NIST engineer John Gross interview

[GMotives]

Hey I'm new to these forums iv been browsing here for a while, but never really commented. Iv also been visiting loose change forums as well. You all both seem to have ur good and bad points with ur arguments, as it stand at moment im netural on subject. I have recently come across interview with Nist engineer John Gross. I was really disturbed to see lack of study and investagtion that was done. He has basicly just ignored very important aspects of collapse and after effects that would prove the governments accounts right or wrong. I normally dont choose side on this matter as it seems to very up in air atm. But this is very worrying in way this was handled. Espically somthing of this magnitude. What are your guys opion on mattters?

video:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en
(some reason im not allowed post urls till have at least 15 posts which seems abit over top but anyways)

 

[MarkyX]

Buddy, he says that the NIST doesn't need to study the collapse itself. They don't need it, because they can't do anything about the collapse. Once a building falls, it's over.

What the NIST studies is the source of the collapse. What triggers the collapse, in order to prevent it or lower it's chances in any future buildings. What benefit could they use by studying a building falling down, instead of what caused it fall?

Only people who don't understand any investigation or science would bring this up.

 

[maccy]

In passing,

 

[GMotives]

Buddy, he says that the NIST doesn't need to study the collapse itself. They don't need it, because they can't do anything about the collapse. Once a building falls, it's over.

What the NIST studies is the source of the collapse. What triggers the collapse, in order to prevent it or lower it's chances in any future buildings. What benefit could they use by studying a building falling down, instead of what caused it fall?

Only people who don't understand any investigation or science would bring this up.

Are you kidding? that makes no sense what so ever.. So ur saying for argument sake that if a car had its tire blown out due to faults in the tire and the car flips over 10 times while doing speeds of 10miles hr. Since we know that the tire was blown out due to faults in tire (this has been proven by experts), there is no need to examine why car reacted the way it did? Just because this theory can explain why car has crashed? even if it doesnt back up way the car has reacted? like:car speed, flips and etc?

Im sorry but for investagtion to be proven to be 100% right you have to explain the event completely not just one aspect. Im not saying im agreeing with 9/11 truthers. But this is very important aspect that shouldnt be dismissed.

Also i was addressing the molten metal and fire that nist denied existed..

 

[A W Smith]

I am reminded of a fatal highway accident investigation. A trucker with over 25 years experience had his rig suddenly swerve into the opposite lane killing a family in a minivan in a broadside collision. There was a witness behind the rig that watched it happen. They investigated blood alcohol and drugs and the like and dismantled the truck to find a broken kingpin. Not knowing if the kingpin broke during the accident they sent it to a metallurgist. The metallurgist found a hairline crack with evidence of rust within it. There was no record of this type of failure happening before. the flaw was invisible to the naked eye during overhauls and maintenance. This exonerated the driver of any fault. Now understand they didn't investigate the crumple resistance of the minivan nor the coefficient of friction of the road surface nor the weight of the truck versus the minivan nor the inertia of the vehicles and passengers. The entire focus of the investigation was on the initiation of the accident. I can show this over and over again in countless examples my last example being the German train tragedy. Once the collapse initiates there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to explain why it didn't arrest itself nor explain why the building didn't just spring itself back up. if you question the results of documents you refuse to read you are not a truthseeker or investigator. you are just a perplexed layman.

 

[babazaroni]

He has basicly just ignored very important aspects of collapse and after effects that would prove the governments accounts right or wrong.

And what specific aspects of the collapse do you feel were ignored?

 

[Anti-sophist]

So ur saying for argument sake that if a car had its tire blown out due to faults in the tire and the car flips over 10 times while doing speeds of 10miles hr. Since we know that the tire was blown out due to faults in tire (this has been proven by experts), there is no need to examine why car reacted the way it did? Just because this theory can explain why car has crashed? even if it doesnt back up way the car has reacted? like:car speed, flips and etc?

