someone falls down stairs & breaks neck = routine toxicology. Standard procedure.... (in case they were drunk? so what), in case they were poisoned?... more like it.

    House burns down... guy says, 'Warned wife loads of times not to smoke in bed but she would never listen'.... test for accelerants? Standard procedure.

    Terrorists known to plant bombs, ram planes into buildings, explosions heard, buildings collapse... test for accelerants? Standard procedure not.
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Standard procedure not, it is. Terrorists are not known to plant bombs in building and then run planes into them, burning the buildings for an hour, which then collapse without bangs.

    A more accurate analogy would be a crazy guy stabbing someone in the neck multiple times, slicing into arteries and the spinal column, the victim then bleeds out dramatically, and dies an hour later from what looks like loss of blood.

    Would you then check their blood for every known toxin, just in case?

    No, the guy was stabbed to death.

    Planes flew into the world trade center, it caught fire and later collapsed.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Standard procedure not, it is. Terrorists are not known to plant bombs in building and then run planes into them, burning the buildings for an hour, which then collapse without bangs.

    A more accurate analogy would be a crazy guy stabbing someone in the neck multiple times, slicing into arteries and the spinal column, the victim then bleeds out dramatically, and dies an hour later from what looks like loss of blood.

    Would you then check their blood for every known toxin, just in case?

    No, the guy was stabbed to death.

    Planes flew into the world trade center, it caught fire and later collapsed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  35. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    They had folks looking for anything in the debris that would have indicated bombs. There were NO seismic spikes that would have reflected bombs. No explosions were every verified. Loud noises are NOT explosions.

    If a burning plane had crashed into the house, would they look for lighter fluid? That is what you wanted them to do.

    They have a perfectly reasonable explanation of what caused the collapse. An implosion has requires things that NO one has been able to explain. HOW they were set, Who set them, How they were protected from fire, how they were triggered.
     
  36. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    And which part of that is true at 9/11 timeline.

    "Terrorists are not known to plant bombs in building"... no that's not true is it; they are well known for that and also for setting them off and blowing stuff up.

    But if we add "and then run planes into them", that makes the sentence viable if misleading because no, terrorists had not run planes into buildings up to that point... it was unheard of.

    And for good measure we have
    But yes, this again is absolutely unheard of... never before have these type of buildings collapsed due primarily to fire... mmmmm.... Better not check to see if those sneaky terrorists managed to get up to their usual tricks and put explosives in there. We'll just assume our high rise offices will fail and collapse straight down in a few hours if they catch fire and everyone will be happy with that.

    And that's the whole story... proof positive?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Kind of butting heads here.

    Let's step slightly to the side. Ignore the question of if testing for explosives actually was necessary. Do you think that people at NIST thought that testing for explosives was necessary? Do you think they even considered it?
     
  38. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Why was it necessary for conspirator's plan that the buildings had to collapse?

    Had they survived without collapsing, do you think it remotely likely that they would have been restored?

    Is it not reasonable to suggest that the buildings would have been condemned like the Deutchebank building and then demolished later?

    Don't you think the spectacle of the planes crashing into the buildings was enough to persuade the masses into revenge, or do you think it just would have been insufficiently cinematic without a total collapse?

    If I were a conspirator, why would I choose to add an extra several layers of complexity to an already complex-beyond-reason-plan, and the layers are the ones most likely to be discovered? Why would I choose to increase the risk of discovery or failure by doing that?

    Take me through the conspiracy, step by step...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I see how they did it.

    They were stationed in WTC1 and 2, to get up to the top somewhere, carrying with them a suitcase bomb.

    ALLAH was then to help them fly down the collapse to see if they could plant their bomb somewhere useful, and as it happened they landed in WTC7 and, lo, bob's-yer-uncle.

    Others were planted in the planes, but ALLAH couldn't slow them carefully enough, and they were toast.

    Wind direction was a bit of a problem, you see. Variable, look you, so even ALLAH wasn't quite sure which building to pick. Turned out to be WTC7.

    [video=youtube_share;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]
     
  40. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Hello Jazzy :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.