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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The NIST investigation was about the collapse of WTC7, so if you want to judge their work, you really want to look at "collapse investigation protocols" (if those exist). Fire investigations are primarily about identifying the cause or culprit of the fire, collapse investigation is about cause or responsibility for the collapse: the owner using the building for a purpose it wasn't designed for, the engineer who delivered a faulty design, the architect who didn't consult a structural engineer, the contractor who didn't comply with engineering drawings and specifications, or shortcomings in the existing building codes. With different focus and objectives, the protocols of fire investigations have limited relevance imo.

BTW: fire-proofing an explosive charge while still allowing radio signals to pass is relatively easy, a protective layer of vermiculite or asbestos (of sufficient thickness) will do the trick; you might even use refractory material to isolate the thermite from the column in such a way that upon ignition the molten iron would flow towards the column, make contact with the steel and melt it. Should be a piece of cake for the genius able to foresee a six hour blaze caused by a plane crashing in another building. And low frequency signals (few hundred kHz) will pass through a few inches of water.
It's easier to debunk a theory by pointing out one specific technical detail that is impossible, than to show the impossibility of the total event, but apart from the Sci-Fi scenarios with energy weapons, CGI in the sky or nano-nukes, most of the details, like muffle the sound of an explosion, use thermite to cut a column, keep explosives cool in a six hour blaze.. they all could probably be achieved on their own (given enough resources), when they are the only imposed condition. It's the combination of all of them that is impossible.
 
Is there anything you'd like to add to this argument, or is this statement your complete case?
I tell you what. I'll give you an answer after you answer the following:

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 NIST investigation was about the collapse of WTC7, so if you want to judge their work, you really want to look at "collapse investigation protocols" (if those exist). Fire investigations are primarily about identifying the cause or culprit of the fire, collapse investigation is about cause or responsibility for the collapse: the owner using the building for a purpose it wasn't designed for, the engineer who delivered a faulty design, the architect who didn't consult a structural engineer, the contractor who didn't comply with engineering drawings and specifications, or shortcomings in the existing building codes. With different focus and objectives, the protocols of fire investigations have limited relevance imo.
Exactly so.

they all could probably be achieved on their own (given enough resources), when they are the only imposed condition. It's the combination of all of them that is impossible.
Exactly so. Well nearly...

I have the feeling that six (I thought it was seven) hours at temperatures above 600 deg C would defeat loosely-packed perlite, just as it obviously defeated the dry insulation applied to the floors, beams, and columns of WTC7. Hence my suggesting water-cooling, which would last as long as the water supply.

But there was no water supply. So each charge would have required its own insulated header tank.

And you could pass an insulated aerial through the water jacket. It would have to be a BIG low-frequency signal to be guaranteed to pass through the water in the jacketed charges throughout the skyscraper, and of course, the jackets couldn't be made of metal. And there again, aerials might well be burnt off by the fire, so they would need to stand within separate tubes of non-metallic fire-resisting material.

Now were the talented and experienced engineers of NIST incapable of establishing this in the course of their investigation?

I think not.

Anyway, thanks for a dash of clarity there. :)

The truther premise that the building couldn't collapse straight down, as it was a redundant structure, is totally false.

It was nowhere near a redundant structure: the interior had no diagonal bracing and its columns stood on a bridge beam, which by definition made them non-redundant.

Lateral loads were resisted by the exterior faces of the building, which is why the interior could easily collapse, leaving the exterior intact. Momentarily.

The exterior buckled because the interior wreckage gathering within it, from the base upwards, pushed it outwards from within. Its own weight finished the job off.
 
Last edited:
Fire investigations are primarily about identifying the cause or culprit of the fire, collapse investigation is about cause or responsibility for the collapse
And the cause or responsibility for the collapse, according to NIST, was not damage from the towers, but...?
 
I tell you what. I'll give you an answer after you answer the following:

As you obviously support the idea of ...
So you accuse me of
using deliberately diversionary tactics
and yet you want to drive the discussion up the garden path of what you think an alternative hypothesis (which I "obviously" support) demands before you answer a direct question?

I don't need to support the thermate hypothesis to ask why NIST didn't test for accelerants when investigating the complete collapse of a building that was on fire.

