FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RockDock

Since you are incompetent to do your own research(or maybe just too stupid)...



Floor area in the core = 862 m^2

Office space floor areas:

2 long one-way slabs = 1,225 m^2
2 short one-way slabs = 486 m^2
4 two-way slabs = 1,137 m^2

Total office area = 2848 m^2

The floors in the core areas were made of normal weight concrete, it's density is 1760 kg/m^3

The floors in the office areas were made of lightweight concrete, it's density is 1500 kg/m^3

Volume of 5-inch normal weight concrete per floor = 109.5 m^3

Weight of the normal weight concrete per floor = 193 tons

Volume of 4-inch thick lightweight concrete per floor = 289.4 m^3

Weight of the lightweight concrete per floor = 434 tons


Total weight of the concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tons.

In addition, the mass of structural steel on one floor is estimated to be 1000 tons(average per floor taking total steel and dividing by 110) Higher floors had slightly less, lower floors slightly more by about 20-30% either way from the 55 floor.

All the values used to do this calculation were gleaned from the study of navstar1-1. As to exactly where each of these values are in that document, find them yourself, the exercise will do your brain some good.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
RockDock

Since you are incompetent to do your own research(or maybe just too stupid)...

<snip>

All the values used to do this calculation were gleaned from the study of navstar1-1. As to exactly where each of these values are in that document, find them yourself, the exercise will do your brain some good.

Grumpy Cool



Navstar1-1 eh? And this document is held in the nist.gov site that you tried to link to is it? Funny, I can't seem to find it there. Are you unwilling to provide a link directly to the figures you quote, or just incapable?. And if unwilling, why is that?

You also are giving us interpolated averages for the floors. Psikeyhackr wanted specific numbers for each floor, numbers that you asserted are within the nist.gov site that you posted.

Your numbers are approximations and as such are meaningless. You are asserting that the 54th floor had the same mass as the 3rd floor. Yet the 56th floor has a mass equal to the 110th floor.

Yep, you sure are scientific.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations

You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't teach them a damn thing

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are right Grumpy, one can't teach a jackass anything.

I see the documents are the "NIST NCSTAR" documents. Not "Navstar" as some jackass claimed earlier.

Still, that doesn't answer the question of what the *exact* weights were for each floor. It seems to this layperson that the architects who designed the structures, or the engineers who built them would have a record of what materials were called for or expended on each floor.

Yet, apparently, all we get are approximations.

So where exactly are the exact weights for each floor? Still not to be seen on the nist.gov joke site.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheesh Grumpy, I am going through the pdfs off the nist.gov site that your said contain the weights of steel and concrete in each floor. A lot of NISNCSTAR1-1A.pdf (166 pages) is scanned engineering documents. Pretty tough to do an [edit/search] scan of those unfortunately.

Still haven't come across the chart or charts from which you got your figures. You couldn't be helpful enough to cite document *and* page numbers of course. But then that wouldn't be a troll's way.

I am very impressed with how scientific you are too- how you mix metric and US measurements to make it harder to verify your numbers. 5 inch thick floors, densities in kg/m^3, areas in m^2, final concrete weights in short (US) tons (2000 lbs, or 0.90718474 tonne (1 tonne=1000kg)).

So, did you convert the floor thickness to metric and then the results back to short tons or did you convert the densities' kg/m^3 to lb/ft^3 and to what significant figure did you convert them?

You also haven't provided the weight of the steel in each floor nor have you taken into account anything else on the floor. Nor have you provided any references as to where one may find such figures other than to give us a long list on basically unsearchable pdf documents. Since you apparently have already seen the pages in question, why is it difficult for you to share your astounding discoveries with the rest of the BFN people? No, instead you choose to obfuscate your sources for your figures.

Very scientific indeed.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RockDock

If you are really interested, then do what I had to do. READ THE REPORTS.

The figures I posted are approximate, they are the result of research I did months ago and I did not write down the references, nor is that last little bit of accuracy necessary for any purpose here. But you are correct, I should have spelled Tons Tonnes(metric tons), but being American, went with our spelling. They are in fact 1000kilo tonnes, no conversion necessary.

