General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

"standard 9/11 truth investigation protocol" - ignore evidence, makeup fantasy

MicahJava said:
Since when is following standard fire investigation protocol a conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
That is not rocky logic, it is more like trying to pulling a rabbit out your hat, ending up with BS.

Oh noes, you got us now. Who had a clue what started the largest office fires in history on multiple floors in seconds, twice in one day. You mean if we had followed standard fire investigation protocol, aka finding out the cause (two jets with 66,000 gallons of jet fuel and an engine running full bore at thousands of degrees) of the biggest office fires in history. If only we followed SFIP, we would be okay, solving 19 terrorists did 9/11 in a shorter period.

You are joking, kidding. Did you know the goal of standard fire investigation protocol. Can it be to figure out what started the fire. Does 9/11 truth fool you, with the no clue who and how the fires were started on 9/11. Classic 9/11 truth, ignore evidence, spread BS freely. Fooled by "standard dumbed down 9/11 truth claims", the NWO "failed to follow standard fire investigation protocol". Now we will never know who and what started the fires.

Classic - "standard 9/11 truth investigation protocol", ignore evidence and spread lies, all based on BS.

Is this how the JFK CT fantasy, works. Failed logic, invalid claims.

Why not say the firemen forgot to tie their shoes using "standard fire department protocol". 9/11 truth failed to figure out 9/11 after 16 years. The record for figuring out 9/11 is minutes. Passengers on Flight 93 did it in minutes, took action. 16 years laters 9/11 truth followers (followers) are making excuses for 9/11 truth CD fantasy, using dumbed down illogical taglines. Is there a book of illogical laws of Fysics for 9/11 truth lies.

What is the purpose of standard fire investigation protocol

Using expertise in fire science, engineering, and chemistry to find the cause.
Click to expand...
Gee whiz, on 9/11 it could not be the two jets hitting the WTC which was the cause of the biggest office fires in history. It could not be the 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited in less than a second, spreading fires to multiple floors in seconds. Nope it had to be some hidden cause, some outlandish BS conspiracy theory made up by people who refuse to accept evidence.

9/11 truth followers continue to use failed taglines, like, standard fire investigation protocol. Why give up on failed claims, keep repeating them, maybe the presentation can be improved.

... what the primary goal of fire investigation is... what caused the fire. Wonder if the FBI figured out who started the fire, and with what; 9/11 truth has no clue.
What caused the fire in the fantasy version of 9/11.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Hurricane Erin? Well they seem to think that was guided and controlled by HAARP. Because it seems that nothing is good enough but that the US is hell bent on self destruction. The HAARP induce hurricanes are simply a means of forcing the seeple into the FEMA death camps for extermination when "Marshall" law is declared last century. Once "marshall" law is declared and the evil (insert bugbear of choice) are eliminated, the remaining reptilians will rule over <something> which will be themselves and insufficient to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, the GMO conspiracy will have come to fruition by dint of the chemtrails and there will be no people left to raise them. Oh, and this will only happen in murka, because nothing else exists.

The illuminutty just want to kill everyone, because...because...

Well, they are evil, I guess.It seems to matter not a whit that they would be killing themselves at the same time.

Figure that lunacy out. I can't.
Click to expand...


I can't get any of them to explain how Erin played a role. They just reference it and go "There. All the power you need.".

Was Erin supposedly controlled by HAARP as you say and blew the Towers down? Or did they run an extension cord from Erin to the Death Star? I can't get anyone to answer that question.
 
Last edited:
cantonear1968 said:
The information isn't necessarily wrong, but the source doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

It's not actually necessary, though, to appeal to anyone's authority here; we can simply refer to the evidence. MicahJava has implied through the complex question fallacy, without actually making a definite statement on the matter, that standard fire investigation protocol was not followed by the investigations into the building collapses on 9/11. As no actual claim has been made, there's not yet anything to respond to.

