9/11 - WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville m.m - Tråd Nr 2

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11. But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials."

Då får du nog läsa NFPA 921 lite bättre. Här kan du hämta den: http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=921

For its study of WTC 7, why didn’t NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?
NFPA 921, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,” is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST’s WTC investigation, which responded to events that were much more than typical fires or explosions.
However, NIST’s WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.
Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.

Varför?

Ja du, varför Nfpa inte i förväg, eller efteråt, har anpassat sina instruktioner till vad trutherrörelsen vill att de skriva vet jag inte. Gissningsvis är det eftersom de är mer intresserade av korrekta brandutredningar än trams.

NIST följde inte riktlinjerna.
Ingen tvingar någon att följa riktlinjer men med tanke på alla vittnesmål om explosioner så skulle en opartisk utredning självklart testat för sprängämnen och termit.
Men NIST var självklart ingen opartisk utredning, de visste vad som var målet med utredningen.
Dom bevisade att 1+1=1 eftersom alternativet 2 inte existerade.

Vilka riktlinjer följde de inte?

Som jag skrev för ett tag sedan, antingen tror man att möjligheten för ett inside Job finns, och märker då att de fysiska lagar som upphörde att existera den dagen har en förklaring.
Eller så tror man att ett inside Job var omöjligt, och tvingas ta till byggbranchens motsvarighet till epicykler för att förklara händelseförloppet.

De testade inte för sprängämnen och termit.

Och det har jag ju redan visat att riktlinjerna inte kräver... så - vilka riktlinjer pratar du om?

NFPA 921 – 18.3.2 High-Order Damage
“The terms low-order damage and high-order damage are preferred to characterize explosion damage…

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

Hävdar NIST och Du att WTC saknade tecken på High-Order Damage?

De markerade i mitt tidigare inlägg.

Nej, "vi" hävdar att du har klippt ur ett "krav" ur sitt sammanhang.. Om man läser hela instruktioner inser man att detta är beroende av om det finns misstanke..