Wednesday, August 30, 2006

NIST Frequently Asked Questions

Apparently having grown tired of conspiracy theorists spamming them with stupid questions, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has posted a FAQ as a follow up to their detailed studies of the collapses of the World Trade Centers. Now CTs can misrepresent their findings without having to read hundreds of pages of reports. Here is my favorite bit:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled
demolition.


Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.


First the "Scholar" schism, and now this. Not a good week for a certain professor in Provo.

37 Comments:

At 30 August, 2006 20:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

NIST's response is pretty lukewarm and as we have been claiming, all they did was conclude that fire alone bought down the towers and created their report from that conclusion.

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:20, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

That "lukewarm" your sensing is the ambient temperature of your own colon.

You need to pull your head from your ass before you read the report.

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:28, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:31, Blogger Alex said...

What Insync says:

all they did was conclude that fire alone bought down the towers and created their report from that conclusion.

As opposed to what NIST says:


(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


Now you try and tell me that he actually bothered reading the FAQ.

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

You need to pull your head from your ass before you read the report.

I read the piss poor excuse of a passage posted, why would I have to subject myself to that other bullshit it obviously contains? Throw that official crap in the trash.

 
At 30 August, 2006 21:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

Now you try and tell me that he actually bothered reading the FAQ.

Like I said, that's a conclusion designed excuse going as "science."

-dislodged fireproofing
-widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors
- temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius
-to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward


All assumptions. No physical evidence backs this up.

 
At 30 August, 2006 21:12, Blogger Alex said...

No syncy. Pay attention for a second. No, stop poking that Jew with your stick and LISTEN for a second. Don't you think it's hypocritical for you to, without studying ANY physical evidence, say that the towers were demolished and then in the next breath accuse NIST, who have interviewd hundreds of witnesses and studied the evidence first hand, of jumping to conclusions?

No?

Ok, here's your stick back. But you're not getting a juice box.

 
At 30 August, 2006 21:13, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Nothing but name calling from Nessie.

Thanks for letting us know you got jack-$#!+ to refute that report with, buddy. You've done the real truth a service.

 
At 30 August, 2006 22:12, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Does nesNYC ride around all day in a little yellow bus?

 
At 30 August, 2006 23:09, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

Like I said, that's a conclusion designed excuse going as "science."

Here is a remedial lesson for the hopelessly retarded. A conclusion is what you get when you study the evidence, something you have never done. How is it an "excuse" when they post the conclusion of their study of the evidence? Oh, I forgot. In the upside down retard world of nessie, evidence is what you make up when you have made your conclusion. Sorry

 
At 31 August, 2006 00:37, Blogger default.xbe said...

-widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors
-to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward


no evidence? you can see both of these in pictures and video

 
At 31 August, 2006 06:00, Blogger Pepik said...

-dislodged fireproofing

Yes can anyone prove that an airplane weighing several hundred thousand pounds travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, colliding with a building and then exploding in a giant fireball fuelled by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel would be able to dislodge fireproofing? Nazinc has a point here, we can't prove that fireproofing would be dislodged by such a gentle nudge.

 
At 31 August, 2006 06:15, Blogger Chad said...

Where's your physical evidence of demo charges Ness?

Oh that's right... teh evil Joo-run gubmint destroyed that evidence.

How absolutely convenient for you.

 
At 31 August, 2006 06:56, Blogger CHF said...

NIST Frequently Asked Questions

1) Has the NIST consulted any philosophy professors who are on the verge of a complete mental breakdown?

No?

Well then the NIST can't possibly know the "twooof."

 
At 31 August, 2006 07:13, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nazinc has a point here, we can't prove that fireproofing would be dislodged by such a gentle nudge.

Absolutely correct! The hypothetical dislodging of the "fireproofing," if it really occurred, would only account for a fraction of the damage done to the buildings and would NOT account for "global collapse." NIST is pulling a fast one here, they have no proof whatsoever that any of what they stated is actually what happened. Their theories are just as good as any CT'ers theories.

Oh that's right... teh evil Joo-run gubmint destroyed that evidence.

Yeah, your man Gooliani got rid of the evidence so NIST could conveniently create their report based on their pre conceived conclusion.

 
At 31 August, 2006 07:36, Blogger AbrashTX said...

nesnyc, please explain exactly how Giuliani managed to get rid of the evidence. Please name the witnesses and his accomplices. You made a claim. Now support it.

 
At 31 August, 2006 07:58, Blogger James B. said...

1) Has the NIST consulted any philosophy professors who are on the verge of a complete mental breakdown?


There is nothing "on the verge
about it. Fetzer had is own controlled demolition years ago.

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:14, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Why even argue with Out of Sync? He never brings any crdible proof to his arguements. The arguments themselves defy all logic. If you ask me, you are wasintg your own time and energy acknowledging his words at all.

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:38, Blogger Pepik said...

That's true.

And I did stop going to the loose change forum. Why should I point out weaknesses in these people's arguments? Even though few people there would acknowledge an error, no matter how obvious, the few that do would only adjust their reverse engineered logic to sidestep the debunking. There is no point in arguing with them.

Am I right about that? I think efforts are best directed at forums which would have some undecideds in them, typically forums which are not exclusively dedicated to 911 conspiracies (and where true believers don't ban dissenters immediately).

Not to say this forum isn't useful - its where I brush up on debunking skills.

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:52, Blogger Chad said...

I actually think that the LC forums get more undecideds than one might imagine.