However I think any reasonable person would expect NIST to follow the best practice of fire investigation procedure, as codified in NFPA 921, and if you can explain why NIST failed to take the reasonable step of testing for accelerants in accordance with this code I suggest you do so.

So at this point I'm asking you for the second time if your statement
[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].
is your complete case for your assertion that it was wholly unnecessary to test for accelerants at WTC 7, and I am asking you if what you have said here is your full scientific rationale for ignoring the clear requirements of NFPA 921.
 
jomper, You created a fantasy about what I said.

Thank you for pointing out that thread. A couple of points from it


External Quote:
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.
This is from another poster there.

External Quote:
The largest building brought down in that manner was the J. L. Hudson building and annex. The following is a ummary of the seven months of preparation it took, and I believe the building was empty at the time. Can you imagine how, only three years later, not one but three taller buildings could have been imploded and the setup done while they were occupied?

"Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson's the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.


Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.


CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
Please note this part
External Quote:
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
Considered and dismissed, because the FACTS showed that the fires, the damage and the construction of the building was the cause. No explosives needed

They were not investigating a fire, but a building collapse. With the info from the other thread, I now consider this part of the discussion closed.
 
I now consider this part of the discussion closed.
What is most significant about your post here Cairenn is you have avoided answering a simple yes or no question that is relevant to the topic -- for the second time. As I said, it is not a loaded question.

This is the question for a third time, although I have no doubt you will again avoid a direct answer:

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?

What is less interesting is that you have re-posted the NIST material I responded to four pages back: perhaps repeating the same thing somehow makes it "true" in your mind: an allegation I know you'd like to level at "truthers".

So here's some of what I wrote again.
External Quote:
For its study of WTC 7, why didn't NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?
Yes, good question. Why not?
External Quote:
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.
Eh? Saying broader procedures may be required doesn't mean existing procedures should be ignored. Exactly how are the fires supposed to be much more than typical office fires? Isn't the NIST hypothesis that office fires are responsible for the collapse?

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

External Quote:
However, NIST's WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method.
The application of the scientific method involves considering, among other things, the falsifiability of a theory. NIST has demonstrably failed to do this with respect to the best alternative hypothesis, which it has acknowledged but wholly failed to show it has investigated.

It is as if NIST doesn't realise the evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 exhibits striking features which a layman would reasonably say makes it appear engineered, an opinion confirmed by independent experts.
External Quote:
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)
However, all physical evidence from the building, including physical evidence that showed WTC 7 steel had been subject to a "mysterious" attack was ignored.
External Quote:
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,
Neither of which are applicable to the alternative hypothesis
External Quote:
hypothetical blast events
which may be applicable but the precise consideration of this possibility is not documented...
External Quote:
and fires within the Con Ed substation
which is also not applicable to the alternative hypothesis.
External Quote:

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.
NIST first produced a hypothesis and then drylabbed a computer model to support it, a suggestion any true supporter of the scientific method would direct at an organisation that presents a computer model that cannot be verified as evidence of anything.
External Quote:
This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.
An assertion so bare-faced and absurd it is laughable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And what explosions are being referred to here? The ones that NIST absurdly insists didn't happen?

No - not those ones.

It's the ones that people like you insist did happen but for which there is exactly ZERO evidence.
 
I was NEVER surprised, period, so why should I answer a question about being surprised? Do you really think I am that dumb?

I will ask you this. Why do you think that some other method was used and what do you think it is?

There is no evidence of a 'mysterious attack'. That has been explained in multiple places here and elsewhere.

Did you read the article in Structure Magazine?

Here is the link to it again

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf


Are you going to ignore that again? or dismiss it? because it doesn't agree with your theory.
 
I was NEVER surprised
So in fact it's what you fully expected. Thank you for that, Cairenn. I'm the same.

So, since we agree that it is only to be expected that the gold standard of fire investigation codes would demand testing for accelerants if fire damage is beyond a certain magnitude, I'm sure you'll join me in calling for this important forensic testing to be done on all and any remaining evidence from the collapse of WTC 7 immediately.
 
Last edited:
That's because NIST examined exactly ZERO evidence from the building.

No - it is because there is actually zero evidence.


Of course you are sure - because you know that they are either nonsense or debunked long ago.

That fact that you failed to provide any actual eyewitness evidence shows that - Would you like to provide some? Because these links are not eyewitness reports, and the NIST did look at the audio evidence:

External Quote:
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.
There was no sound of explosions on any of het multiple recordings of WTC 7's collapse - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-youtube-video-needs-debunking.1636/[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jompur, you just proved my point for me. It was a 'have you stopped beating your wife question."

I wasn't surprised because they were investigating a building collapse, not a fire of unknown origin. It was not the guideline for their investigation, so why would they follow it?

I didn't think I needed to point out to you that a fire investigation is different than one for a building collapse. I guess I underestimated your blindness to facts.

I am asking you again if you read the article in Struture magazine?
 
Cairenn said:
It was a 'have you stopped beating your wife question."
It wasn't a loaded question, merely a question that you refused to answer because it exposed your irrational position on the NFPA 921 directive. However, since you are so sure it was a loaded question, you'll be able to quickly and easily expose how answering either yes or no was a false choice.

Otherwise you'll just look silly, won't you?

Cairenn said:
I wasn't surprised because they were investigating a building collapse, not a fire of unknown origin. It was not the guideline for their investigation, so why would they follow it?

I didn't think I needed to point out to you that a fire investigation is different than one for a building collapse. I guess I underestimated your blindness to facts.
See post 204. If you can address that, show how this difference is relevant in this case, where these more applicable building collapse guidelines exist, and why these guidelines should not represent the application of the scientific method in the same way as the NFPA 921 guidelines I have quoted up thread.

Otherwise you'll apologise for saying I'm blind, won't you?

Cairenn said:
I am asking you again if you read the article in Struture magazine?
Yes. Again, nothing in it about NIST's failure to test for explosive residue or analyse the steel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No - it is because there is actually zero evidence.
Please show the section of the NIST report where the available physical evidence was analysed.

they are either nonsense or debunked long ago.
Then you will be able to quickly and easily show where the evidence I directed you to has been debunked.
That fact that you failed to provide any actual eyewitness evidence shows that - Would you like to provide some? Because these links are not eyewitness reports
This fact shows you did not look at the evidence you were offered
and the NIST did look at the audio evidence:

External Quote:
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.
I have addressed this point twice in this thread already, once here and a second time here; the second occasion was in direct reply to you, but you still failed to respond.

Like Cairenn, you seem to think simply re-posting NIST statements that I have already dealt with will substitute for a rational response to my criticisms of them.

There was no sound of explosions on any of het multiple recordings of WTC 7's collapse - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-youtube-video-needs-debunking.1636/
This doesn't address the evidence I presented you with. However, even if it were true
Jazzy said:
it's not about the bang
and the National Fire Protection Association would not accept your logic that the supposed absence of audible explosions is a good reason not to test the evidence for accelerants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please show the section of the NIST report where the available physical evidence was analysed.

What has that got to do with the lack of evidence for an explosion?

I have already noted that the NIST tested computer simulations and they state in their FAQ that they did not examine any physical evidence.

And neither did anyone else - ergo you have no physical evince to support your own claims.

You are the one insisting explosions happened - despite the total and complete lack of any evidence to support that claim.

You admit there is no noise - and yet you link to an "analysis" that claims there was an explosion.

You admit there is no explosive residue found - by anyone - and yet you insist there is an explosion.

Further there is no evidence of any explosives being set, no visible evidence of any explosion in the collapse, no evidence linking anyone to any conspiracy to demolish the building, no wistleblowers, no nothin'.

I conclude that you are a troll.

You are not actually interested in verifiable information - you do not actually argue for any errors in the NIST report beyond saying "it isn't true".

There is nothing you have said that isn't debunked here and elsewhere - the NIST report itself debunks your assertions that there must have be an explosion because they looked at all the evidence that actually DOES exist - visual and auditory.

One of the great things about trolls is that I can add you to ignore so the repetitive droning, lack of actual engagement in realistic discussion and repetitive stupidity doesn't distract me any more.

Bye.
 
What has that got to do with the lack of evidence for an explosion?
You don't find what you don't look for.

Alternative hypotheses are to be eliminated in the scientific method, as NFPA 921 indicates.

I have already noted that the NIST tested computer simulations and they state in their FAQ that they did not examine any physical evidence. And neither did anyone else
Apart from FEMA, as noted upthread.

