Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    The thread is 'Does NIST not testing for explosives or testing the steel, invalidate everything, so the questions you pose, and which have been discussed on other threads on this site, are off topic on this thread.

    As to if these facts invalidate everything, I would suggest that is a bit strong but certainly it leaves many questions concerning the validity of the investigation and it's conclusions.

    Ok, you are happy with the way it was handled but many are not.
  2. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Well I suppose the only other thing to do is chalk it up as a difference of opinion

    Good argument.

    I think they must have considered it. Not only that, they must have considered the implications of 'not testing'. I suggest it was no lightly taken decision.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What were the implication? And what reason do you think they used to make the decision? Do you think they made the decision not to test for dust independent of the PTB? You think the PTB just got lucky there?
  4. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    They knew full well there would be strident and persistent criticism that they should have tested and 'it is suspicious that they didn't'. It was an issue right from the outset.

    How much would it have cost to cover all the bases?

    How much effort would it have been?

    Both would have been minimal and the benefit would have been in being able to say, 'we did it by the book... 'it was a thorough investigation'... 'there was no cover up'.

    To me, it is so irrational that they didn't test, that I can only conclude the decision came from TPTB.
  5. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Is it really off-topic? If you believe the building were destroyed by explosives, then there must have been a reason to believe that.

    Apart from the lack of physical evidence, what is the tactical or strategic advantage to the conspirators that would cause them to go to all that trouble, and risk?

    I might be more persuaded to look for explosives if I knew what the motive was.
  6. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Surely the whole point is THERE COULD BE NO MOTIVE.

    The reasons WTC 1 fell on to WTC 7 were HAPPENSTANCE: the planes struck willy-nilly, the columns were struck willy-nilly, to a certain extent the fires burnt willy-nilly, and the collapse failures occurred and developed willy-nilly.

    Finally, the wind direction was also a variable. It was quite possible for the pilots to have chosen which faces of the tower to attack according with the wind direction of the day, and for them to have been different faces.

    Events that occur as natural consequences of other randomly-picked or randomly-occurring events cannot possibly have a MOTIVE ascribed to them.

    And without motive there is indeed no reason to search for explosives, and certainly no need to sample the steel.

    They knew what the steel was made of. The information was in the architect's files.

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    'Willy-nilly'? What in the world are you talking about? The attack wasn't 'willy-nilly', it was a carefully planned operation with chosen targets, regardless of who you believe was behind it. 'Willy-nilly' doesn't apply in the slightest.
    So 9/11 was a big old random accident..? The hell are you on about...?
    Yet another entirely circular argument, which depends on the assumption that the WTC 7 collapse was an entirely random event. That's a childish position to take in the context of this discussion, as our position is that WTC 7 wasn't a random event... what you're saying essentially amounts to "The WTC 7 collapse wasn't intentional because the WTC 7 collapse wasn't intentional, and a lack of any proof is the proof of that...! So there...!"
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It applies to the floor they were hit on, the columns that were severed, the angle of impact, the speed of impact, the bank of the plane, the fuel dispersion, and even the number of towers that were successfully hit.

    These were all things that could not have been predicted in advance, other than a rough range. So the actual outcome, and effect on surrounding buildings, was very much unknown.

    Like, when you break in pool, you are not breaking willy-nilly - you've got some intent, hit the top ball, it it hard, at a bit of an angle, don't bounce the cue ball, but for all the intent the position the balls end up in (and if you successfully pot something off the break) is still pretty much random.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    All of these factors were either pre-determined by the plotters, or chosen by the pilots, with intent.

    A standard break is hard to predict yes, but if you've arranged most all the balls on the table in a specific way, or compromised the table itself, a spectacular and seemingly spontaneous shot can be achieved over and over again, with little chance for failure. This is typically called a 'trickshot'. Many who see a trickshot and are most entertained by it think they're seeing chance at play, while a great deal of preparation and forethought was actually involved. The triple-collapse has always struck me as an example of a 'trickshot', in the guise of a 'lucky break'.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No they were not. That's physically impossible. The bank of the plane for example is a factor of aiming, last second corrections to hit the tower as close to center as possible. They might have decided to bank it more at the last second, but the actual angle would have been impossible to pre-determine.

    The impact floor number would have been impossible to predetermine except within a fairly wide range.

    And how would the pilot line up the engines with center columns that they could no even see?

    Indeed, and it clearly strikes lots of people that way, which is why the theory persists. But the trick was simply hijacking a plane and flying it into the middle of a building. Exactly where it hit and what happened after that were just where the balls happened to end up.

