1 Sentence Rebuttal to NIST
GeorgeWashington Sun, 07/06/2008 - 1:33pm
Sometimes, a single sentence is all that is needed to debunk a bogus claim.
NIST claims in its soon-to-be released report on WTC 7 that fires alone brought down the building. People like Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Gordon Ross and others will - in the near future - definitively demolish that claim in numerous ways.
In the meantime, here's a one-sentence rebuttal to NIST, which links to a New York Times article:
Consider voting up at Reddit
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
1-Sentence Debunking of NIST'S Report on WTC 7
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/07/1-sentence-debunking-of-nis...
This hasn't yet been posted to Reddit
FYI...
Yes !! "Touché"
-- "Touché" -- Lesage can probably say it better (French)...
"Touché" = exclamation
used to admit that someone has made a good point against you in an argument.
[used as an acknowledgement of a hit, called out by the fencer who is hit.]
Ditto : ) Betsy Summer of
Ditto : )
Betsy
Summer of Truth
NIST: "Molten Steel... Irrelevant to the Investigation"
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13
This statement is another single sentence self-debunking by NIST themselves. They have declared their entire investigation "irrelevant", since structural steel (i.e. material used to support steel framed structures) in a molten state has been labeled as "irrelevant to the investigation" and off limits.
This is equivalent to making an investigation about a car shooting, but declaring the condition of the bullets "irrelevant to the investigation". Oops--sorry, that's the JFK investigation and the indestructible magic bullet theory. NIST's answer in their FAQ is so outrageously absurd and even insulting to our intelligence that it's hard to believe anyone would fall for B.S. like this.
The condition of the steel should have been central to the investigation of the collapse of the towers--not "irrelevant", as NIST puts it. The report can be dismissed for this reason alone, much like the example given by GW.
Again, their answer asserts that the molten steel could have been caused after the towers fell to the ground. This idea is extremely disingenuous for two reasons. First of all, there was no investigation, so how could NIST determine that the steel was melted after the collapse. It is a bald assertion unsupported by any investigation. Second of all, these temperatures would be almost impossible to achieve with conventional methods, as explained by Thomas Eagar:
“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
Plausible deniability
Sadly Arabesque, although I agree with you utterly, I have to say that the aim of the bad guys in this case is NOT to have a tight, bulletproof case for their story. Their entire aim, in which they have succeeded admirably, is to have a vast grey area into which they can drive the 'plausible deniability' bus.
We're Waaaayyyyyy down the rabbithole here and the rules that you and I apply to ourselves are a universe away.
There will come a time when the nation finally understands that the many exchanges of words ALWAYS play into the hands of the bad guys. I am a pacifist, father, dreamer, philosopher and all round regular guy, BUT... I am compelled to say that the only way to cure this cancer is to seek it out and destroy it.
I'm not advocating violence. A politician is destroyed when you take away his/her government income and access to power.
It is time to perform this surgery. Past time.
One word rebuttal
Science!
___________________
Together in Truth!
Did the faith based scientists at NIST
ever bother to test for explosives?
If not, why not?
Great question. Is there
Great question.
Is there anything physical left to test? NIST seeems to be banking their final report on a complex and probably convoluted computer model . . . which, like statistics, can be manipulated to produce a desired set of "answers" . . .
I know a few pieces of WTC 1 & 2 were reportedly saved, but was any of WTC 7?
If NIST (or any government arm) really wanted to know if explosives were used on 9/11, they could have (and should have given all the witnesses' statements of hearing explosives . . . ) - So great question - would love to see this question and their answer on video tape and broadcast on the next BBC 9/11 piece.
Betsy
Summer Of Truth
Destroying evidence is a crime too
NIST shouldn't have to rely on deeply flawed computer models. There was literally tons of evidence and they threw it all away. Even if the Bush Government isn't guilty of carry out the attacks, they're certainly are guilty of destroying, stonewalling and covering up the evidence.
faith based scientists at
faith based scientists at NIST ?
Ah it must be from the Almighty Dollar.
The sweet aroma of Neo-Con Funding and Grants............
It is blasphemy to contradict the Official Explanation after all. I mean who are we to challenge the Bush Academics (sic).........
Just ordinary people with a little teenzy bit of Common Sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
I have 2 Words for NIST
.... but am too much of a gentleman to say it.
It starts with an F and off it goes.
Sorry, but just had to get that off my chest.
:)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
NOTE TO GEORGE - Please read
Its likely you already know this, but just in case you don't...
Its not possible to put a link to your website into a comment on Huffington Post. I've tried several times but as soon as I hit the post comment button, I get a dialogue telling me that the comment has been removed due to 'bad words'.
I don't know if it just applies to me or if its universal. I have persistently tried to sneak 9/11 awareness comments on to the site [got away with a couple too!] so they may have me on some sort of shitlist.
Good work George!