[Moderated]"We just want a new investigation" [Archive]

CHF

7th March 2008, 04:27 PM

ktesibios

7th March 2008, 04:57 PM

People bickering over what conclusions an investigation should reach before actually doing the investigation are thinking in a fundamentally bass-ackward way. It's like a lynch mob fighting over which tree to use for the hanging and ignoring the question of how to determine whether their quarry is guilty of anything.

dudalb

7th March 2008, 05:09 PM

So you mean that any investigation that a Truther would accept would be basically a Kangeroo Court?
Why Am I Not Surprised?

Björn Toulouse

7th March 2008, 06:17 PM

It might rain.

eromitlab

7th March 2008, 11:12 PM

It's not enough for the tr00thers to prove everyone wrong on their own and thereby pwn all the so-called experts and officials... the epic nature of the pwning increases if everyone that buys "the official story" is forced to confront it through another investigation that will reveal on its own that the tr00thers were correct all along. Thus, as a further act of contrition, the tr00thers will be venerated as true heroes and patriots, and allowed to do as they see fit as, on a large scale, people question their own belief in experts and education since they were wrong and the "tinfoil hat nutters with their Youtube evidence" that they were quick to dismiss turned out to know exactly what they were talking about.

Sizzler

8th March 2008, 12:28 AM

tsig

8th March 2008, 12:31 AM

they are doing their own investigatison.

Results?

Sizzler

8th March 2008, 12:45 AM

Results?

Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published. He also claims more than one independent lab is investigating the "chips". He also claims his team is dealing with the issues addressed on JREF (ruling out contaminants (torch cutting, fly ash maybe, hopefully doing quanitity analysis????).

I haven't listened to the whole interview yet though. He does discuss the likelyhood that microspheres were created during cutting events (construction or cleanup events?!?!?!). He's compared WTC microspheres to those created during a torch cut. The "residues" are simply not the same. He emphasized high aluminum content. He also claimed there were thousands of them in the dust.

I am sceptical of a few of these claims simply because he or "they" haven't "published" any support for the above yet.

nicepants

8th March 2008, 09:39 AM

Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published.

I do hope that Jones realizes that perhaps more important than the paper being published at all is the publication in which this takes place. If this is just another heap of dung for his own made-up "journal" then he's wasting his time.

beachnut

8th March 2008, 10:58 AM

Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published. He also claims more than one independent lab is investigating the "chips". He also claims his team is dealing with the issues addressed on JREF (ruling out contaminants (torch cutting, fly ash maybe, hopefully doing quanitity analysis????).

I haven't listened to the whole interview yet though. He does discuss the likelyhood that microspheres were created during cutting events (construction or cleanup events?!?!?!). He's compared WTC microspheres to those created during a torch cut. The "residues" are simply not the same. He emphasized high aluminum content. He also claimed there were thousands of them in the dust.

I am sceptical of a few of these claims simply because he or "they" haven't "published" any support for the above yet.
Jones makes up thermite, with no evidence. Now people are waiting for him to back in the dust evidence. It is self critiquing.

Love how Jones can keep gullible people holding on to idiot ideas of thermite. How do people suspend rational thinking to fall for bs?

Cl1mh4224rd

8th March 2008, 11:10 AM

Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published.

A version of their new paper? What's that supposed to mean?

tsig

8th March 2008, 11:33 AM

A version of their new paper? What's that supposed to mean?

Exactly what he wants it to mean no more and no less. Hes good at words that way.

We can now start wondering if paper means the same to him.

Jonnyclueless

8th March 2008, 11:44 AM

If they are doing their own investigations, then why are they asking for a new investigation? Shouldn't they instead be claiming "We've started a new investigation" instead of "Why can't we have a new investigation?".

Pardalis

8th March 2008, 12:20 PM

CHF

8th March 2008, 12:30 PM

they are doing their own investigation.

Incorrect.

They're doing their own investigations.

Dozens of them, in fact....most reaching different conclusions. LIHOP, MIHOP, thermite, bombs, laser beams, mini-nukes, drones, A3s, missiles.....

I'd love to see someone try to put it all together.

tanabear

8th March 2008, 04:05 PM

I've got a crazy idea: why doesn't the TM assemble their evidence and experts....and do their own investigation!

I mean they claim to have lots of evidence and lots of experts. What on earth are they waiting for?

Why not gather up all the folks at AE911 and compile their knowledge and research in order to produce the TM's version of the NIST report - their "official story," if you will.

But the TM will never do that. Why? Because their "researchers" and "experts" would be too busy fighting over whose theory was correct!

These people cannot agree on what was used to take down the WTC, how much of it was used or where it was placed. In fact, they can't even agree on whether some controlled demolitions even took place!

How on earth can the TM's collection of JAQ-offs hope to compete with NIST when they're too busy competing with one another?

There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.

When people are investigating certain events there is likely to be disagreements over the most likely explanation. A social, political or scientific movement that has no internal disagreements is a cult. This would describe the believers in the official 9/11 story. So, of course, the 9/11 Truth Movement has internal debates, we are trying to figure out what happened.

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.

applecorped

8th March 2008, 04:25 PM

And yet there has been nothing substantial brought up in over 6 years woo! Don Quixote lives!!

R.Mackey

8th March 2008, 04:30 PM

There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.

When people are investigating certain events there is likely to be disagreements over the most likely explanation. A social, political or scientific movement that has no internal disagreements is a cult. This would describe the believers in the official 9/11 story. So, of course, the 9/11 Truth Movement has internal debates, we are trying to figure out what happened.

There are also many teams in many countries doing independent investigations that have a much better track record. I speak, of course, of individuals like Dr. Astaneh-Asl at Cal, Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue, Dr. Quintiere at U Maryland, Arup, the ASCE, and other professional societies here and abroad. All of them are presenting at legitimate conferences and in legitimate journals. Their work has a direct impact on construction standards worldwide.

Your team takes almost no notice of these individuals, and when it does, it misquotes and misconstrues their conclusions. Why is that?

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.

Your investigation would be much more likely to succeed if you had any idea what the NIST conclusions actually are. There's nothing sinister, surprising, or remotely unusual about the excerpts you've seen fit to quote here.

bynmdsue

8th March 2008, 04:31 PM

There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc....

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.

Will Steven Jones or any of those you mentioned be able to explain which bolt snapped when?Which floor support gave before the next?The order in which exterior panels seperated?

16.5

8th March 2008, 04:33 PM

The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Oh brother, I forget what a newbie you are. Anyway, there are numerous discussion of this on this site. Educate yourself.

THey take us all the away through the initiation of the collapse, and establish the cause of the collapse and the inevitability of total failure.

Anyway, why don't you explain 1. what further modeling will prove and 2. how much it would cost.

beachnut

8th March 2008, 04:37 PM

There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.
You picked the people in the world, and their followers, who have zero evidence to back up or prove the lies and false information they spread. It does take some knowledge of 9/11 to understand these guys have no evidence. Where does that leave you? You have chosen poorly.

nicepants

8th March 2008, 04:45 PM

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Because that's not what their job was.

They determined what caused the collapse to begin, that's the important part. Providing a detailed analysis of what happened during the collapse would be nearly impossible.

twinstead

8th March 2008, 04:54 PM

tanabear you aren't even understanding what your arguing. NIST isn't saying they don't know why the collapse initiated, they're saying they didn't study the behavior during the collapse itself. Once the collapse started, the building, well, COLLAPSES, right?

Exactly why to you think NIST would try to study something they weren't tasked to study in the first place? To satisfy future irrational conspiracy theorists, just in case?

Sizzler

8th March 2008, 06:39 PM

Who are they?

Well, Jones mentioned a few names in the interview. It can be found on 911blogger, 3rd page I think. I must admit he isn't very transparent about "the investigative team". I still haven't finished watching it though.

CHF

8th March 2008, 08:09 PM

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Kinda like how aircrash investigators figure out why a plane crashed but don't spend their time looking into what happened to the plane when it hit the ground.

Although if interested in the collapse itself, I suppose you can start with the work of Frank Greening.

Jonnyclueless

8th March 2008, 08:37 PM

NIST also didn't prove how gravity works in their investigation. Until we figure that out, we can't really be sure what happened.

tanabear

8th March 2008, 10:27 PM

Oh brother, I forget what a newbie you are. Anyway, there are numerous discussion of this on this site. Educate yourself.

THey take us all the away through the initiation of the collapse, and establish the cause of the collapse and the inevitability of total failure.

Anyway, why don't you explain 1. what further modeling will prove and 2. how much it would cost.

They speculate as to what initiated the collapse and then assume, without evidence, that it would be global. Their collapse initiation theory is that the perimeter columns bowed inward due to the sagging of the floors. This is fine. But what tests did NIST do to determine that it would be global. If NIST is going to create a model of the collapse, then the model needs to mirror, as closely as possible, the observable reality of the actual collapse. If it can't do this, it remains an untested hypothesis. Further modeling would allow NIST to test their hypothesis and see if the inward bowing of the perimeter columns would lead to a collapse that resembled the destruction of WTC1 and 2. The cost would be a lot less than what we spend on this phony War on Terror.

Because that's not what their job was.

They determined what caused the collapse to begin, that's the important part. Providing a detailed analysis of what happened during the collapse would be nearly impossible.

NIST stated as one of the goals of their investigation was to determine, "why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

They came up with a hypothesis as to "why" the buildings collapsed, inward bowing of the perimeter columns, but they did not explain "how" the buildings collapsed. As 9/11 widow Monica Gabrielle once said, "How could skyscrapers just like crumble to the ground in 10 seconds?" NIST never fulfilled their obligation to explain "how" the towers collapsed.

CHF

8th March 2008, 10:41 PM

NIST never fulfilled their obligation to explain "how" the towers collapsed.

NIST claims that when the top section of each tower started to come down it easily overwhelmed the ability of each floor to carry the load and smashed its way through the building. This conclusion has been corroborated by several peer-reviewed papers that have explored the dynamics of the collapses themselves.

Meanwhile the other side of the argument posts crap on their own websites.

I suppose we'll just have to let history judge who was right on this one.... :rolleyes:

R.Mackey

8th March 2008, 10:46 PM

They speculate as to what initiated the collapse and then assume, without evidence, that it would be global. Their collapse initiation theory is that the perimeter columns bowed inward due to the sagging of the floors. This is fine. But what tests did NIST do to determine that it would be global. If NIST is going to create a model of the collapse, then the model needs to mirror, as closely as possible, the observable reality of the actual collapse. If it can't do this, it remains an untested hypothesis. Further modeling would allow NIST to test their hypothesis and see if the inward bowing of the perimeter columns would lead to a collapse that resembled the destruction of WTC1 and 2. The cost would be a lot less than what we spend on this phony War on Terror.

No. Total collapse was already demonstrated by Bazant and Zhou before the preliminary report was even issued. This early paper has been refined several times, confirmed by others (e.g. Dr. Seffen) using different approaches, and now even Truth Movement member GregoryUrich has a corroborating paper. It's a done deal.

You would have us sit on our hands and do nothing until a full-up dynamic simulation replicating the entire collapse evolution, from start to finish, was possible. This isn't technically feasible. Even the static analysis was at the limit of our ability, and substantial uncertainty remains at the microscale due to the assumptions we have to make about the state of the structure prior to impact. This will never change.

What you've committed here is a fallacy of false precision. It doesn't matter that we can't predict exactly how fast the Tower will fall, or whether a given exterior panel will come loose or get folded under the collapse wave. That has absolutely no bearing on the base conclusions, which are unanimously accepted by the scientific community, that the aircraft impacts and fires caused the collapses, and nothing else.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 08:24 AM

No. Total collapse was already demonstrated by Bazant and Zhou before the preliminary report was even issued. This early paper has been refined several times, confirmed by others (e.g. Dr. Seffen) using different approaches, and now even Truth Movement member GregoryUrich has a corroborating paper. It's a done deal.

You would have us sit on our hands and do nothing until a full-up dynamic simulation replicating the entire collapse evolution, from start to finish, was possible. This isn't technically feasible. Even the static analysis was at the limit of our ability, and substantial uncertainty remains at the microscale due to the assumptions we have to make about the state of the structure prior to impact. This will never change.

What you've committed here is a fallacy of false precision. It doesn't matter that we can't predict exactly how fast the Tower will fall, or whether a given exterior panel will come loose or get folded under the collapse wave. That has absolutely no bearing on the base conclusions, which are unanimously accepted by the scientific community, that the aircraft impacts and fires caused the collapses, and nothing else.

Bazant and Zhou's analysis is secondary, as they need a pass on collapse initiation to even make their case. Without a freefall through one or two stories they have no case.

Where is the physical evidence for the 650 degree C steel temperatures required to buckle the columns?

Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.

Additionally, why was none of the steel salvaged from WTC7?

The fact that over 99% of the physical evidence from the towers was not kept, and none from WTC7, is diametrically opposed to the way a proper investigation and failure analysis would normally be done and anyone with any sense can see that there is something wrong with this entire picture.

applecorped

9th March 2008, 08:31 AM

So, realcddeal, please provide a better, more thoroughly researched alternative to what happened on 9/11. Please use peer reviewed, cited research and not speculation. I'll check back in 6/7 years and see how much progress you've made.

Architect

9th March 2008, 08:32 AM

Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.

Do you know how much 4-5,000 ton(nes) actually is?

DGM

9th March 2008, 08:40 AM

Bazant and Zhou's analysis is secondary, as they need a pass on collapse initiation to even make their case. Without a freefall through one or two stories they have no case.

Where is the physical evidence for the 650 degree C steel temperatures required to buckle the columns?

Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.

Additionally, why was none of the steel salvaged from WTC7?

The fact that over 99% the physical evidence from the towers was not kept, and none from WTC7, is diametrically opposed to the way a proper investigation and failure analysis would normally be done and anyone with any sense can see that there is something wrong with this entire picture.

Oh come on Tony! Your movement would call it fake and ignore it anyway. 95% of flight 93 was recovered and you guys dismiss that. Everyone on fl 77 was ID through DNA and you still say it didn't hit the Pentagon.

Stop lying and admit nothing will falsify your believes.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 09:43 AM

Do you know how much 4-5,000 ton(nes) actually is?

The "it is too much" excuse doesn't work. Of course, I know how much steel 4-5,000 tons actually is. It is a volume of approximately 20,500 cubic feet or in analagous terms less than half a football field one foot high.

Are you saying they wouldn't have a field or a large aircraft hangar to store the material?

Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 09:49 AM

Oh come on Tony! Your movement would call it fake and ignore it anyway. 95% of flight 93 was recovered and you guys dismiss that. Everyone on fl 77 was ID through DNA and you still say it didn't hit the Pentagon.

Stop lying and admit nothing will falsify your believes.

Maybe I missed something here. I am not aware that flight 93 had a controversial collapse. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Jonnyclueless

9th March 2008, 09:52 AM

The "it is too much" excuse doesn't work. Of course, I know how much steel 4-5,000 tons actually is. It is a volume of approximately 20,500 cubic feet or in analagous terms less than half a football field one foot high.

Are you saying they wouldn't have a field or a large aircraft hangar to store the material?

Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.

If you read the NIST report you would know the answer to your question.

CHF

9th March 2008, 09:55 AM

Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.

Maybe they didn't save everything because they didn't plan for the silly questions put forth by complete lunatics?

DGM

9th March 2008, 09:56 AM

Maybe I missed something here. I am not aware that flight 93 had a controversial collapse. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Who's said the towers were controversial? I've never met a single person in my industry that has any problem with the collapse.

Do you know of any realistic alternative hypothesis?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 09:56 AM

If you read the NIST report you would know the answer to your question.

Where do they address why they did not get all of the steel from the fire affected areas of the towers and none from WTC7?

They only talk about what little they did get and then dismiss that as not being representative.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 10:01 AM

Who's said the towers were controversial? I've never met a single person in my industry that has any problem with the collapse.

Do you know of any realistic alternative hypothesis?

What world are you living in right now?

You know what the alternative explanations for those collapse initiations are. It doesn't seem that NIST or anyone else has an innocent explanation for the unusual flame and molten metal pouring out of the corner of the South Tower just before it collapsed. It also doesn't seem like there is an innocent explanation for the molten metal in the rubble yet either.

DGM

9th March 2008, 10:03 AM

What world are you living in right now?

You know what the alternative explanations for those collapse initiations are. It doesn't seem that NIST or anyone else has an innocent explanation for the unusual flame and molten metal pouring out of the corner of the South Tower just before it collapsed. It also doesn't seem like there is an innocent explanation for the molten metal in the rubble yet either.
I said realistic hypothesis. Got one?

Find that "Histories mysteries" program yet?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 10:27 AM

Maybe they didn't save everything because they didn't plan for the silly questions put forth by complete lunatics?

Or maybe somebody figured they could pull the wool over the eyes of the public. It isn't lunatic thinking that expects a failure analysis to use the physical evidence.

Confuseling

9th March 2008, 10:33 AM

Maybe I missed something here. I am not aware that flight 93 had a controversial collapse. You are comparing apples to oranges.

This is post hoc reasoning.

The investigators couldn't possibly know what was going to be trawled over on the internet several years later.

If they had all the steel in a big box with a ribbon on it, people would focus on something else.

If five planes had flown into one of the towers and sliced it clean in half, people would still say the collapse was anomalous.

They got as much information as they deemed necessary at the time. As we have an explanation accepted by ~100% of engineers worldwide, the working hypothesis is that they got enough information, or wasted their time and got too much.

applecorped

9th March 2008, 10:35 AM

So, who is this somebody that pulled the wool over everyones (but yours) eyes?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 10:55 AM

So, who is this somebody that pulled the wool over everyones (but yours) eyes?

Those who got rid of the steel before NIST could evaluate it.

I am far from the only one asking this question. If you aren't that is a shame.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 10:59 AM

This is post hoc reasoning.

They got as much information as they deemed necessary at the time. As we have an explanation accepted by ~100% of engineers worldwide, the working hypothesis is that they got enough information, or wasted their time and got too much.

A proper failure analysis requires the physical evidence. NIST said the amount they got was not representative which means they didn't think they got all of the physical evidence they needed to draw conclusions from it.

applecorped

9th March 2008, 11:06 AM

The real shame is the continued perpetuation of myths by people with far less training and education then those who contributed to NIST.

Alt+F4

9th March 2008, 11:10 AM

Those who got rid of the steel before NIST could evaluate it.

You do know that WTC steel is still around, right? Try hanger 17 at JFK Airport.

Newtons Bit

9th March 2008, 11:46 AM

You do know that WTC steel is still around, right? Try hanger 17 at JFK Airport.

They didn't find much steel from where the collapse started.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 11:50 AM

The real shame is the continued perpetuation of myths by people with far less training and education then those who contributed to NIST.

NIST itself doesn't feel they got all the physical steel evidence they needed to draw conclusions from.

Who got rid of over 99% of the fire affected area steel and why?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 11:52 AM

You do know that WTC steel is still around, right? Try hanger 17 at JFK Airport.

Sure I know there is some WTC steel in that hangar, but it isn't the steel from the fire affected areas, which would have been pertinent in the failure analysis.

DGM

9th March 2008, 12:06 PM

Sure I know there is some WTC steel in that hangar, but it isn't the steel from the fire affected areas, which would have been pertinent in the failure analysis.
Could that be because it couldn't be positively identified (it's location in the building that is)? NIST said that didn't they Tony?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 12:16 PM

Could that be because it couldn't be positively identified (it's location in the building that is)? NIST said that didn't they Tony?

The columns had their location numbers stamped in them and they had unique wall thicknesses depending on their vertical location in the towers. It strains credulity to think the stamped numbers were obliterated but even if they were you have the wall thickness to go by.

There simply isn't any excuse for NIST not getting all of the steel from floors 93 through 98 in WTC1 and 78 through 83 in WTC2. I don't believe it was NIST themselves who were responsible for not saving the steel. Who was should be the subject of an investigation.

DGM

9th March 2008, 12:33 PM

The columns had their location numbers stamped in them and they had unique wall thicknesses depending on their vertical location in the towers. It strains credulity to think the stamped numbers were obliterated but even if they were you have the wall thickness to go by.

There simply isn't any excuse for NIST not getting all of the steel from floors 93 through 98 in WTC1 and 78 through 83 in WTC2. I don't believe it was NIST themselves who were responsible for not saving the steel. Who was should be the subject of an investigation.
So Tony, when is the "truth" movement going to tell us how it was done? You've had lot's of time to work out the same details the perpetrators must have figured out. I'd love to know why they chose to crash the planes into different floors.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 12:59 PM

So Tony, when is the "truth" movement going to tell us how it was done? You've had lot's of time to work out the same details the perpetrators must have figured out. I'd love to know why they chose to crash the planes into different floors.

You should ask when those responsible for holding a real investigation are going to find out and tell us how it was done. The first thing I would like to see examined, with individuals put under oath, is why the steel, from the fire affected areas, wasn't saved for NIST.

Newtons Bit

9th March 2008, 01:00 PM

You should say when are those responsible for holding a real investigation going to tell us how it was done.

They already did to the best of their ability with what information could be collected. The burden of proving something isn't on NIST anymore, it's on you.

DGM

9th March 2008, 01:05 PM

You should ask when those responsible for holding a real investigation are going to find out and tell us how it was done. The first thing I would like to see examined, with individuals put under oath, is why the steel, from the fire affected areas, wasn't saved for NIST.
Should I take this as a "I have no idea how it could be done just not the way it's been explained so far, don't ask me why"?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 01:13 PM

They already did to the best of their ability with what information could be collected. The burden of proving something isn't on NIST anymore, it's on you.

Are you saying that an investigation shouldn't be done to find out who made the decision to recycle the fire affected area steel without saving it for NIST to evaluate?

That decision violated protocol of the fire code and those responsible for enforcing that should investigate the matter. See NFPA 921.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_921

Also see the sub link about Fire Investigations and conducting them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_cause_investigation

DGM

9th March 2008, 01:23 PM

Are you saying that an investigation shouldn't be done to find out who made the decision to recycle the fire affected area steel without saving it for NIST to evaluate?

That decision violated protocol of the fire code and those responsible for enforcing that should investigate the matter. See NFPA 921.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_921
That only applies to arson investigations when the cause of the fire is unknown. Nice try though.

FYY; NFPA is not a regulatory agency they only make recommendations.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 01:27 PM

Should I take this as a "I have no idea how it could be done just not the way it's been explained so far, don't ask me why"?

I have my own thoughts about it of course. However, I am not an empowered investigator am I? I don't have subpeona power do I? Your comments can't be taken as genuine here.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 01:31 PM

That only applies to arson investigations when the cause of the fire is unknown. Nice try though.

FYY; NFPA is not a regulatory agency they only make recommendations.

I guess you are saying that you know without a doubt that the cause of fire and collapse was strictly due to the fire ignited by the aircraft fuel, and that it does not bother you that NIST did not get the fire affected area steel to test and evaluate.

As for the NFPA standards I would like you to point out what jurisdiction in the U.S. doesn't follow them.

DGM

9th March 2008, 01:35 PM

I have my own thoughts about it of course. However, I am not an empowered investigator am I? I don't have subpeona power do I? Your comments can't be taken as genuine here.
What is the magic "subpoena power" going to do for you? You just planned and carried out the biggest mass murder in US history you are not going to lie if you have to? Do you document every more you make and file it away just in-case someone needs some incriminating evidence someday? This "subpoena power" is just another thing for you guys to blame as an excuse for your inaction.

Newtons Bit

9th March 2008, 01:41 PM

What is the magic "subpoena power" going to do for you? You just planned and carried out the biggest mass murder in US history you are not going to lie if you have to? Do you document every more you make and file it away just in-case someone needs some incriminating evidence someday? This "subpoena power" is just another thing for you guys to blame as an excuse for your inaction.

The truthers probably imagine themselves as a young Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men" who can badger that old codger Cheney until he has enough and belts out, with self-righteous indignation, "You're damn right I ordered that terrorist attack! I did it to save lives, because that's what people like me do!", or something to that effect.

DGM

9th March 2008, 01:41 PM

I guess you are saying that you know without a doubt that the cause of fire and collapse was strictly due to the fire ignited by the aircraft fuel, and that it does not bother you that NIST did not get the fire affected area steel to test and evaluate.

As for the NFPA standards I would like you to point out what jurisdiction in the U.S. doesn't follow them.
You didn't happen to see two 767's fueled for a cross country run hit the towers did you?

The "NY/NJ Port Authority" for one. They don't have to. It's (NFPA) not a government agency, It a private organization with no legislative powers.

Jonnyclueless

9th March 2008, 02:57 PM

Where do they address why they did not get all of the steel from the fire affected areas of the towers and none from WTC7?

They only talk about what little they did get and then dismiss that as not being representative.

In quite a few places. But thank you for making it abundantly clear that you never even bothered to read it. Standard troofer. Kinda reminds me of the Muslims starting violent protests over cartoons they never even saw but just make assumptions about.

Jonnyclueless

9th March 2008, 02:58 PM

I guess you are saying that you know without a doubt that the cause of fire and collapse was strictly due to the fire ignited by the aircraft fuel, and that it does not bother you that NIST did not get the fire affected area steel to test and evaluate.

As for the NFPA standards I would like you to point out what jurisdiction in the U.S. doesn't follow them.

Once again, proving that you never bothered to read it, or else you would be laughing at your own responses.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 02:58 PM

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 03:01 PM

In quite a few places. But thank you for making it abundantly clear that you never even bothered to read it. Standard troofer. Kinda reminds me of the Muslims starting violent protests over cartoons they never even saw but just make assumptions about.

Don't evade the question. Provide a reference or your post is nonsense. I have read a large portion of the NIST report. Prove you have and that you aren't just talking out of your hat.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 03:03 PM

You didn't happen to see two 767's fueled for a cross country run hit the towers did you?

The "NY/NJ Port Authority" for one. They don't have to. It's (NFPA) not a government agency, It a private organization with no legislative powers.

Bad answer. The NY/NJ Port Authority was not tasked with investigating the collapses. Are you saying they had the legal authority to recycle the steel from the fire affected areas before it was evaluated by the agency responsible for investigating the collapses?

DGM

9th March 2008, 03:07 PM

It sounds like Newtons Bit and DGM don't fully appreciate the methods of prosecutors in getting witnesses to tell the truth. The taking of an oath is only the first step. There are also interrogation techniques of different individuals which can then be used to coerce the others.

It almost sounds like you guys are shilling for the Bush administration story. Oh well.
Sorry to say you sound like your looking for an excuse for not having any evidence to support you core believes.

DGM

9th March 2008, 03:09 PM

Bad answer. The NY/NJ Port Authority was not tasked with investigating the collapses.
Neither is anyone else that was tasked with the investigation. What's your point?

SDC

9th March 2008, 04:13 PM

So have your investigation. Don't cry "they won't let us." That gets you nowhere. Just do it. Assuming you can't get at material evidence, then work up the math. Devote your life to tracking down participants who will confess, witnesses who will retract their accounts, well, and so on, you can figure it out.

Do it, for heaven's sake. Otherwise the participants in the original conspiracy, the real witnesses, etc., will all disappear, perhaps in a great wave of unexplained killings by the Bush admin. (Whatever you do, DO NOT accept that invitation to go hunting with Dick Cheney!)

Come on, get to it.

ETA: just read through a number of messages, by you (realcddeal), which appeared today and which I'd missed. They don't lead me to change anything I said, above.

I'll just note that you are describing yourself as helpless, and at the same time demanding that things be done; coercion of possible witnesses, for example. Cute.

Please advise as to why anyone should bother to read your posts in the future. Are you feeling pretty cocky now, because Gravy seems to have retired? That is my guess.

AZCat

9th March 2008, 04:22 PM

I guess you are saying that you know without a doubt that the cause of fire and collapse was strictly due to the fire ignited by the aircraft fuel, and that it does not bother you that NIST did not get the fire affected area steel to test and evaluate.

As for the NFPA standards I would like you to point out what jurisdiction in the U.S. doesn't follow them.

NFPA standards are not codes. There is a difference. A number of jurisdictions in my area have not adopted the NFPA standards. They have been going to the International codes (which reference some of the NFPA standards).

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 04:56 PM

NFPA standards are not codes. There is a difference. A number of jurisdictions in my area have not adopted the NFPA standards. They have been going to the International codes (which reference some of the NFPA standards).

Let's say it a little differently. What do you think a court would say in a situation where a fire investigator had to say said he couldn't test the material evidence from a fire scene as someone had thrown it away before he could evaluate it? Do you think the court would want to know who threw it away and why? Do you think they might want to talk to whoever was involved in the destruction of that evidence?

DGM

9th March 2008, 05:03 PM

Let's say it a little differently. What do you think a court would say in a situation where a fire investigator had to say said he couldn't test the material evidence from a fire scene as someone had thrown it away before he could evaluate it? Do you think the court would want to know who threw it away and why? Do you think they might want to talk to whoever was involved in the destruction of that evidence?
Wouldn't that only be a problem if they didn't know what started the fire? Remember , big gonking airplanes.

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 05:07 PM

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 05:10 PM

Wouldn't that only be a problem if they didn't know what started the fire? Remember , big gonking airplanes.

Fire investigators are not supposed to take things for granted. They usually go through a set of procedures even if they have a preconceived idea of what might have caused something. Sometimes there are surprises and that is why there are procedures.

DGM

9th March 2008, 05:16 PM

Fire investigators are not supposed to take things for granted. They usually go through a set of procedures even if they have a preconceived idea of what might have caused something. Sometimes there are surprises and that is why there are procedures.
Why are you using NFPA as an argument for saving the WTC steel? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. NFPA is for arson. Your looking awfully desperate these days.

When is Gregory Urich's new paper going to be in the "journal"?

Tony Szamboti

9th March 2008, 05:21 PM

Why are you using NFPA as an argument for saving the WTC steel? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. NFPA is for arson. Your looking awfully desperate these days.

When is Gregory Urich's new paper going to be in the "journal"?

Are you saying there is no way that the collapses of the Twin Towers could not have been caused by arson, with the planes being causal ruses?

The NFPA standard is used by most fire investigators to ensure they don't miss things in a fire investigation, and it requires test and evaluation of the physical evidence. NIST would have done the same thing if they had gotten the steel from the fire affected areas. Why didn't they get that steel? How could they do a proper investigation without the physical evidence?

LashL

9th March 2008, 05:22 PM

DGM

9th March 2008, 05:25 PM

Are you saying there is no way that the collapses of the Twin Towers could not have been caused by arson, with the planes being causal ruses?

The NFPA standard is used by most fire investigators to ensure they don't miss things in a fire investigation, and it requires test and evaluation of the physical evidence. NIST would have done the same thing if they had gotten the steel from the fire affected areas. Why didn't they get that steel? How could they do a proper investigation without the physical evidence?
That's what I'm saying.

DGM

9th March 2008, 05:32 PM

Tony;
Calling the planes "causal ruses" when a friend of mine died when 175 hit is more than a little offensive. This was real Tony get with the program.

Cl1mh4224rd

9th March 2008, 05:33 PM

Are you saying there is no way that the collapses of the Twin Towers could not have been caused by arson [...]?

Uhh, no... that seems to be what you're saying.

(Watch those double negatives...)

DGM

9th March 2008, 05:43 PM

Uhh, no... that seems to be what you're saying.

(Watch those double negatives...)
Notice the edit, deceit is the "truther" way.

Newtons Bit

9th March 2008, 06:11 PM

It sounds like Newtons Bit and DGM don't fully appreciate the methods of prosecutors in getting witnesses to tell the truth. The taking of an oath is only the first step. There are also interrogation techniques which are used on the various individuals involved which can then be used to coerce and break down any false testimony.

Let's take a look at the hypothetical "conspiracy" and what would happen with said subpoenas. In order of most likely to least:

A) There's no conspiracy. The trial lawyers badger a bunch of people and drag their names through the mud, nothing is discovered because there is nothing to be discovered.

B) There is a conspiracy and it is powerful. There is a trial by "respectable" truthers but they find nothing. The big bad conspiracy extorted, blackmailed and murdered the investigators so that their conclusions would be for naught.

C) There is a conspiracy, but due to the necessity of keeping it a secret, everyone but a few of the uppermost members of it have been quietly murdered. The trial lawyers badger a bunch of people and drag their names through the mud, nothing is discovered because they can't find anyone who actually knows anything.

johnny karate

10th March 2008, 03:21 AM

Are you saying there is no way that the collapses of the Twin Towers could not have been caused by arson, with the planes being causal ruses?

I know this phrase gets thrown around a lot here, but seriously: That has to be the single stupidest thing I've ever read.

You honestly think that there needs to be an arson investigation of WTC1 and WTC2 even though hundreds of people witnessed fuel-laden jetliners crash into them at full speed?

Furthermore, you actually think that the evil geniuses who planned this conspiracy actually thought that crashing a plane into a building would be a good way to conceal arson?

Tony Szamboti

10th March 2008, 04:19 AM

I know this phrase gets thrown around a lot here, but seriously: That has to be the single stupidest thing I've ever read.

You honestly think that there needs to be an arson investigation of WTC1 and WTC2 even though hundreds of people witnessed fuel-laden jetliners crash into them at full speed?

Furthermore, you actually think that the evil geniuses who planned this conspiracy actually thought that crashing a plane into a building would be a good way to conceal arson?

I believe, that at the very least, those responsible for recycling the steel from the fire affected areas, before NIST could test and evaluate it, should be interrogated, and that it should be made public.

Tony Szamboti

10th March 2008, 04:24 AM

Tony;
Calling the planes "causal ruses" when a friend of mine died when 175 hit is more than a little offensive. This was real Tony get with the program.

Who says it wasn't real? I am not saying for one minute that planes did not hit those towers nor that they weren't AA11 and UA175. What I am saying is that there are a lot of fishy things involved in what occurred on 911 and that they don't seem to all be explainable in an easy innocent way. For instance, the molten metal in the rubble, the collapse of WTC7, etc.

My point here should not be offensive. I would say that sadly your friend was murdered. The question is by whom.

CHF

10th March 2008, 07:04 AM

Arson?

Two airliners slam into the towers and we need a new investigation into whether or not there was arson?

Tony, you can't possibly be serious...

DGM

10th March 2008, 07:09 AM

10th March 2008, 07:36 AM

What I would like to see is you explain how these things are actually "fishy". To date no one in your "movement" has proposed a plausible alternative explanation for what happened giving the conditions on site. Why is this? Tony your "movement" really has to start trying to connect it's own dots.

Don't they need some legitimate "dots" first?

Drudgewire

10th March 2008, 07:41 AM

;3513232']Don't they need some legitimate "dots" first?
See, here's the problem with that...

WildCat

10th March 2008, 07:52 AM

See, here's the problem with that...
I don't think that [X] is capable of seeing the irony in that...

Jonnyclueless

10th March 2008, 09:25 AM

Don't evade the question. Provide a reference or your post is nonsense. I have read a large portion of the NIST report. Prove you have and that you aren't just talking out of your hat.

Ah yes, the good old evading the issue by bringing up another argument ad pretending that I am evading. The answer to your question is pretty simple and laid out in many places in the NIST report. The one that YOU DID NOT READ. And if you had, you would almost laugh at how obvious the answer is. But since you DID NOT READ the NIST report, you won't know.

And the real issue here is you trying to snub a report that YOU DID NOT READ.

Jonnyclueless

10th March 2008, 09:27 AM

I believe, that at the very least, those responsible for recycling the steel from the fire affected areas, before NIST could test and evaluate it, should be interrogated, and that it should be made public.

Showing your ignorance again. If you would bother to read the report, you would laugh at your claims. Here's a little hint, go check out the section about the fire testing which addresses this issue very VERY clearly. There is so much you could learn by simply READING the report you are talking about.

Drudgewire

10th March 2008, 03:17 PM

I don't think that [X] is capable of seeing the irony in that...
I think you have [X] confused with "Mr. X." This one's on our side. :)

JimBenArm

10th March 2008, 06:37 PM

The most pathetic thing is them, coming here and saying they want a new investigation. It's obvious they can't do it. They don't have the people who could figure out how to do one, hold it together long enough to complete it, and even get anyone to look at it without laughing. Hence, they come here to whine at us, to try to get us to do it for them. After all, it's worked with their parents all these years!
If they had 1% of the experts they claim to have, it would have already been done. The fact is, this is the biggest defect in their movement, and they know it. No one of any stature belongs. No one of any intellect takes them seriously. No one with any ability will have anything to do with them. They get the fringe players, delusional psychotics, and attention seekers, and no one else.
Man, that's gotta hurt.

johnny karate

10th March 2008, 09:17 PM

I believe, that at the very least, those responsible for recycling the steel from the fire affected areas, before NIST could test and evaluate it, should be interrogated, and that it should be made public.

Hmmm... of course this begs the question: If there was an aspect of this conspiracy that was concealing or withholding evidence from NIST (who we know to be nothing more than government shills), who are they and why would they do this? Is there a conspiracy within the conspiracy?

We're through the looking glass here, people.

LastChild

10th March 2008, 09:34 PM

Showing your ignorance again. If you would bother to read the report, you would laugh at your claims. Here's a little hint, go check out the section about the fire testing which addresses this issue very VERY clearly. There is so much you could learn by simply READING the report you are talking about.

"Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?" - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

WildCat

10th March 2008, 09:37 PM

I think you have [X] confused with "Mr. X." This one's on our side. :)
Oh, sorry [X]... :blush:

beachnut

10th March 2008, 09:44 PM

Who says it wasn't real? I am not saying for one minute that planes did not hit those towers nor that they weren't AA11 and UA175. What I am saying is that there are a lot of fishy things involved in what occurred on 911 and that they don't seem to all be explainable in an easy innocent way. For instance, the molten metal in the rubble, the collapse of WTC7, etc.

My point here should not be offensive. I would say that sadly your friend was murdered. The question is by whom.
19 terrorist did 9/11. If you deny this without real evidence, are you being disrespectful?

19 terrorists did it (evidence proves it), and you blame other people (do not deny this, you are a member of a group who blames other people for 9/11), and you do that with zero evidence. You disrespect those who died by publishing an error ridden (you still have errors when they have been pointed out), politically biased paper in a journal that is promoted by a people who spread disinformation on 9/11. What outstanding professional qualities are you displaying?

Your point that you promote is you have no evidence to point out the fishy stuff, you just make it up without evidence to do so.

Good Lt

10th March 2008, 09:45 PM

"Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?" - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)So we're back to Dr. Quintiere again, are we? I think I have the Troof movement figured out - it's the same set of arguments, lies, deceptions, half-truths, non-truths, non-events, and mined quotes recycled so that each one comes back up as the primary argument for the day about once every six or seven months.

ZZzzzzz.

Is Dr. Quintiere a Troofer? Does he subscribe to even one conspiracy fantasy? No?

LastChild

10th March 2008, 10:02 PM

So we're back to Dr. Quintiere again, are we? I think I have the Troof movement figured out - it's the same set of arguments, lies, deceptions, half-truths, non-truths, non-events, and mined quotes recycled so that each one comes back up as the primary argument for the day about once every six or seven months.

ZZzzzzz.

Is Dr. Quintiere a Troofer? Does he subscribe to even one conspiracy fantasy? No?

Well it's not a conspiracy theory that the NIST investigation was inadequate and needs to be reviewed. It's just a fact. Try to keep up.

Jonnyclueless

10th March 2008, 10:04 PM

LastChild

10th March 2008, 10:15 PM

SO I see LastChild is another one who obviously didn't bother to even read the NIST report which he is is blasting.

Man, if these guys would bother to read, they would see how absurd some of these claims are.

Oh I read it and I suppose you did also and now you know better then Quintiere huh? Does NIST employ many people who are prone to be wrong?

DavidJames

10th March 2008, 10:23 PM

...Man, if these guys would bother to read, they would see how absurd some of these claims are.Not necessarily, he would need to be smart enough to understand it. But if he was smart enough to understand it, he wouldn't be a CTist.

Oh, there is no way LC read NIST, none.

Notice his comment about Quintiere? The real issues Quintiere has with NIST have been pointed out to him numerous times. He just ignores them. Reading comprehension problems? Intellectual dishonesty? Troll? Maybe, probably, definitely.

LashL

10th March 2008, 10:33 PM

I think I have the Troof movement figured out - it's the same set of arguments, lies, deceptions, half-truths, non-truths, non-events, and mined quotes recycled so that each one comes back up as the primary argument for the day about once every six or seven months.

Yes, you've got it. The twoof movement meets the shampoo industry:

Rinse
Blather
Repeat

johnny karate

10th March 2008, 10:34 PM

Oh I read it and I suppose you did also and now you know better then Quintiere huh? Does NIST employ many people who are prone to be wrong?

See... this is where I get confused. Are the authors of the NIST report shills or not? Was the NIST report a whitewash or not? Can we trust anything that Dr. Quintiere says, considering his role in the cover-up?

How come CTers are always citing people and organizations that they have elsewhere claimed to be complicit or somehow compromised?

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 12:39 AM

Wow, LC actually has the nerve to claim that he read it after the statement he made which is so easily refuted by the report he is making a claim about? That's kinda like me saying the Bible doesn't address Jesus.

I hereby claim this thread as an official state of Shenanigans. All those in favor say aye.

CHF

11th March 2008, 06:42 AM

Oh I read it and I suppose you did also and now you know better then Quintiere huh? Does NIST employ many people who are prone to be wrong?

What does Quintiere say caused the towers to collapse, LC?

C'mon....you can say it :D

nicepants

11th March 2008, 07:54 AM

Well it's not a conspiracy theory that the NIST investigation was inadequate and needs to be reviewed. It's just a fact. Try to keep up.

Reviewed by whom?

Myriad

11th March 2008, 08:46 AM

I agree with LastChild. I demand that NIST recruit a panel of top experts in structural engineering, fire protection engineering, dynamic modeling, metallurgy, and numerous other relevant disciplines, to evaluate building performance issues related to 9/11.

Oh, wait...

Okay, then, I demand that NIST publish the entire report and make it available free of charge, so that any expert in a relevant field anywhere in the world can review it and, if they see fit, challenge its findings.

Oh, wait...

Okay, then, I demand that universities, independent researchers, technical journalists, and the popular press conduct their own independent investigations of such aspects of the disaster are within their purview.

Oh, wait...

Okay, I demand that reality be adjusted to match my beliefs!

(Whew, I wish I'd just said that in the first place. It would have saved a lot of trouble and arguing.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

LastChild

11th March 2008, 10:01 AM

Okay, I demand that reality be adjusted to match my beliefs!

"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." - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

What was that you were saying?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 10:05 AM

What does Quintiere say caused the towers to collapse, LC?

C'mon....you can say it :D

Just read what he says...

"Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students' research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. "I suggest that there's an equally justifiable theory and that's the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different," "

How many equally justifiable theories are there to the NIST theory? Why so open for discussion?

Alferd_Packer

11th March 2008, 10:08 AM

the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers

Hmm that sounds remarkably like the NIST theory that there was insufficent fireproofing on the trusses due to it being dislodged by the shock of the impact.

Dave Rogers

11th March 2008, 10:09 AM

"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." - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

What was that you were saying?

"This collapse mechanism conclusion has profound influence on the recommendations brought from this investigation. The airplane-caused column collapse theory yields significantly, and almost diametrically, opposed recommendations than the fire induced truss collapse mechanism." - James Quintiere, Ph.D.

I think he was saying something about how reality is Quintiere arguing that NIST has not satisfactorily resolved the question of whether the collapse was primarily caused by airplane-caused column collapse or fire induced truss collapse, and alteration of reality is you implying that the fact that Quintiere has narrowed his analysis down to these two possibilities supports your belief it was neither.

Dave

twinstead

11th March 2008, 10:09 AM

Dave Rogers

11th March 2008, 10:11 AM

Is this what you do when you run out of material?

Since it's what he's been doing since day one, I'd have to say yes.

Dave

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 10:13 AM

Shinanigans.

Belz...

11th March 2008, 10:15 AM

they are doing their own investigation.

Sorry. Watching Youtube videos does not count.

Belz...

11th March 2008, 10:19 AM

When people are investigating certain events there is likely to be disagreements over the most likely explanation.

Unfortunately, EVERY singe truther has a different conclusion. None of them can come to a consensus, and they don't actually make any effort to validate their opinions. It's less like investigations and more like inquisitions.

Alferd_Packer

11th March 2008, 10:19 AM

BTW, there is sufficient evidence (pre-9/11) that the fireproofing as it was originally applied was, shall we say, not very well installed. That's what happens when you hire a subcontractor owned by John Gotti

LastChild

11th March 2008, 10:22 AM

LC what is the matter with you? Is this what you do when you run out of material? Hell, after going through this Quintiere stuff AGAIN and how his concerns about the NIST report have NOTHING to do with CD, perhaps we can talk about 'Pull it' some more.

Do you ever come with anything other then your pretend debunking of CD? Talk about running out of material. All you have is this CD argument that has never really been debunked. Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate. Is Quintiere giving a shining review of NIST like you like to do? Does Quintiere agree with your apologies for NIST?

I think all of you are the ones out of material. Time to start posting pictures of cats. Do something you’re good at.

aggle-rithm

11th March 2008, 10:25 AM

Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate.

I've said many times that clouds aren't nearly as fluffy as they should be. But, dammit, no one does anything about it!!!

DGM

11th March 2008, 10:27 AM

Dave Rogers

11th March 2008, 10:29 AM

Do you ever come with anything other then your pretend debunking of CD? Talk about running out of material. All you have is this CD argument that has never really been debunked. Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate. Is Quintiere giving a shining review of NIST like you like to do? Does Quintiere agree with your apologies for NIST?

That's a nice attempt at being disingenuous. The problem is, this is the Conspiracy Theories forum, not the Criticising Results of Government Sponsored Investigatory Bodies forum. Now, your comments on the validity of the NIST report fall into one of two categories.

(a) They are connected with some theory in which the collapse mode of the towers is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of a conspiracy, in which case you are being dishonest when you imply that your never having mentioned CD is somehow relevant.

(b) They are not connected with any theory in which the collapse mode of the towers is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of a conspiracy, in which case they are off-topic for this forum and shouldn't be discussed here.

So either admit that you're trying to undermine the credibility of the NIST report in order to bolster the credibility of a conspiracy theory concerning the collapse mode of the twin towers, or take your discussion to a more appropriate forum.

Dave

applecorped

11th March 2008, 10:34 AM

DGM

11th March 2008, 10:38 AM

DavidJames

11th March 2008, 10:40 AM

In all sincerity, what are you looking for here at JREF? You don't convince anyone and no one convinces you. What exactly are you hoping to gain?what every child wants, the attention of an adult.

twinstead

11th March 2008, 10:48 AM

Do you ever come with anything other then your pretend debunking of CD? Talk about running out of material. All you have is this CD argument that has never really been debunked. Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate. Is Quintiere giving a shining review of NIST like you like to do? Does Quintiere agree with your apologies for NIST?

You are using Quintiere's disagreements with NIST as evidence your disagreements with NIST are valid. His are rational and in no way, shape, or form evidence of ANY 'inside job' by the government. Your disagreements, however, are based on ignorance and ideolgical bias.

Your views are well known; you don't have to 'mention' anything for us to know what you are doing. You want to argue on this forum that the NIST was TOO conservative in its treatment of fireproofing and that part of it needs to be re-investigated? Sure thing, have at it. Use Quintiere.

Otherwise get your own experts; Quintiere isn't on your side at ALL.

DGM

11th March 2008, 11:00 AM

twinstead

11th March 2008, 11:08 AM

Twinstead:
I think Dr Quintiere is suggesting an inside job of sorts (not like the "truthers" hoped). He believes NIST was pressured to down play the importance of stricter fire codes (costly to developers) due to the strong lobby the developers have. He suggest the towers could have failed by fire alone and thinks much stricter codes should be recommended. This would of course add millions to building costs and would make NIST very unpopular to the people they need to relate the most. He thinks they missed the perfect opportunity to get the codes in place while the attention was on the disaster. Classic missed opportunity as far as he's concerned.

Thanks. That's a good way of summarizing it for me. I find it funny that either LC doesn't understand Quintiere's issues at all and thinks he is evidence of the truther type inside job, or knows exactly what Quintiere's issues are but thinks that it must be a slippery slope from the politics Quintiere is accusing the NIST of playing to covering up the mass murder of thousands of people by the government.

Either way is wrong, IMO.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by LastChild
Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate
__________________________________________________ ____________________

In all sincerity, what are you looking for here at JREF? You don't convince anyone and no one convinces you. What exactly are you hoping to gain?

There is nothing to gain from the so-called debunking here at JREF. It's a waste. I’m just doing the same thing I’ve always done. The debunkers claim to know what happen on 9/11. They base this claim in a large part on the 9/11 commission report and the NIST report. Both of which I claim are inadequate as far as getting to the bottom of exactly what happen leading up to and on 9/11.

I have posted quotes from insiders of both the 9/11 commission as well as NIST to support this claim. I have posted statements from experts who also have a problem with the official explanation into 9/11. I am continually told here that a vast consensus of experts agrees with these reports. I have asked for public statements from said experts to support this vast consensus. I get nothing but lame excuses and apologies for these investigative bodies. That and the occasional cartoon or cat.

Now I don’t have an alternative theory as to what happen on 9/11 nor do I need one to point out why your theory is inadequate. However I will commit to this. There was a concerted effort by this present administration to first deter from any investigation at all and even when they did finally give in it was only in support of a limited investigation. I feel they were mostly concerned with both avoiding accountability for not protecting the US on 9/11, as well as trying to limit any kind of litigation that could arise because of the attacks. In my opinion these investigations you point to as an explanation mostly exist only to serve those interests.

A tactic I use here a lot is to take the debunker argument on just about anything and put a mirror up to it. None of your theories seem to do well under your own standards and that is what bothers you most about me. I am called a troll when I give the debunker back the equivalent of what they offer.

Pretending to debunk an uninvestigated theory does not make your conspiracy theory valid by default. It’s a waste of time.

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 11:13 AM

Yeah too bad the CD he isn't talking about (wink wink) hasn't been debunked....

LOL

LukeB

11th March 2008, 11:14 AM

There is nothing to gain from the so-called debunking here at JREF.

Boy ain't that the trooth! Debunking is like trying to teach my dog poker, it dosen't matter how long I go at it or how hard I try it's never going to understand.

applecorped

11th March 2008, 11:44 AM

There is nothing to gain from the so-called debunking here at JREF. It's a waste. I’m just doing the same thing I’ve always done. The debunkers claim to know what happen on 9/11. They base this claim in a large part on the 9/11 commission report and the NIST report. Both of which I claim are inadequate as far as getting to the bottom of exactly what happen leading up to and on 9/11.

I have posted quotes from insiders of both the 9/11 commission as well as NIST to support this claim. I have posted statements from experts who also have a problem with the official explanation into 9/11. I am continually told here that a vast consensus of experts agrees with these reports. I have asked for public statements from said experts to support this vast consensus. I get nothing but lame excuses and apologies for these investigative bodies. That and the occasional cartoon or cat.

Now I don’t have an alternative theory as to what happen on 9/11 nor do I need one to point out why your theory is inadequate. However I will commit to this. There was a concerted effort by this present administration to first deter from any investigation at all and even when they did finally give in it was only in support of a limited investigation. I feel they were mostly concerned with both avoiding accountability for not protecting the US on 9/11, as well as trying to limit any kind of litigation that could arise because of the attacks. In my opinion these investigations you point to as an explanation mostly exist only to serve those interests.

A tactic I use here a lot is to take the debunker argument on just about anything and put a mirror up to it. None of your theories seem to do well under your own standards and that is what bothers you most about me. I am called a troll when I give the debunker back the equivalent of what they offer.

Pretending to debunk an uninvestigated theory does not make your conspiracy theory valid by default. It’s a waste of time.

We don't have a conspiracy theory, we have research by many , many people to arrive at the best possible conclusion available. If you don't think the conclusions reached so far are accurate then why aren't you trying to do something about it other than just tell us that our conclusions are wrong? Telling someone they are wrong but not being able to tell them why is arrogant. I don't believe that there will ever be another investigation as no one has ever been able to bring forth anything that warrant it. Could it happen? Yes, if something substantial comes to light but nothing has so far and it doesn't seem that you are interested in really looking for anything along those lines. I have seen many a JREF member admit when they are wrong on a topic when it was pointed out to them. I ask you, is there anything you and JREF's agree about concerning 9/11. Maybe common ground on just one thing may help us both.

CHF

11th March 2008, 11:52 AM

Now I never mentioned CD. I said the NIST investigation was inadequate.

Oh OK. I get it now.

All this time it sounded like you were arguing that a CD took place on 9/11, when it fact you simply want better fireproofing codes. :rolleyes:

DGM

11th March 2008, 11:59 AM

Oh OK. I get it now.

All this time it sounded like you were arguing that a CD took place on 9/11, when it fact you simply want better fireproofing codes. :rolleyes:
Well he's got one hell of an up-hill battle ahead, Just ask Dr Quintiere. Them money men (developers) are the ones that dictate how buildings are constructed now-a-days.:jaw-dropp

aggle-rithm

11th March 2008, 12:00 PM

There is nothing to gain from the so-called debunking here at JREF. It's a waste. I’m just doing the same thing I’ve always done. The debunkers claim to know what happen on 9/11. They base this claim in a large part on the 9/11 commission report and the NIST report. Both of which I claim are inadequate as far as getting to the bottom of exactly what happen leading up to and on 9/11.

I have posted quotes from insiders of both the 9/11 commission as well as NIST to support this claim. I have posted statements from experts who also have a problem with the official explanation into 9/11. I am continually told here that a vast consensus of experts agrees with these reports. I have asked for public statements from said experts to support this vast consensus. I get nothing but lame excuses and apologies for these investigative bodies. That and the occasional cartoon or cat.

Now I don’t have an alternative theory as to what happen on 9/11 nor do I need one to point out why your theory is inadequate. However I will commit to this. There was a concerted effort by this present administration to first deter from any investigation at all and even when they did finally give in it was only in support of a limited investigation. I feel they were mostly concerned with both avoiding accountability for not protecting the US on 9/11, as well as trying to limit any kind of litigation that could arise because of the attacks. In my opinion these investigations you point to as an explanation mostly exist only to serve those interests.

A tactic I use here a lot is to take the debunker argument on just about anything and put a mirror up to it. None of your theories seem to do well under your own standards and that is what bothers you most about me. I am called a troll when I give the debunker back the equivalent of what they offer.

Pretending to debunk an uninvestigated theory does not make your conspiracy theory valid by default. It’s a waste of time.

Don't let me stop you from alerting the authorities.

Alferd_Packer

11th March 2008, 12:03 PM

LastChild:
Dr Quintiere thinks that the fires were hotter (than NIST thought) and the towers would have failed with no insulation damage. He thinks they let the developers of the hook on having to pay for more fire protection.

LIVE WITH IT!

Well, we certainly can't do anything about the president of the company that installed the fireproofing, he was wacked in the garage of the WTC in the early 80's. fugetaboutit.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 12:13 PM

We don't have a conspiracy theory,

Yes you do. You have a conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers. You then claim any other theory would take thousands of people to be in on it and they would all have to keep their mouth shut both leading up to the attacks and after. Who else do you claim besides the hijackers? Why al-Qaeda of course. Was all of al-Qaeda in on the attacks? Did they all have to keep their mouths shut? How are they keeping Bin Ladens location secret all these years? Now that’s some conspiracy theory.

we have research by many , many people to arrive at the best possible conclusion available.

Yes and I have asked for quotes from some of these “many” you speak of. I’m still waiting. Do you ever find it funny that one side implies possible government involvement in the 9/11 attacks and the only thing you seem to offer to refute this is the very administration that was in power at the time of 9/11 and their investigations into it? Maybe if Hitler lived he could have investigated the holocaust for you. Too bad, I mean who could have known more about it then him?

If you don't think the conclusions reached so far are accurate then why aren't you trying to do something about it other than just tell us that our conclusions are wrong? Telling someone they are wrong but not being able to tell them why is arrogant.

That’s isn’t all I do. In fact right in this thread I directed to a link where Quintere points out exactly why he thinks the NIST report falls short. Arrogant is asserting to know things you obviously don’t.

I don't believe that there will ever be another investigation as no one has ever been able to bring forth anything that warrant it. Could it happen? Yes, if something substantial comes to light but nothing has so far and it doesn't seem that you are interested in really looking for anything along those lines. I have seen many a JREF member admit when they are wrong on a topic when it was pointed out to them. I ask you, is there anything you and JREF's agree about concerning 9/11. Maybe common ground on just one thing may help us both.

I agree that 9/11 is important. You are the one not interested in the truth. You are for less investigation.

CHF

11th March 2008, 12:18 PM

Who else do you claim besides the hijackers? Why al-Qaeda of course. Was all of al-Qaeda in on the attacks? Did they all have to keep their mouths shut?

Actually they've bragged about it a fair bit since 9/11.

Yeah, yeah, I know...all those tapes are faked. :rolleyes:

In fact right in this thread I directed to a link where Quintere points out exactly why he thinks the NIST report falls short.

And what does he disagree with NIST about?

Is he upset that they didn't look at CD theories?

DGM

11th March 2008, 12:19 PM

LastChild:
When did the last investigation of 9/11 conclude?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 12:29 PM

LastChild:
When did the last investigation of 9/11 conclude?

When did a real one start?

Pardalis

11th March 2008, 12:38 PM

Why do you come here Last Child?

You obviously think this subforum is a waste of time, and you can only post nonsensical threads (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108503) in the politics forum...

So again, what do you wish to accomplish here?

Disbelief

11th March 2008, 12:40 PM

When did a real one start?

That very day. To assert otherwise is a disservice to all the people who were at Ground Zero helping.

Your whole premise SMACKS of political hate, so the only thing that would appease you in a new investigation is finding a high ranking Bush crony guilty of something. I came to this conclusion in a ZEN like moment.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 12:44 PM

LastChild

11th March 2008, 12:46 PM

That very day. To assert otherwise is a disservice to all the people who were at Ground Zero helping.

As far as the people helping at ground zero I would say that part of the investigation pretty much ended with the scoop and dump.

Disbelief

11th March 2008, 12:49 PM

As far as the people helping at ground zero I would say that part of the investigation pretty much ended with the scoop and dump.

You would, considering how you appear to have no clue how things work in the real world.

dudalb

11th March 2008, 12:49 PM

Fortunately, EVERY singe truther has a different conclusion. None of them can come to a consensus, and they don't actually make any effort to validate their opinions. It's less like investigations and more like inquisitions.

Fixed that for you. If they could all agree, they might actually be dangerous.

dudalb

11th March 2008, 12:54 PM

Well, we certainly can't do anything about the president of the company that installed the fireproofing, he was wacked in the garage of the WTC in the early 80's. fugetaboutit.

Hell, the Mafia is just about the ONLY organization that the Twoofers have not accused of being "in on" 9/11.

dudalb

11th March 2008, 12:55 PM

You would, considering how you appear to have no clue how things work in the real world.

Funny, I could say that about twoofers in general.

DGM

11th March 2008, 01:03 PM

When did a real one start?
My 9 year old answers a question with a question. Are you above this?

ETA The first investigation started at 8:46am EST on 9/11/01.

Tailgater

11th March 2008, 01:10 PM

As far as the people helping at ground zero I would say that part of the investigation pretty much ended with the scoop and dump.

Ya, if you see a man shot in front of you, make sure they don't bury him before ruling out a heart attack as the cause of death.

Alferd_Packer

11th March 2008, 01:25 PM

Hell, the Mafia is just about the ONLY organization that the Twoofers have not accused of being "in on" 9/11.

Gosh, I wonder why?

tsig

11th March 2008, 02:44 PM

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 02:52 PM

It just gets funnier and funnier with every post. See what happens when people don't take their medication?

tsig

11th March 2008, 03:06 PM

As far as the people helping at ground zero I would say that part of the investigation pretty much ended with the scoop and dump.

Once again you blame the first responders. Why?

kookbreaker

11th March 2008, 03:14 PM

Once again you blame the first responders. Why?

Glory theft.

dudalb

11th March 2008, 03:14 PM

Gosh, I wonder why?

Because the Costra Nostra actually exists,unlike most of the vast evil cabels the Twoofers say were behind 9/11.
And because if they annoy the Mob, a couple of guys might show up at a Truther demonstration and display a interest in the Twoofer's kneecaps....

LastChild

11th March 2008, 03:52 PM

Once again you blame the first responders. Why?

Really?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/12/giuliani-firefighters-gold/

Firefighters: Giuliani Ditched 9/11 Body Recovery 24 Hours After Securing $230 Million In Buried Gold

"The fact is that the Mayor’s switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment."

DGM

11th March 2008, 03:55 PM

Really?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/12/giuliani-firefighters-gold/

Firefighters: Giuliani Ditched 9/11 Body Recovery 24 Hours After Securing $230 Million In Buried Gold

"The fact is that the Mayor’s switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment."
Hey LastChild; The earth is flat!!!!!!!!! make sure you don't fall of the edge.

BTW The word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. Look it up and see!

dudalb

11th March 2008, 04:36 PM

God, now Last CHild is getting his 9/11 theories from Marion Cotillard.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 06:32 PM

God, now Last CHild is getting his 9/11 theories from Marion Cotillard.

Is there something inaccurate about that quote? Or did you just have nothing else but that lame reply.

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 06:32 PM

Hahahaha!! The buried gold theory. I always loved that one.

It's almost as if he is trying to find any and every conspiracy theory possible.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 06:41 PM

Once again you blame the first responders. Why?

“He found the gold on October 31, and on November 1 is when he issued the order to remove the firefighters from their recovery mode.” - Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) — the nation’s largest firefighters organization, consisting of 280,000 members

TheRedWorm

11th March 2008, 06:47 PM

I'd still like to know the logistics of a new investigation. You know: who would hold it, how would it be funded, who would be questioned, what types of power would the "new investigation" have, etc.

Cl1mh4224rd

11th March 2008, 06:52 PM

God, now Last CHild is getting his 9/11 theories from Marion Cotillard.

It's a vicious circle-jerk, trootherdom...

PhantomWolf

11th March 2008, 08:42 PM

Just the the sake of it there were 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams who worked the site, that's over 1,000 agents plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists. There were also at least 600 NYPD detectives and 193 U.S. Customs Agency volunteers all involved in the search and investigation. I guess they were all in on it too.

LC really looks like a harden sports fanatic screaming that the game is unfair and that the Ref is biased because a goal was disallowed all the while ignoring that the disallowed goal was scored by the opposition and believing that if it was allowed it'd somehow change the outcome of the match.

I honestly can't believe that LC is still using Quintere. Heck after reading Dr Quintere's work I'm all for using it, except I don't actually think he's right. Quintere's main beef with NIST is that he doesn't think they went far enough, he thinks they were held back and watered down their findings by the "removing of the fire proofing" and using lighter building loading to allow cooler fires. Quintere's beliefs are even further towards the Official Story than NIST's, removing the main issue that most CTs attack NIST for (the fireproofing.)

So what do you say LC, since you keep waving him about, you obviously accept his findings, as such shall we drop NIST and their damaged fireproofing and instead go to Quintere's hotter fires and poorly applied fireproofing that would have failed and caused the collapses even without any damage to them? Sounds good to me.

LashL

11th March 2008, 08:58 PM

<snipped>You have a conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers.

When will twoofers ever learn the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory?

A criminal conspiracy does not = a conspiracy theory.
A theory that includes a criminal conspiracy does not = a conspiracy theory.

Sheesh.

PhantomWolf

11th March 2008, 09:14 PM

When will twoofers ever learn the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory?

A criminal conspiracy does not = a conspiracy theory.
A theory that includes a criminal conspiracy does not = a conspiracy theory.

Sheesh.

About the same time as LC comes to understand the differences as to why it only took about 30-40 people to organise and pull off the attacks for Al Qaeda, and that once the attacks had happened the need for secrecy was passed, whereas to do everything that the CTs claim happened would involve hundreds if not thousands of people all who would have to keep their mouths shut permanently.

Which is likely to be about the same time he figures out why hiding one person by only allowing a handful of guards to know how long he will be where he is and where he is going to next is totally different to trying to keep every person that would have had to be involved in any CT based claims silent forever.

NobbyNobbs

11th March 2008, 09:20 PM

Yes, you've got it. The twoof movement meets the shampoo industry:

Rinse
Blather
Repeat

Nominated.

NobbyNobbs

11th March 2008, 09:38 PM

Now I don’t have an alternative theory as to what happen on 9/11 nor do I need one to point out why your theory is inadequate.

Wrong. This is not how science works. How science works is that, if you notice a flaw in a theory, you present an alternate theory that not only covers everything the old theory did, but also fixes the flaw. Then you test that new theory for more flaws. Here's the flowchart:

1) Notice problem with current theory
2) Advance new theory
3) Test new theory
4) Repeat

The truther movement has covered #1 in abundance, and a few have even moved on to #2 (but you haven't). None of them have gone to #3.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/12/...fighters-gold/

Firefighters: Giuliani Ditched 9/11 Body Recovery 24 Hours After Securing $230 Million In Buried Gold

"The fact is that the Mayor’s switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment."
“He found the gold on October 31, and on November 1 is when he issued the order to remove the firefighters from their recovery mode.” - Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) — the nation’s largest firefighters organization, consisting of 280,000 members

On September 11, 2001, the price of gold (http://goldenspiders.com/scripts/hist_charts/monthly_graphs.plx)was $2.87 an ounce. The article you list says $230 million in gold. That's 80,139,373 ounces. That's 5,495,397 pounds. That's 2,747.698 tons. As you pointed out earlier, that's nearly half a football field, one foot deep.

The gold was found October 31, six weeks after the collapse. And with all the people crawling over the wreckage for a month and a half, no one noticed 5 million pounds of gold? And how did they ship it out without anyone noticing? And where was it taken?

See above. #1, check. #2, check. #3...not so good.

BTW The word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. Look it up and see!

Didn't you know? Jonathan Swift made it up to describe Gulliver. It caught on in local verbiage, but never made it into the dictionary.

:rolleyes:

eromitlab

11th March 2008, 09:47 PM

Wouldn't that be $287 an ounce?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 10:01 PM

Wrong. This is not how science works. How science works is that, if you notice a flaw in a theory, you present an alternate theory that not only covers everything the old theory did, but also fixes the flaw. Then you test that new theory for more flaws. Here's the flowchart:

1) Notice problem with current theory
2) Advance new theory
3) Test new theory
4) Repeat

The truther movement has covered #1 in abundance, and a few have even moved on to #2 (but you haven't). None of them have gone to #3.

Unlike the debunker who is not smart enough to get past #1.

On September 11, 2001, the price of gold (http://goldenspiders.com/scripts/hist_charts/monthly_graphs.plx)was $2.87 an ounce. The article you list says $230 million in gold. That's 80,139,373 ounces. That's 5,495,397 pounds. That's 2,747.698 tons. As you pointed out earlier, that's nearly half a football field, one foot deep.

The gold was found October 31, six weeks after the collapse. And with all the people crawling over the wreckage for a month and a half, no one noticed 5 million pounds of gold? And how did they ship it out without anyone noticing? And where was it taken?

See above. #1, check. #2, check. #3...not so good.

Didn't you know? Jonathan Swift made it up to describe Gulliver. It caught on in local verbiage, but never made it into the dictionary.
:rolleyes:

You need to master #1 first debunker. Didn't you know? Keep working at it.

LashL

11th March 2008, 10:18 PM

About the same time as LC comes to understand the differences as to why it only took about 30-40 people to organise and pull off the attacks for Al Qaeda, and that once the attacks had happened the need for secrecy was passed, whereas to do everything that the CTs claim happened would involve hundreds if not thousands of people all who would have to keep their mouths shut permanently.

Which is likely to be about the same time he figures out why hiding one person by only allowing a handful of guards to know how long he will be where he is and where he is going to next is totally different to trying to keep every person that would have had to be involved in any CT based claims silent forever.

So, the short answer is:

Either
1) When they learn how to think rationally and critically;
2) When they grow up;
3) When they figure out how to profit from 1) and/or 2) above; or
4) Never.

Any further alternatives?

Pardalis

11th March 2008, 10:19 PM

Unlike the debunker who is not smart enough to get past #1.

You're projecting.

You haven't impressed anyone with your intellect here. Stop blaming others for what you lack.

LashL

11th March 2008, 10:27 PM

Nominated.

Hey, thanks, but I suspect that I'm not the first to come up with "rinse, blather, repeat" ~ it's such an obvious pun that it must have been done before. Still, thanks for the nod. Much appreciated. :)

Darth Rotor

11th March 2008, 10:34 PM

Keep working at it.
Since you demonstrate an inability to grasp what Dr Q was driving at, you are invited to, once again, do as you ought to.

Go and find your mother.

Get down on your knees

Beg her forgiveness for spending the money she gave your for school books on stroke mags.

When you cite as support of your position a line of inquiry that is in opposition to your position, your mental incapacity leaps from the page.

Please learn to repeat this phrase, it is your career:

"Care to supersize that?"

DR

Jonnyclueless

11th March 2008, 10:58 PM

You're projecting.

You haven't impressed anyone with your intellect here. Stop blaming others for what you lack.

Intellect?

You know what guys? I am getting pretty sick of these demands for a new investigation. I want to petition for a new cover up. This cover up is clearly not working well and has clearly been uncovered by these geniuses such as LC. So when are we going to get a new cover up??? Is that too much to ask?

LashL

11th March 2008, 11:42 PM

You know what guys? I am getting pretty sick of these demands for a new investigation. I want to petition for a new cover up. This cover up is clearly not working well and has clearly been uncovered by these geniuses such as LC. So when are we going to get a new cover up??? Is that too much to ask?

Sounds good. Start an internet petition. I'll sign it, and so will all 345,685 of my internet alter egos. As everyone knows, internet petitions are perfectly reflective of reality, after all. :D

eromitlab

12th March 2008, 01:46 AM

You know what guys? I am getting pretty sick of these demands for a new investigation. I want to petition for a new cover up. This cover up is clearly not working well and has clearly been uncovered by these geniuses such as LC. So when are we going to get a new cover up??? Is that too much to ask?

I'll set up the first "9/11 Cover-up Now!" sign-waving and slogan-chanting. Then I'll dust off the video camera, and anyone interested can join me as I "confront" those who are trying to stop the twoof from being covered up.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

12th March 2008, 02:54 AM

Additionally, why was none of the steel salvaged from WTC7?

The fact that over 99% of the physical evidence from the towers was not kept, and none from WTC7,
P-L-E-A-S-E
P-R-O-V-I-D-E
P-R-O-O-F

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

12th March 2008, 03:17 AM

what every child wants, the attention of an adult.

Or as the name implies, maybe this twoofer is looking for an adoptive parent.
He might want to give Woody allen a call.

Dave Rogers

12th March 2008, 03:45 AM

You know what guys? I am getting pretty sick of these demands for a new investigation. I want to petition for a new cover up. This cover up is clearly not working well and has clearly been uncovered by these geniuses such as LC. So when are we going to get a new cover up??? Is that too much to ask?

It'll be taken care of. And we won't be hearing from Jonnyclueless again.

Dave

aggle-rithm

12th March 2008, 06:23 AM

Unlike the debunker who is not smart enough to get past #1.

You need to master #1 first debunker. Didn't you know? Keep working at it.

Let's say it was 27 tons of gold instead of 2700 tons.

--Do you have corroboration for your source that 27 tons of gold were found?
--Do you have corroboration for your source that the search for bodies was called off immediately after the gold was found?
--Since correlation does not equal causation, how do you know there is a link between the gold being found (assuming it was found) and the recovery operation being called off?
--If all this is true, how does ditching the recovery operation point to an inside job? If it were an inside job, wouldn't it have made more sense to get the gold out BEFORE blowing up the building?

Just asking questions.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:42 AM

Let's say it was 27 tons of gold instead of 2700 tons.

--Do you have corroboration for your source that 27 tons of gold were found?
--Do you have corroboration for your source that the search for bodies was called off immediately after the gold was found?
--Since correlation does not equal causation, how do you know there is a link between the gold being found (assuming it was found) and the recovery operation being called off?
--If all this is true, how does ditching the recovery operation point to an inside job? If it were an inside job, wouldn't it have made more sense to get the gold out BEFORE blowing up the building?

Just asking questions.

No you're just calling the firefighters liars. Nice. There really is no need to try and keep up the Rudy fable anymore. He's not going anywhere.

CHF

12th March 2008, 06:43 AM

No you're just calling the firefighters liars.

:dl:
Priceless!

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:45 AM

Since you demonstrate an inability to grasp what Dr Q was driving at, you are invited to, once again, do as you ought to.

Go and find your mother.

Get down on your knees

Beg her forgiveness for spending the money she gave your for school books on stroke mags.

When you cite as support of your position a line of inquiry that is in opposition to your position, your mental incapacity leaps from the page.

Please learn to repeat this phrase, it is your career:

"Care to supersize that?"

DR

Care to quote an expert from your imaginary vast consensus? I don't need an alternative theory to your conspiracy theory. You need to support yours. You can't. Too bad.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:47 AM

Intellect?

You know what guys? I am getting pretty sick of these demands for a new investigation. I want to petition for a new cover up. This cover up is clearly not working well and has clearly been uncovered by these geniuses such as LC. So when are we going to get a new cover up??? Is that too much to ask?

Imagination?

Well it's good when you have nothing else? Carry on Debunker.

What time does the debunking start?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:48 AM

:dl:
Priceless!

Look here! Another cartoon dog. Wow that's coming with the facts. Good Job!

CHF

12th March 2008, 06:49 AM

Care to quote an expert from your imaginary vast consensus? I don't need an alternative theory to your conspiracy theory. You need to support yours. You can't. Too bad.

Still think that someone putting their name on a report means they don't back the report?

You are way beyond pathetic.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:50 AM

Or as the name implies, maybe this twoofer is looking for an adoptive parent.
He might want to give Woody allen a call.

Well I can tell from your avatar and your post what you're a fan of. Are you in the right sub-forum?

DGM

12th March 2008, 06:50 AM

Imagination?

Well it's good when you have nothing else? Carry on Debunker.

What time does the debunking start?
There's nothing to debunk. Live with it or produce an alternative theory. See how that works?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:51 AM

There's nothing to debunk. Live with it or produce an alternative theory. See how that works?

There's nothing to debunk? lol

LastChild

12th March 2008, 06:52 AM

Still think that someone putting their name on a report means they don't back the report?

You are way beyond pathetic.

Still don't have a quote? Sorry

aggle-rithm

12th March 2008, 06:53 AM

No you're just calling the firefighters liars. Nice. There really is no need to try and keep up the Rudy fable anymore. He's not going anywhere.

????

Do you actually read these posts before responding to them?

DGM

12th March 2008, 06:55 AM

There's nothing to debunk? lol
See, Like I said he/she has nothing.

chillzero

12th March 2008, 06:55 AM

Stop being personal in your responses. If not, this thread might be put to moderated status.

CHF

12th March 2008, 06:56 AM

Still don't have a quote? Sorry

For some reason engineers who author reports on the WTC don't feel compelled to issue statements reiterating their claims for the benefit of conspiracy kooks.

I suppose you could always contact those engineers and ask them what they think....but that would constitute research and we all know how you feel about doing that.

JimBenArm

12th March 2008, 07:04 AM

Did you get that new investigation yet?
Oh, right, you don't need to prove anything.
We have to prove the "official theory" to you.

Sorry, but I'm basically too busy to try to teach you elementary physics, math, heat transfer, and metallurgy. I suggest you take these courses, and if you pass with something greater than a 2.5 GPA, then maybe we can talk. Until then, sorry, you won't be able to follow the discussion, and it would waste everyone's time.

Come back when you are able to have a grown-up conversation.

Toodles!

aggle-rithm

12th March 2008, 07:17 AM

No you're just calling the firefighters liars. Nice. There really is no need to try and keep up the Rudy fable anymore. He's not going anywhere.

OK, I've read the link you provided and I THINK I know what you're talking about here. Firefighters believe that the search and recovery operation was called off too soon, and as a result, many bodies were never found and may well have ended up in the landfill at Fresh Kills, or (as recent evidence suggests) simply left at the site.

So, are you advocating an investigation into the way the cleanup was handled? I can understand that. However, I don't see any criminal intent there. The rescue workers had to make several decisions:

1. When do we go from "search and rescue" to "search and recovery"?
2. When do we go from "search and recovery" to "scoop and dump"?

There were many rescuers there with experience, but no one had ever seen a disaster on this scale. They certainly had never seen anything so messily chaotic. Several of them were astounded at the fact that there was nothing recognizable there -- everything was crushed into shapeless masses of junk. Who's to say, in this unprecedented situation, what the correct course of action was? Perhaps next time something like this happens, they will be ready.

So, I wholeheartedly support the call for an investigation (or at least a study) of the recovery operations at 9/11, assuming such an investigation hasn't already been done. Just don't call it a whitewash if they don't spend enough time talking about thermite and/or space lasers.

TheRedWorm

12th March 2008, 07:56 AM

I'd still like to know the logistics of a new investigation. You know: who would hold it, how would it be funded, who would be questioned, what types of power would the "new investigation" have, etc.

^^

NobbyNobbs

12th March 2008, 08:59 AM

Wouldn't that be $287 an ounce?

Oops, you're right.

So it's 27 tons of gold. Still a lot of gold.

So, LastChild, let me ask you this. Which genius member of the conspiracy decided that the most efficient way to get 27 tons of gold would be to drop a 110-story building on it, then dig what you want out of the rubble?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 09:22 AM

Oops, you're right.

So it's 27 tons of gold. Still a lot of gold.

So, LastChild, let me ask you this. Which genius member of the conspiracy decided that the most efficient way to get 27 tons of gold would be to drop a 110-story building on it, then dig what you want out of the rubble?

I'm sorry did I mention any such conspiracy? Or maybe you're only good at debunking things you make up?

GStan

12th March 2008, 09:22 AM

Oops, you're right.

So it's 27 tons of gold. Still a lot of gold.

So, LastChild, let me ask you this. Which genius member of the conspiracy decided that the most efficient way to get 27 tons of gold would be to drop a 110-story building on it, then dig what you want out of the rubble?

Totally plausible! Duh! Have you never seen any Die Hard movies?

TheRedWorm

12th March 2008, 09:46 AM

Belz...

12th March 2008, 10:08 AM

There is nothing to gain from the so-called debunking here at JREF. It's a waste.

Indeed. Reason rarely convinces those who don't use it to start with.

The debunkers claim to know what happen on 9/11. They base this claim in a large part on the 9/11 commission report and the NIST report. Both of which I claim are inadequate as far as getting to the bottom of exactly what happen leading up to and on 9/11.

So it's YOUR claim that the consensus is wrong. How does that work for burden of proof ?

Now I don’t have an alternative theory as to what happen on 9/11 nor do I need one to point out why your theory is inadequate.

Then you're just trolling.

There was a concerted effort by this present administration to first deter from any investigation at all and even when they did finally give in it was only in support of a limited investigation. I feel they were mostly concerned with both avoiding accountability for not protecting the US on 9/11, as well as trying to limit any kind of litigation that could arise because of the attacks. In my opinion these investigations you point to as an explanation mostly exist only to serve those interests.

Is there a reason why you hold this opinion, exactly ?

A tactic I use here a lot is to take the debunker argument on just about anything and put a mirror up to it. None of your theories seem to do well under your own standards and that is what bothers you most about me.

That is, again, your opinion. How about some facts, now ?

I am called a troll when I give the debunker back the equivalent of what they offer.

No, that's not why we call you a troll.

Pretending to debunk an uninvestigated theory does not make your conspiracy theory valid by default.

I agree. The numerous studies and the agreement of the vast majority of people who know what they're talking about does, however.

Lodui

12th March 2008, 10:14 AM

Going off topic abit... Don't want to start another thread.

Does anyone have any information to debate a truther regrading 'squibs'. Idealy in youtube format, the people I'm debating won't read.

I know there was some material in the gravysites part. Just a bit to sort out.

Also I'm interested in commentary about this video.

AIA Architect Richard Gage.

EDIT: Can't post links till I have 15 posts. It's him at the 9/11 symposium in '07.

Belz...

12th March 2008, 10:14 AM

When did a real one start?

That's very dishonest of you, now. You're rigging your definitions to fit with your conclusion.

And aren't you getting tired of asking rhetorical questions and expecting them to count as evidence of your claims ?

Drudgewire

12th March 2008, 10:19 AM

Does anyone have any information to debate a truther regrading 'squibs'. Idealy in youtube format, the people I'm debating won't read.
We have a discussion about it still active as of yesterday:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108294

Welcome to JREF Lodui. :)

Lodui

12th March 2008, 10:24 AM

Thanks Drudge. :D

aggle-rithm

12th March 2008, 10:53 AM

I'm sorry did I mention any such conspiracy? Or maybe you're only good at debunking things you make up?

Sorry, LastChild, but we often have to guess at what point you are trying to make. That is because your posts seem to consist of either links provided without comment, or the following types of responses to carefully thought-out posts:

Is there something inaccurate about that quote? Or did you just have nothing else but that lame reply.

Unlike the debunker who is not smart enough to get past #1.

You need to master #1 first debunker. Didn't you know? Keep working at it.

No you're just calling the firefighters liars. Nice. There really is no need to try and keep up the Rudy fable anymore. He's not going anywhere.

Care to quote an expert from your imaginary vast consensus? I don't need an alternative theory to your conspiracy theory. You need to support yours. You can't. Too bad.

Imagination?

Well it's good when you have nothing else? Carry on Debunker.

What time does the debunking start?

Look here! Another cartoon dog. Wow that's coming with the facts. Good Job!

Well I can tell from your avatar and your post what you're a fan of. Are you in the right sub-forum?

There's nothing to debunk? lol

Still don't have a quote? Sorry

A lot of us are accustomed to this tactic, having dealt with troofers for quite a while, so we'll give you some slack.

Jonnyclueless

12th March 2008, 10:53 AM

Remember, we're still in an official state of Shananigans here.

dudalb

12th March 2008, 11:19 AM

Does anyone have any information to debate a truther regrading 'squibs'. Idealy in youtube format, the people I'm debating won't read.

If Western Civilization dies, "They Would Not Read" will be written on it's tombstone.
The illiteracy of the Text Message generation is scary enough,but the new wave of people who refuse to accept information except in video form is truly scary.

NobbyNobbs

12th March 2008, 11:30 AM

I'm sorry did I mention any such conspiracy? Or maybe you're only good at debunking things you make up?

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. That there was a conspiracy, but it didn't involve the gold?

So, you are suggesting that some conspiracy allowed for the collapse of the buildings, at which point someone said, "Hey! Thar's gold in them thar rubble piles!", which was then ferreted away....

Wait...you've claimed the gold was ferreted away, hidden, it's very existence covered up....so, yes, you have mentioned any such conspiracy.

If this is not what you intended to imply, please clarify. Thanks.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 12:06 PM

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. That there was a conspiracy, but it didn't involve the gold?

So, you are suggesting that some conspiracy allowed for the collapse of the buildings, at which point someone said, "Hey! Thar's gold in them thar rubble piles!", which was then ferreted away....

Wait...you've claimed the gold was ferreted away, hidden, it's very existence covered up....so, yes, you have mentioned any such conspiracy.

If this is not what you intended to imply, please clarify. Thanks.

Well what do we have here another lazy reader debunker?

sigh

I was asked when the investigation ended.

I asked when did a real one start?

Someone replied with the ground-zero clean-up crew.

I replied that ended with the scoop and dump.

Another genius debunker asked why I was dumping on the rescue workers.

I replied ??????? Then I posted a link to firefighters who also had a problem with the scoop and dump.

I was then accused of having a conspiracy theory about the ground zero gold.

???????

Maybe you should read
this. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3481909&postcount=20)

Is that clarified or are you having trouble comprehending this also?

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 12:47 PM

Then perhaps you should continue in that thread, this one is about a new investigation.

Care to talk about that?

Lodui

12th March 2008, 12:48 PM

If Western Civilization dies, "They Would Not Read" will be written on it's tombstone.
The illiteracy of the Text Message generation is scary enough,but the new wave of people who refuse to accept information except in video form is truly scary.

One might question my logic for debating a person who won't accept information which isn't presented in ten minute clips with spooky music and maybe some popcorn.

Though in defense of my generation, I'm 22 and he's 43.

Lodui

12th March 2008, 12:59 PM

It's seemed like a rather expensive proposition during which a massive cleanup needed to be undertaken, to decide to save enough for amateur internet conspiracy gurus to analyze the contents later.

Perhaps if Steve Jones noticed the squibs right away he could have snuck in under the guise of a cleanup crew and came out with the exact amount of material he wanted.

But he waited untill years later, and said "no, no no, this cleanup happened to quickly. Something must be wrong."

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 01:11 PM

Or as the name implies, maybe this twoofer is looking for an adoptive parent.
He might want to give Woody allen a call.
Well I can tell from your avatar and your post what you're a fan of.

Classic literature?

SDC

12th March 2008, 01:42 PM

Classic literature?

He seems to be a fan of Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov (1899-1977). Some would argue the greatest modern writer who never received a Nobel prize for literature. (I'd think about it.) And what's more, a great writer in 2 languages; Russian and English both.

Isaac Bashevis Singer, who did get the Nobel prize, was multilingual, but not nearly to the same degree. His primary language of composition was Yiddish. The translations of his works into English were, I think (may be wrong), a real collaboration and reworking between him and his translators, however, so multilinguality of composition can be argued in his case as well. I don't know about the translations of his works into Hebrew.

Umm... I'm glad to get that off my chest, but what the heck problem does LC have with Nabokov??

LC is perhaps the worst, absolutely the worst arguer in the whole "inside job" community. If there is a community.

NobbyNobbs

12th March 2008, 01:52 PM

Well what do we have here another lazy reader debunker?

sigh

I was asked when the investigation ended.

I asked when did a real one start?

Someone replied with the ground-zero clean-up crew.

I replied that ended with the scoop and dump.

Another genius debunker asked why I was dumping on the rescue workers.

I replied ??????? Then I posted a link to firefighters who also had a problem with the scoop and dump.

I was then accused of having a conspiracy theory about the ground zero gold.

???????

Maybe you should read
this. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3481909&postcount=20)

Is that clarified or are you having trouble comprehending this also?

Perhaps you shold read your own posts, or at least review them before posting. You were the one who brought up the issue of gold. I simply responded to that.

Here's what you had to say about it:

Really?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/12/giuliani-firefighters-gold/

Firefighters: Giuliani Ditched 9/11 Body Recovery 24 Hours After Securing $230 Million In Buried Gold

"The fact is that the Mayor’s switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment."

“He found the gold on October 31, and on November 1 is when he issued the order to remove the firefighters from their recovery mode.” - Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) — the nation’s largest firefighters organization, consisting of 280,000 members

LastChild

12th March 2008, 02:02 PM

Perhaps you shold read your own posts, or at least review them before posting. You were the one who brought up the issue of gold. I simply responded to that.

Here's what you had to say about it:

And? You still don't get it? I was told by some idiot here that bringing up the scoop and dump was somehow putting down the ground zero workers. I posted a quote that showed ground zero workers themselves also had a problem with the scoop and dump.

Do you have a problem with the firefighters and what they claim about the scoop and dump?

??????

Jonnyclueless

12th March 2008, 02:03 PM

"I'm sorry did I mention any such conspiracy? Or maybe you're only good at debunking things you make up?"

Actually he brings up a good point. He didn't mention a conspiracy theory. In fact with all his talking, he really isn't saying anything at all. All empty talk and no substance.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 02:07 PM

He seems to be a fan of Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov (1899-1977). Some would argue the greatest modern writer who never received a Nobel prize for literature. (I'd think about it.) And what's more, a great writer in 2 languages; Russian and English both.

Isaac Bashevis Singer, who did get the Nobel prize, was multilingual, but not nearly to the same degree. His primary language of composition was Yiddish. The translations of his works into English were, I think (may be wrong), a real collaboration and reworking between him and his translators, however, so multilinguality of composition can be argued in his case as well. I don't know about the translations of his works into Hebrew.

Umm... I'm glad to get that off my chest, but what the heck problem does LC have with Nabokov??

LC is perhaps the worst, absolutely the worst arguer in the whole "inside job" community. If there is a community.

He has an avatar of Lolita. A story of a grown man who runs off with a underage girl.

He somehow worked Woody Allen and adoption into his post. Woody Allen who ran off with his adopted step daughter.

What does Woody Allen have to do with wanting a new investigation into 9/11?

chillzero

12th March 2008, 02:48 PM

Stop being personal in your responses. If not, this thread might be put to moderated status.

As this has been ignored, I am putting this thread to moderated status.

Corsair 115

12th March 2008, 04:40 PM

Yes you do. You have a conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers. .You seem to neglect the fact that that "theory" has a mountain of evidence supporting it.

In contrast, the side advocating that the U.S. government, or rogue elements within it, orchestrated the attack on 9/11 via remote controlled aircraft, or no aircraft, or space-based weaponry, or demolition of the WTC towers by explosives, or any of a number of other theories, has no reasonable evidence supporting it.

Jonnyclueless

12th March 2008, 05:10 PM

Indeed. There certainly isn't much merit in someone who simply takes crude pot shots at other people's work. that's not research and that's not an investigation. A real researcher puts all the pieces together can comes up with something. Not simply taking pot shots because their personal beliefs interfere with the conclusion of REAL researchers. Only cowards do this so they can say things like "Well, I never made any claims". Well, until you DO make some claims, one doesn't have much business taking pot shot at those who have the guts to.

Dave Rogers

13th March 2008, 03:37 AM

I was asked when the investigation ended.

I asked when did a real one start?

Someone replied with the ground-zero clean-up crew.

I replied that ended with the scoop and dump.

Thereby ignoring the fact that the scooped and dumped debris was then taken to landfill sites and searched for evidence by over 1,000 FBI agents. This was part of operation PENTTBOM, the FBI's largest ever investigation, into the Pentagon and Twin Towers attacks.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

That's the real investigation that you wanted to know about.

Dave

fezzic

13th March 2008, 08:09 PM

Scoop and dump is how the IAFF characterized the debris removal after the effort to recover victim remains was effectively terminated (by their perception) before they were satisfied that all that could be done was done. They were not (in all likelyhood) very concerned about how or why the towers collapsed (aka the investigation) since that was not their area of expertise, but very seriously interested in recovering the remains of their fellow firefighters from the debris. To claim, or try to characterize or imply, that the investigation of the tower's collapse terminated at that time is misleading -- taking one party's unhappy characterization of actions they didn't like and making it into something else.