    They did not know if the buildings woudl collapse (but probably hoped they would). They did not know when they would collapse, or where exactly the debris would fall, or of it would structurally damage other buildings, or how it would damage those buildings, or which buildings would catch fire.

    And certainly the hijackers never planned to bring down building 7, any more than you plan to pot three specific balls of the break. The balls just went in the pocket.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    And the wind direction of the day modified the progression of the fires differently for each tower.

    The first plane struck WTC1 downwind, almost dead center and the through draft through the exit hole helped the fire cause the internal columns to creep, transferring loads to the impact hole surrounds, causing it to fail in the direction of WTC7.

    The other (upwind) strike piled up wreckage against the upwind SE tower corner. The internal columns were less affected, and the external columns on that face buckled almost in unison.

    A slight change in wind direction would probably have altered EVERY single event.
  12. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    The pilots chose where to hit. It's not at all unreasonable to suggest they'd discussed where to hit beforehand, even if this was just a pack of Jihadis. There would be no reason not to plan that, and that the planes both struck in generally similar locations is indicative of a plan. The pilots chose how fast they were going. Any last-second course corrections they chose to make.

    assumes the pilots were targeting core-columns. I don't think they were.

    Hijacking two planes, and flying them into the upper-middle sections of two buildings, in succession, entirely unobstructed by US authorities/security at almost every stage. Nothing simple about it.

    Unless it wasn't, and the balls wound up almost exactly where they were supposed too... which would be a problem wouldn't it? Physical proof was available to remove all doubt surrounding the hands-down most mysterious aspect of the already baffling collapse of the two towers, that being the third collapse of WTC7. It was destroyed rather than examined. No action was taken in regard to that destruction, and we're told it's unfortunate, 'but not a big deal'. On that I have and will continue to call shenanigans. Get your damn brooms.

    unless they did, which would be a problem, wouldn't it?

    I'd agree the Hijackers definitely wouldn't have been responsible for planning the collapse of building 7. That doesn't mean the collapse of building 7 wasn't planned. There was conclusive physical evidence available to the authorities that would have proven it, one way or the other. Either they find the beam that failed due to fire, or they find the beam/s that were compromised intentionally. A few million dollars, a few weeks/months of work, and the question would have been put to rest.

    The triple collapse was highly uncanny. To deny that is to willfully forget the reality faced that day. The apparently intentional shift of the national narrative right from the earliest days of the aftermath from 'highly uncanny and demanding thorough explanation' to 'don't worry about it, we're sure it was just fire, lets all do our best to move on with our lives, and by that we mean end those of a bunch of random middle-easterners.' was suspect. The refusal to grant broad powers to investigative teams in exploring the actions of failed authorities that day was suspect. The refusal to pursue the financial aspects of the crimes committed that day was suspect. The refusal of Bush and Cheney to answer questions separately/on the record was suspect. The gross underfunding and limited support of the investigative effort was suspect. The 'canary-in-a-coalmine' treatment of first responders was shameful to a high degree. You've heard it all before, it's all been said before, and I know a few folks here actually don't deny most of that, and just differ with me first on what it could mean, and second what should be done. I think it could mean a broader crime was taking place that day than Kamikaze-Jihadis, you don't. I think the uncanny events and these suspect/shameful behaviors warrant a more thorough investigation and a level of accountability that would see those involved punished for their failures, if not their crimes. You don't seem to agree with me on that either. It's this latter difference of opinion that really confuses me.
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So you think they knew the exact floor, impact angle, and the exact angle of the wings?

    Sure, then might have had a general target in mind (like "the middle"), they may well have hoped the buildings would collapse, but it is impossible for them to predict the exact nature of the damage the impact would cause. There are just too many variables.

    The problem of coordinating the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire with pre-planted incendiaries that would cause the buildings to collapse, starting on the floors that were on fire, is simply glossed over in most alternative version of events.