They do however have a tendency to ban anyone for asking questions that could be seen as going against LC, so even open-minded people just looking for answers end up getting shut out.

It's become quite the little Members Only club over there.

 
At 31 August, 2006 09:10, Blogger nesNYC said...

please explain exactly how Giuliani managed to get rid of the evidence. Please name the witnesses and his accomplices.

AMEC Destroys Evidence in WTC Cleanup Scam

 
At 31 August, 2006 09:39, Blogger Chad said...

-dislodged fireproofing
-widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors
- temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius
-to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward

All assumptions. No physical evidence backs this up.


Really? You don't remember seeing photos of fires on multiple floors? Never seen any pictures of the inward-bowing columns? Have you even read the relevant parts of the NIST report that explain how hot the fires got?

Your ignorance is astounding. I hope you come down to Ground Zero on the anniversary.

I'd very much like to meet you.

 
At 31 August, 2006 09:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

You don't remember seeing photos of fires on multiple floors?

Photos? Isn't the first piece of evidence you tell CT'ers not to take into consideration? Photos and videos clearly show controlled demolition yet we're wrong because the multibillion dollar government lying industry is not behind us. MMmmmkay..

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:08, Blogger Chad said...

Photographs are very useful pieces of evidence.

However, they lose part of that usefulness when retards try to analyze them.

Those "squibs" have been explained away countless times. What other video/pictoral evidence do you have of a CD?

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

That "lukewarm" your sensing is the ambient temperature of your own colon.

Gee, we have masturbation and anal fantasies running wild in this blog today. I can't help it if what I post give you guys these tendencies. My suggestion: GET A ROOM! :D

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Photographs are very useful pieces of evidence.

Thanks for agreeing with the truthers.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:35, Blogger Pepik said...

I was wondering, if i wanted to show up at a truther demo, what do the illuminati look like? If I wore an MIB type outfit and blew chemtrail mist at them from an aerosol with a giant star of david on it, would that do it? The reptilian thing would require a lot of effort.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:35, Blogger Pepik said...

I was wondering, if i wanted to show up at a truther demo, what do the illuminati look like? If I wore an MIB type outfit and blew chemtrail mist at them from an aerosol with a giant star of david on it, would that do it? The reptilian thing would require a lot of effort.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:50, Blogger Chad said...

Thanks for agreeing with the truthers.

Yeah. What sucks for you guys is you're constantly having to disregard a lot of photographic evidence that rains poop down on your parade.

When photos exist that back up the official story (such as plane wreckage at the various sites), well... it was all just planted there.

So tell me Nessie. What good are photos to you guys if you can't trust them?

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:57, Blogger Alex said...

Well they can trust the ones that are blurry and inconclusive because it's OBVIOUS that THOSE weren't planted by the government. That's why it's clear that the Loch Ness Monster must exist too: because the photos never show anything conclusive. If they were clear, they'd be fakes!

 
At 31 August, 2006 12:11, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Nessie. Do you ever link to info that a nontruther has put online. I trust Bollyn about as far as I can throw a 30 foot steel column...without explosives...:)

 
At 31 August, 2006 13:09, Blogger shawn said...

videos clearly show controlled demolition

Odd, WTC 1 and 2 look nothing like any controlled demolition in the history of mankind. In fact, they look like a massive skyscraper collapsing after sustaining massive damage. Wanna know why they look like that? Becausethat's what happened.

WTC7 actually looks something like a controlled demolition, but you can only come to the conclusion it was demolished by ignoring the time needed to plant charges, the massive damage to one side, and the raging inferno inside.

 
At 31 August, 2006 15:29, Blogger CHF said...

Nessie,

You can't explain how/when the WTC was rigged up with bombs.

You can't explain how the charges/thermite at the WTC survided fires and jet impact (since the collapse started at that point).

You can't explain why the CD charges at the WTC were so quiet.

You can't explain how thermite could do what you claim it did.

What does this all add up to?

You being a complete fuckin' moron.

 
At 31 August, 2006 15:33, Blogger Stevew said...

There was half the insulation on the upper floors, that is a documented fact because of cost.
I wonder does nissie have any real qualifications ot does he just parrot the same bogus opinions fron the CT crowd of whaks?

 
At 31 August, 2006 15:33, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 31 August, 2006 19:44, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

The New York contracting industry has always been notoriously mobbed up. They'd take a contract for so many tons of "Grade X" concrete (or fireproofing), they'd deliver a lower grade and pocket the difference for themselves.

Given how the New York construction trades are operated, any sane person would be amazed that the fireproofing wasn't knocked off by a light breeze.

You gotta wonder what's wrong in the heads of these conspiracy nuts that they'll accuse POTUS of the worst crimes imagineable yet they trust John Gotti to install a vital safety feature that may or may not be needed someday

 
At 31 August, 2006 20:19, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Here ya go, Nessie:

Photographs by architect Roger Morse taken in the 1990s revealed that the fireproofing was not consistent throughout the building. The photographs show some fireproofing completely missing, while fireproofing was also incorrectly applied to rusted steel, essentially offering no fire protection...

... The fireproofing material used in the Trade Center was a foam that was sprayed on the steel support beams and adjacent areas throughout the building. The Contract to perform this vital function was awarded by the Port Authority to Louis DiBono, an Associate of the Gambino Mafia Family.


http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_275.html

How does it feel to know that you've been lied to by the leaders of your religion (the truthseeker cult) Nessie?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home