In sum, explosions =/= explosives is the complete argument of why you think it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility and thereby ignore standard investigative procedure. Are you comfortable with that summation?
Again: in sum, explosions =/= explosives is the complete argument of why you think it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility and thereby ignore standard investigative procedure.
Or to put it another way: there's no point in following standard investigative procedures into the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 because your cooker caught fire the other day.
Obviously though you wouldn't rule the question out without proper investigation, particularly on a day like 9/11. That would be wholly unscientific, wouldn't you agree?
Obviously though you wouldn't rule the question out without proper investigation, particularly on a day like 9/11. That would be wholly unscientific, wouldn't you agree?
13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
I've dealt with this already. What exactly did NIST's investigation of blast events involve? A calculation of how loud an RDX explosion might be?
Again: in sum, explosions =/= explosives is the complete argument of why you think it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility and thereby ignore standard investigative procedure.
I've dealt with this already. What exactly did NIST's investigation of blast events involve? A calculation of how loud an RDX explosion might be?
Again: in sum, explosions =/= explosives is the complete argument of why you think it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility and thereby ignore standard investigative procedure.
Please point out to where I said "it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility".
Its simply the fact that they didn't investigate to your liking is not evidence toward your belief that the building did not come down the way they said it did.
Its simply the fact that they didn't investigate to your liking is not evidence toward your belief that the building did not come down the way they said it did.
Do you have and evidence that checking for explosive residue is part of an investigation of a fire with a known origin? This wasn't a fire that started in the middle of night, They knew what started the fires. It seems that a major problem among the 9/11 CT ers is an inability to understand the destructive ability of fire.
Yes. High-order damage, NFPA 921. Please observe that you are suggesting correct fire investigation procedure is to "know" the origin of a fire before beginning the investigation, and use this "knowledge" to rule out possibilities without examining the evidence.
This is not the kind of knowledge Emerson was referring to in his quote you have mangled and then claimed as your own.
If you find a pile of horse droppings in a city street after the Budweiser wagon goes by , you don't go comparing it to zebras, donkeys, Exmoor ponies and Przewalski horses. You would compare it to Clydesdale, if the Owen's country sausage wagon was also in the parade, you would look for Belgian DNA.
If you find a pile of horse droppings in a city street after the Budweiser wagon goes by , you don't go comparing it to zebras, donkeys, Exmoor ponies and Przewalski horses. You would compare it to Clydesdale, if the Owen's country sausage wagon was also in the parade, you would look for Belgian DNA.
Do you want to send me a computer that I can watch it on? I have posted multiple times that my computer freezes up when I try to watch a video--it does the same with Farmville.
It is not any more absurd that insisting they were imploded.
If you can't pull the information and present it, then that is your problem.
By the way, do you have a copy of it or access to the entire document? Or are you just believing what someone cherry picked from it?
I have asked you and others to present what is done, and not responses. Why is that?
Cairenn, there's even a thread about NFPA921 already on this forum. I don't know why it's so amazing to you that there are rules specifying how a fire investigation should be properly conducted.
The basic rule, you will perhaps be astonished to learn, is not to assume your conclusions before starting the investigation. This is necessary in science.
NIST examined no physical steel from the building at all. That is the actual title of this thread. So why would you assert something to the contrary?
You also appear surprised and doubtful that there are clear rules about how forensic fire investigations should be conducted. Are you surprised that testing for accelerants is required once the fire and damage is of a certain magnitude? Does that seem unreasonable to you?
I'm delighted we have grounds for agreement here, Jazzy. Once I'm back from taking the baby for a walk, perhaps we can explore why these rules were not followed on this important occasion. Have you any reasonable suggestions?
I'm delighted we have grounds for agreement here, Jazzy. Once I'm back from taking the baby for a walk, perhaps we can explore why these rules were not followed on this important occasion. Have you any reasonable suggestions?
Where the heck did you get that idea? I asked you if you had read NFPA921. I noticed that instead of responding you choose to start what seems to be some veiled attacks on me.
I ask you again, have you read it? is it available on line?
1) they did follow the methodology laid out in NFPA 921 (read chapter 4)
2) NFPA 921 isn't law, it's a guideline to follow, it even says so in the introduction.
a model for the advancement and practice of fire and explosion investigation, fire science, technology, and methodology.