    Think about it. The buildings collapsed starting on the floors that were on fire, precisely where the plane hit.
  14. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

  15. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Surely I don't have to point out to you the difference between 'generally similar' and 'identical'?
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So what you are saying, if I might combine your two statements, is that
    And you think they planned exactly it that way? Within a few feet?
  17. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    No. I believe there could have been a plan to hit the general area of the buildings that would best explain the ensuing pre-determined collapse, but that absolute precision was neither required or expected, and would in fact prove detrimental to the presentation. I believe its possible that a demolition of some kind took place, perhaps in verinage style using an unconventional technology such as thermate/thermite. I believe it's entirely possible that enough devices could have been planted and concealed, that there were potential opportunities to do so, and these devices wouldn't necessarily have been without insulation against fire. I believe that if there was a 9/11 operation that went beyond OBL, to criminal factions perhaps with key positions in military/intelligence/administrations, that the WTC 7 collapse would be the one real fuck-up. I think it likely a more dramatic event was expected, such as far more extensive fires, to explain the instigation of the collapse, and when that failed to materialize, perhaps resulting in other slip-ups like the early reports of the collapse, desperate measures may have been taken to gloss over and conceal the mistake, such as exerting pressures to emphasize clean-up over investigation, and to turn attention away from building 7 in general. I'm not saying this all happened, I'm saying given the extraordinary nature of the triple collapse that it was worth investigating as a possibility from the start, especially when building 7 is considered, which the 9/11 commission was blatantly remiss and NIST obscenely late in doing.

    The official explanation provided for the collapse of the two towers makes a fair degree of sense even as unnatural as the events seemed, I don't deny that. Its true as well that, when considering only those two collapses, the above presented scenario seems far-fetched, to the point that it might not even be worth considering. But there was a third collapse. It was HIGHLY suspect, and thus should have called the uniformity of the tower collapses into question- and did for many, many people. As I've said before, it seemed as though that initial shock and suspicion was smothered, suppressed, and then finally demonized through the media rather than openly addressed by authorities and investigators, alienating a large portion of the population and really instigating this 'us vs. them' mentality developing between 'truthers' and 'sheeple'; which is a huge problem, as this site frequently demonstrates, in finding any sort of consensus as citizens, which in turn impedes our ability to act as citizens in an age when we need more than ever to utilize what collective power we have over our governments.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But what about the official explanation of WTC7? What doesn't make sense there?

    I think a lot of people got caught up in believing there was something fishy about WTC7 before the official report came out, then they just continued with the same line of thought after. There's these huge sticking points (the subject of this thread), but if you can get past that then the report does really make an incredible amount of sense. You could even just restrict it to the analysis of the fire, the damage, and the collapse sequence, and at least end up with the conclusion: "that was a lot of fire".

    The FULL report (53MB)

    Another thing I've been looking at that I think a lot of people overlook (besides the Penthouse collapse), is the views of the South side. Often obscured by smoke pouring from every window (which should tell you something), occasionally the smoke clears and you can see that pretty much the entire facade is damaged, every window is broken, and column 20 seems to be missing. I find it incredibly deceptive that people like AE911 just show the photos of the North side, and brush it off as some minor fires.



    But this is what the truthers like to show, and what many in the community come to accept as the state of WTC pre-collapse:

    I don't know where you are at with this, but I feel a lot of people have not really looked at all the evidence - and used the "they did not test ...." as an excuse not to look at that evidence.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  19. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    A single beam-collapse taking out an entire building in record time is a bit of a stretch for me. The computer models, while an impressive bit of computer modeling, end the very moment before they get around to explaining the generally level collapse of the exterior walls. It offers a believable looking scenario for what we couldn't have possibly seen, and then ends before adequately explaining what we all did see, as in the whole exterior of the building coming down level in a hurry. It briefly demonstrates significant and seemingly gradual crumpling at the corners of the outer structure I've certainly not seen demonstrated in the footage, and then just ends. Rendering a complex interior collapse based on projection and hypothesis due to the initial collapse of the penthouse and then failing to demonstrate the resultant exterior collapse which was the matter of fact actually observed in detail and captured as evidence, and how the interior collapse coincides with the exterior, isn't all that helpful to me. That they didn't bother with that, but took the time to produce a fantasy-render of 'what probably woulda happened' if the building had escaped significant debris-damage but was still on fire in the exact same places to the exact same extent for some reason or another, and in that scenario an exterior collapse is rendered in somewhat more detail, is just plain irritating. The point of doing this 'alternate scenario', especially if it was so very exhaustive a process to produce these things, truly eludes me.

    Possible. Six years is a very long time.

    'That was a lot of fire.' Is a relative personal observation. You can conclude it, I can debate it, a proper investigation should endeavor to prove it, especially under such grave and suspect circumstances. There have been many images provided in other threads of skyscrapers on fire. A lot of fire.

    it tells me the fires were by no means raging, as not a single one of those windows featured in the south-side view shows even the faintest flicker of firelight, as is only evident in the north-side view. The lack of firelight and heavy, black smoke indicates any fires on the south side were going out/out already, the smoke likely being from low smolders.The actual visible flames aren't that extensive, and are more apparent where the damage from rubble isn't. What might be a missing column is interesting, but it's not what NIST claimed was responsible/played a significant role in the collapse, was it? The collapse, regardless of debris damage, was due to fire officially.

