Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[triforcharity]

Well, you're still not getting the point, but it's progress.

Do you not understand that when Hoffman, or whomever wrote that pile of crap, is quotemining?

When the article states "FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study" Its a blatent LIE.

I have SHOWN YOU many times, WHY that is wrong. Members from the ASCE and SEAoNY were ALLOWED to Ground Zero from VERY early on in the investigation. The people directly with FEMA, were focusing on other tasks, and staying out of the way.

Once the rescue operations were winding down, FEMA et al. all went to Ground Zero.

They were AT Ground Zero. They also were AT the salvage yards to examine steel, and conduct their investigation.

Now, when Appendix D states "Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). " Here is what YOU need to focus on.

"Collection and storage". It wasn't FEMA's job to make arrangements for the storage and collection of the steel members. They would go through the salvage yards, etc. and spraypaint parts with either "SAVE" or would outline a part that they wanted to save. (They call it "Coupons")

You can read about it here, which, BTW, is from your OWN delusional link

 

[tmd2_1]

Well, you're still not getting the point, but it's progress.

I'm not sure what you mean. You said he was lying. I think I showed he wasn't. But I do admit, it can be worded better and more clear. Do you still believe he is lying?

 

[Athyrio]

Truthers never admit that they are wrong. If they could see their mistakes then they would not be truthers.

That's about the nicest way to say it. Look at the other part of the quote from his link:

"The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating. "

Truthers read from Truther sites and stop their investigation there and began to ask "questions". This is the point where they need to begin looking. That is the basic difference between "us and them" as to how investigation is accomplished. From testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley:

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples.

Article about Abolhassan Astaneh Oct. 3, 2001:

By chance, while visiting the offices of The New York Times last week to chat with one of its science writers, he heard about plans to immediately recycle steel from the site, and launched a lobbying effort to convince the city to wait until the debris had been inspected by structural engineers. Thanks largely to a Saturday article by Kenneth Chang and James Glanz, the city has agreed to make the steel available to Astaneh and other engineers heading up an investigation for the American Society of Civil Engineers.

From Phillips and Jordan, Inc.:

A simplified outline of the Debris Flow Process is as follows:
• Debris from Ground Zero was brought to the landfill via truck or barge
• Large metal debris was separated and investigated• Remaining debris was carried to Shaker Screens by front-end loaders where grapple backhoes fed the Shakers
• The Shaker Screens separated the debris into two distinct debris streams: larger fragments that slid off the top of the screen and finer debris (fines) that fell through the screen
• The larger fragments were moved to a manual sorting area for investigation
• The fines were taken to one of the Screening Plants for processing where they were further separated into two debris streams: small mixed fragments and very small mixed fragments
• These two sizes of mixed fragments were passed onto separate conveyor belts that carried the debris to Picking Stations where agents manned each side of the conveyor belt and investigated the debris as it passed
After sorting and investigation by agents, the debris was dealt with as follows:
• Human remains were separated and placed into protective containers and then removed to the on-site morgue for further analysis
• Evidence was placed in secure Evidence Trailers for future processing
• Separated metal was taken off-site to a recycler under contract to the Department of Sanitation
• Mixed debris was landfilled at the active bank on-site

From Conspiracies R Not Us:

These videos are just nails in the coffin of an already-defunct movement. Rather than vindicating the faith, this archive proves that not only were the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports based on rigorous testing, but that engineers, academics and scientists working for the government explicitly tested conspiratorial claims. We have gigs and gigs of video proof that NIST and its affiliates considered every possible angle of the event, and were able to rule out the kinds of hypotheses that today guide what remains of the faith's holy writ.

I didn't know that these links existed until I searched for answers, but once a Truther has spotted his Madonna, reason is abandoned and a false rapture envelopes.

Truthers are the real sheeple, easily misled.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not sure what you mean. You said he was lying. I think I showed he wasn't. But I do admit, it can be worded better and more clear. Do you still believe he is lying?

Yes. Absolutely. See my edit in my previous post.

 

[tmd2_1]

That's about the nicest way to say it. Look at the other part of the quote from his link:





Truthers read from Truther sites and stop their investigation there and began to ask "questions". This is the point where they need to begin looking. That is the basic difference between "us and them" as to how investigation is accomplished. From testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley:




Article about Abolhassan Astaneh Oct. 3, 2001:




From Phillips and Jordan, Inc.:




From Conspiracies R Not Us:




I didn't know that these links existed until I searched for answers, but once a Truther has spotted his Madonna, reason is abandoned and a false rapture envelopes.

Truthers are the real sheeple, easily misled.

You know you guys like to say things like this a lot. "Truthers" just stop at conspiratory sites. Maybe it's true for some people I don't know. But you "debunkers" are 10 times more guilty of that than most truthers. You 100% believe the official sources no questions asked. You automatically write off conspiratory sites as garbage. When if you actually read the site you might see he wrote almost exactly what you are whining about.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

"During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study."

 

[triforcharity]

You know you guys like to say things like this a lot. "Truthers" just stop at conspiratory sites. Maybe it's true for some people I don't know. But you "debunkers" are 10 times more guilty of that than most truthers. You 100% believe the official sources no questions asked. You automatically write off conspiratory sites as garbage. When if you actually read the site you might see he wrote almost exactly what you are whining about.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

"During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study."

Well, we know that 911research.wtc7.net is written by a known liar, so I think I would much rather go to the actual SOURCE of information, instead of a known liar.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes. Absolutely. See my edit in my previous post.

I'm not sure I follow you, this is what he states.

The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

Which is referenced from this. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/sciencecommittee_charter.htm

The quote you stated is right from Appendix D. So I'm really not sure how you can say he is lying.

 

[triforcharity]

Shifting the goalposts. Nice attempt.

Hoffman is lying to you, and you are defending him to the bitter end.

Typical truther.

Again, with the blatent lies, that YOU still flaunt as if they are the truth.
"The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.""

That is a LIE.

BPAT was DELAYED in getting pertinent building documents, mainly due to liability concerns. This means that they GOT the information they were looking for.

More quotemining.


""The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, it CLEARLY states, "Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institue of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. "

Imagine that, a lie by omission.

When are you going to open your head, and let the information that I am giving you sink in? When are you going to realize that the site you're using, is LYING to you, and you're falling for it, even AFTER I have shown that the site is LYING?!?!?!?!

FFS man.

 

[tmd2_1]

Perhaps another 7 years then? My point sems to have been skated past by you. I said its rather odd that you claim others are hypocritical and then complain about NIST not finishing the WTC 7 report until 2008 when AE911T has now had 10 years post collapse to produce next to NOTHING!.



Yes and all that was of immediate concern was that the model show the same result up to the point where the while structure has become involved in collapse.
IT DOES!
After that point any FEA will break down and it would be serindipitous if it was completely accurate after that time.



Because you and that author do not live in the same reality that most people do and certainly not in the same reality as those who work with such modelling.


No, in order to have gotten gravitational acelleration with explosive demolitions the entire lower 8 floors would have to be removed all at once. That's a hell of an explosive and a hell of great BOOM! Those explosives are not in evidence in any docuementary recording.
OTOH if the core columns have been destroyed by falling debris the other smaller columns between core and norh face will buckle and bend, the outermost columns will be pushed outward and quickly be so ditorted that they will offer no support whatsoever. All this with would occur with no explosive (120db at 1/4 mile) sounds.

Ohhh that's what you meant. NMo I did not understand what the h you were getting at.

Yes, but the FDNY did not know what form the collapse would take, would a portion of it collapse, what portion, or would the whole thing come down. So its simply PRUDENT to create a zone in which there are no people that would take into account the worst case scenario. This they did.

They did apparently. Did you actually read the report?
.
WOW are you, dense!

Again, there were hundreds of people in the rescue/recovery/clean up yet no one at all saw anything suspicious?


Yes it does, glad you agree that there was no reason to look for explosives if no explosive sounds were heard.

Answered above.

Why doesn't AE911T want to do their own research and justify there own numbers and then run an FEA? Instead they seem more interested in perhaps saying to NIST the equivalent of "AH HA, you said that columnx would buckle withy force on it but that's at least 3% too small and we justify saying this because we said it!"
OR
Perhaps they are incapable of doing an FEA without crib notes.

I'm not sure how to answer most of this. You use to post somewhat scientific stuff, but this is mostly just name calling.

I guess this is the most scientific "
No, in order to have gotten gravitational acelleration with explosive demolitions the entire lower 8 floors would have to be removed all at once. That's a hell of an explosive and a hell of great BOOM! Those explosives are not in evidence in any docuementary recording.
OTOH if the core columns have been destroyed by falling debris the other smaller columns between core and norh face will buckle and bend, the outermost columns will be pushed outward and quickly be so ditorted that they will offer no support whatsoever. All this with would occur with no explosive (120db at 1/4 mile) sounds."

I mean there's clearly a crimp. As seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI.

And in this picture.

 

[tmd2_1]

Shifting the goalposts. Nice attempt.

Hoffman is lying to you, and you are defending him to the bitter end.

Typical truther.

Again, with the blatent lies, that YOU still flaunt as if they are the truth.
"The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.""

That is a LIE.

BPAT was DELAYED in getting pertinent building documents, mainly due to liability concerns. This means that they GOT the information they were looking for.

More quotemining.


""The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, it CLEARLY states, "Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institue of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. "

Imagine that, a lie by omission.

When are you going to open your head, and let the information that I am giving you sink in? When are you going to realize that the site you're using, is LYING to you, and you're falling for it, even AFTER I have shown that the site is LYING?!?!?!?!

FFS man.

Wait a second...that document I referenced states this "The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."

And would mean that they did both would it not?

 

[tsig]

I don't know when or if Gage or AE for truth will release anything. We will have to have to wait and see.

Why should it be accurate? I don't know I always thought accuracy was a good thing. But I know what you are asking I think the author of the video says it best "Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition"

You are just playing games. You know what I was saying. But I'll rewrite it. Someone (I don't know who) on 9/11 made an appraisal that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing. Hence the collapse zone..etc. NIST's investigation should have consisted of asking that person (or people) why did you make that appraisal? Then the investigation should not have taken that long from that point. Because obviously that appraisal was correct and was made for some reason.

Again because of how quick Groung zero was closed off, and because of evidence removal, I'm not sure what was found or not.

That comment speaks for itself.

You really are playing games. You know what numbers. You know the ones not released for "public safety"

But I'll link to it for you.

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

If the evidence was removed then what was that molten metal you say was there?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

tmd2.1 --

you need to learn to use quote tags correctly. It really isn't hard, even on a smart phone. Messed up quote tags makes your posts look stupid and makes them harder to understand.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait a second...that document I referenced states this "The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."

And would mean that they did both would it not?

Can I have the blueprint to your house/apartment/dwelling?

Why not?

Independant researchers can request all they want. A building owner doesn't have to provide them anything. ASCE, NIST, FEMA, and SEAoNY are not independant researchers.

Nice shifting of the goalposts, again. Misdirection won't work with me. I've seen it all too often.

Care to address the fact that your website LIES, and you're being duped?

 

[tmd2_1]

Can I have the blueprint to your house/apartment/dwelling?

Why not?

Independant researchers can request all they want. A building owner doesn't have to provide them anything. ASCE, NIST, FEMA, and SEAoNY are not independant researchers.

Nice shifting of the goalposts, again. Misdirection won't work with me. I've seen it all too often.

Care to address the fact that your website LIES, and you're being duped?

Wait a second now the site said BPAT was denied access. They clearly were. Shea had to step in

Chairman BOEHLERT. Did FEMA help you in getting access to the drawings?

Dr. CORLEY. Yes. Very definitely they did.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And so you had to intervene. You had to step in.

Mr. SHEA. Yes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

What lie did he say?

 

[Miragememories]

"The NIST, backed by full government funding and virtually unlimited resources, had 7 long years to make their case.

What they produced was a whitewash.

Given their very limited resources, AE911Truth has done an admirable job providing research that validates the argument that we have yet to see an honest investigation into 9/11.

You seem to confuse quantity with quality.

For example, your reference to "6.6 seconds" completely ignores what it means for a modern 47-story building covering a city block, to drop in freefall for 8 storys. As Bill Smith would suggest, somehow the WTC7 table had all 4 legs severed simultaneously. Column 79 was one leg and that's all the NIST chose to stand their argument on.

You know as well as I do that sulphur was a very small part of the evidence presented by AE911Truth in support of the existence of thermitic materials pervasive in the WTC dust. You might explain the source of heat required to create the iron micro-spheres for example.

Distortion of the truth is the 'stock 'n trade' of the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters.

As soon as I see your words "yet they have absolutly no independant work of their own", I know two things. You don't check your spelling and you don't care about the lack of truthfulness in your argument."

"You're relying on bill smith and AE911Truth for support? That gives the phrase 'clutching at straws' a whole new meaning. Do you have any real evidence to present instead of nitpicking about spelling mistakes?"

Your response if I generously call it that, typically fails to discuss the content of my post.

As expected, the meat of my post was ignored and you focus on my minor observation of a lazy spelling error.

Over the years I've watched the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) supporters continually moving the goalposts.

There is no real interest in the truth here.

It is very much like watching how the GOP childishly resisted any compromise in the recent debt ceiling debates.

It appears that there is no proof good enough that would satisfy OCT supporters that an honest investigation is warranted.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Wait a second now the site said BPAT was denied access. They clearly were. Shea had to step in

Chairman BOEHLERT. Did FEMA help you in getting access to the drawings?

Dr. CORLEY. Yes. Very definitely they did.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And so you had to intervene. You had to step in.

Mr. SHEA. Yes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

What lie did he say?

Another cherry picked statement. Care to go back to what we were actually discussing, and that being the fact that your own cited source is proven to be a lie?

 

[tmd2_1]

Another cherry picked statement. Care to go back to what we were actually discussing, and that being the fact that your own cited source is proven to be a lie?

I thought that's what we were discussing? I'm not sure what he lied about?

 

[triforcharity]

This part.

"The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.""

This part

""FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study"

These are just a few of the blatent lies comitted by your source.

Don't you find it ironic that someone claiming to represent a search for the "truth" would post so many blatent LIES?

Are you even a little bit curious about that?

Hoffman, (I think that is the guys name who is responsible for that abortion of a site) is a proven liar, and a blatent quoteminer, who leaves statements off of things, so that it will seem more nefarious.

Are you ok with this type of source?

I'm not. Hence, why I use actual, straight from the horses mouth, factual sources.

Hence, why most, if not all, 911 Truth sites, are not in my folder of reputable sources. Not even one.

 

[tmd2_1]

This part.

"The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.""

This part

""FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study"

These are just a few of the blatent lies comitted by your source.

Don't you find it ironic that someone claiming to represent a search for the "truth" would post so many blatent LIES?

Are you even a little bit curious about that?

Hoffman, (I think that is the guys name who is responsible for that abortion of a site) is a proven liar, and a blatent quoteminer, who leaves statements off of things, so that it will seem more nefarious.

Are you ok with this type of source?

I'm not. Hence, why I use actual, straight from the horses mouth, factual sources.

Hence, why most, if not all, 911 Truth sites, are not in my folder of reputable sources. Not even one.

I thought we discussed this and I showed he wasn't lying? I admit some of the stuff could be worded better. But to call him a liar or to say he is even misleading, I believe is completely false.

 

[triforcharity]

You believe that the BPAT was denied blueprints? Yes or no?

You believe that FEMA was denied access to Ground Zero? Yes or no?