The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[Vinyl-Taliban]

I'd probably say things were exploding too. That is the poetic beauty of language. You can choose so many words for varying effects.


--Andy

Indeed.

It really isn't surprising that explosions were heard given there were fires raging for 7 hours.

[_sabotage_]

The video's consistent, you're not.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Yes they heard an explosion.

Next.

[_sabotage_]

The thing is there should be no next: they should have checked without the video.

But what's next are primary indicators of explosives. These were found by FEMA and the EPA. The steel that was tested shows a high energy attack not caused by fire. This is hard physical evidence that immediately warrants determining the cause.

Next will be melting. The melting was witnessed on the main steel components, was videoed coming out of the building, firefighters reported molten steel, rescue workers reported molten steel, RJ Lee found iron microspheres, fused objects were found.

Next will be the uniqueness NIST's theory of the collapse in what NIST describes as "traditional style building".

Everyone of these is consistent with thermite being used. None of them are required to test for thermite. It's standard to test for it without them.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm glad we have _sab_ on the case. I'm contacting my congresspeople with a link to this topic.


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

I'm glad we have _sab_ on the case. I'm contacting my congresspeople with a link to this topic.


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

After this current poll, can we get some new polls:

Was it valid for NIST to conclude no atomic bombs were used in WTC 7 without checking for uranium?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude no fairies were used in WTC 7 without checking for fairy dust?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude no wizard wands were used in WTC 7 without checking for Severus Snape?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude that Sauron wasn't used in WTC 7 without checking for the One Ring?

[_sabotage_]

Sure, show me the relevant guidelines that require such tests and I'll make the polls.

Sorry, I realized NIST didn't make negative claims about those, so the poll wouldn't make much sense.

Let's try:

Was it valid for NIST to not make any claims about fairy dust without any evidence that fairy dust exists?

[Metsfanmax]

Are you actually mad that NIST didn't follow what you perceive to be a required step in the National Fire Protection Association's handbook, or are you just trying to make some weird argument that demonstrates that since NIST didn't check for explosives, that somehow actually makes explosives more likely?

[_sabotage_]

No, I'm not mad at all. I'm pointing out that engineering forensics states no claims can be made without a reasonable engineering certainty.

The NFPA provides a reasonable engineering certainty threshold for making the claim.

NIST did not follow the guidelines for making the claim.

NIST has made the claim.

NIST's claim is invalid.

It doesn't make explosives more likely, it makes NIST's claim invalid.

[Metsfanmax]

1) Why is NIST's claim invalid because they (allegedly) didn't follow the NFPA's guidelines? Surely the validity of the claim is based on whether explosives were actually used or not, not whether certain guidelines were followed? In other words, the whole point of guidelines is that they provide a recommended method for analyzing a situation, but as has been extensively acknowledged, the collapse of WTC 7 was rather unique. It is not at all clear to me why "reasonable engineering certainty" (as understood by reasonable people interested in the truth of the matter, not interested in arbitrary semantics) can only be obtained if the investigation went one particular way.

2) Who cares whether NIST's "claim" is invalid?

[_sabotage_]

NIST was collecting evidence for an investigation. The investigation would be important on several fronts:

1. For a criminal case.
2. For insurance claims.
3. For future engineering guidelines.

For all of these purposes, evidence of what happened is crucial. The guidelines provide a format for establishing evidence. If explosives were used, it would not be a surprise, it would be expected. It would be expected because fire had never brought down a tall building (NIST's words). It would be the same as if a doctor came out and said I found a new reason for heart attacks. If the patient he had discovered this is in hadn't been tested for the normal ways of causing a heart attack, this would be inconclusive, to say the least.

It's more so because other regulations weren't followed. The site wasn't secured and protected from contamination, in fact it was hurriedly disposed of. NIST didn't have a lot of physical evidence. They themselves state this. But that's not entirely true, they stated at one point that they had 220-240 pieces of steel from WTC 7 and state at another point that none was examined. They had some video evidence and state no evidence of explosives were found. But the video evidence strongly suggests that some explosions occurred.

Wouldn't they be interested in what caused them? Was it the generators, air cons, etc. what role did they play in the collapse and what regulations should be written to ensure that the manufacturers can comply so that it doesn't lead to a other collapses?

What if it was more than met the eye? What if there were active agents of Al Qaeda who had placed bombs there? Knowing that they had would cause us to seek them out and stop them, and punish them.

It's not merely a question of why waste the time, we know why we waste the time for these things.

Who cares about their claim?

If the Osama confession tapes had been validated, we would still care. If a plane was videotaped hitting the Pentagon, we would still care. If any of the alleged terrorists were filmed getting on any of the planes we would still care. If we recovered the black boxes, we would still care. If the "White Paper" proved 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda, we would still care. If the funding was traced, if several of the alleged hijackers weren't still alive, if the back stories of the hijackers weren't so out of touch with the ideas spread about them, if we hadn't had multiple warnings of an attack using planes, if... The list is very long of the lack of evidence of who actually did the attack. And as such we care even more.

Proving guilt is much more than about punishing the bad guys, it's about providing justice, proving stability, showing that you better not try this cuz we'll get you.

But we can't even prove the alleged hijackers were on any of the planes.

So NIST's claim isn't just about WTC 7, it's the only form of investigation we've had. The 9/11 commission report doesn't even mention WTC 7. It was grossly underfunded, people were accused of stealing documents, only four commissioners were allowed to look through thousands of documents. They weren't allowed to remove them, record them.

But NIST was going to be scientific. At least we would know for sure that the planes brought down those buildings. This would be something lacking everything else.

But they didn't examine the evidence, they invented an arbitrary test for explosives (must be between 130-140 dbs) they didn't do standard tests.

They might as well not have bothered.

They added nothing to engineering understanding. They altered the thermal expansion properties of steel with no evidence. They acted like the stiffeners and shear studs weren't present. They raised the fires to unreadable temperatures and assumed all the energy went straight to the steel.

In other words, they can now report to engineers around the world:

Make sure the building has stiffeners.
Make sure the girders have shear studs.
Double check the thermal expansion rates of a36 steel.
Make sure the steel isn't directly exposed to fire.

And engineers can utterly ignore them, because this is already standard.

It doesn't help with a criminal case. It would actually hurt one.

As for insurance. Bush's brother moved from the security of WTC to the insurer settling the claim for it. Silverstein who had just leased and insured the building got his entire claim doubled.

For people who care, it isn't important, especially the victims families.

[GabonX]

After this current poll, can we get some new polls:

Was it valid for NIST to conclude no atomic bombs were used in WTC 7 without checking for uranium?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude no fairies were used in WTC 7 without checking for fairy dust?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude no wizard wands were used in WTC 7 without checking for Severus Snape?
Was it valid for NIST to conclude that Sauron wasn't used in WTC 7 without checking for the One Ring?

First 2 were good, 3 and 4 were just repeats of the second point...

[Vinyl-Taliban]

See section 3.3 of the final WTC7 report. I draw your particular attention to:

"SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation and structure loads due to blast and fragments, was used to simulate pressure histories from hypothetical blasts."; and

"NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of the sound of the hypothetical blasts."

NIST did not invent "an arbitrary test for explosives (must be between 130-140 dbs)."

What's the point of continuing to engage you when you are being dishonest?

[Metsfanmax]

What's the point of continuing to engage you when you are being dishonest?

Excellent question. We should both withdraw from this conversation.

[_sabotage_]

It's on NIST's site. Do you think that all explosions measure between 130-140 decibels? They had to input something into the software. They input an RDX explosion capable of removing a column. So that sound we heard in the video would not count.

Firemen saying "7's exploding" can then be dismissed by their arbitrary measure.

[thegreekdog]

What's the point of continuing to engage you when you are being dishonest?

Excellent question. We should both withdraw from this conversation.

I also highly recommend withdrawing. I will also note that I'm fairly certain sabby doesn't actually read anyone's posts.

[_sabotage_]

I've posted how NIST came to their criteria to dismiss the possibility of an explosion several pages back. It was ignored. He asked me what I do, I responded immediately. And yet, several pages later after not challenging me on how NIST arrived at their arbitrary figure, he then makes me repeat my previous post.

I posted evidence for explosions one page 1. They have spent 8 pages calling me a liar. Finally after getting them to respond to a specific piece of evidence, they admit there was evidence for an explosion, and still proceed to call me a liar.

If we did this with each piece of evidence I have presented, we would experience the same result. As such they have no intention of doing so. They don't want to let the evidence interfere with their preconceptions.

[AndyDufresne]

What's the point of continuing to engage you when you are being dishonest?

Excellent question. We should both withdraw from this conversation.

I also highly recommend withdrawing. I will also note that I'm fairly certain sabby doesn't actually read anyone's posts.

That's why animated gifs or images are usually sound responses.


--Andy

[muy_thaiguy]

[Denna1]

9/11 Conspiracy is still going on across the world and I also believe in it as many questions are still unanswered. I also saw some videos which are opposite to facts US government gave to media.

[DaGip]

9/11 Conspiracy is still going on across the world and I also believe in it as many questions are still unanswered. I also saw some videos which are opposite to facts US government gave to media.

SHUT YOUR BIG YAPPER!!!!



TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME!!!! NOT THE UNITED STATES, YOU DING BAT!

[waauw]

9/11 Conspiracy is still going on across the world and I also believe in it as many questions are still unanswered. I also saw some videos which are opposite to facts US government gave to media.

SHUT YOUR BIG YAPPER!!!!



TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME!!!! NOT THE UNITED STATES, YOU DING BAT!

what a compelling argument you make.

ps: you got some moves there man!

[DaGip]

9/11 Conspiracy is still going on across the world and I also believe in it as many questions are still unanswered. I also saw some videos which are opposite to facts US government gave to media.

SHUT YOUR BIG YAPPER!!!!



TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME!!!! NOT THE UNITED STATES, YOU DING BAT!

what a compelling argument you make.

ps: you got some moves there man!

It's the same argument that has been used for years to show how the United States wasn't complacent in the 9/11 attacks, right along with:

"YOU'RE A CRAZY TRUTHER CONSPIRACY THEORIST!"

and

"NAH NAH NAH BOO BOO!"