And the courts, such as the judge in the case of McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp, say
[NFPA 921] represents the national standard with regard to appropriate methodology for investigation by fire science experts... it is the gold standard for fire investigations.
Why should NIST be allowed to ignore this gold standard of fire investigation guidelines, Josh?
Chapter 4 states:
4.4.4 Collecting and Preserving Evidence. Valuable physical evidence should be recognized, documented, properly collected, and preserved for further testing and evaluation or courtroom presentation.
Where is the documentation, examination or discussion of any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 in the NIST report?
Chapter 18 states:
18.5.3 The investigator should use the scientific method... This process of consideration actually involves the development and testing of alternate hypotheses... Systematic evaluation (hypothesis testing) is then conducted with the elimination of those hypotheses that are not supportable (or refuted) by the facts discovered through further examination.
Where is the development, testing and elimination of alternative hypotheses documented in the NIST report?
4.3.7 Avoid Presumption of Cause. Until data have been collected, no specific hypothesis can be reasonably formed or treated. All fires... should be approached by the investigator without presumption.
Really? There's nothing in it about NIST's failure to test for explosives/accelerants or its failure to test the steel.
It does, however, say this:
Why did WTC 7 collapse? Good question. The investigators were baffled.
So the investigators were baffled. Baffled!
But not so baffled that they thought it would be worth eliminating the possibility that explosives were involved, which would only be following the gold standard of fire investigation procedures, recognised by courts throughout the US.
Yes, the baffled investigators were able to eliminate that possibility without even looking.
Yes. Let's imagine that it took them a while. "The un-baffling" process probably went like this:
"How the f--k did that fall down?"
"Well, it DID burn for seven hours".
But it dropped straight down like a CD".
"No bang".
"There are silent ways of cutting steel, like thermite".
"What sets thermite off?"
"Heat".
"Then how did the thermite NOT go off for seven hours?"
"It must have been water-cooled with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through thickly-asbestos-insulated pipes".
Yes. Let's imagine that it took them a while. "The un-baffling" process probably went like this:
"How the f--k did that fall down?"
"Well, it DID burn for seven hours".
But it dropped straight down like a CD".
"No bang".
"There are silent ways of cutting steel, like thermite".
"What sets thermite off?"
"Heat".
"Then how did the thermite NOT go off for seven hours?"
"It must have been water-cooled with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through thickly-asbestos-insulated pipes".
1: Google "nfpa 921 metabunk" (you don't need the quote marks)
2: I've focused on the methodology and read that part in most detail. Have you read it all? If so, perhaps you can explain why the parts I quoted for Josh shouldn't apply in this case.
3: That's not a question, but well done.
Cairenn, this is not a loaded question. I have answered your questions, perhaps then you can directly answer just one of mine. A mere yes or no will be sufficient. I asked you:
jomper said:
Are you surprised that testing for accelerants is required once the fire and damage is of a certain magnitude? Does that seem unreasonable to you?
I can tell you that I would fully expect fire investigation codes to require testing for accelerants once fire and damage to a building is more than a certain magnitude, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that this should be the case.
No. It's logic, an extension of which is the scientific method which it precedes.
I recommend its initial use in this case, in the interests of economy and brevity.
So, as you obviously support the idea of water-cooling with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through thickly-asbestos-insulated pipes, then perhaps you could tell me how the radio signal penetrated the water jackets to reach the receivers, to set off the igniters?
18.5.3 The investigator should use the scientific method... This process of consideration actually involves the development and testing of alternate hypotheses... Systematic evaluation (hypothesis testing) is then conducted with the elimination of those hypotheses that are not supportable (or refuted) by the facts discovered through further examination.
The reason you are not being logical in this case is partly because you have assumed a conclusion based on the highly unscientific and questionable assertion that there was
Incidentally Jazzy, the the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook also disagrees with your "no bang" logic, as stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General: “…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
Actually, whether or not there was a bang makes absolutely no difference, because explosives suffer the same heat difficulties, in fact even more so, as does thermite or thermate.