There are no charts or tables with the info you seek, but there is enough info for you to figure it out. Have fun.

By the way, a teacher never just gives a student the answer, but they point the student toward the info such that the student can discern the answer for themselves. You wouldn't believe anything I told you anyway, so why should I bother??? But you might believe something you figured out for yourself and therefore learn something.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

By the way, a teacher never just gives a student the answer, but they point the student toward the info such that the student can discern the answer for themselves. You wouldn't believe anything I told you anyway, so why should I bother??? But you might believe something you figured out for yourself and therefore learn something.



You patronizing git! No one is in your bloody classroom man. There are people readng here that will not post. If you got info, link to it or copy some of the relevant stuff here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
You patronizing git! No one is in your bloody classroom man. There are people readng here that will not post. If you got info, link to it or copy some of the relevant stuff here.


Unfortunately, the NIST reports are LOCKED PDFs and cannot be copy/pasted by me(others may know how). So all I can do is point and if you are really interested(and not pushing some ridiculous conspiracy theory) you can find it yourself.

The latest FAQs are not so restricted...

Quote:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Grumpy Cool[/quote]

Amazing. A clear answer with references from the Grumpster. Thank you.

The answer sounds plausible. I still believe that *some* explosives were used in the demolition. One would not need many to encourage the building along. A few of the columns cut in critical places would do nicely. Firefighters reported hearing explosions just prior to the collapse.

There are too many photos and videos showing some sort of explosive events occurring in front of the collapse "wave", sometimes 30 or 40 floors in front. Don't give me the "piston-effect" baloney either.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RockDock

Quote:
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

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 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 planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. 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.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Since no evidence of, nor need for explosives were ever found, Occam's Razor tells us not to posit such superfluous entities.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Bureaucratic Morons Reply with quote

Quote:
Unfortunately, the NIST reports are LOCKED PDFs and cannot be copy/pasted by me(others may know how).


Yeah, that is really annoying. Why would they do that for a publicly available report payed for with taxpayers' money?

I accidentally found the text can be copied and pasted with Linux Evince software. It does not do the multi-document searches like Adobe does however. So I'm doing the searches on one machine and the extractions on another. All I can say is that it is less annoying than typing that crap because I wouldn't do it.

psik

_________________
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 physics is history
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Doubts about NIST Reply with quote

In a thread from August 2007 that Grumpy appears to have missed, Hocus Locus posted an item that has direct bearing to the question the reliability of the hallowed NIST report, and its conclusions.

Hocus Locus wrote:
((( Posted to opednews.com: 21-Aug-2007: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of WTC Investigation )))

STEEL RESOLVE

'9/11 truth’s concern about the fate of the Towers -- is not a community. It is not a collective. It is not even a coherent stereotype. Or a measurable demographic. Its true numbers have not even begun to be counted -- for it represents not just the few who have written about the subject, hold any particular point of view, lean in the direction of this or that.

It represents the people who have noticed these things over time, yet also the people who will notice them on this day -- and the days to come. I see the tide growing, and it is a relief.

A 'new investigation' is not necessarily what we need. Let's just begin with an open and more complete one.

The good people of New York deserve honorable mention: for their world, their livelihood -- is built on steel. They work that steel, ride it every day. And they have suffered greatly.

It is time to discover whether the steel was compromised. Tasked beyond its endurance.

For if explosives were used -- then despite all the losses that could never be regained, families broken -- we would know that the steel endured.

Merely the human factor had failed us.

An important, vital thing to know... is it not?

Because in any structural failure that was unexpected, unprecedented, grave in its implications, MUST consider the possibility of 'foul play'. The possible existence of aspects beyond the narrow parameters that may be imposed by political convenience, expedience.

Fail to take this simple step... we become vulnerable to direct and indirect manipulation without limit, in ways we can scarcely imagine and would never tolerate.

I will not mince words here. Some of those factors might not have progressive and easy countermeasures. Some even insurmountable. But the people of New York, these United States need to know -- for sure -- the precise shape and form of threat we faced on September 11th. To preserve and defend our own sanity, direction and purpose.

