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

Status
Not open for further replies.

SR1419

Senior Member
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?

Of course, it is not the case that there were no explosions at the time of collapse, but let me ask you if I have expressed your position properly first.
Nope- I am simply referring to the idea that not every explosive noise must be equated with or is evidence of a bomb.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Cairenn said:
I had a minor explosion
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.

(How can you possibly claim authorship of that Emerson quote? It's amazing: you've done nothing more than make it ungrammatical. Isn't it an insult to a great writer to claim you thought it up yourself?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
Nope- I am simply referring to the idea that not every explosive noise must be equated with or is evidence of a bomb.
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?
 

SR1419

Senior Member
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?
indeed it was "investigated":

 

jomper

Inactive Member
indeed it was "investigated":

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.

It's not a rational proposition, is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member
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.

It's not a rational proposition, is it?
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
Please point out to where I said "it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility".
As I said, I'm summarising your position. Please clarify what you're not comfortable with.
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.
My belief is that fire investigation protocols should have been followed. Why do you believe they should have been ignored?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
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.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Do you have and evidence that checking for explosive residue is part of an investigation of a fire with a known origin?
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.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member
And you post a You Tube about something else.

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.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
And you post a You Tube about something else.

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.
You love absurd analogies, don't you? And if you'd watched that video you'd have learned about NFPA921.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
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?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
They examined the evidence and found that the collapse was caused by fire and the damage. They followed the science.

There was not need to look for something exotic when the evidence pointed at fire.

Please point out the thread where that is discussed. I did a search for it and the only mentions were in this thread and there were 2 of them.

You can stop the veiled insults.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
They examined the evidence and found that the collapse was caused by fire and the damage. They followed the science.

There was not need to look for something exotic when the evidence pointed at fire.

You can stop the veiled insults.
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?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
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?
No. I had decided to answer the question in the thread: "Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything?"

I wasn't talking to you. Please don't take it personally.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
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?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
What is sad about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical and supportable conclusion??:confused::confused:
I was referring to my disappointment that I had not found common ground with Jazzy.

Cairenn, I'd like a yes or no answer to my final question to you at post 175, if you'd be so kind.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I see no reason to answer a question that was worded in the form of a 'have you stopped beating your wife' question.

I never said anything about being 'surprised'. You made that up.

I asked you 3 questions.
1) Where is it referenced on metabunk, other than this thread?
2) Have you read the entire document?
3) I found a copy
 

jomper

Inactive Member
2) NFPA 921 isn't law, it's a guideline to follow, it even says so in the introduction.
That's right. It describes itself as
And the courts, such as the judge in the case of McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp, say
Why should NIST be allowed to ignore this gold standard of fire investigation guidelines, Josh?

Chapter 4 states:
Where is the documentation, examination or discussion of any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 in the NIST report?

Chapter 18 states:
Where is the development, testing and elimination of alternative hypotheses documented in the NIST report?

1) they did follow the methodology laid out in NFPA 921 (read chapter 4)
You mean this?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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:
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.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
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".

"Of course. Get out of here".

That "while" would have taken about a minute...
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
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".

"Of course. Get out of here".
Not exactly the scientific method, is it? Roffle
 

jomper

Inactive Member
I asked you 3 questions.
1) Where is it referenced on metabunk, other than this thread?
2) Have you read the entire document?
3) I found a copy
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.
I see no reason to answer a question that was worded in the form of a 'have you stopped beating your wife' question.
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.

Does it seem reasonable to you?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Not exactly the scientific method, is it? Roffle
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?
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
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.
It's not a logical response to this, Jazzy:
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
"No bang"
and used this to rule out examining the evidence.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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.”
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
assertion that there was "no bang"
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?
 

Elfenlied

Member
No seismic spikes. FACT
Using seismographs for liability purposes doesn't make them seismologists.

The USGS report on the Kingdome demolition in 2000 writes:
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.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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.
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?
You brought up the question of the bang, not me. I agree, deliberately diversonary tactics are not on.
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?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I'm sure NIST didn't.

I don't want to be accused of using deliberately diversionary tactics.
I'll accept that you weren't deliberately diversionary - the first time.

I don't even want to be drawn too far into speculating on alternative hypotheses at this point.
It's a heavy load...

I don't need to go any further than point out NIST ignored standard fire investigation protocols for no scientifically acceptable reason.
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'm glad about that.

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?

The burden-shifting you are engaged in here
Whoa, there.... LOL.
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
[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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top