    I feel a lot of people use this premise as an excuse to dismiss the obvious inadequacies surrounding the evidence they've been provided, and more importantly the evidence they haven't been provided.
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    As that is the only actual fire in the pics you posted and the rest was smoke, I think that is good going.

    The fires were piddling. I don't care how often you deny it... it is the truth.

    And as for the post collapse pictures of molten steel etc that you keep saying... 'Oh if it was there, where are all the pictures?'... Well perhaps this may account for the lack of pictures:
  21. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    You don't bother the evidence fairy much, do you??


    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And yet the reason I posted that particular photo was to demonstrate just how misleading it was. What do you think was going on on the other side? Someone fixed a dense smoke generator on every window on every floor?

    Define "piddling".
  23. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Walk me through it please, how many charges, how many people, how do they do it covertly? How are they initiated? Please give details, and not 'I can't believe Black-Ops people don't do this all the time'.
  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Well let's not forget what this thread is about... NIST not testing for explosives, which is compared to usual banal quips of well NIST did not test for termites, rust, aliens, unicorns etc ad nausea ad absurdum.

    Well if you simply listen to the OS, why should they when there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there could in any way possible be even the slightest stick of dynamite or even a firecracker because no one of all the millions of New Yorkers heard anything or experienced anything that could possibly be an explosion and on and on and on and on.......... and an and on..... for 12 years and counting.

    So we have to look at proper news sources instead of lamestream lying propagandist politico junk warmongering deny annything the gov doesn't want the sheeple to know until they have their brains cleaned to such a degree that they are so stupified all they want is to be left alone and watch any old sitcom on the tv and drink as much beer as possible to take the bad taste away.

    But for those with greater fortitude we can fire up the internet and look at WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

    Well that is a little taster, obviously there are many many more reports of these explosions and bombs going off but you all know that. No reports of any termite attacks or spacemen charging on unicorns so perhaps NIST were right not to check for that but as far as not checking for explosives... it was criminal negligence and I seriously cannot understand the workings of anyone's mind who sticks up for them.

    • Like Like x 1
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The thread is about if not testing for explosives then invalidates the rest of the evidence that WTC7 was brought down by fire. Is it a valid excuse to ignore and not address that evidence?

    To dismiss the fires as "piddling" is simply wrong, regardless of if you think there is evidence of explosives. Clearly there were some very long lasting and large fires. Equally clearly firefighters predicted the building was going to collapse because of those fires.
  26. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    not psychic, but alright...
    enough, presumably.
    5 over a couple of weeks? 20 over a few days? No idea.
    By pretending to be doing something else. Like, say, installing new fireproofing on a few specific floors.
    Remote? Timed device? Discreet manual trigger with a delay? Couldn't say.

    Dick Cheney, in the White-house, with the candlestick..!
  27. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I'd agree, but to emphasize them as being raging infernos is misleading. There were, indeed, large fires in the building. They were not however nearly as extensive, fast-spreading, of high-burning as other examples of far more intense office fires, examples which often burned just as long, if not significantly longer than WTC 7, and yet resulted in either no collapse or only minor partial collapses, and nothing remotely like the uniform, complete collapse of wtc 7. That doesn't discount the possibility of a random collapse due to fire, but it makes it hard for me to fathom the notion that a random collapse due to fire is the only possibility, especially considering no effort was made to gather conclusive/pertinent information from the body of physical evidence that could explain it.

    And here's an interesting point. It's true that a few firefighters were quoted as suggesting the building was going to collapse, and this is indeed evidence supportive of the official scenario worthy of note. That being said, why is it that when a first-responder is quoted as making a comment the day of in support of the official account, that quote is referenced by its proponents with an authority as if it were highly indicative of the reality of the situation... and yet, when a first responder is quoted as witnessing/experiencing something which contradicts the official account, that first responder was just mistaken/confused/traumatized/lying, and his/her testimony doesn't really constitute evidence of anything at all?
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Any particular examples in mind? Buildings differ, fires differ, circumstances differ. See:

    Because fire explains both accounts, and the collapse has been shown to be consistent with fire. Their experience do NOT contradict the official account.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    And 'which official account' are you referring to? The official account that 7 was brought down by fierce fires fuelled by diesel from con ed which 'melted' the steel, (melted as in heated enough to destroy it's structural integrity such that it buckled and collapsed in a progressive and total collapse or the official account that claimed 7's foundations were so damaged by the collapse of 1 &2 that 7 inevitably collapsed or the official account that the beams were unseated by expansion (which didn't affect the concrete and steel floors) other than to collapse them invisibly and in an imaginary way to make the outcome fit the method? Which official story is it. I take it it is the last one because no one wants to admit that the first two were ever put forward as official explanations over the previous 6 years because they were shown to be bogus.

