Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything

[Mick West]

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

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.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment." 2

In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although "… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site." 3

16. For its study of WTC 7, why didn't NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?

NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST's WTC investigation, which responded to events that were much more than typical fires or explosions.

However, NIST's WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.*

Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.

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.

 

[Grieves]

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.

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?

 

[Mick West]

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?

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.

 

[Oxymoron]

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.

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

 

[Mick West]

Quantity of explosives discussion moved to:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...um-explosive-detonation-would-have-to-be-used

 

[hiper]

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.

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

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:

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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

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.

 

[Grieves]

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:

What physical evidence did they ignore?

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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.

 

[Grieves]

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.

Back to my previous post, which you seemingly didn't read...

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.

which leads back to my previous concluding statement,

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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.

 

[Grieves]

The tunnel vision is not on our side.

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'.

 

[HappyMonday]

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

 

[MikeC]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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

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?

 

[Grieves]

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

Glad to see that acknowledged.

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?

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.

 

[Cairenn]

"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.

 

[MikeC]

If a proper investigation had unfolded ......

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

 

[Grieves]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Grieves]

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

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?

 

[Mick West]

Glad to see that acknowledged.

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

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.

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!"

 

[Mick West]

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.

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?

 

[Grieves]

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?

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.

Where is the audio or the video of these bombs?

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.

Lots of confusion on the day of.

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.

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.

 

[MikeC]

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?

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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.

Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience
that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:
1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in
Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording
ground vibration throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These
measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data
recorded by Columbia University's Lam
ont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to
provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.
2. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff
photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to
document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero.
These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S.
Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously
throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally
examined untold amounts of debris, includi
ng countless structural elements from
WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally
intended to specifically prove or disprove
evidence of explosive demolition, they
do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and
place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying
on outside testimony or hearsay.
3. Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by
laborers and site foremen employed by t
he demolition companies responsible for
deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction,
D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway
Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to
have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one
of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec
documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the
demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida,
4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec's two-hour video was to archive the
unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and
commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.
4. Because building implosions are oft
en promoted as live news events, Protec's
offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our
company's archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of
9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted
beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed
us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modifi
cation. In addition, we have examined
dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various
documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and
aerial images captured by privat
e, press and government-contracted
photographers.
Protec and its employees have not been paid or
hired by anyone to analyze this event,
nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or
individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the
singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to
our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

 

[Jazzy]

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!"

Brilliant.

That's highly comic. Working it through.

 

[BombDr]

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.

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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.

No seismic spikes. FACT

 

[Oxymoron]

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.

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

Glenn McBride, a spokesman for the state medical examiner's office, said it could be months before his staff can release a final cause and manner of death for the two agents. He said they must wait for the results of routine toxicology tests.

 

[Cairenn]

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

 

[Mick West]

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

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/

Dr. Barbarajean Magnani, chief of clinical pathology of Tufts Medical Center in Boston and chair of the College of American Pathologists Toxicology Resource Committee

in most hospital autopsies toxicology testing is not routinely done. Patients who pass away while in the hospital are generally under the direct care of their doctor, and much of their medical history, including the medications they may have been taking, is known prior to the autopsy.


On the other hand, if a person dies unexpectedly while at home, is the victim of violence or a crime, or is found dead with no explanation, then the case is referred to the medical examiner or coroner for an autopsy. In these cases, each medical examiner's office may perform routine toxicology tests because the circumstances surrounding the death are ambiguous or unknown.


If there are specific reasons that additional toxicology tests may be needed, then the forensic chemist and the pathologist will consult with one another to determine what additional testing may be needed. For example, if the deceased is suspected of a fatal overdose of prescribed medications (or of an illicit drug), then the pathologist may request more specific or additional toxicology tests.

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.

 

[Oxymoron]

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/

Dr. Barbarajean Magnani, chief of clinical pathology of Tufts Medical Center in Boston and chair of the College of American Pathologists Toxicology Resource Committee

in most hospital autopsies toxicology testing is not routinely done. Patients who pass away while in the hospital are generally under the direct care of their doctor, and much of their medical history, including the medications they may have been taking, is known prior to the autopsy.


On the other hand, if a person dies unexpectedly while at home, is the victim of violence or a crime, or is found dead with no explanation, then the case is referred to the medical examiner or coroner for an autopsy. In these cases, each medical examiner's office may perform routine toxicology tests because the circumstances surrounding the death are ambiguous or unknown.


If there are specific reasons that additional toxicology tests may be needed, then the forensic chemist and the pathologist will consult with one another to determine what additional testing may be needed. For example, if the deceased is suspected of a fatal overdose of prescribed medications (or of an illicit drug), then the pathologist may request more specific or additional toxicology tests.

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.

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

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.

 

[Cairenn]

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.

 

[Oxymoron]

Standard procedure not, it is. Terrorists are not known to plant bombs in building and then run planes into them,

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

burning the buildings for an hour, which then collapse without bangs.

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.

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

And that's the whole story... proof positive?

 

[Mick West]

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?

 

[BombDr]

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?

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...

 

[Jazzy]

Better not check to see if those sneaky terrorists managed to get up to their usual tricks and put explosives in there.

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]

 

[Oxymoron]

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]

Hello Jazzy