Sorry about your family and friends . . . I think in retrospect that this Thread has helped me to clarify what I objected to in regards to 911 and specifically WTC #7 . . . doubt it gives those who lost family friends much or any resolution and I regret that, but I think some of them must also have unresolved questions and issues as well . . . I think as American citizens and world citizens we all share the confusion and shock at what happened during 911 and will carry it to our graves . . .
I respectfully disagree with you Mick . . . IMO, these are not small . . . they are huge, in fact, I feel they invalidate all the hard work and effort NIST did do . . . and as a disinterested third party investigator many times in my career I would not have found them acceptable and had I accepted such I would have been fired or reprimanded for such incomplete job . . . That is all I have to say . . .
In a court of law when someone withholds information or refuses to answer questions they are considered a hostile witness and their entire testimony is considered suspect . . . what we are saying is we need to start from scratch with a new investigation and investigators because we have no trust in the evidence presented by these witnesses . . . so what do you do ??? You have trusted third party experts reexamine the entire set of evidence and validate the analysis and conclusions doing new analysis and testing if they deem it required . . . the science might be spot on and probably is . . . however, the data or evidence may be suspect . . . meaning garbage in garbage out . . .
Z) NIST ignored fundamental principles of the scientific method such as verifiability and falsifiability, so the quality of its investigation is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant.
Because when a crime is committed one looks for criminals or at least evidence of their activities . . . the whole argument is what is reasonable and what isn't . . . we obviously disagree on that point and will most likely never agree . . .
In any cases you just don't dump crime scene evidences in a dumpster before the start of investigations
So there was no suspicion that terrorists were involved with 911 and no terrorists use explosives or accelerants nor do they use secondary explosions to catch first and second responders to increase the terror and casualties . . . how did the water become restricted . . . accident or by plan . . .? WTC 7 could have been a secondary target because of all the federal agencies . . . All reasonable or not? Did they know the aircraft would bring the buildings down or attract casualties and firemen . . . ?
At times you and others seem strangely disconnected with reality. It seems that your beliefs override your common sense.But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure.
There is no evidence of anything unless you look for it or attempt to collect it . . . because you already presume to know everything already . . .that is not the way investigations are conducted . . . and that is common sense . . .
from the NIST FAQ...Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of DoubtAll opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
The evidence that would require looking for accelerants is the reality of the collapse itself -- its speed, relative symmetry and totality. As I have said before, a reasonable person viewing the collapse footage for the first time would not perceive fire to be the obvious sole cause: and of course this is true, as Danny Jowenko showed.
I thought we were talking about WTC 7 . . . according to the SIMULATION the collapse began nearer to the bottom. . . the catastrophic collapse of column 79 . . . .??? You need to stick to one theory or maybe there is room for several theories . . . you are right since we all knew exactly what happened . . . that is why the first NIST Report was finalized in 2005 for WTC 1&2 and in 2008 for WTC 7 . . . seems everything was so very clear and simple so forgive us doubters for expressing our concerns . . .
