WTC Collapses

NIST actually did test a floor assembly without fireproofing. However, they claimed it was only for calibration purposes to see what temperature the steel would get to without fireproofing. Interestingly, there is nothing more said about it. The implication here is obvious that there was no collapse or anything resembling it, which is apparently why little was said about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pretty obvious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably because they know that it'd make little difference. If memory serves, I believe that they did some tests on some steel that had little fireproofing and it didn't change much.

Yeah. Kind of like they destroyed most of the WTC steel too. And employed the likes of such versatiles characters as Gene Corley, as Kevin Ryan explains in his article "Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories":
*****
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8
*****

Well, despite the coverup efforts, there is still a fair amount of information out there. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that it would be good if more people were aware of the evidence that was destroyed. Once enough people are aware, the next step would be to start demanding to know -why- this evidence was destroyed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's interesting that your posts have been called strawmen there as well.

 

Ah, good to know, thanks.

 

Those buildings would have never been taken out for that reason. So that is your personal interest in this?

 

Please provide a basis for what you are saying here other than incredulity.

Many people have come to believe that the shock and awe of these building collapses was done to lay the foundation and gain the support of the American people for disguised resource wars otherwise known as "the war on terror" or Dick Cheney's "war that won't end in our lifetime".

How convenient it is to have an amorphous enemy which can be said to exist anywhere, especially in places which have resources coveted by certain people in the United States and Great Britain.

 

Common sense.

 

what else would you like for them to say about it?

 

You are naive.

 

They should have admitted that this test showed that the theory of floor truss sagging causing collapse was not reproduceable and thus had little validity if any.

 

governments dont need support from its citizens to got to war.

anyone who thinks this is having pipe dreams.

 

Freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them, Round 2

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 649 in this thread.

It was a peer reviewed journal. And you are apparently not paying attention to the title of this sub thread; that is, that freedom of a given press belongs to those who own it.

If by respected, you mean mainstream, see my point above. There is also the fact that the mass media has done quite a good job of getting people to not take theories that differ significantly from the official story into account. One need go no further then this forum, where most of the admins are apparently dismissive of alternative theories to the official ones regarding 9/11.

No, I'm saying that freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them. It has been mentioned before that structural engineers are heavily reliant on governments to get contracts. We have a mechanical engineer in this very forum now, however, so again, perhaps you will realize that we've got enough expertise right here to solve these issues...

Sorry, but hearing otherwise isn't exactly substantiation. I believe we've been in this argument before and that your source is Ryan Mackey; if so, let's have his argument. I believe I've already seen his argument debunked and I may have even posted its debunking in one of these conspiracy threads.

 

if i was naive i would believe you.

 

While one could say a government could go to war without the implicit approval of their citizenry it isn't a very smart thing to do, especially since it is the citizenry which mans the Army they use to fight the war.

 

Which buildings did you have in mind? The WTC buildings, the Oklahoma building (I did mention it in the post you're responding to), or both? Secondly, for what reason would the buildings in question have never been taken out?

Ah, yes, "that". John, please, please, please respond with a little more context.

 

It would not be a very good start to take out two vital buildings to your own economy. not very smart.

 

I think a better term for it is that you are just incredulous and don't believe people like Dick Cheney and the oil people he represents could do something like 911 to deceptively gain backing for their aims.

However, in clinging to this belief you are denying a mountain of evidence which points to precisely that sort of thing being the reality.

 

Well, you know, it might be interesting to know if the floor assemblies collapsed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

frankly i don't see how a sagging floor could cause the collapse.
the floors in WTC 1 and 2 were basically "hung" between the perimeter wall and the core columns

true, but a government that acts in such a manner is taking one hell of a gamble.