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?

*****

*crap. *lies

This brings nothing new to the table.

But, you have totally convinced me about NIST though...

It is chalked full of flaming republicans/fascists who do whatever their imperial overlords tell them to.

I heard that there is this implant that they put behind the cerebellum of researchers refuse to submit, or just for fun.

And... It is hardly even a research facility! Why do are tax dollars go there? They never publish any peer reviewed papers. All of them went to Regents College, which is a known fascist breeding ground.

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?

That article in Fire Engineering is dated January 2002. Did you think to look for any more recent writings from this author on the subject? Of course not. How about more recent articles in the magazine on the subject? Nope you didn't do that either. Too much work for someone as intellectually lazy as you appear to be.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=151045

A more recent article from the same author applauding the commissioning of the NIST investigation. The most extensive cover up the author is worried about is politicians covering their asses over dangerously unsafe building codes (read the following also from Mr.Manning).

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=213202

That is one conspiracy theory that may well be true.

Fire Engineering has also run several articles on it's support of Fire/Structural damage causing the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf

80 pages and not one mention of demolition, explosives or conspiracies.

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?

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.

"Much less how the government could shut up so many people. Lets face it they couldn't keep Watergate, Lewinsky, or other scandals from surfacing."

That's a logical fallacy and utter bull. The government can and does keep big, very important secrets.

It's obvious that the building was rigged.

Every reference to the NIST is as useful as referring to the Warren Commission report on the JFK assasination.

The point of the "official" investigation was not to uncover the truth: it was to highlight evidence that supported the official excuse, and suppress or ignore any evidence that challenged it.

(Hello MyCroft - sexy as ever, I see)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

For anyone who hasn't read this please do. If you think it was a controlled implosion, but haven't seen

a) pictures of the damage caused by the first tower collapsing
b) pictures of fires burning unchecked for hours on several floors
c) the layout of the fuel storage system in building 7
d) the design of the cantilever girders that made up the 'transfer system'

then you have missed all of the important facts on this ridiculous topic. Choggie...thinking too much is not a charge I mind accepting, and also not one I would level in your direction.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Complete report by the NIST on the collapse of building 7. Including pictures of the damage caused by the collapse of the first tower, fires that burned unchecked, and the layout of the fuel storage system and how it contributed to the failure of the main supports at floors 5-8. I just can't conceive of a way that an intelligent human being, given all the information that IS OUT THERE, could believe this building was demolished as part of a vast conspiracy. It would take stupidity beyond anything humanity has ever displayed.

This is a good video but NIST's latest findings tell a different story now.

Things like:
* The trusses pulled the outer columns inward to breaking point initiating the collapse.
* The towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds (not 30 as stated in the video)
* There was no progressive collapse or pancaking but the floors below offered almost zero resistance to the momentum of the falling upper section.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This video is fun... but I not sure it tells us anything we don't already know about Ron Paul. I wish I knew where he stood on the funding the NSF, NIH, NIST, NRL, APL, DARPA, and other governmental institutions.

I would really like it if someone would answer that question.

I think it is very myopic to think that not funding research will help the American economy. Part of what make our economy so strong is that the government is willing to fund pure science research with no obvious long term benefit; like Colossal Magneto Resistance, the Rhybosime(not rhybosome), QCD, and Bose-Einstein Condensates. It is easy to scoff and say the private sector will pick those things up, but I am not sure they will.

I know... it is ridiculous.

You should put NSF, DOC, NIST, NOAHH in that title as well. He does not care about science, this administration is myopic at best.