Well it's a good thing that at this point in the thread, no one disagrees with any of these findings about NIST. There's more to come.
Well that was quick, I thought everyone was in a coma. If you disagree (or even agree) with any of the findings about NIST, you are free to state your case and provide supporting links. I assumed you (and everyone else) agree because you (and they) haven't posted anything in this thread so far that can be characterized as a disagreement with the findings. The only issue you brought up so far is the construction of the towers, which has nothing to do with how NIST conducted their "investigation". So perhaps there's another issue that's been presented that you may have a problem with or perhaps you have a contribution? I'm here to learn what I haven't yet learned, so by all means. But please stay on topic. I promised a while back I would start a thread exposing NIST and I said it would take many posts, so if you haven't yet found anything here to discuss, be patient, I said there's more to come. Thanks.
I still don't see any disagreement from you or anyone else about what's been exposed about NIST's "investigation", so unless you or anyone actually have something meaningful, there's nothing "fantasy land" about what I said.
These two "areas of concern" can be combined. WTC7 - THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER 5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES Technical Statement: In their WTC 7 FAQ, NIST claims to have investigated whether the building could have been brought down by controlled demolition and concluded that it was not. NIST says this even while admitting that they did not test for explosive residues in the rubble, after initially claiming that they found no evidence of explosives or explosive residues (while also making the simultaneous claim that no steel was saved from WTC 7 for analysis). ALL THREE BUILDINGS 13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE Technical Statement: NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives, and their director of public relations is on record saying, If you are going to test for something that is not there, you are wasting your time and the taxpayers money. In the oral histories taken down in late 2001 and early 2002 from New York City emergency personnel, there are over 100 individuals who make comments about seeing, hearing, and experiencing explosions. These oral histories were documented well before NIST started their WTC investigation in September 2002. This testimony should have caused the presumption that there was a good chance explosive residue would be found and justified testing for it rather than the opposite. http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf NFPA 921 protocol requires a forensic investigation of the evidence for explosives and explosive residue in a terrorist attack with high order damage. It makes no exceptions. NFPA 921 19.4.8.2.6 Extremism. Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. NFPA 921 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion. 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 for an explosion. NFPA 921 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable. http://ff911truthandunity.org/investigation NIST personnel were fully aware of thermite, thermate and nano-thermite products. The above shows their awareness because NIST helped create and publishes NFPA standards and expects these standards/protocols to be meticulously followed in all fire investigations ... apparently except for NIST itself and especially for the 9/11 event. The following paper is called "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites": http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf The following is a presentation by firefighter Erik Lawyer, slamming NIST's "investigation". [video=youtube;uor8NhUr_90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90[/video]
Interesting Bob. Can you explain why the author of the Shear Ignorance video uses information from a court case to try and prove that NIST's theory was wrong about the column 79 collapse initiation, but come to find out that the CONCLUSION of that same information he uses is the same? Here's ARUP's conclusion: So they agree that the beam came off it's seat at column 79 due to thermal expansion and then cooling as a result of office fires, causing a collapse initiation. Not too smart to use information to prove a point when that same information leads to a conclusion that agrees with NIST's collapse initiation.
Why are you expecting anyone to post a disagreement with what you posted Bob? You been clear many times that you aren't interested in discussing anything because you "don't care" and "aren't trying to convince anyone of anything". Isn't that right? So why are you expecting responses?
Sure thing Bob. This is from a document produced by ARUP. This is their conclusion. The beam was pulled off it's seat at column 79 due to the results of an office fire. Did ARUP omit these "crucial" components also? If not, then they weren't "crucial" were they? Those components didn't prevent the beam from coming off it's seat at column 79 did they?
The difference is that NIST's theory is based on fraudulently omitting key structural components and manipulating data, ARUP apparently uses the correct data and the column 79 initiation failure theories not only contradict each other but renders NIST's theory impossible. ARUP shows that NIST manipulated data since both theories are NOT based on the same data. The thread is about NIST's "investigation" not ARUP's claims. Whether ARUP's theory has any basis in validity or not is a different topic that was addressed by Tony Szamboti and re-posted in this thread, but it's not the point of this thread. The point is obvious and perfectly logical, that NIST used fraudulent data and ARUP proves it because they used information NIST had in its possession. The point has nothing to do with the conclusions theorized by either entity.
