Osama Did It - Get A Life !!

Friday, September 01, 2006

The NIST report is the most detailed around


These guys did the most detailed and involved investigation of the WTC collapse which has been completed. Quote:

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

My question is: have any of the Conspiracy organizations done NEAR this much investigation? I think we all know the answer is NOPE.

When all the evidence was SCIENTIFICALLY ANALYZED BY PROFESSIONALS, here was the logical, professional conclusion:

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

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

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

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

'Nuff said? Of course not. Because the conspiracy theorists are going to say NIST was involved in the "cover-up" of course.

"Deee-Tee-Deee" as Carlos Mencia would say.


  • analyzed 236 pieces of steel.

    236 pieces... are you an idiot?

    How many pieces of steel where in the buildings? What precentage of the steel did they investigate? I've read the report, it's the reason I believe that the fires where not the cause of the collapse. Look at the temps they say the columns reached nothing even close to hot enough to hurt anything.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:01 PM  

  • It'd be nice if they explained how exactly the building collapsing caused all the concrete to be turned into dust.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 PM  

  • Yeah that's pretty interesting, those slabs where probably 5 inches atleast. With steel in them of course, you have to have that in there. Yet it all turned to dust. Haven't heard anything more about that. Just crazy notions, no real questions, just missles and bullshit. As long as we don't care about what matters they win. Whoever they are...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 PM  

  • Sure they interviewed hundreds of qualfied experts...

    but did they talk to a blithering idiot like Jim Fetzer?

    If not then it can't be a serious investigation.

    By Blogger CHF, at 7:19 PM  

  • It'd be nice if they explained how exactly the building collapsing caused all the concrete to be turned into dust.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say it's probably because an entire building fell on it.

    (PS explosives don't turn concrete into dust, so you idiots can stop using this red herring.)

    By Blogger shawn, at 3:21 PM  

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

    Fires that burned a little over an hour created this much heat?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:52 PM  

  • shawn-

    Then why haven't any of these buildings that collapsed from earthquakes turned to dust?

    PS. Only those who believe they know the truth is an idiot. I can't tell you what happened, I can tell you there is no way in hell those buildings would of fallen. That's all I know, and it scares the hell out of me but i'm not scared of you ignorant people and what you think of me anymore, I'm smart enough to look at the tempature of these fires, in the reports and look at the physical qualities of structual steel and see that this is impossible. There is no way, no way in hell. You show me a way kerosene can melt steel, until then I'm not wrong, and you are just ignorant. While ignorance may indeed be bliss it is of no use to anyone. Do you enjoy being useless? Then do something about it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:56 PM  

  • I guess those 200 members of the NIST were in on it too.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:32 PM  

  • "caused all the concrete to be turned into dust..."

    "Yet it all turned to dust."

    Not all of it turned to dust. Here's one example photo:


    Here's another:


    Here's a third, with a very clear section of concrete wall showing:


    Where do you get your assertion that "all" the concrete turned to dust?

    "Fires that burned a little over an hour created this much heat?"

    They didn't burn for "a little over an hour". They burned for 3 months.


    "There is no way, no way in hell. You show me a way kerosene can melt steel"

    KEROSENE WASN'T THE ONLY THING BURNING!!!!!! Plus, it didn't have to melt the steel; it only had to soften it. Which is well within the energy range provided by the materials on fire that day! ALL the materials, not just the jet fuel, which itself burned out within minutes.

    " I'm smart enough to look at the tempature of these fires, in the reports and look at the physical qualities of structual steel and see that this is impossible. "

    I'll ignore your spelling of "temperature" and "structural". List for us your qualifications. I want to see your Engineering CV. And please explain how it's impossible.

    And why do all you conspiracy theorists keep obsessing over temperature?

    "When fuel burns, it gives an amount of Joules. These Joules will go into the nearby materials and raise its temperature. The amount at which the temperature raises by the number of joules in it depends solely on the type of material and its quantity. So if the entire energy of a small camp fire were put into the tip of a needle, it would raise its temperature by 20,000 degrees celcius. Similarly, if the energy produced by a thermo nuclear weapon were spread across 3 oceans, the temperature would raise by a billionth of a degree. So, it all depends on the quantity and type of matter you put the joules in.

    So no, fuel does not burn at 825 degrees. It burns at a mininum of 825 degrees, maybe. It burns at 825 degree in an open uninsulated area, maybe. But it does not burn at a plain flat, unreferenced 825 degree. It instead produces a quantity of energy."

    Source: Physorg.com link

    The question is not "how many degrees was the fire?". It's "How much energy did the fire release?" Everyone who obsesses over the fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel
    1. Misses the point about it not needing to melt to explain the collapse, and
    2. Misses the point about energy release, and how the number of joules is more important than the number of degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home