Covering for capital crimes does inflict harm. Participating in the whitewashing of same -- and I include the willful dissemination of disinformation to disrupt an investigation or the natural course of citizens' rising awareness, introspection -- or pushing a scripted objective some feel should be imposed on history as 'the'investigation, 'the' finding, sans consensus and process. And there are those out there who have done these things, willfully.

Responsible engineers, architects, fire marshals, journalists with backbone should have the wherewithal to step right up to the work of FEMA, ASCE, NIST to date without squeamishness or a hint of ridicule -- and where NIST leaves off, just step to the side and keep on walking in the direction of completeness and accountability, towards a rational objective of completeness.

They should be prepared to come face to face with the ideas of Dr. Judy Wood and Professor Jones without squeamishness or a hint of ridicule -- but be fully prepared to step aside after a moment of scrutiny and keep on walking in the direction of simplicity: Occam's Razor... should it be further afield. It is the most useful tool in any forensic investigation.

And keep walking... towards some baseline of rational possibility and likelihood. From which they may return to consider the exotic, the less likely, should the occasion warrant. Or the models not fit.

This path of inquiry is simple, really. It begins with an examination of what has been observed, and considers conventional methods for achieving the result that is seen to be. We are talking about the plausible and the possible, not the comfortable and the thinkable. Which will better fit?

Thus In the case of the Towers' collapses -- an airplane may be considered a 'conventional means'. And so are pre-positioned explosives, the kind routinely used for the purpose. Neither exotic substance nor method should be permitted to occupy significant debate and resource -- certainly not to the measure it has on the Internet -- until basic, conventional explosives and techniques are modelled and a fit is attempted.

I would also strongly suggest that the path lead past and around Trade Center Seven.

There is murder in the Twin Towers. Now why should I -- or anyone else for that matter, be called upon to present a reason beyond that? I strongly suggest that the Towers be given the full and exclusive attention of the investigation, until their fate has been reexamined.

We have had a series of inquiries whose purpose, it seems has been to 'assure'.

Are we not pressed on the matter enough to need to actually *be* sure?

Consider the implications. Follow them forwards. Follow them back. Always. This has been necessary for survival in all the eons of human existence, and it is necessary for survival today.

When pressed on a matter that has grave implications for the moral righteousness and stability, even sovereignty of a country, such as many believe we are -- a search for truth should be neither a slogan for justice, nor a cult of personality, nor a cult of idea.

Technology has given us the computer; our know-how as a species and as a nation has given us the opportunity to build models that project the track of hurricanes, analyze finite elements. And such models -- if they are open-source -- may yet give us the power to dispel as well as confirm our deepest fears... even dispel some of the distrust that has arisen in the bargain.

No one should fear arriving at the 'wrong answer'. But those who are purposefully heading in the direction of a 'scripted answer' should have every reason to fear. This is not to mean that they should fear 'reprisal' or 'revenge'. But they should begin to fear that any motive to lead us in unproductive or circular directions... will soon become, quite apparent. What would happen to them, then? Depends.

IF any reasonable controlled demolition hypothesis is given a fair and impartial trial -- and I mean trial by open investigation...

AND an 'open source' computer model which stands the test of peer review, should even *begin* to accurately model the horrifying spectacle we all witnessed on that day...

AND IF it shifts the balance of reason we bring to bear when faced with such a grave matter, to a result which none might desire... but yet, yield a reasonable doubt that grows to become a reasonable certainty----

Then, no matter how anyone might decide to look at it...

The 'wrong' tower fell first.

Twice.


Thanks for listening.



Did you get that headline Grumpy? "Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation"

Seems he doesn't like the "science" that was pulled off over there. Specifically,
Quote:
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.


There is no need for a lot of explosives, just a few in a few key spots. And there would be very little evidence left for investigators to find, even if they were specifically looking. My understanding of the Fresh Kills recovery effort is that it was aimed at finding human remains. Not explosives or trace amounts thereof.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 7 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.