Incidentally Jazzy, the the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook also disagrees with your "no bang" logic, as stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General: “…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
I quite agree. But it's not about the bang, and you know it.
Using deliberately diversionary tactics in a debate to further truth is not on, is it? So why use them?
So, as you obviously support the idea of water-cooling with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through thickly-asbestos-insulated pipes, then perhaps you could tell me how the radio signal penetrated the water jackets to reach the receivers, to set off the igniters?
Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near
the towers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like
explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that
explosives were not used.
Arguing over who heard explosion-like noise
s, when they heard them, how loud they
were or from what direction they came is a pointless exercise. This is not to imply that
any witness should be ridiculed or dismissed; however, such subjective, highly
interpretive statements do nothing to prove or disprove the presence of explosives.
Simply put, there are countless causes of sharp, loud noises that have no relation to
explosives.
The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-
reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent
ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several
seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more
fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lam
ont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to
the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field
technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground
vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a
single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event.
At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by
any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
This evidence makes a compelling argument agai
nst explosive demolition. The laws of
physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have
transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would
certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough
to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data
reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
Using seismographs for liability purposes doesn't make them seismologists.
The USGS report on the Kingdome demolition in 2000 writes:
At least three parallel sets of coherent P-wave arrivals are observed. These arrivals are preceded by less prominent arrivals that may represent the signals produced by the demolition charges themselves.
They used 228 seismographs, 5 different types, most of them buried underground, placed in a hexadiagonal grid covering Seattle and centered around the Kingdome, not for some liability purposes or measuring earthquakes, they were placed there for one reason: to record the seismic signature of the demolition. But when they publish the preliminary report two years later, these professional seismologists are not prepared to say anything more definite than "may represent".
And there is a big difference between blowing up concrete and cutting through steel: With concrete the charge is placed inside, most of the energy is transferred to the structure. With cutting charges a metal liner is pushed together into a thin layer of liquid metal that moves at speeds in excess of 10 km/s, cutting through the steel; little energy is transferred to the rest of the structure, it's like the tablecloth trick: if you pull fast enough inertia will keep the plates and glasses in place.
We've seen other amateur interpretations of seismic recordings of 9/11, all of them bullshit. Leave seismology to the professionals.
Actually, whether or not there was a bang makes absolutely no difference, because explosives suffer the same heat difficulties, in fact even more so, as does thermite or thermate.
Let's leave aside the fact that heat-resistant explosive technology exists. I don't want to be accused of using deliberately diversionary tactics. I don't even want to be drawn too far into speculating on alternative hypotheses at this point. I don't need to go any further than point out NIST ignored standard fire investigation protocols for no scientifically acceptable reason. In fact, the reasoning NIST used was absurd, and is an excellent example of why the correct method needed to be codified.
So, as you obviously support the idea of water-cooling with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through thickly-asbestos-insulated pipes, then perhaps you could tell me how the radio signal penetrated the water jackets to reach the receivers, to set off the igniters?
No, I support the application of the principles codified in NFPA 921, specifically testing for accelerants. The burden-shifting you are engaged in here suggests you do not. Do you?
I disagree. That it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to bring about the collapse, using explosives or thermite/thermate, after seven hours of un-fought and peripatetic fire, IS a good (and scientific!) reason.
In fact, the reasoning NIST used was absurd, and is an excellent example of why the correct method needed to be codified. You brought up the question of the bang, not me. I agree, deliberately diversionary tactics are not on.
I quite agree. But it's not about the bang, and you know it.
Using deliberately diversionary tactics in a debate to further truth is not on, is it? So why use them?
So, as you obviously support the idea of water-cooling with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through heavily-lagged pipes, then perhaps you could tell me how the radio signal penetrated the water jackets to reach the receivers, to set off the igniters?
[That] it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to bring about the collapse, using explosives or thermite/thermate, after seven hours of un-fought and peripatetic fire, IS a good (and scientific!) reason [for not testing for accelerants].
So just to be clear before we proceed: this argument is why you are asserting that it was wholly unnecessary to test for accelerants at WTC 7, and you are saying that what you have written here is an entirely scientific rationale for ignoring the clear requirements of NFPA 921 to do so.
Is there anything you'd like to add to this argument, or is this statement your complete case?