    And yes, the fact they did no tests invalidates their findings because their findings are based on imagination involving no physical tests which everyone knows is not the basis of science. Science dictates that experiments should be able to be reproduced to show the cause and effect; not the other way around.

    As for bananas and custard analogies, that even applies to virtually identical towers such as 1 and 2, both constructed the same both hit by same planes but 'Oh they are incomparable as the wind direction, angle of attack, floors hit were all different resulting in totally different types of collapse. Except they were not that different apart from the minutiae. They both collapsed in a similar time frame in similar manner from similar damage at near freefall acceleration. Not much difference really, especially to the people within them.

    All three buildings had hot spots for months at the bases, same obfuscation and secrecy surrounding all events. Same crappy video with cut to blacks on impacts which were supposed to be live feeds that had dubbed sound on them... it is a travesty.

    And you keep saying 7's fires were not piddly but compared to fires in many other similar buildings of similar construction which did not collapse after burning far more intensely and for 3 or 4 times as long, they were piddly. Obviously as a 'technical term', it is relative and no I would not like to be trapped inside such a building and may well expect to die if I was but knowing what I know, I would expect to die from smoke inhalation or heat from the fires and not from being crushed to death by the building collapsing into it's own footprint in an implosion which is so difficult to do that it would take some amazing expert months to plan it and which happened entirely perfectly from random fires on random beams at random times and random damage from random ejecta which did not set fire to the buildings either side of it.

    And I agree, It was Dick Cheyne, in the Whitehouse, with a candlestick... case closed.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm referring to NCSTAR 1-9

    There were earlier theories, of course, just like in any investigation. Theories change or are disproven as new information comes to light. The diesel was found not to be a factor. I don't remember people taking about damage to the foundation, but I'm sure it's posible they were.

    Clearly though they can't just build another WTC7 and burn it down. They had to go by the available evidence: the spread of the fire, the observed damage from WTC1, the known structure of the building and the type of connections and steel used, the sequence of collapse.

    Not sure what your point is there.

    Now what are you suggesting? That the video was faked? That something happened on impact that was not shown?

    Which buildings? Let's analyze that.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  31. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Thank you. To be fair to you, no other truthers have a clue either.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member


    Piddling Fires.

    More small fires.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  33. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    This type of blatant, insulting antagonism/biased tirade is really unproductive....

    Piddling...yes, it is relative...compared to Jupiter the Earth is piddling...

    The FACT is the Windsor fire DID initiate collapse after only a couple hours of burning- collapse that was arrested by the design of the building not the size of the fire...

    ...and its more than "a few" firefighters who thought WTC7 was going to collapse- by this website's estimate it was 39 documented comments mentioning expected collapse.

    Even has a handy spreadsheet to break it all down for you:"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

    More comments on the piddling fires:

    Plenty more here:

    You have a large collection of eyewitness accounts from fire experts detailing the fire on scene across the timeline of the day versus a few select photos...

    But Grieves I agree with you about eyewitnesses detailing accounts contrary to the OS....its just that I haven't seen any accounts that are truly contradictory...I haven't seen any accounts of people SEEING bombs go off...just that they HEARD explosions...which given the nature of the catastrophe, I think would be the heat of the battle so-to-speak- I think it is logical and likely that people first conclusion is to think that the explosion or loud noise they heard was a "bomb" when it very well could have been...any number of things- elevators crashing to the ground or any number of combustible materials exploding...but since they were just attacked they assume its a "bomb".
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  36. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    NIST does nothing here but offer a parade of logical fallacies, irrelevancies and nonsense.
    What does this mean? What evidence was examined that eliminated the possibility of a blast event? We know no physical evidence from the building was examined by NIST, so what evidence is NIST talking about here? Computer simulations that can't be verified? In the absence of any explanation, it is mere bare assertion.
    An argument from incredulity based on calculations supposing conventional explosives were used, when the alternative hypothesis suggests a specialised explosive was used.
    Argument from incredulity.
    Argument from incredulity.
    So what if that's what usually happens? Argument from incredulity.
    Is this an acknowledgement on the part of NIST that the best alternative hypothesis is worth exploring? If so, isn't testing for explosive residue necessary?
    In what way did NIST examine this possibility? Bare assertion.
    Looks like we're heading for an argument from incredulity...
    Ah, just unlikely. The argument from incredulity here is so persuasive.
    What demonstrated structural response to the fires? The fact that the building fell down? That would be begging the question of what caused the building to fall down.