I'm not "expecting" anything other than what is usual in this forum. OCT defenders defending the story and the storytellers, welcome to the thread. No that's 100% wrong and I never said that. Why would you twist what I posted? I am quite interested in a legitimate discussion but it is true that I'm not here to try to convince anyone about anything and I don't care what posters believe or don't. See above, you responded with sort of a disagreement that didn't really apply.
Ohhhhhh... So you agree with ARUP's conclusion that in two of the four cases, THERMAL EXPANSION and/or COOLING caused the beam at column 79 to be pulled off its seat thus initiating a collapse? Is that correct Bob?
Ok so? What does that have to do with NIST? Apparently not and that's the point, it's the same data NIST deliberately omitted and ARUP proves NIST deliberately omitted that data. Whether they were crucial or not is not the primary issue (and yes they were crucial to any scientific/forensic investigation), the issue is that NIST committed fraud by omitting them. All applicable data is crucial to any scientific/forensic investigation, why would you believe otherwise? Both NIST and ARUP's theories are just that. Whether column 79 failed as described by either entity's theory is not provable and irrelevant to this topic. What is relevant is how NIST conducted its "investigation".
No it's incorrect and I never said that or even implied it and whether I agree with the above or not is irrelevant to this thread. Just because NIST's theory is impossible doesn't make ARUP's theory possible but again, that's irrelevant anyway.
They were? Then how did ARUP come up with the beam being pulled off its seat at column 79? I thought the crucial components being omitted would have prevented a collapse?
By asking that question you're implying that you believe data can be omitted from/manipulated by any scientific/forensic investigation and still be considered a legitimate investigation. Am I correct? Your feigned amusement doesn't make your post more genuine. Regardless, it's not about you, me or ARUP's theory, as I find I must repeat for you ad nauseum, this thread is strictly about NIST's investigation into the collapse of the 3 buildings. In other words, it doesn't matter what ARUP's theory concluded or ARUP's theory about the column 79 failure or how they came up with their theory. Having said that, ARUP did not have access to all the data NIST used anyway because NIST refused to make much of it publicly available despite FOIA requests. And ARUP was not tasked with investigating the collapse of the 3 towers, only NIST was. So the fact is that ARUP did not conduct a full investigation into the collapse of WTC7 in the first place and could not have because they didn't have all the data at their disposal. Part of that data includes eyewitness accounts which ARUP does not mention anywhere. Eyewitness claims are crucial to any investigation just as other forms of data are.
This is not relevant to this thread either and your wording is a head scratcher. No one said that the crucial components being omitted would have prevented a collapse. All it means is that when these deliberately excluded components are included and the correct data is applied to NIST's theory it renders NIST's theory impossible. You posted an issue with one of the videos but did you actually go through all of them or are you just being a contrarian? The explanations and details found in the videos are very clear.
No, what's a head scratcher is you not being able to understand. You were the one that said the omitted parts were "crucial" Bob, did you not? So crucial were they that ARUP included them and the same type of collapse initiation was observed in the form of a beam coming off its seat at column 79. So in what why were they "crucial"? NIST and ARUP came to the same conclusion that a collapse initiation happened at column 79 that led to the buildings collapse.
Try wording your post so that it's understandable, if you can. See correctly worded quote for accuracy. I asked you if you believe that data can be omitted from/manipulated by any scientific/forensic investigation and still be considered a legitimate investigation. You obviously failed to answer so I presume I'm correct that you believe that given the above post. Here we go again, ARUP was NOT officially tasked with investigating the collapse of any of the WTC towers and ARUP and their theory is NOT the subject of this thread. Try to stay on topic as opposed to constantly trying to change the subject. That has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Re-visiting one of your posts now that I had a chance to go over the video you referenced. There's nothing in the video that supports your claim that the author of the "Shear Ignorance" video used information from a court case. The author used the original Frankel drawings that were first made publicly available from NIST via FOIA in 2012 and compared these with graphics from the published NIST report(s). If they were also used by ARUP in a court case doesn't imply the author used that information from the court case. ARUP presumably had the same information available to them, the original Frankel drawings, which show structural components that were absent from the NIST report(s). http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html
You need to do some research Bob. gerrycan and Tony both use ARUP as a reference in discussions to show that NIST was wrong. They both use ARUP's studies to show that NIST claim of the beam being pushed off the seat at column 79 was wrong. What's funny is that ARUP's conclusion in two of four cases studied is that office fire caused thermal expansion and then the cooling PULLED the beam off it's seat at 79 causing a collapse initiation event. They use ARUP's information, but ignore the conclusion that there WAS a collapse initiation event at column 79, just that the beam was pulled off it's seat, not pushed like NIST claimed. Hysterical.