If MicahJava wants to make an actual claim, then I suggest he do so, and we can then examine it against NFPA 921. A reasonable claim would take the form:

[Investigation name] failed to follow NFPA 921 in that NFPA 921 specifies [action 1] whereas [investigation name] actually took [action 2].

In the absence of any such claim, MicahJava need not be considered to have claimed anything at all and can simply be ignored. A claim that doesn't specify how some investigation failed to follow NFPA921 can be treated the same, according to Hitchens' Razor. And a claim that does specify can be examined sensibly, which I suspect is not what MicahJava is hoping for.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's not actually necessary, though, to appeal to anyone's authority here; we can simply refer to the evidence. MicahJava has implied through the complex question fallacy, without actually making a definite statement on the matter, that standard fire investigation protocol was not followed by the investigations into the building collapses on 9/11. As no actual claim has been made, there's not yet anything to respond to.

If MicahJava wants to make an actual claim, then I suggest he do so, and we can then examine it against NFPA 921. A reasonable claim would take the form:

[Investigation name] failed to follow NFPA 921 in that NFPA 921 specifies [action 1] whereas [investigation name] actually took [action 2].

In the absence of any such claim, MicahJava need not be considered to have claimed anything at all and can simply be ignored. A claim that doesn't specify how some investigation failed to follow NFPA921 can be treated the same, according to Hitchens' Razor. And a claim that does specify can be examined sensibly, which I suspect is not what MicahJava is hoping for.

Dave
Click to expand...


Point well taken.
 
abaddon said:
What is "standard fire investigation protocol" in your opinion?

It seems to me that this is something gleaned from TV, like the bovine notion that all crashed aircraft are painstakingly reconstructed fragment by fragment in every case. (they're not. it's rare for that to occur. But TV makes people believe that they are.)
Click to expand...

The NFPA 921 guide for fire and explosion investigation has many passages which fits the characteristics of the WTC.

9/11 Investigations should be subject to the very best methods!
 
Josarhus said:
The idea that the investigation did not follow protocol, usually refers to NFPA 921, and is covered here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6234851&postcount=1
Click to expand...

That's not even half of the important stuff, and what that comment did address is only "refuted" with BS. For example, they imply that explosions that cause fire were not seen with the WTC. We know this is false. Want witnesses who saw fireballs DURING THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE shooting out of the ground floors? Look no further than Ron DeFranceso or reporter Carol Martin. DeFrancesco even had the burns to prove it!

The NFPA 921 does not have legal power, it's just a collection of the bare minimum of what you can do. And they didn't even follow that for the worst disaster ever!
 
Last edited:
Ah, some actual claims.

MicahJava said:
The NFPA 921 does not have legal power,
Click to expand...

This is not disputed.

MicahJava said:
it's just a collection of the bare minimum of what you can do.
Click to expand...

Please justify the claim that NFPA 921 specifies the bare minimum of what can be done to investigate a fire. As I understand it, it rather states that if applicable sections are not followed, investigators should justify why they were not followed, which has been done for the 9/11 investigations. If there are circumstances in which its recommendations need not be followed, then the term "bare minimum" to describe them is clearly incorrect.

Dave

ETA: I see that additional claims have been added.

MicahJava said:
For example, they imply that explosions that cause fire were not seen with the WTC. We know this is false. Want witnesses who saw fireballs DURING THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE shooting out of the ground floors? Look no further than Ron DeFranceso or reporter Carol Martin. DeFrancesco even had the burns to prove it!
Click to expand...