    Or is NIST is referring to its unverifiable computer simulations again?
    Bare assertion.
    In view of the fact that this was supposed to have been a forensic investigation, this is burden shifting.

    As anyone with a passing interest in chemistry knows, calcium sulphate (gypsum) does not release sulphur easily and certainly not under conditions such as office or rubble fires. If it did, of course, it would not be widely used inside buildings.

    The presence of significant quantities of sulphur is important evidence that should not have been overlooked. Truly absurd explanations from other parties even include the suggestion it came from acid rain.

    It is almost unbelievable that NIST should offer the obvious bunk that the sulphur came from gypsum as a serious suggestion. It is perhaps not so unbelievable that an organisation like the BBC, which successfully conspired to protect a predatory pedophile for decades, should repeat this suggestion without questioning it.
    No point in NIST doing any analysis, then. Burden shifting.
    Interminable burden shifting. It is as if NIST doesn't know what kind of chemical analysis is possible.
    Yes, good question. Why not?
    Eh? Saying broader procedures may be required doesn't mean existing procedures should be ignored. Exactly how are the fires supposed to be much more than typical office fires? Isn't the NIST hypothesis that office fires are responsible for the collapse?

    And what explosions are being referred to here? The ones that NIST absurdly insists didn't happen?

    These aren't even logical fallacies. It's just nonsense.
    The application of the scientific method involves considering, among other things, the falsifiability of a theory. NIST has demonstrably failed to do this with respect to the best alternative hypothesis, which it has acknowledged but wholly failed to show it has investigated.

    It is as if NIST doesn't realise the evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 exhibits striking features which a layman would reasonably say makes it appear engineered, an opinion confirmed by independent experts.
    However, all physical evidence from the building, including physical evidence that showed WTC 7 steel had been subject to a "mysterious" attack was ignored.
    which was hypothesised
    that cannot be independently verified in their modelled form.
    Neither of which are applicable to the alternative hypothesis
    which may be applicable but the precise consideration of this possibility is not documented...
    which is also not applicable to the alternative hypothesis.
    NIST first produced a hypothesis and then drylabbed a computer model to support it, a suggestion any true supporter of the scientific method would direct at an organisation that presents a computer model that cannot be verified as evidence of anything.
    An assertion so bare-faced and absurd it is laughable.

    I have already pointed out the serious geopolitical consequences of presenting this kind of text as evidence that the alternative hypothesis has been adequately examined, and suggest "debunkers" start there.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Then obviously a "passing" interest isn't good enough in this case, and perhaps the study of hot aqueous ionic chemistry would be more to the point, because I seem to remember that fireman played water onto red-hot rubble for weeks...

    Unless you're willing for your ignorance to be your guide? IMO that's your modus operandi. And my argument from incredulity.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2013
  38. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Water doesn't do it either without a catalyst, Jazzy. And the temperatures have to be precise.

  39. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    And who are you to say those conditions weren't met? Are you really suggesting there weren't suitable catalysts and temperatures in five hundred thousand tons of wetted hot wreckage?

    Thanks for confirming your MO.
  40. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    absolutely assuming what "they said" was actually accurate, but since those things very deliberately didn't happen, then what have you, an utterly false conclusion. Its obvious to all but the most staunch deniers that every column in the building let go at exactly the correct time ( virtually instantaneous for the exterior wall ) in order to bring the building down directly into its own footprint. This fact alone negates any chance of something that by definition is a random "progressive collapse" from occurring. Particularly since its never occurred before in any steal framed building. Instead what we see is a symmetrical collapse exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition

    It sounds redundant because it is, SUUUURRRREEEE we'd change our tune had an actual investigation have occurred, but that very deliberately didn't occur and so, given the facts, including the ones NIST specifically ignored ( little things like metal glowing at 1200°C when no office fire could have possibly burned any hotter than at absolute most 825°C ) we come to the inescapable conclusion that the NIST BS is BS and that what is most likely to be true, generally is.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.