Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.
Do you accept this claim? Or do you think that NIST lied about this?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Sigh. Kenny, have you forgotten that some of the leading luminaries in the 9/11 truth movement are scientists. Surely you remember Steven Jones? Don't tell me you've forgotten that he was an acclaimed physics professor in Bringham University before he was very suspiciously suspended when he published a paper disagreeing with the official story?
Surely you remember Kevin Ryan, a chemist and a man who was fired from Underwriter laboratories after writing an open letter to NIST's Frank Gayle, asking him why NIST's report was coming up with such trash?
Seriously, you seem to have a memory that seems to forget everything that goes against your views.
Now I can easily imagine you saying "but they're only 2 people". Yes, they're only 2 people; but how many of their colleagues do you think took note of what happened to them and decided that they'd be quieter and avoid getting similar treatment? Some of the emails that Steven Jones received before he was suspended make it clear that there were others who were fearful of what would happen if they openly voiced their disagreement with the official story.
I'll give you another example: Morgan Reynolds. I'll take a little excerpt from wikipedia about him:
Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
There is some controversy over his beliefs even in the 9/11 truth movement, but I find his description of his action and its consequences quite illuminating. From 9/11 and American Empire:
In June, 2005, my suspicion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation committed by the US government in cosrt with selected outsiders became widely know after UPI, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report picked up the story...
Amoung the lessons I learned in coping with the many reactions to my article, some intense, was the response of the academic community when the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 was challenged, primarily a deafening silence, with a few notable exceptions...
He also mentions the story of Van Romero as well as Kevin Ryan as illustrative of the techniques used by the elite to control what academics say.
In conclusion, I believe that what we have here is a culture that, when faced with questioning things that are proscribed as off limits by authoritive figures, would prefer to leave things alone.
You know, I think David Ray Griffin was retired from teaching when 9/11 happened. It may be why he was one of the first voices to question the official story; he had time on his hands to investigate and his decisions weren't so hamstrung by what higher ups might do. Now I'm sure you'll say "he wasn't a scientist". Honestly, I'm not sure what it takes to be a scientist. But what I -do- know is that the man is quite intelligent; have you read any of his books or books he edited? I'm on my second and I believe I've learned quite a bit...
This form of biased polling is of little use. It only makes a statement about those that know about that particular forum and were interested in using that particular poll. You might want to compare those results with the fact that over 50% of the US population believes in Creationism.
Kenny don't forget that the use of the term 'pyroclastic flows' is a fraud. What this is is a debris avalanche. Scott claims the term was used because they needed a term and couldn't find anything. Then claimed there was extraordinary heat. He proposed a paper claiming a 720 degree heat increase. Then the 9/11 sites post photos of streets littered with dust and un-charred paper. Paper auto-ignites at 450.
Remember this baloney Scott?
I am not saying the steel needed to remain in Lower Manhattan. It could have been transported a a distance from the city. Which it was by taking it to Freshkills landfill. The problem comes in with getting rid of it relatively quickly from there before it could be analyzed.
There is no apologizing for this and it needs to be investigated. There was no good reason to have the steel recycled without it having been fully analyzed.
680 Architects and Engineers believe that 9/11 was an inside Job?
30,000,000 Americans believe Elvis lives, does that make him any more alive?
15,000,000 Americans have doubts that America landed on the moon, does that make them any more correct?
While this might seem like a logical fallacy, technically, so is the point i'm addressing.
Where are you getting your statistics from? And more importantly, while we have people who have signed a petitition stating that they question the official story, I see no petition of people who support it. To be sure, I'm sure a few signatures could be scrounged up for such a petitition, but I don't think it'd be nearly as large as the 9/11 truth movement's.
I reject your dismissal of reasoned responses as apologism, and find it insulting and belittling.
However, NIST took what they reasonably believed to be both useful and represntative samples, and disposed of the rest in a timely fashion. Not an unreasonable action.
Besides which, although the first contracts were awarded 2 weeks after 9/11, evidence suggests that the scarp steel was still available at least as late as September 2002
Also, there are rules regarding what Landfills can and can't accept, or hold for extended periods of time, and there's been the suggestion that the steel was contaminated with Mercury, Asbetos, PCB's, lead, and other crap (probably nickle and cadmium as well).
So one might argue that there is, in fact, good reason to process it as quickly as possible (I don't know what freshkills was equipped to handle, in what quantities at this point).
Sigh Scott. People get fired or let go all of the time. First you used a biased poll to propose a claim that properly done polls completely refutes. Now you are proposing some gibberish:
Seems that this is an Expelled claim, the movie in which people were 'fired'. Seems that some were never employees and could not be fired. Even Ben Stein came up with more than 2 people. And that's for something you proposed wasn't even a hot item of discussion.
Ryan can say anything he wants, but his bad on misusing UL.
Let's drop the 'acclaimed' adjective. He was a professor at BYU. He published a paper in a journal that was not peer reviewed. He rattled cages. He was told to follow the peer review process. He rattled cages. Then he was put on paid leave. He said screw it I have more to say on this subject and he took a different path in life. So the academic setting was no longer to his liking and now you are claiming martyr or something like it.
That's a trite comment.
Moon landing Hoax? Gallup Poll (something like 6% of americans surveyed).
Elvis being alive? Seems to be fairly consistently about 10% in the various sources I've looked at.
According to census sources the population of the US is about 304,000,000.
The rest is simple multiplication, and the rest of your post is pure, unfounded speculation.
I am not sure.
I don't see how you can say that the NIST took what they deemed reasonable. They got two core columns from the fire affected zone. That took their entire investigation out of the realm of physical evidence. No, not saving the steel at least from the fire affected areas is a huge red flag that something untoward went on. I don't see why you would find it personally insulting for me to say that.
The steel could have been taken as far away as necessary, but it needed to be saved. It was handled by truckers and others.
There were plenty of places that steel could have been saved. There simply is no excuse for what was done there.
This was not the same predicament that FEMA and the EPA found themselves in regarding what to do as far as providing public health safety criteria for all of NYC which would protect the health of citizens and workers while not causing panic. While it can be debated as to whether the White House had the right to do what they did there that dilemma is more understandable. I can appreciate your reasoning here.
Still haven’t learned what? What haven’t I learned Scott?
You are still trying to squirm away my point. It doesn’t matter if they are the head of engineering at the Elite School for Awesome Engineering Experts when their statement is “I think there was a conspiracy because of the free fall of all three buildings, jet fuel cannot melt steel and the owner of building 7 admitted it in an interview”. (I am paraphrasing because I cannot get into the page with the statements from work). Their qualifications are irrelevant if they haven’t done ten damn minutes of research!
You are the one who keeps pointing to the list and holding it up as imortant. When it is pointed out to you that many of them don’t seem to actually know much about 9/11 you can only come up with “Well you’re not an architect!!” , then you try to divert attention away from the list of people to the pathetic main points on the front page which have been debunked over and over.
Wow TV Channels!! They never put people on TV unless they are 100% correct!
I am talking about facts. The reasoning given for signing by many of these architects and engineers makes it clear that they have not researched the facts.
Your fallacious appeals to authority are even more absurd considering you ignore the work of qualified people who worked on the official investigation.
Actually I am making an extremely simple point that you refuse to recognize and would rather change the subject. I'm not going to repeat myself for the fourth time. Read my first post on this issue. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2275613&postcount=938
Were I able to to get into that page I would post some examples of how poorly informed some of the people are. It would not matter as you would ignore my post or try to dodge away somehow.
Okay, so you make no comment about the length of time that the bowing occured, but you accept that there was at least some bowing during, and immeadiately before the collapse correct?
Then do you accept that the same forces that were pulling the perimeter colums inward must also have been pulling the core colums outward.
Note that at this time I am making no comments about the degree of any deformation, or which columns were deformed, I am simply stating that because of the laws of physics, because there was a force pulling the perimeter columns inward, there must have been an outward pointing force being exerted on the core columns.
Does the evidence suggest, or not suggest that the material may have been, at least partly, contaminated by Asbestos and PCBs, as well as heavy metals?
Do you have any idea of how (potentially) short the list of places certified to handle that potential mass loading of contaminants is in the US is?
In order for the samples that NIST collected to be useable, they had to be identifiable correct?
I can offer you this: On this forum, I probably have a relatively unique perspective on contaminated sites management, public notification of such, and the laws and regulations around such (it's related to what I do as a Chemist and statistician for a living).
AFAIK there is one other person on this forum that has a comparable knowledge base in this regard, i'll leave it to them to make themselves known if they choose to.
Trippy, there's a whole bunch of things that don't make sense. For starters, if that were truly the issue, why no mention of it?
Conversely, while there was certainly contamination, why did the Bush administration coerce the EPA into saying things were fine when they weren't?
Trippy, no one has ever stated that the evidence that was recycled post haste to China wasn't identifiable. And that's not even getting into the steel that was apparently stolen by the mafia; strange that they could manage that when the rest of it was kept such a close eye on, don't you think?
But as a matter of record, they did keep some steel, but it's kept under lock and key. Aren't you the least bit concerned that after people like Steven Jones and others have found that there was unexploded nano thermite in the WTC dust, no governmental organization has carried out the tests themselves?
There was still steel at the site until late 2002.
Truthers talk as if it was rushed all into the back of a van by men in black suits on the first day. It took many months to remove it, there were thousands at the site and anyone could have grabbed some samples of the steel. I'm sure many did.
Some steel was stolen. Then the security was increased. No mystery here.
If the perimeter columns were being pulled inward by sagging floors then there would have been a lateral load on the core columns. However, there is a huge difference here in that the core columns were braced separately by horizontal beams which would have taken the lateral load from the trusses.
Additionally, the perimeter column bowing could have been caused by core column failure itself pulling on the perimeter through the floor trusses. The problem there is what was causing the core failure? The NIST has no physical evidence of any core column experiencing temperatures capable of decreasing the strength of the steel.
at first glance you appear to be right, but on closer inspection you are wrong.
if FEMA had saved every chunk of this steel in some warehouse the situation would be no different.
the collapse occurs,FEMA saves the stuff, "it was a bomb" movement starts, FEMA pulls out the stuff, "it was a bomb" movement says "FEM tampered with the evidence" or "FEMA isn't showing it all" or some other type of crap.
what would surprise me is if FEMA hadn't photographed this stuff, not that they didn't store it.
100 to 1 there is a photo of EVERY piece of steel that came off that pile.
I've provided you with a mention of it though, in one of my previous posts, I linked to a a site that cited an article mentioning Greenpeace involvement, and the fact that the Indian Government very nearly refused acceptance (under international law, until the recepient agrees to accept hazardous materials (or potentially hazardous materials) it's the senders problem) of a shipment of WTC steel for the very reasons I've been stating.
I never said that there was certainly contamination only that it was probably there.
Remember, i'm not american, and have nothing to do with the american government, but, i've already forwarded a couple of possible reasons why the EPA may have made the decisions they did.
I can see where there may have been other considerations (for example, how long do you think the American economy would last with wall street closed down, and if you want to know why that should be a consideration, just sit, look, and think for a minute).
This isn't what I said is it? I said that the samples retained by NIST had to be identifiable to be useful, and they do. In order to be technically and legally defensable, they have to be able positively identify where in the building the samples came from, however, those samples from the fire (and impact) affected areas are also the most likely to be damaged and potentially unidetifiable.
No, not really.
You underestimate the monetary value of memorabilia, and the greed of individuals.
Did you know that there was speculation that the Chinese might set steel aside for sale back to the US as memorabilia? There were a lot of people very unhappy about that idea.
Did you know that in 2004 the FBI enacted a law making it illegal to remove evidence from a crime scene, because of the internal problems that they were having with agents taking home memorbilia.
It's simply human nature.
And before you say "But I thought you said it was contaminated" I didn't say it was, I said the possibility existed (but most laws require that if the possibility exists, then it gets treated as if it's confirmed for the sake of protecting the public) there was a case in mexico of some kids getting hold of some metal spheres.
Turns out those metal spheres were Cobalt-60, or at least Cobalt 60 enriched, from a device (i forget if it was medical or industrial) that had been disposed of improperly.
No, because, as I have detailed repeatedly, and abundantly, with referenced sources, there is NOTHING in those chips that uniquely identifies them as being thermite of any kind, and their composition is entirely consistent with that of paint chips from the beams at the WTC.
Incidentally, I have happened across another reason why we might expect Zinc to be absent from the MEK treated spectra, that doesn't require it to be merely surface contamination.
Separate names with a comma.