The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[eots]

really and what would this signature be exactly and why do fire investigators routinely test for explosives and incendiaries in major fires other than these ones
if all they do is look for the...signature...lol

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90]Fire Fighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

really and what would this signature be exactly and why do fire investigators routinely test for explosives and incendiaries in major fires other than these ones
if all they do is look for the...signature...lol

again your ignorance is hilarious.
your seem to not know the difference between investigate and tests none of the tests I already mentioned are done on site.
as already stated a puliminary investigation WAS DONE at the wtc before the recovery could start.
it found nothing...

 

[eots]

again your ignorance is hilarious.
your seem to not know the difference between investigate and tests none of the tests I already mentioned are done on site.
as already stated a puliminary investigation WAS DONE at the wtc before the recovery could start.
it found nothing...

what is this signature you claim ??...what is it you would expect to find ?

 

[daws101]

again your ignorance is hilarious.
your seem to not know the difference between investigate and tests none of the tests I already mentioned are done on site.
as already stated a puliminary investigation WAS DONE at the wtc before the recovery could start.
it found nothing...

what is this signature you claim ??...what is it you would expect to find ?

look for yourself it's kinda obvious..

 

[Mr. Jones]

What law of physics says that a fire cannot spread while some other part is still burning? A fire does NOT have to burn completely before it can spread to some other place.

From the videos of the towers, it is obvious that several floors were burning at the same time. Certainly enough to weaken the main support beams. We know that this is so because the towers fell.

sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.

To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

 

[Montrovant]

sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.

To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

And there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question. Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion. The NIST report being wrong does NOT mean 'false flag attack'. All it would mean is that the NIST investigation was wrong. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the NIST investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.

 

[eots]

To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

And there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question. Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion. The NIST report being wrong does NOT mean 'false flag attack'. All it would mean is that the NIST investigation was wrong. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the NIST investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

 

[SAYIT]

sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.

To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and your particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.

 

[eots]

To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and your particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.

who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact

 

[SAYIT]

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

And there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question. Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion. The NIST report being wrong does NOT mean 'false flag attack'. All it would mean is that the NIST investigation was wrong. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the NIST investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

Which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a CD. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular CT.

 

[eots]

and there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question. Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion. The nist report being wrong does not mean 'false flag attack'. All it would mean is that the nist investigation was wrong. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the nist investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.

the statements are correct and the nist report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the nist report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in nist opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final nist report


at a press briefing, shyam sunder, nist’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of world trade center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before i tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

 

[SAYIT]

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and your particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.

who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact

Jones claims molten steel was found "70 feet below the ground" weeks after 9/11 and he also claims - using the oldest and most lame Nazi canards in the book - that the Jooos did it (not that one such as you would notice):

"In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic bunch around, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda." - Mr. Jones http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nections-details-exposed-133.html#post7040226

 

[SAYIT]

the statements are correct and the nist report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the nist report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in nist opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final nist report


at a press briefing, shyam sunder, nist’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of world trade center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before i tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

They considered the evidence and found none of CD explosives.
They worked with what they had and found no evidence of CD explosives.
You clearly believe the NIST and the Commission were all in on some conspiracy for which there is no proof and nothing they have said (or not said) would dissuade one such as you.

 

[Montrovant]

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

I'm sorry, but explosives is the 'obvious answer' only to conspiracy theorists. To most people, the obvious answer as to why the towers collapsed is that two planes were flown into the towers, and then massive fires raged afterward. The use of explosives is a not-so-obvious explanation, one that is based on speculation. Your use of the word obvious is in error.

 

[SAYIT]

the statements are correct and the nist report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the nist report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in nist opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final nist report


at a press briefing, shyam sunder, nist’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of world trade center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before i tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

Did you modify my post, Princess?

 

[eots]

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

Did you modify my post, Princess?

I did nothing to your post werido

 

[eots]

No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and your particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.

who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact

Jones claims molten steel was found "70 feet below the ground" weeks after 9/11 and he also claims - using the oldest and most lame Nazi canards in the book - that the Jooos did it (not that one such as you would notice):

"In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic bunch around, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda." - Mr. Jones http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nections-details-exposed-133.html#post7040226

There could well be an israelie connection to 9/11.. there is evidence to suggest this is true of course it would also require complicity by elements within our own government as well.. examine this evidence does not equate to an Anti-Zionist agenda or that the joooos did it ..thats just mindless nonsense

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYIZW959vJc]Fox News expose: Israelis had foreknowledge of 9-11. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact

Jones claims molten steel was found "70 feet below the ground" weeks after 9/11 and he also claims - using the oldest and most lame Nazi canards in the book - that the Jooos did it (not that one such as you would notice):

"In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic bunch around, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda." - Mr. Jones http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nections-details-exposed-133.html#post7040226

There could well be an israelie connection to 9/11.. there is evidence to suggest this is true of course it would also require complicity by elements within our own government as well.. examine this evidence does not equate to an Anti-Zionist agenda or that the joooos did it ..thats just mindless nonsense

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYIZW959vJc]Fox News expose: Israelis had foreknowledge of 9-11. - YouTube[/ame]

Hmmm. That Fox (your favorite news source?) report states "there is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attack" and an unnamed investigator said there may have been "tie-ins" but flatly refused to describe them. How convenient.
11+ years later still no known Israeli connection.
People like you and Mr. Jones try to keep this BS alive because your agendas have nothing to do with 9/11 truth. So what is the Statute of limitations on your CTBS?

 

[SAYIT]

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

Did you modify my post, Princess?

I did nothing to your post werido

Me the weirdo? Do you ever take a look at your Avatar?

 

[eots]

Did you modify my post, Princess?

I did nothing to your post werido

Me the weirdo? Do you ever take a look at your Avatar?

Ya every morning when I brush my teeth...