You will note that "fireballs" are not the same thing as explosions (technically, an explosion involves a supersonic shock wave), that explosions typically cause blast injuries which were not seen on 9/11, and that the emission of gouts of flame from a burning and collapsing building is what would be expected from simple physics. Your evidence doesn't therefore falsify the statement you want it to falsify; there is no persuasive evidence of explosions, as opposed to subsonic deflagrations or loud reports of undetermined origin, in any of the observations or testimonies concerning 9/11.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
That's not even half of the important stuff, and what that comment did address is only "refuted" with BS. For example, they imply that explosions that cause fire were not seen with the WTC. We know this is false. Want witnesses who saw fireballs DURING THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE shooting out of the ground floors? Look no further than Ron DeFranceso or reporter Carol Martin. DeFrancesco even had the burns to prove it!

The NFPA 921 does not have legal power, it's just a collection of the bare minimum of what you can do. And they didn't even follow that for the worst disaster ever!
Click to expand...

I would have to go and look up the exact quote, but the NFPA, in the public comments for the WTC7 Report complimented NIST for their thoroughness. Also referencing the job they did on the Towers. The very organization you are citing does not feel corners were cut or that NIST failed to follow proper investigatory protocol.
 
MicahJava said:
The NFPA 921 guide for fire and explosion investigation has many passages which fits the characteristics of the WTC.

9/11 Investigations should be subject to the very best methods!
Click to expand...

There is no doubt what caused the fires in the WTC. As for how the buildings performed, there were is no reason NFPA would be upset with how NIST did the work.

As for explosions, not one was due to explosives, or the fantasy thermite claims. You offer nothing as evidence that points to explosives. You ignore the facts, and have no evidence to support the claim.

Like the rest of 9/11 truth, pushing fake claims to support the CD fantasy, failed again.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-investigation

NFPA? You have no clue what you are talking about.

In addition to the code changes adopted by the ICC, 15 changes have been made to key National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) fire standards based on the NIST WTC investigation recommendations.
Click to expand...


lol, the NIST investigation has NFPA making changes based on the NIST investigation. This can't get worse for you unless you planned it. Did you plan to make a big fail?

I can't see how you will top this failure without extra effort.


16. For its study of WTC 7, why didn't NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?
NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST's WTC investigation, which responded to events that were much more than typical fires or explosions.
However, NIST's WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.
Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry. https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Click to expand...
Why are you always wrong on 9/11 issues? Are you doing this on purpose?
 
Last edited:
Whenever the NFPA 921 is brought up, liars resort to quote mining and BS "technicalities" to argue that the worst fire-related disaster in history doesn't deserve the best investigation.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, what is the official story on the fireballs reported by Ron DiFrancesco and Carol Martin? Is it where the pressure from the collapsing upper floors shot down the office fires and then they came out like a jet from the ground floor?
 
MicahJava said:
Whenever the NFPA 921 is brought up, liars resort to quote mining and BS to argue that the worst fire-related disaster in history doesn't deserve the best investigation.
Click to expand...
Nice strawman. Show us one person in the thread that says it didn't deserve the best investigation. Quote them, word for word and link the post.
 
heymatto70 said:
Nice strawman. Show us one person in the thread that says it didn't deserve the best investigation. Quote them, word for word and link the post.
Click to expand...

Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?
 
ralfyman said:
Read the FEMA report. Only a hundred or so pieces out of more than 100,000 tons of steel debris were collected, marked, and examined. Most of it was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
Click to expand...

Of course there was a valid reason to sell it as scrap. The cause of the collapse was obvious to anyone but a conspiracy theorist, and there was several buildings' worth of steel. Storing it for months or years would cost a considerable amount of money, with no useful purpose served. The notion that there was something remarkable about buildings collapsing after plane crashes had severely compromised the structure and large fires damaged them further (or debris from the towers and fire in the case of bldg. 7) is a complete load of nonsense.
 
MicahJava said:
Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?
Click to expand...

From wtc 7? None.

Say, I did enjoy the irony where you typed "every liar's attitude is now literally 'oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough'" while lying about it on the internet.

Great stuff!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?
Click to expand...


Firefighters knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse based on the sounds of structural weakening heard within the building as fires continue to rage out of control, which is why a decision was made to pull them away from the building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom