[Moderated]"We just want a new investigation"

CHF

Illuminator
CHF
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
3,871
I've got a crazy idea: why doesn't the TM assemble their evidence and experts....and do their own investigation!

I mean they claim to have lots of evidence and lots of experts. What on earth are they waiting for?

Why not gather up all the folks at AE911 and compile their knowledge and research in order to produce the TM's version of the NIST report - their "official story," if you will.

But the TM will never do that. Why? Because their "researchers" and "experts" would be too busy fighting over whose theory was correct!

These people cannot agree on what was used to take down the WTC, how much of it was used or where it was placed. In fact, they can't even agree on whether some controlled demolitions even took place!

How on earth can the TM's collection of JAQ-offs hope to compete with NIST when they're too busy competing with one another?
 
People bickering over what conclusions an investigation should reach before actually doing the investigation are thinking in a fundamentally bass-ackward way. It's like a lynch mob fighting over which tree to use for the hanging and ignoring the question of how to determine whether their quarry is guilty of anything.
 
So you mean that any investigation that a Truther would accept would be basically a Kangeroo Court?
Why Am I Not Surprised?
 
It's not enough for the tr00thers to prove everyone wrong on their own and thereby pwn all the so-called experts and officials... the epic nature of the pwning increases if everyone that buys "the official story" is forced to confront it through another investigation that will reveal on its own that the tr00thers were correct all along. Thus, as a further act of contrition, the tr00thers will be venerated as true heroes and patriots, and allowed to do as they see fit as, on a large scale, people question their own belief in experts and education since they were wrong and the "tinfoil hat nutters with their Youtube evidence" that they were quick to dismiss turned out to know exactly what they were talking about.
 
CHF said:
I've got a crazy idea: why doesn't the TM assemble their evidence and experts....and do their own investigation!

I mean they claim to have lots of evidence and lots of experts. What on earth are they waiting for?

Why not gather up all the folks at AE911 and compile their knowledge and research in order to produce the TM's version of the NIST report - their "official story," if you will.

But the TM will never do that. Why? Because their "researchers" and "experts" would be too busy fighting over whose theory was correct!

These people cannot agree on what was used to take down the WTC, how much of it was used or where it was placed. In fact, they can't even agree on whether some controlled demolitions even took place!

How on earth can the TM's collection of JAQ-offs hope to compete with NIST when they're too busy competing with one another?
Click to expand...

they are doing their own investigation.
 
tsig said:
Results?
Click to expand...

Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published. He also claims more than one independent lab is investigating the "chips". He also claims his team is dealing with the issues addressed on JREF (ruling out contaminants (torch cutting, fly ash maybe, hopefully doing quanitity analysis????).

I haven't listened to the whole interview yet though. He does discuss the likelyhood that microspheres were created during cutting events (construction or cleanup events?!?!?!). He's compared WTC microspheres to those created during a torch cut. The "residues" are simply not the same. He emphasized high aluminum content. He also claimed there were thousands of them in the dust.

I am sceptical of a few of these claims simply because he or "they" haven't "published" any support for the above yet.
 
Sizzler said:
Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published.
Click to expand...

I do hope that Jones realizes that perhaps more important than the paper being published at all is the publication in which this takes place. If this is just another heap of dung for his own made-up "journal" then he's wasting his time.
 
Sizzler said:
Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published. He also claims more than one independent lab is investigating the "chips". He also claims his team is dealing with the issues addressed on JREF (ruling out contaminants (torch cutting, fly ash maybe, hopefully doing quanitity analysis????).

I haven't listened to the whole interview yet though. He does discuss the likelyhood that microspheres were created during cutting events (construction or cleanup events?!?!?!). He's compared WTC microspheres to those created during a torch cut. The "residues" are simply not the same. He emphasized high aluminum content. He also claimed there were thousands of them in the dust.

I am sceptical of a few of these claims simply because he or "they" haven't "published" any support for the above yet.
Click to expand...
Jones makes up thermite, with no evidence. Now people are waiting for him to back in the dust evidence. It is self critiquing.

Love how Jones can keep gullible people holding on to idiot ideas of thermite. How do people suspend rational thinking to fall for bs?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
A version of their new paper? What's that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

Exactly what he wants it to mean no more and no less. Hes good at words that way.

We can now start wondering if paper means the same to him.
 
If they are doing their own investigations, then why are they asking for a new investigation? Shouldn't they instead be claiming "We've started a new investigation" instead of "Why can't we have a new investigation?".
 
Sizzler said:
Jones' in a recent interview said research was coming along quickly. He claims a version of their new paper will be published. He also claims more than one independent lab is investigating the "chips". He also claims his team is dealing with the issues addressed on JREF
Click to expand...


Who are they?
 
Sizzler said:
they are doing their own investigation.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

They're doing their own investigations.

Dozens of them, in fact....most reaching different conclusions. LIHOP, MIHOP, thermite, bombs, laser beams, mini-nukes, drones, A3s, missiles.....

I'd love to see someone try to put it all together.
 
CHF said:
I've got a crazy idea: why doesn't the TM assemble their evidence and experts....and do their own investigation!

I mean they claim to have lots of evidence and lots of experts. What on earth are they waiting for?

Why not gather up all the folks at AE911 and compile their knowledge and research in order to produce the TM's version of the NIST report - their "official story," if you will.

But the TM will never do that. Why? Because their "researchers" and "experts" would be too busy fighting over whose theory was correct!

These people cannot agree on what was used to take down the WTC, how much of it was used or where it was placed. In fact, they can't even agree on whether some controlled demolitions even took place!

How on earth can the TM's collection of JAQ-offs hope to compete with NIST when they're too busy competing with one another?
Click to expand...

There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.

When people are investigating certain events there is likely to be disagreements over the most likely explanation. A social, political or scientific movement that has no internal disagreements is a cult. This would describe the believers in the official 9/11 story. So, of course, the 9/11 Truth Movement has internal debates, we are trying to figure out what happened.

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.
 
And yet there has been nothing substantial brought up in over 6 years woo! Don Quixote lives!!
 
tanabear said:
There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.

When people are investigating certain events there is likely to be disagreements over the most likely explanation. A social, political or scientific movement that has no internal disagreements is a cult. This would describe the believers in the official 9/11 story. So, of course, the 9/11 Truth Movement has internal debates, we are trying to figure out what happened.
Click to expand...

There are also many teams in many countries doing independent investigations that have a much better track record. I speak, of course, of individuals like Dr. Astaneh-Asl at Cal, Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue, Dr. Quintiere at U Maryland, Arup, the ASCE, and other professional societies here and abroad. All of them are presenting at legitimate conferences and in legitimate journals. Their work has a direct impact on construction standards worldwide.

Your team takes almost no notice of these individuals, and when it does, it misquotes and misconstrues their conclusions. Why is that?

tanabear said:
Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.
Click to expand...

Your investigation would be much more likely to succeed if you had any idea what the NIST conclusions actually are. There's nothing sinister, surprising, or remotely unusual about the excerpts you've seen fit to quote here.
 
tanabear said:
There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc....

Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So they don't analyze the collapse and they can't explain it. You are right CHF, it would be tough to compete with that kind of report.
Click to expand...

Will Steven Jones or any of those you mentioned be able to explain which bolt snapped when?Which floor support gave before the next?The order in which exterior panels seperated?
 
tanabear said:
The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Click to expand...

Oh brother, I forget what a newbie you are. Anyway, there are numerous discussion of this on this site. Educate yourself.

THey take us all the away through the initiation of the collapse, and establish the cause of the collapse and the inevitability of total failure.

Anyway, why don't you explain 1. what further modeling will prove and 2. how much it would cost.
 
tanabear said:
There are many people investigating the events of 9/11; Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Peter Dale Scott etc.
Click to expand...
You picked the people in the world, and their followers, who have zero evidence to back up or prove the lies and false information they spread. It does take some knowledge of 9/11 to understand these guys have no evidence. Where does that leave you? You have chosen poorly.
 
tanabear said:
Nevertheless, I hope we can do better than NIST. The NIST report states that their report, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Click to expand...

Because that's not what their job was.

They determined what caused the collapse to begin, that's the important part. Providing a detailed analysis of what happened during the collapse would be nearly impossible.
 
tanabear you aren't even understanding what your arguing. NIST isn't saying they don't know why the collapse initiated, they're saying they didn't study the behavior during the collapse itself. Once the collapse started, the building, well, COLLAPSES, right?

Exactly why to you think NIST would try to study something they weren't tasked to study in the first place? To satisfy future irrational conspiracy theorists, just in case?
 
Pardalis said:
Who are they?
Click to expand...

Well, Jones mentioned a few names in the interview. It can be found on 911blogger, 3rd page I think. I must admit he isn't very transparent about "the investigative team". I still haven't finished watching it though.
 
tanabear said:
They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Click to expand...

