TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ief_of_nist.htm Source: OpEd News - Alan Miller James James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST�s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, �Questions on the WTC Investigations� at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. �I wish that there would be a peer review of this,� he said, referring to the NIST investigation. �I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they�ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.� �I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,� explained Dr. Quintiere. �Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.� Dr. Quintiere, one of the world�s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. �I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,� he said. In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST�s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, �In every investigation I�ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.� Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST�s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. �And that building was not hit by anything,� noted Dr. Quintiere. �It�s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!� World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST�s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7�s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...C7_Collapse.wmv] Dr. Quintiere said he originally �had high hopes� that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. �They�re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it�s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.� In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST�s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. �I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.� Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, �I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.� Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST�s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. �If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the �conspiracy theories� that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it�s one of the floors falling down.� Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. �It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.� 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,� he said. Dr. Quintiere�s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on �The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps�, at which he stated: �In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. "I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science�the principal world forum for fire research. ... "All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these. 1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ... 2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 3. 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? 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?" [The full text of Dr. Quintiere�s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/...] Dr. Quintiere is one of the world�s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves. Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including: � The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982) � The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986 � The Sj�lin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST � The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association His presentation �Questions on the WTC Investigations� was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?cPath=... For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://patriotsquestion911.com

More people who don't know what they're talking about...

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z

Great article, however i wouldnt call it a home run for your cause. all of his inconsistencies with the NIST conclusions were on failure mechanisms, not on failure theory. Truss rod failure vs column / girder failure is going to be a hard one to prove either way in the end due to the removal of the steel. both would cause the same result, the "pancake" type failure.

I dont think we are ever going to get a clear picture of what failed first in the structure.

it would be nice to see the model that he and is grad students put together to see how it compares to the MIT model.

I'm about to umm... crash in a bit ... but your input and civility is appreciated colonel .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm about to umm... crash in a bit ... but your input and civility is appreciated colonel .

i wish i could say the same, but the few days of holidays i have taken in the past week have caused a backlog of 4 billion emails to accumulate on my blackberry and i think ill be at work till at least 7 oclock tonight sorting them all out... who ever invented the CC function on email should be shot, hanged, drawn and quartered and rolled in sea salt.

yeah, that article has been posted before. the centrally important part being

quote:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST�s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. �If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the �conspiracy theories� that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it�s one of the floors falling down.�

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z More people who don't know what they're talking about... Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

yeah, this is the list we keep talking about that has a bunch of "names" but no actual licensed engineers. they could be names of anyone as far as we can judge. not particularly convincing if you ask me. also, have they produced any papers that support the controlled demolition theory? if they have id love to read it

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why does this board always have the same topics in 3 different threads at the same time? That being said, do you really think the U.S. government could put such a mammoth conspiracy together without it ever being found out? One which involve some of it's participants commiting suicide in order to carry it out? One that would mean certain death for those who were found to have been involved in this "Grand Conspiracy"? And just where would they find all these Americans in the various branches of services willing to kill their innocent fellow Americans? And all these people are going to keep this secret? And what for? To have an "excuse" to attack another country and start a war? What about the Iraq war? By most people's take, the U.S. manufactured the whole WMD's argument...so why would the government need to kill thousands of it's own people and destroy so much property, just to start a war, when it would be a LOT easier to just make up an excuse? DO YOU SEE HOW FREAKIN IDIOTIC THIS SOUNDS!?!?!!?

Well said my thoughts exactly. There is just no way IMO something of this scale could ever be pulled off and remain a secret with so many mouths needing to remain shut for all eternity.

This thread's vitality impresses me. It's been 3 years already, and nothing has changed. The discussion goes on and on for no good reason. I wonder if this is anything like those conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination. Because, you know, the communists totally shot JFK, attacked Pearl Harbor and hit the WTC. And by communists I mean the Nazi, because they're just one big organisation, also known as "the illuminati".

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why does this board always have the same topics in 3 different threads at the same time?

It puzzles me too. Personally, I'd merge all similar threads at once, but it gets somewhat confusing after a while

Two things have this thread going:

1) The annual anniversary of 9/11/01
2) The incessant barrage from the media that brings people here either for or against the official 9/11 story.

or make it three:

3) When people keep asking why does this thread stay alive and someone pointing out why in a reply.

Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story



Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory...

airliners.net has a whole catalog of every plane someone has shot a camera at.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira This thread's vitality impresses me. It's been 3 years already, and nothing has changed. The discussion goes on and on for no good reason. I wonder if this is anything like those conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination. Because, you know, the communists totally shot JFK, attacked Pearl Harbor and hit the WTC. And by communists I mean the Nazi, because they're just one big organisation, also known as "the illuminati". It puzzles me too. Personally, I'd merge all similar threads at once, but it gets somewhat confusing after a while

A lot has changed and many people are waking up thanks to the efforts of a few, who despite being under constant attack by the neverending, unmindful, anti-conspiratorial crowd of kowtowing pedestrians, took the time to actually investigate the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 instead of just mindlessly accepting the nonobjective findings of a bureaucracy appointed by the same people who brought you the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, extraordinary renditions, secret detention camps, etc.

It's getting LOUDER

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's getting LOUDER

and this proves what exactly? that CT'ers can make up catchy slogans to shout?

quote:

and this proves what exactly? that CT'ers can make up catchy slogans to shout?

No it proves yet again you are an idiot for wasting more web space with another waste of a post on this board.

Official account of why the towers collapsed. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Official account of why the towers collapsed. LOL

and yet even in this over simplified graphic, it still makes more plausible sense than your beloved "controlled demolition theory"

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp and yet even in this over simplified graphic, it still makes more plausible sense than your beloved "controlled demolition theory"

yeah, totally. try drawing the hundreds of kilometres of detonation cord cretinrot

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, totally. try drawing the hundreds of kilometres of detonation cord cretinrot

What's actually funny is you still believe that explosives can only be set off using a cord.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut What's actually funny is you still believe that explosives can only be set off using a cord.

every single controlled demolition in history has been made using cords. there's a lot of reasons why remotes are not used, i'll let colonel explain the particulars to you, coz this is something you are clearly ignorant of.

The demolition of towers 1,2 and building 7 was not conventional although building 7 was more like the traditional method. They did mean to hide it but they did a lousy job.

Also explain why you are so hard fixed on the demolition of the towers not being possible, controlled demolitions do not only occur bottom up.

The video below shows the complete opposite. (flashes and squibs included)

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The demolition of towers 1,2 and building 7 was not conventional although building 7 was more like the traditional method. They did mean to hide it but they did a lousy job. Also explain why you are so hard fixed on the demolition of the towers not being possible, controlled demolitions do not only occur bottom up. The video below shows the complete opposite. (flashes and squibs included)

and to achieve that kind of result you simply couldnt use remote detonation. honestly- go and do your research you fool. its embarrassing.

here is a easy bit of CT style common sense research to debunk your remote controlled demolition theory...


1. go buy a 300 dollar iphone
2. find your nearest firework stand and purchase a M80 or equivalent lound bang type firework.
3. call your mom to show that cell phone works
4. tape m80 to cell phone and light it
5. attempt to call mom again.....

oh noes! RF/digital transmission devices do not seem to like shockwaves...... and that was only a measly firework.....

You both argued that controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up which was proved wrong.

What makes you think they have not developed something to detonate explosives by another mean other than a cord or RF?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You both argued that controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up which was proved wrong.

they do. your example is hardly comparable. look at any large-scale demolition and they're all bottom-up collapses. plus, you don't explain why towers 1&2 fell differently to 7. and how the fuck does this have ANYTHING to do with thermite?

quote:

What makes you think they have not developed something to detonate explosives by another mean other than a cord or RF?

christ. you really need to stick to your food importation business, coz your arguments here are laughable. fact is you can't show ANY evidence of (yet another) super-secret demolition wire to go with your super secret thermate?

hint: the experts in the demolition world are ALL in the private sector, not in the high levels of black ops government. if the private sector are not using RF to demolish buildings then what reason do you have to assume there are other methods?

its like this:

you need the technology to exist, therefore it exists. that is a thoroughly illogical position.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.