Jones debunks NIST....

[wildbilln864]

watch it here. :hi:

[Laurier]

1. Cue Buddy Holly music. "That'll be the day..."

:rofl:

[nebula]

2. Doesn't take much.

A 9th grade physics student could debunk NIST.

[LARED]

3. If that's all it takes, then lets hear your debunking of the NIST

or maybe your didn't take any physics classes. Ever.

[mhatrw]

4. Here's mine.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed by NIST and the only pieces of metal tested extensively by metallurgists (two pieces of WTC-7 steel analyzed by FEMA, not NIST) revealed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

Only 12 total core columns were carefully analyzed for high temperature exposure from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined and none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C (and for one of these three, the forensic evidence indicated this high temperature exposure occurred after the collapse).

[nebula]

5. Newton's laws of motion

If one has ever learned about them in a high school science class, then he or she is more than capable of debunking the pseudo-science known as the NIST report. I suggest the NIST 'scientists' do some brushing up since they don't seem to be very familiar with them:



Newton's laws of motion

are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics and Newton himself used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects. In the third volume of the text, he showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Briefly stated, the three laws are:

1. An object will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity,
unless an external net force acts upon it. (law of inertia)
2. Net force on an object is equal to its rate change of momentum. (law of acceleration)
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (law of reciprocal actions)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

[hack89]

9. Good first step

now if you would actually apply those laws in the language for which they were intended i.e. mathematics, maybe we can get somewhere. Can you present the energy budget of the WTC? Can you show me the KE expended in the collapse? Here's a hint: KE = 1/2(m*v2)

[Sweet Pea]

8. Wow! You're right!

There was no testing for Fairy Dust, either! The Bastards! They ALSO didn't test if a meteorite crashed into the building! The Bastards! The also neglected to test if a big huge Sta-Puf Mashmallow Man sat on the building! The Bastards!

But then again, why would they test for something that common sense and intelligence and the experts on the ground agree that *absolutely* did not happen?

A 1000' foot building 300 feet away collapsed. Debris from that collapse initiated fires inside and severe structural damage on WTC 7. Damage was severe enough that the overall structural integrity of the building was failing - failing to the point that it could be *seen* by those individuals on the ground. It could be *seen* to the point that a theodolite, or a surveying instrument, was focused on the bulge of the building. There was no doubt in the minds of the experts on the ground that the damage the building suffered is what would bring it down.

To pull your hair out because no testing was done for explosives or fairy dust or meteorites or Sta=Puf Marshmallow residue is really pretty funny. Why test for something that has no evidence of being there?

Follow the evidence, Gil says. There is/was no evidence of explosives.

[mhatrw]

11. What was the "expertise" of the what "experts" on the ground on 9/11 that

made them all so certain something that had never happened before in the history of the world was about to happen to WTC-7?

Show us the scientific evidence collected from the theodolite that day. Who was operating this surveying instrument, what were their qualifications and where are their measurements published? Why didn't the initial FEMA report cite this conclusive scientific data?

There is/was no evidence of explosives.

You can't find evidence that you don't look for. What's your explanation for the high temperature sulfidation of the only two pieces of metal ever recovered from WTC-7 for analysis? The Sta-Puf Mashmallow Man?

[hack89]

12. Here we go again

the sulfidation issue has been addressed here many times - the rubble pile was awash with sulfur. And of course, no one has ever shown how sulfidation is linked to explosives - can you?

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

And again I'll ask - Manhattan was covered with a thick layer of dust that surely was full of explosive residue. Why didn't a truther "scientist" simply get a sample and have it tested? I think they did and didn't like the results.

[mhatrw]

13. Wow! Not a link to speculative article by a retired nuclear engineer!

Hold the phone! That clears up everything!

Here is what the actual metallurgists said about the high temperature sulfidation:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

What was the "expertise" of the what "experts" on the ground on 9/11 that made them all so certain something that had never happened before in the history of the world was about to happen to WTC-7?

Show us the scientific evidence collected from the theodolite that day. Who was operating this surveying instrument, what were their qualifications and where are their measurements published? Why didn't the initial FEMA report cite this conclusive scientific data?

[hack89]

14. Not willing to address the actual facts, I see.

usually when one labels a report as speculative, they give some examples of where the article it might be wrong. Wouldn't want to give anyone the impression that you are simply dismissing inconvenient facts, would we? So tell me, what credentials do you have that allows me to accept your casual dismissal of a real scientist?

Look carefully at your quote - they said that it needed to be studied. It was - you just don't like the answer. But OK - what does really mean. Six years on and not a single truther has been able to link this sulfidation to CD - why is that? Is the movement incapable of basic science and experimentation?

The theodolite was operated by the fire department - it was not a scientific experiment, just a common method to see it the building stability was degrading. It's very simple - if the bulge gets bigger than perhaps the structure is weakening.


Do you really want to take a hard line on scientific credentials? Are you saying that we can dismiss out of hand anything written by anyone who is not an expert in that particular field, regardless of his/her overall scientific and engineering background. I don't think the "movement" could take such scrutiny.

[Sweet Pea]

21. Doh

Perhaps you're right. What do firefighters know about damage to buildings from fire and structural damage? The brazen idiots! What do THEY know? And the situation was such that having structural and building engineers on hand at this point in the day would have been stupid, so I'm sure none were around. And what is a theodolite, anyways? Who cares if it provided precise information on structural angles, to see, oh, let's just say, if a building is losing its structural integrity because of the aforementioned fire and structural damage.

As far as providing "scientific evidence" of the theodolite data, I have no doubt what the thread would look like in the aftermath:

Answer: Here's the theodolite data

mhatrw: Oh yeah! That was made up! Show *us* the bio of the guy who took it! He's OBVIOUSLY in on the ruse!

answer: Ok, here's the bio of the guy who monitored the theodolite.

mhatrw: Oh yeah! Look! His parents visited Washington DC once, so he's obviously in cahoots with the federal government! His kids probably went to a private school! Show *us* the particulars of the company that made the theodolite!

answer: Ok, cme Surveying Equipment of Fremont, CA

mhatrw: Ah ha! I knew it! "Acme Surveying Equipment" is made up of 22 letters, specifically 1 "A", 1 "C", 2 "M's", 4 "E's", 2 "I's", 2 "U's", 1 "Q", 1 "T", 2 "N's", 1 "P", 1 "S", 1 "R", 1 "V", 1 "Y", 1 "G", and when 9/11 is added together (as individual digits, mind you) you get 11 and 11 doubled is.....22!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FURTHER, arranged those letters in an alternative sequence spells out "A Emergency Quiet Vim Puns", quite an indictment of those who reside on the dark side of the moon and who had Elvis and JFK plant explosives in the buildings!

_end_

So you see, it matters not what logical or relevant evidence I post here - you will just invoke the time-tested Troofer defense of saying "I don't believe it!".

[hamuli75056]

19. While Huddling in Downtown Manhattan on 9/11

We all thought the tops of WTC 1 and 2 would burn off and be rebuilt.

We never thought the entire buildings would collapse.

The idea is stupid that those buildings would both suffer the same fate.

And then, WTC 7 to copy them in some kind of tough-guy copycat manuever?

I'd have to be a bushie or stupider to buy that line.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. The idea is not stupid.

In fact, people watching those buildings at the same time as you thought that they would most certainly fall.

And after that, the FDNY examined the state of WTC 7 and determined it was in danger of collapsing as well. It did.

You will find that throwing terms like "bushie" around won't get you very far here. There is no point in identifying people who understand the realities behind those collapses as "bushies," not when people like Noam Chomsky think that way.

Enjoy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

10. Here's some spam for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=189185&mesg_id=189185

[hamuli75056]

16. Life Just Smells Sweet

When you deny the bushie version of events.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hamuli75056]

18. Thank you friend!

:-)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Another slam dunk...

...like so many presentations that have come before it. All that's needed is sufficient exposure -- something MSM is on strict orders to make sure doesn't happen. Cat's already out of the bag though, just a question of time, and MSM's reputation is in free fall.

[Laurier]

15. "MSM is on strict orders..." What orders? From whom?

What are these orders to which you refer?
Who issued these orders to which you refer?
Who on earth has the singlehanded ability to stifle media around the globe?
Why on earth would the media comply with these alleged "strict orders"?