1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.
5. TheSofaKing does not think the NSF and the ASCE were original investigative teams even though they responded within hours of the collapses and before FEMA and the BPAT teams were formed.

According to the document:

"Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts."

Do you agree with that?

Or is that another bit of documented reality that you'll choose to ignore?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No that does not constitute an "original investigative team" to me. They were one group out of several who arrived quickly to respond to an unimaginably chaotic situation, for which there was no "procedure". Do you know what the word "among" means?

In reply to this comment by rougy:
This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No I don't agree with that. Have you read the document you linked to? Because if you made it even two paragraphs in, you would have seen where your latest attempt at documentation is again, and predictably I might add, incorrect.

"A variety of other engineering researchers and professionals, including members of the Structural Engineering Association of New York, also engaged in the monumental task of collecting data that could lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings ..."



In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Your running record of my beliefs is incorrect. #3 and to some degree #2 are in contradiction with my last post which stated at least one expert from NIST was on site with FEMA and did examine physical evidence. Your questioning whether I have read all of the WTC 1 & 2 reports (tens of thousands of pages) and you can't even read 2 sentences?

As for the full NIST report, no...I have not read it in it's entirety . I doubt anyone has. I have read significant portions of it depending on what aspects of the investigation I was interested in at the time.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Ok...I know you like to take things slow out of your own necessity, but it has been obvious where this was going since your first post. Why don't you just come out and say what you want to say? It's not like it is anything new or based on evidence.


From NIST website

"FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation"


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?

1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?


In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I guess by "original investigation" you actually meant "preliminary investigation". FEMA's initial report was completed in cooperation with the American Society of Civil Engineers, and no, the NIST did not have anything to do with it. Nor should they have.

Once commissioned to do so , the NIST produced a mind bogglingly thorough report on WTC 1 & 2. In paper form it sits about 3 feet high.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

The investigation and subsequent report on WTC 7 was separated from the first report in order to get it out faster. That is why the one I linked is preliminary, with the full report due out in early 2008.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.


The NIST was not part of the original investigation into the collapse of the towers 1, 2, or 7. Correct?

1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.


The NIST was not part of the original investigation into the collapse of the towers 1, 2, or 7. Correct?

*****

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I stand by that document for what it is. A preliminary report on the collapse of building 7, which states "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition", and "...it was a classic progressive collapse". It also provides a comparative plethora of explanations and photographic/schematic data to back up their hypothesis. Something you are unable to provide. The timeline on page 26 alone should tell anyone who knows anything about demolition that this building fell with no help from a secret government operation.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Popular Mechanics does probably the best job I've seen of allowing some of the "experts" whose quotes have been used as fodder for conspiracy theorists to respond and most of them do not believe in any conspiracy, but rather their comments were misconstrued by people with agendas.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
You're a total fucking asshole and an abuser by nature.

This is a link to one of your "proofs" that WTC7 fell due to the fires and structural damage.

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse - April 5, 2005

You stand by this document, is that correct?

I saw that you've got a "Christopher Guest" playlist. Wanted to make sure this didn't escape it.

i don't have the time, or interest, to check either of your voting histories, for who dumped on what. so couldn't give a shit. k?

but. you clearly, admittedly, acted out of spite. you perceive he had already done so to you. now, ask yourself, what if you're wrong.

oh, and i hate to be the pasty white boy to say so, but, you kinda' picked the wrong nigga to fuck wit. dig?

i just upvoted your Uncle Buck and Spaced clips. nice picks.

ps. check my downvote record. it's gonna stay blank. happy holidays.

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I know you can...because you already did. I was just returning the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You downvoted every video in my queue, sofanerd. Is that the game you want to play? I can play that game, too, douche.

You're a total fucking asshole and an abuser by nature.

This is a link to one of your "proofs" that WTC7 fell due to the fires and structural damage.

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse - April 5, 2005

You stand by this document, is that correct?


In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Hey I just thought of something for you. What if I am part of the conspiracy? Imagine the power I would have to be part of something like that. Scary.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
See - the deal is - you respond, I answer.

If you think it's okay to taunt me and I just have to sit there and take it, then you don't understand the fundamental concept of communication.

You responded with a taunt. I answered, "leave me alone."

I did this three times you cock sucking piece of shit.

You downvoted every video in my queue, sofanerd. Is that the game you want to play? I can play that game, too, douche.

See - the deal is - you respond, I answer.

If you think it's okay to taunt me and I just have to sit there and take it, then you don't understand the fundamental concept of communication.

You responded with a taunt. I answered, "leave me alone."

I did this three times you cock sucking piece of shit.

Why didn't you leave me alone the first time that I asked?

Or the second?

Or the third?

You must be a stalker, or a griefer.

You bother people and get some kind of perverted joy out of it.

I told you three times to leave me alone.

You didn't.

Hi shitstain.