You are the one insisting explosions happened
No. I'm insisting NFPA guidelines should have been followed, and I'm pointing out that NIST greatly loses credibility for failing to do so.

You admit there is no noise - and yet you link to an "analysis" that claims there was an explosion.
No, I pointed out that the National Fire Protection Association does not accept the logic that explosions are defined by how loud they are. The evidence I gave you suggests there were in fact audible explosions.

You admit there is no explosive residue found
NIST didn't test for any. The question that this raises is the reason Mick started this thread.

I conclude that you are a troll... one of the great things about trolls is that I can add you to ignore so the repetitive droning, lack of actual engagement in realistic discussion and repetitive stupidity doesn't distract me any more.
General impoliteness duly noted. You're added to the list of people on this site who have been reduced to insulting me in this way.

Can't say I'll miss you: you failed to address the points I directed at you and thereby "debunked" nothing.
 
Sorry but the simple facts are that your ignoring the facts. I see denial in its worst form. Its more than obvious that WTC 7 fell in a manor exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition and for that to be a random occurrence based on asymmetrical damage to a complex steel structure is a virtual impossibility. You have to add up how many beams and columns are in that building and then now exactly what fall pattern occurred and what let go a the exact same times in order to calculate the odds. but I don't think there's a statistician out there that would put those odds at less than quadrillions to one

Yup its a guess but think about all the multiples involved. Yikes, the odds are astronomical

Being that the other WTC 7 forum has been closed and here is yet another WTC 7 forum which will be probably be closed or I will have insufficient privileges to comment here; its already happened to me twice, I wanted to get this in. Of course this might get deleted. There has been a considerable amount of proof that the NIST fairytale is just that as to your comment "ignoring the facts" that will happen because that doesn't fall within the belief consensus of this group, therefore there is not a fair kind of debate here and you get reprimanded for it or the thread gets closed. Its real simple, the temperatures in the 1000's of degrees underground for months. The hottest heat source came from under the buildings. That is not normal. Of course NIST never reaches those temperatures, therefore NIST data is WRONG. NIST didn't even study an actual collapse, the drew a computer model and stated thats the way it happened, even though this hasn't ever happened before.

Responders heard explosions. Barry Jennings was inside WTC 7 trapped from explosions before the collapses. That point gets ignored and the responders don't know what they're talking about according to this site, so being the official story has been DEBUNKED, its time to lay the cards on the table and DEBUNK THE OFFICIAL GOVT LIE.
 
Being that the other WTC 7 forum has been closed and here is yet another WTC 7 forum which will be probably be closed or I will have insufficient privileges to comment here; its already happened to me twice, I wanted to get this in. Of course this might get deleted. There has been a considerable amount of proof that the NIST fairytale is just that as to your comment "ignoring the facts" that will happen because that doesn't fall within the belief consensus of this group, therefore there is not a fair kind of debate here and you get reprimanded for it or the thread gets closed. Its real simple, the temperatures in the 1000's of degrees underground for months. The hottest heat source came from under the buildings. That is not normal. Of course NIST never reaches those temperatures, therefore NIST data is WRONG. NIST didn't even study an actual collapse, the drew a computer model and stated thats the way it happened, even though this hasn't ever happened before.

Responders heard explosions. Barry Jennings was inside WTC 7 trapped from explosions before the collapses. That point gets ignored and the responders don't know what they're talking about according to this site, so being the official story has been DEBUNKED, its time to lay the cards on the table and DEBUNK THE OFFICIAL GOVT LIE.

Why don't you start a thread, under the new posting guidelines, that debunks one piece of the NIST report?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Just one mind. One bit at a time.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you start a thread, under the new posting guidelines, that debunks one piece of the NIST report?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Just one mind. One bit at a time.

I think the NIST report has been debunked already. When you mention on forums that things are being repeated and close them, the WTC 7 is being repeated.

Heres an comparison:

Ads from the 50's: Dentists and doctors recommend Camel cigarettes. (This is like NIST).
It is well known that cigarette smoking causes cancer & doctors don't recommend Camel cigarettes, so that invalidates that claim, same with NIST.

NIST either needs to come up with a Scientific Hypothesis (one that can be proved) or confess and its not going to that. Even Thomas Kean of the 911 Commission stated the govt lied to them. It lied to everybody. If I remember right, I think certain data pertaining to 911 was limited to a select few of the 911 Commission. The official govt story is full o lies and I'm working of showing another example of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the NIST report has been debunked already.

Sorry - I obviously missed it - could you point or link or provide some information supporting this - such as one or more conclusions of the report and the verifiable evidence that debunks it/them?

Ta
 
You may die old, before the official story is debunked on this site. lol Oh, oh this is off topic.
Talking to yourself, Jazzy?
Probably.

Just to straighten out your kinks a little:

I detest the States and almost everything it stands for*. YET I'm aware that the greatest number of the most able individuals live there, possibly barring China. And it's a beautiful country.

I could never stand the CIA, G H W Bush and his blowout son, or the rest of the cronies, Reagan, Nixon, the peanut guy. Or the dancing star of the FBI, or any of the Kennedys. (I'm still amazed that they didn't hit the nuclear button in the early sixties). There hasn't been a US politician I have respected since Roosevelt Eisenhower. Considering what they could be doing, Americans, as a body of people, are just - dross. All the cleverest people, and still no proper social, health, and education services, WTF?

If you happen to be British, let me tell you something: monarchy IS fascism. So go f--- yourself some more. Be as stupid as you like.

The only reason to debunk bunk is because it's bunk**. While it hangs around it distracts from what people really need to know. I honestly believe that the 911 truth movement is backed by the remnants of the Bush junta. It has worked very well to protect the incumbents from proper prosecution. It's not as though they weren't criminally incompetent.

It's a massive shame on all of us. We are all responsible.

* except of course its insistence on individual liberty, which is its saving grace. Religious fundamentalism, and the countries that apply this, is/are so much worse.

** And you Grieves and you Muttkat, promote it. That's you down there, then. Minions of the people you despise. "Useful ------".
 
Last edited:
Seeing the previous posts, it is clear that the guidelines are not for everyone....
It's useful fill-you-in material. I may get banned but at least you'll know. I don't support the ptb. I do support the NIST findings, because they make sense. Engineering sense. The counter-arguments do not.
 
I thought this thread had stopped. Maybe my life depended on it. Just joking. And how. :)

You may die old, before the official story is debunked on this site. lol Oh, oh this is off topic.
It wasn't a loaded question, merely a question that you refused to answer because it exposed your irrational position on the NFPA 921 directive. However, since you are so sure it was a loaded question, you'll be able to quickly and easily expose how answering either yes or no was a false choice.

Otherwise you'll just look silly, won't you?

See post 204. If you can address that, show how this difference is relevant in this case, where these more applicable building collapse guidelines exist, and why these guidelines should not represent the application of the scientific method in the same way as the NFPA 921 guidelines I have quoted up thread.

I forgot to add: Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

It didn't collapse when they removed the girders from 3 floors.














Otherwise you'll apologise for saying I'm blind, won't you?

Yes. Again, nothing in it about NIST's failure to test for explosive residue or analyse the steel.

Then you're saying that NIST failed to test for explosive residue. That says it all. NIST failed at using an actual model and instead used a computer generated model. NIST failed to report on actual temperatures at WTC 7. USGS did. Therefore NIST's data is wrong.
jomper, You created a fantasy about what I said.

Thank you for pointing out that thread. A couple of points from it


External Quote:
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.
This is from another poster there.

External Quote:
The largest building brought down in that manner was the J. L. Hudson building and annex. The following is a ummary of the seven months of preparation it took, and I believe the building was empty at the time. Can you imagine how, only three years later, not one but three taller buildings could have been imploded and the setup done while they were occupied?

"Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson's the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.


Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.


CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
Please note this part
External Quote:
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
Considered and dismissed, because the FACTS showed that the fires, the damage and the construction of the building was the cause. No explosives needed

They were not investigating a fire, but a building collapse. With the info from the other thread, I now consider this part of the discussion closed.
Probably.

Just to straighten out your kinks a little:

I detest the States and almost everything it stands for*. YET I'm aware that the greatest number of the most able individuals live there, possibly barring China. And it's a beautiful country.

I could never stand the CIA, G H W Bush and his blowout son, or the rest of the cronies, Reagan, Nixon, the peanut guy. Or the dancing star of the FBI, or any of the Kennedys. (I'm still amazed that they didn't hit the nuclear button in the early sixties). There hasn't been a US politician I have respected since Roosevelt Eisenhower. Considering what they could be doing, Americans, as a body of people, are just - dross. All the cleverest people, and still no proper social, health, and education services, WTF?

If you happen to be British, let me tell you something: monarchy IS fascism. So go f--- yourself some more. Be as stupid as you like.

The only reason to debunk bunk is because it's bunk**. While it hangs around it distracts from what people really need to know. I honestly believe that the 911 truth movement is backed by the remnants of the Bush junta. It has worked very well to protect the incumbents from proper prosecution. It's not as though they weren't criminally incompetent.

It's a massive shame on all of us. We are all responsible.


* except of course its insistence on individual liberty, which is its saving grace. Religious fundamentalism, and the countries that apply this, is/are so much worse.

** And you Grieves and you Muttkat, promote it. That's you down there, then. Minions of the people you despise. "Useful ------".

OK, the US really sucks now, I detest it too. I can agree with your dross statement and most of that paragraph except Kennedy tried to do the right thing as with Exec Order 11110 but got assassinated.

As far as the truth movement back by the Bush junta....Come on, could we get a little more absurd? Being me and Grieves are minions of the people we despise????? Myself, I don't believe the official story because all the lies I've uncovered. Being you believe the NIST story...which is from the remnants of the Bush junta if anybody was to be a "useful " it would be you.

As far as "you down there" are you speaking down to me from your pedestal from the heavens above?

OK, back to 7.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
By MARK McCAIN
Published: February 19, 1989


BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe...... According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.


The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST's report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, (Faranheit) which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."

Being you believe NIST's fairytale, do you think NIST based its evidence after the building was retrofitted? Of course not.

FEMA states there was a severe high temperature. What are NIST's temperatures? 572 degrees F?

Why do fires collapse hi rise building but don't collapse Kerosene heaters?

All-Pro Portable Kerosene Torpedo Heater, heats 29,000 ft.3 building
All-Pro kerosene outdoor construction heaters are for use only with kerosene, No. 1 & 2 diesel fuel oil, JP-8 fuel or Jet A fuel.
165,000 BTU Kerosene Outdoor Torpedo / Salamander Heater

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_pk165t.jpg
drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_pk165t.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was NO molten steel found on the site. That is a fallacy that has been debunked here and elsewhere.

Since it has been debunked on this site, I see no reason to debunk it again in this thread.

This thread is about explosive residue. Can you discuss it?
 
There was NO molten steel found on the site. That is a fallacy that has been debunked here and elsewhere.

Since it has been debunked on this site, I see no reason to debunk it again in this thread.

This thread is about explosive residue. Can you discuss it?

Yes there was and that fallacy was not debunked so quit making things up. I proved that on my nuclear forum but of course that was put in the corner of the rambles section and was not debunked. As far as explosive residue, there was. I do recall asking you some questions and you never answered and reminded you about that and you never answered so throw your little snippets somewhere else.
 
It's useful fill-you-in material. I may get banned but at least you'll know. I don't support the ptb. I do support the NIST findings, because they make sense. Engineering sense. The counter-arguments do not.

If you don't support the PTB, where does the NIST report come from?
 
Probably.

Just to straighten out your kinks a little:

I detest the States and almost everything it stands for*. YET I'm aware that the greatest number of the most able individuals live there, possibly barring China. And it's a beautiful country.

I could never stand the CIA, G H W Bush and his blowout son, or the rest of the cronies, Reagan, Nixon, the peanut guy. Or the dancing star of the FBI, or any of the Kennedys. (I'm still amazed that they didn't hit the nuclear button in the early sixties). There hasn't been a US politician I have respected since Roosevelt Eisenhower. Considering what they could be doing, Americans, as a body of people, are just - dross. All the cleverest people, and still no proper social, health, and education services, WTF?

If you happen to be British, let me tell you something: monarchy IS fascism. So go f--- yourself some more. Be as stupid as you like.

The only reason to debunk bunk is because it's bunk**. While it hangs around it distracts from what people really need to know. I honestly believe that the 911 truth movement is backed by the remnants of the Bush junta. It has worked very well to protect the incumbents from proper prosecution. It's not as though they weren't criminally incompetent.