Kinda like how aircrash investigators figure out why a plane crashed but don't spend their time looking into what happened to the plane when it hit the ground.

Although if interested in the collapse itself, I suppose you can start with the work of Frank Greening.
 
Last edited:
NIST also didn't prove how gravity works in their investigation. Until we figure that out, we can't really be sure what happened.
 
16.5 said:
Oh brother, I forget what a newbie you are. Anyway, there are numerous discussion of this on this site. Educate yourself.

THey take us all the away through the initiation of the collapse, and establish the cause of the collapse and the inevitability of total failure.

Anyway, why don't you explain 1. what further modeling will prove and 2. how much it would cost.
Click to expand...

They speculate as to what initiated the collapse and then assume, without evidence, that it would be global. Their collapse initiation theory is that the perimeter columns bowed inward due to the sagging of the floors. This is fine. But what tests did NIST do to determine that it would be global. If NIST is going to create a model of the collapse, then the model needs to mirror, as closely as possible, the observable reality of the actual collapse. If it can't do this, it remains an untested hypothesis. Further modeling would allow NIST to test their hypothesis and see if the inward bowing of the perimeter columns would lead to a collapse that resembled the destruction of WTC1 and 2. The cost would be a lot less than what we spend on this phony War on Terror.

nicepants said:
Because that's not what their job was.

They determined what caused the collapse to begin, that's the important part. Providing a detailed analysis of what happened during the collapse would be nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

NIST stated as one of the goals of their investigation was to determine, "why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

They came up with a hypothesis as to "why" the buildings collapsed, inward bowing of the perimeter columns, but they did not explain "how" the buildings collapsed. As 9/11 widow Monica Gabrielle once said, "How could skyscrapers just like crumble to the ground in 10 seconds?" NIST never fulfilled their obligation to explain "how" the towers collapsed.
 
tanabear said:
NIST never fulfilled their obligation to explain "how" the towers collapsed.
Click to expand...

NIST claims that when the top section of each tower started to come down it easily overwhelmed the ability of each floor to carry the load and smashed its way through the building. This conclusion has been corroborated by several peer-reviewed papers that have explored the dynamics of the collapses themselves.

Meanwhile the other side of the argument posts crap on their own websites.

I suppose we'll just have to let history judge who was right on this one.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
They speculate as to what initiated the collapse and then assume, without evidence, that it would be global. Their collapse initiation theory is that the perimeter columns bowed inward due to the sagging of the floors. This is fine. But what tests did NIST do to determine that it would be global. If NIST is going to create a model of the collapse, then the model needs to mirror, as closely as possible, the observable reality of the actual collapse. If it can't do this, it remains an untested hypothesis. Further modeling would allow NIST to test their hypothesis and see if the inward bowing of the perimeter columns would lead to a collapse that resembled the destruction of WTC1 and 2. The cost would be a lot less than what we spend on this phony War on Terror.
Click to expand...

No. Total collapse was already demonstrated by Bazant and Zhou before the preliminary report was even issued. This early paper has been refined several times, confirmed by others (e.g. Dr. Seffen) using different approaches, and now even Truth Movement member GregoryUrich has a corroborating paper. It's a done deal.

You would have us sit on our hands and do nothing until a full-up dynamic simulation replicating the entire collapse evolution, from start to finish, was possible. This isn't technically feasible. Even the static analysis was at the limit of our ability, and substantial uncertainty remains at the microscale due to the assumptions we have to make about the state of the structure prior to impact. This will never change.

What you've committed here is a fallacy of false precision. It doesn't matter that we can't predict exactly how fast the Tower will fall, or whether a given exterior panel will come loose or get folded under the collapse wave. That has absolutely no bearing on the base conclusions, which are unanimously accepted by the scientific community, that the aircraft impacts and fires caused the collapses, and nothing else.
 
R.Mackey said:
No. Total collapse was already demonstrated by Bazant and Zhou before the preliminary report was even issued. This early paper has been refined several times, confirmed by others (e.g. Dr. Seffen) using different approaches, and now even Truth Movement member GregoryUrich has a corroborating paper. It's a done deal.

You would have us sit on our hands and do nothing until a full-up dynamic simulation replicating the entire collapse evolution, from start to finish, was possible. This isn't technically feasible. Even the static analysis was at the limit of our ability, and substantial uncertainty remains at the microscale due to the assumptions we have to make about the state of the structure prior to impact. This will never change.

What you've committed here is a fallacy of false precision. It doesn't matter that we can't predict exactly how fast the Tower will fall, or whether a given exterior panel will come loose or get folded under the collapse wave. That has absolutely no bearing on the base conclusions, which are unanimously accepted by the scientific community, that the aircraft impacts and fires caused the collapses, and nothing else.
Click to expand...


Bazant and Zhou's analysis is secondary, as they need a pass on collapse initiation to even make their case. Without a freefall through one or two stories they have no case.

Where is the physical evidence for the 650 degree C steel temperatures required to buckle the columns?

Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.

Additionally, why was none of the steel salvaged from WTC7?

The fact that over 99% of the physical evidence from the towers was not kept, and none from WTC7, is diametrically opposed to the way a proper investigation and failure analysis would normally be done and anyone with any sense can see that there is something wrong with this entire picture.
 
Last edited:
So, realcddeal, please provide a better, more thoroughly researched alternative to what happened on 9/11. Please use peer reviewed, cited research and not speculation. I'll check back in 6/7 years and see how much progress you've made.
 
realcddeal said:
Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.
Click to expand...

Do you know how much 4-5,000 ton(nes) actually is?
 
realcddeal said:
Bazant and Zhou's analysis is secondary, as they need a pass on collapse initiation to even make their case. Without a freefall through one or two stories they have no case.

Where is the physical evidence for the 650 degree C steel temperatures required to buckle the columns?

Where is an investigation into why NIST wasn't provided with all of the 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fire affected area steel from the towers? Had they gotten that material there would be no question today as to how those collapses actually initiated. It was at a minimum criminal negligence for them not to have gotten that steel.

Additionally, why was none of the steel salvaged from WTC7?

The fact that over 99% the physical evidence from the towers was not kept, and none from WTC7, is diametrically opposed to the way a proper investigation and failure analysis would normally be done and anyone with any sense can see that there is something wrong with this entire picture.
Click to expand...

Oh come on Tony! Your movement would call it fake and ignore it anyway. 95% of flight 93 was recovered and you guys dismiss that. Everyone on fl 77 was ID through DNA and you still say it didn't hit the Pentagon.

Stop lying and admit nothing will falsify your believes.
 
Architect said:
Do you know how much 4-5,000 ton(nes) actually is?
Click to expand...

The "it is too much" excuse doesn't work. Of course, I know how much steel 4-5,000 tons actually is. It is a volume of approximately 20,500 cubic feet or in analagous terms less than half a football field one foot high.

Are you saying they wouldn't have a field or a large aircraft hangar to store the material?

Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.
 
DGM said:
Oh come on Tony! Your movement would call it fake and ignore it anyway. 95% of flight 93 was recovered and you guys dismiss that. Everyone on fl 77 was ID through DNA and you still say it didn't hit the Pentagon.

Stop lying and admit nothing will falsify your believes.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed something here. I am not aware that flight 93 had a controversial collapse. You are comparing apples to oranges.
 
realcddeal said:
The "it is too much" excuse doesn't work. Of course, I know how much steel 4-5,000 tons actually is. It is a volume of approximately 20,500 cubic feet or in analagous terms less than half a football field one foot high.

Are you saying they wouldn't have a field or a large aircraft hangar to store the material?

Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.
Click to expand...

If you read the NIST report you would know the answer to your question.
 
realcddeal said:
Why wasn't the steel from the fire affected areas saved? Everyone should ask themselves that question.
Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't save everything because they didn't plan for the silly questions put forth by complete lunatics?
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Maybe I missed something here. I am not aware that flight 93 had a controversial collapse. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
Who's said the towers were controversial? I've never met a single person in my industry that has any problem with the collapse.

Do you know of any realistic alternative hypothesis?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
If you read the NIST report you would know the answer to your question.
Click to expand...

Where do they address why they did not get all of the steel from the fire affected areas of the towers and none from WTC7?

They only talk about what little they did get and then dismiss that as not being representative.
 
DGM said:
Who's said the towers were controversial? I've never met a single person in my industry that has any problem with the collapse.

Do you know of any realistic alternative hypothesis?
Click to expand...

What world are you living in right now?

You know what the alternative explanations for those collapse initiations are. It doesn't seem that NIST or anyone else has an innocent explanation for the unusual flame and molten metal pouring out of the corner of the South Tower just before it collapsed. It also doesn't seem like there is an innocent explanation for the molten metal in the rubble yet either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom