1. NIST admitted they never conducted an investigation for explosives or explosive materials in violation of NFPA fire investigation protocol which NIST helped develop, publishes and maintains as a industry wide fire investigation standard. A coverup. 2. NIST admitted that they refuse to release data they used to arrive at their theory, citing that the release would jeopardize public safety. An insult to intelligence and a clear coverup. NIST eventually release the original Frankel drawings for WTC7 via FOIA request that they used for their analysis and report. It was discovered that NIST omitted several critical components in their analysis and concluding collapse initiation theory regarding the failure of column 79. NIST allegedly had little to work with other than the original Frankel drawings since NIST claimed the physical evidence was not available. 3. NIST claimed they could not analyze the steel since none was available. This was proven to be a lie since there is a photo of John Gross standing on a pile of steel smiling, at least one of which looks corroded and full of holes. A falsification of available data and a coverup. 4. NIST admitted that they didn't include stiffeners (critical to the column 79 connection) in their report. A falsification of data. 5. NIST admitted that the seat (critical to the column 79 connection) was actually 12" wide and not 11" as reported. A falsification of data. 6. It was discovered that NIST omitted several support beams (critical to column 79 connection). A falsification of data. 7. NIST originally claimed that there were shear studs, then in their final report, claimed there were none. The Frankel drawings include shear studs. A falsification of data. The above are just some examples of NIST's coverup. Tony Szamboti goes into much greater detail on most of the above: http://themindrenewed.com/transcripts/884-int-067t One might say that these were "mistakes" but that would not be realistic since the "mistakes" are numerous. So one could say that it was gross incompetence (to be kind), but that would be disingenuous since these people are highly qualified engineers. That leaves only that the above was deliberate, a scientific fraud and in this case, a criminal fraud since it's 9/11 we're talking about, the worst terrorist attack in modern US history that massacred about 3,000 innocent people. The above is of course, a regurgitation of NIST mythology. NIST claimed that neither planes, fires or both would have brought down the towers if the fireproofing hadn't been stripped. As "proof" for the stripping of fireproofing, NIST used a shotgun experiment (an insult to one's intelligence). However, even if NIST is correct, the total fireproofing that might have been stripped could only have occurred at the impact site and constitutes less than 5% of the total fireproofing, to be generous. Furthermore, the fireproofing was upgraded a couple of years earlier specifically and coincidentally around the impact site for both towers.
You still don't get it. They do those investigations to determine WHY an aircraft crashed. A moot point in this instance.
The math explains why the towers collapsed. There is zero evidence of any explosives. The math doesn't lie but those who are making money from the gullibility of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists most certainly are lying. As someone who does have an engineering background I can do the math for myself and see if it adds up. The NIST math is not lying.
I have built 2 skyscrapers Blue, a 36 story condo and Marina Blue, twin conjoined towers, one tower 52 story and the other 57 story ... Didn't use a lot of I-beams as these were post-tension cable slabs with rebar reinforced, concrete columns and beams ... but yeah, heavy stuff ... We had a lot of discussion about whether these buildings could withstand an aircraft hit of the magnitude on 9/11 ... probably not was the consensus down here but once the initiation started, it would a slower collapse as all the cables would have to break off so each floor would have to sag in the quarters before complete collapse to the next floor ... off topic but ... meh whatever ... I have been a field engineer since 1992 building all kinds of (*)(*)(*)(*) ... I was never that great at the maths involved when I was in school, took me three tries to pass Physics II and I like being outdoors anyways so I went into the field ... I know how these things are built and know every inch of the 1.5 million sq ft building that I built and have lived in for the last 8 years ...
That is a nice looking building. Not everyone is good at math, I am one of the few for whom it comes easy but I understand how difficult it is for others. I explained to my own daughter that she should get all of her math requirements out of the way before she reached her senior year. She thanked me for that advice afterwards. Yes, you are correct that different building types will collapse in accordance with their structures. Those with hanging floors would have different points of failure depending upon how they were constructed. When you look at the history of building from the Stone Age onwards there have been very few structures that are still standing. The principles involved in those buildings still hold true today. Engineering still tries to push the limits of the materials that we use and thus we make ourselves vulnerable.
You still don't get it, and probably never will at this rate. They do these investigations as SOP. There's nothing "moot" about an SOP. It's not just to determine why an aircraft crashed, it's to try to discover what other issues may be uncovered relevant to the crash (mitigating circumstances). And any discovery may or may not lead to follow up investigation(s). OBVIOUS is not a substitute for nor does it consist of a forensic airplane crash investigation. OBVIOUS is just an OPINION, nothing more and OPINIONS are like anal cavities, everyone has one. - - - Updated - - - There's not one thing you posted above that has anything to do with ANY of the FACTS as posted. Try to stick to the subject, if you can. NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud. What I listed is FACT, not hearsay, some of it is NIST's own admission. It's not about NIST's math, it's about NIST's alleged investigation. Math doesn't belong to NIST, the above is nonsense and irrelevant.
Ironic since the subject is a conspiracy fallacy about the impact of the wings on the towers which was debunked with facts and math. Baseless allegations about the investigations are deflections from the OP topic but they too are debunked by the facts and the math.
The subject I responded to was your claim that "nothing was covered up". All of the allegations are proven fact. That you believe they're baseless is irrelevant. You posted a false claim despite the OP which I responded to. Proven facts are not debunkable by math or other phantom facts that you haven't produced.
Irrelevant BS. Your question (which includes the usual name calling) doesn't change the facts or your fallacies. Stick to the issue, if you can. I believe in what should rightfully, morally, legally and constitutionally have been done by those who are constitutionally designated to protect and defend the US and The People of the US prior to, on and following 9/11 and what is SOP for every circumstance that requires a legitimate investigation. I don't believe in illegitimate (or any) excuses or failures, especially deliberate ones to conduct a legitimate and thorough forensic scientific and criminal investigation into the biggest terrorist attack in modern US history. I do believe that such failure by those in appropriate official positions constitutes either gross incompetence (if proven to be a "mistake") requiring charges of negligent multiple homicide or charges of treason and complicity to mass murder (if proven to be a deliberate coverup). This is as the title of this thread suggests BASIC LOGIC. Should I ask you if you're a "nutcase" because you believe investigations should be skipped because of someone's opinion?
That is a non sequitur we can agree on. I posted the proven facts and so far, you not only haven't addressed any of them but you keep trying to change the subject (mostly by posting the irrelevant), probably because you know you're wrong and you have no contradictory arguments to anything I listed. It was YOUR claim that "nothing was covered up" and I showed you how wrong you are. If you need material that supports any of the points listed that I have readily available and is reasonable, all you need to do is ask. That you haven't asked for any is quite telling. - - - Updated - - - Name calling and irrelevant diversions are always the name of the game when they have nothing left.
Yet denying facts is precisely what you are doing in still believing that silly story, the official story.
You mean we should throw out known facts, ignore Occams Razor, and delve into the truther's fantasies to get to the (faux) truth?
No, we should by all means apply Occam's Razor at every opportunity. For example, the reason nobody could find, see or photograph UA93 in that field in Shanksville is because UA93 was not in that field that day. Same at pentagon--the reason the building did not look like an airliner hit it was because an airliner did not hit it. The reason that the pentagon spokespersons testifying had to amend their testimony so often was because they were simply telling a story and had to keep changing details. The reason it looked like an atomic bomb went off at WTC is because an atomic bomb did go off at WTC. Yes, Occam's Razor should be applied at every opportunity in analyzing what happened there, and when it is, it becomes painfully obvious that the official story is contradicted by all the facts and evidence.
No the math doesn't lie, the US government does, all the time. And those promoting the silly OCT (which is in fact a silly conspiracy theory) can't refute the lies. They certainly try hard though despite the overwhelming evidence/facts.
No it didn't. It actually proved me right, but you and your groupies don't understand it. LOLOL Thanks for demonstrating my point in such detailed fashion (see the part about standards of evidence then compare to the poster's lack thereof). You're welcome.
Really I consider arguments about "burden of proof" to be attempts to side-track the whole discussion, rather than hit the issue straight on. The MSM was the first to assert the whole fiasco about hijacked airliners so the burden of proof rests with them. The OP and the logical argument therein is what I would like to address, and WHY does it not constitute proof, that is to cite precedent mid-air collisions where a large commercial jet encountering a smaller aircraft of aprox 2% its own mass should produce the obvious results that everybody is familiar with these sorts of news stories. Then consider the fact that the alleged "FLT175" would have had to displace at a minimum 2% of its own mass to make that hole ( that is the nose entry hole ) and the math to account for what would ( or what could be expected to happen should an actual airliner collide with a skyscraper ) have happened clearly indicates that the airliner would be subject to >100 g deceleration force, and this would affect the entire aircraft. so why should the airliner be seen to penetrate the wall as is shown on the Evan Fairbanks video ( and others )?