Just to point this out Bob. I said the AUTHOR of Shear Ignorance uses information from a court case provided by ARUP. I said nothing about that stuff being IN the Shear Ignorance video. Go do a search on gerrycan and find his discussions on ARUP in many 9/11 forums. Jesus...
Try not to be insulting, most everything I post is based on research, this entire thread for example. You still don't get what the subject of this thread is. What it's not is about Tony, gerrycan, ARUP, you or I, it's strictly about NIST and the manner in which NIST conducted its investigation. I know you want to make it about anything else because you'd rather try to hide what NIST did and did not do, but I'm trying to expose NIST, sorry, you can't erase the thread or try to change it to something else. You show no interest in the subject matter, at all, not one question, criticism or comment as to NIST's methodology. So I can only conclude that you're posting in this thread to try to divert the subject. I'm quite familiar with gerrycan and Tony in discussion forums and I find very little I can disagree with them about, you, very little I can agree with. They both did show proof via ARUP's theory that NIST's theory was impossible when the correct data was used. They also both showed quite clearly how and why NIST's theory falls apart using data NIST had in their possession. Irrelevant of course, ARUP's theory is a subject for a different discussion. And your claim about what was allegedly ignored is false. It's good though to finally see a hint that you agree NIST's theory is false. The usual feigned amusement? The rest is also irrelevant. Ah you were playing word games, very clever, I'm so impressed. Gerrycan's presentation in the videos in the first post in this thread clearly show where the evidence came from, the original Frankel drawings. What gerrycan does elsewhere has nothing to do with anything and what he did with the videos is remarkable. You? Nothing worth anything other than trying to change the subject.
No, you're posting this crap to try and show NIST's investigation was falsified in order to make it look like there was a failure at column 79 due to the effects of fire which led to a global collapse in order to cover up a government controlled demolition. The point I am presenting is information that your two truther icons, gerrycan and Tony, used information to try and prove NIST incorrect an totally ignore that fact that the folks whose information they used concludes that the beam was pulled off its seat at column 79 due to the effects of office fires.
Translation, you don't want to address the actual subject matter and insist on trying to change the subject. Calling all the evidence that shows NIST's methodology is a fraud "crap" without actually addressing any of it is just a sample of your shenanigans. I asked you a question more than once that you keep avoiding. I'll ask you again (and re-word it). Do you believe an investigation where the investigation panel omits and/or falsifies data and/or fails to use standard investigation protocol is legitimate? And another sample of your shenanigans. All the facts posted in this thread comes from NIST's own data, the original Frankel drawings, as well as other data that conflicts with NIST's claims in their report(s) (e.g. timing and level of heat, among other things). Any discussion about ARUP is only used to verify that: 1. ARUP used data that NIST provided, which is publicly available. 2. ARUP shows that NIST failed to use data that NIST had in its possession and provided via FOIA. 3. ARUP showed that when the correct data is used NIST's theory is impossible, which is impossible anyway with or without ARUP. Without ARUP, NIST's theory is still impossible just from using the correct data, the original Frankel drawings and NIST's own conflicting data. However, even that and the above is not the primary issue, the primary issue and the subject of this thread is NIST and its investigation methodology (i.e. deliberate falsification of data). That IS THE SUBJECT MATTER that you want to ignore and divert. As to whether ARUP's theory is valid or not is not provable, it is based on insufficient data, it is not based on any legitimate investigation, it is irrelevant to this discussion and doesn't change one thing about the facts regarding NIST's investigation methodology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM going back to the first post ... how many of you even understand sheer studs and the steel/pan/pour design of these buildings?