It's a massive shame on all of us. We are all responsible.

* except of course its insistence on individual liberty, which is its saving grace. Religious fundamentalism, and the countries that apply this, is/are so much worse.

** And you Grieves and you Muttkat, promote it. That's you down there, then. Minions of the people you despise. "Useful ------".
Don't forget that 9/11 truth movement is also composed of 9/11 victim family members who want an independent, scientific investigation. The HEAD of 911 Commission has openly stated that government officials have LIED to them. Questioning criminal elements within certain government institutions doesn't make you unpatriotic. I love my country, I love the people and I love the constitution. I see myself as a patriot and I think it's the duty of every patriot to question criminal elements within their government. These are the same criminal elements who were responsible for engineering lies such as Gulf of Tonkin (it didn't even happen according to recent declassified documents) which left more than 50,000 Americans & millions of Vietnamese dead. However Brown & Root (which later became Halliburton) made BILLIONS from the war and it's come out that LBJ received massive cash payments from them. These were the same criminal elements JFK & Eisenhower warned us about. Questioning them doesn't make you unpatriotic.

In Rome, whenever a crime was committed, the judges asked one question: Cui Bono? Who benefits? A think-tank composed of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz openly stated in their PNAC document (September 2000): "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor." They got their new Pearl Harbor a year later which they were able to exploit to advance their global agenda. Private corporate interests and military industrial complex likewise exploited 9/11 to make billions of dollars while murdering millions of innocent civilians while simultaneously turning our great country into a police state where our every phone call and e-mail is collected and stored without a warrant (even in Russia they need a warrant to collect such personal info). All under the pretense of "those irate jihadists attacked us because they hate our freedoms" (if that's the case then they won because our constitutional freedoms and liberties are being eliminated as we speak ... look up NDAA). It's all about profit and centralization of power for the few. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were almost completely privatized.

The official story isn't based on any real facts. It's a fairy tale upheld by interests who stood to benefit from it. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake here which are dependent upon the official story being 100% true.

Here is a talk from someone I knew personally in high school who lost his father on 9/11:

 
Last edited:
NIST failed to test for explosive residue. That says it all. NIST failed at using an actual model and instead used a computer generated model. NIST failed to report on actual temperatures at WTC 7. USGS did. Therefore NIST's data is wrong.
We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.

me and Grieves are minions of the people we despise? Myself, I don't believe the official story because all the lies I've uncovered. Being you believe the NIST story...which is from the remnants of the Bush junta if anybody was to be a "useful " it would be you.
Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.

"BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space."
I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.

The issue of molten metal
Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.

suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used
Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.

is completely ignored in NIST's report
Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack <snip> has been identified.
High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.

Speaking during a press conference <snip> "until 2,700 degrees, (Faranheit) which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."
Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.

FEMA states there was a severe high temperature. What are NIST's temperatures? 572 degrees F?
Gibberish.

Why do fires collapse hi rise building but don't collapse Kerosene heaters?
Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of cold moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.
 
Last edited:
The HEAD of 911 Commission has openly stated that government officials have LIED to them.
You must distinguish between officials lying to avoid accusations of lack of due diligence in the performance of their normal duties, and those doing so for worse reasons. But you don't.

Questioning them doesn't make you unpatriotic.
Baselessly accusing people of being criminals makes you a criminal. It's a crime called slander (when spoken) and libel (when written).

Cui Bono? Who benefits?
Isn't an automatic route to truth. Undertakers benefited. Did they conspire?

A think-tank composed of <snip> almost completely privatized.
Has nothing to do with how WTC7 fell.

The official story isn't based on any real facts. It's a fairy tale upheld by interests who stood to benefit from it. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake here which are dependent upon the official story being 100% true.
AE 911 T isn't based on any real facts. It's a fairy tale upheld by interests who stood to benefit from it. We're talking about thousand of bucks at stake here which are dependent upon the truther story being 100% true.

Here is a talk
No there isn't.
 
Last edited:
No - it is because there is actually zero evidence.



Of course you are sure - because you know that they are either nonsense or debunked long ago.

That fact that you failed to provide any actual eyewitness evidence shows that - Would you like to provide some? Because these links are not eyewitness reports, and the NIST did look at the audio evidence:

External Quote:
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.
There was no sound of explosions on any of het multiple recordings of WTC 7's collapse - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-youtube-video-needs-debunking.1636/
[/quote]
We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.

According to the seismic spikes, they occurred at the beginning of the collapses (WTC 1 and 2, WTC 7 was quieter) from the explosions not when the debris was hitting the ground but there probably isn't any audio from that either. I'll be back to finish with my replies later.

We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.

So were the explosions that had Barry Jennings stuck in WTC 7 for a couple of hours before the collapses. Oh yes, the 1st time event model. NIST stated it was the fires not the debris from WTC 1 anyway.


Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.

Well so was my ex husband. He use to tell me "Honey you've got common sense, street smarts, which I don't have." and I would say "I know." I don't interpret engineering as "lies." Besides there are other engineers, politicians, generals...who don't believe the official story. I was referring to the whole 911 scenario as to pertaining to lies being told to us about the 911 story and when it uses engineering to promote the official story it still lies by the govt. The Truth Movement doesn't mean that its a remnant of the Bush junta either. Who was Prez when NIST report came out? Lincoln? Thank you for telling me what NIST stands for (as I twirl my goldilocks between my fingers like Britney does.) But those Bush Jr boys sure were sneaky and evil.


I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.

Probably, but they still reinforced WTC 7, in which NIST did not disclose. Therefore NIST is providing the public with incorrect data. Of course, the blueprints at one time were withheld from the public and being they were public buildings...must of been hiding something.


Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.

It's the invention in your head that there wasn't any molten steel......

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris........Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."---Yea right!

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

I'll be back with the rest of the responses cause.......


Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.


Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.


High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.


Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.


Gibberish.


Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of cold moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.



Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.


I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.


Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.


Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.


Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.


High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.


Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.


Gibberish.


Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.


We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.


Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.


I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.


Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.


Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.


Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.


High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.


Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.


Gibberish.


Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of cold moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.
We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.


Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.


I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.


Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.


Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.


Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.


High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.


Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.


Gibberish.


Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of cold moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you happen to be British, let me tell you something: monarchy IS fascism. So go f--- yourself some more. Be as stupid as you like.
Monarchy *can be* fascism. So can democracy.

The only reason to debunk bunk is because it's bunk**. While it hangs around it distracts from what people really need to know. I honestly believe that the 911 truth movement is backed by the remnants of the Bush junta. It has worked very well to protect the incumbents from proper prosecution. It's not as though they weren't criminally incompetent.

It's a massive shame on all of us. We are all responsible.
First of all, I'm glad to discover you've a sensible regard for the Bush cartel. Could certainly have fooled me. But do you seriously believe the 'truth movement' is what's protecting them from prosecution? So far as I know they're the only people within North America adamantly calling for it with any level of consistency. There are certainly a fair share of crazies and AstroTurfers who have been associated with the 'truth movement', and yes, they can be counter-productive when used to represent the truth movement as a whole, but who's doing the using? Come on, Jazzy. You're a clever guy. What billion-dollar industry has been covering Bush and his cronies collective ass from September 12th on? It sure as hell wasn't the truth movement.

** And you Grieves and you Muttkat, promote it. That's you down there, then. Minions of the people you despise. "Useful ------".
Down where? In the hole? In the muck? H-E-doublehockeysticks? Well if we're servants of evil bogging down the steps of the real soldiers of justice with our clods of bullshit, perhaps you could point out this bunkless crusade to prosecute those who failed to protect from, respond too, and investigate one of the most tragic mass-murders in American history, using it to engage in illegal and brutal Warfare without reprisal? Who's tireless efforts am I impeding, exactly? Because outside of the 'truth movement', foibles and all, I don't see a single other collective American effort in that direction. Still, if you're going to look down on us, where/whatever down entails in this instance, and cast the blame for America's failure to prosecute at our lowly feet, perhaps you should take a moment to glance upward?

The issue of molten metal
Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.
I know you know this isn't true, so why say it? Or are you just quoting your fellow engineer, John Gross, a head engineer of NIST who stated he'd heard nothing about and received no reports of molten metal years after the fact? Multitude of eye-witness accounts, photographic evidence in spite of the 'no pictures!' rule, but a head of NIST six or so years on hasn't heard word one about it. Thorough.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top