That analogy is terrible. Try another one.

Im sorry but for investagtion to be proven to be 100% right you have to explain the event completely not just one aspect. Im not saying im agreeing with 9/11 truthers. But this is very important aspect that shouldnt be dismissed.

Pretending that every asinine detail must be proven for the theory to be scientifically sound is gibberish. Furthermore, pretending that NIST's job is to convince you anything is equally gibberish. It's not NIST's job to teach science to conspiracy theorists. It's NIST's job to find out what happened and to find out what lessons we can learn from it to make buildings safer. No part of that charge requires teaching basic physics to conspiracy theorists.

Asking why NIST didn't study the actual collapse is just ignorant. There's nothing to be learned in studying collapses that are already underway.

Also i was addressing the molten metal and fire that nist denied existed..

You should be more specific. This claim is gibberish.

 

[beachnut]

Hey I'm new to these forums iv been browsing here for a while, but never really commented. Iv also been visiting loose change forums as well. You all both seem to have ur good and bad points with ur arguments, as it stand at moment im netural on subject. I have recently come across interview with Nist engineer John Gross. I was really disturbed to see lack of study and investagtion that was done. He has basicly just ignored very important aspects of collapse and after effects that would prove the governments accounts right or wrong. I normally dont choose side on this matter as it seems to very up in air atm. But this is very worrying in way this was handled. Espically somthing of this magnitude. What are your guys opion on mattters?

video:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en
(some reason im not allowed post urls till have at least 15 posts which seems abit over top but anyways)

If you think LC has good points, you may have problems with reality.

Thermate? Only nut cases would bring this up. Dr Jones was fired for his shoddy work on his 9/11 quest.

 

[Freddy]

Anyone who types "ur" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[beachnut]

Are you kidding? that makes no sense what so ever.. So ur saying for argument sake that if a car had its tire blown out due to faults in the tire and the car flips over 10 times while doing speeds of 10miles hr. Since we know that the tire was blown out due to faults in tire (this has been proven by experts), there is no need to examine why car reacted the way it did? Just because this theory can explain why car has crashed? even if it doesnt back up way the car has reacted? like:car speed, flips and etc?

Im sorry but for investagtion to be proven to be 100% right you have to explain the event completely not just one aspect. Im not saying im agreeing with 9/11 truthers. But this is very important aspect that shouldnt be dismissed.

Also i was addressing the molten metal and fire that nist denied existed..

The rude truther said molten "steel". Not metal!

Once the energy of the initial movement of failing building floors and structure exceeded the building's ability to hold up, it collapsed. You could calculate the energy yourself if you take the time to study the many papers which show energy calculations. More then enough to satisfy if you wanted to be satisfied.

You must know the WTC steel was all numbered and the engineers and scientist who studied the collapse of the WTC were able to study the pieces found carefully and would have found so called CT cutter charges and thermite devices.

You must dig a lot deeper than google CT videos, ambushing a guy with dumb truther questions made up from lies and misleading information from idiots, who ironically are in a truth movement made of lies.

 

[Gravy]

Anyone who types "ur" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. That's my opinion on the matter.

Here, here! Unless you're referring to an ancient Mesopotamian city, GMotives, try to write like an adult. This forum has a spell check feature. Please use it to correct your atrocious spelling and grammar. Then people may not be so quick to dismiss your claims.

 

[Gravy]

Also i was addressing the molten metal and fire that nist denied existed..

I challenge you to point out specifically where they denied these things.

When you find that you cannot do so, please retract your claim. That's what rational adults do. Fair enough?

 

[GMotives]

Are you kidding ur selves? you are trying say that since there is a explanation for the lead up to the collapse, there is no need to address how building would fall? Just because you are given one explanition by someone that is quiet possible, doesnt mean you are to ingnore all the other factors like how building would react due to method of collapse. That doesnt make any sense espically with somthing that is so important.

also A W Smith yes with ur story that is acceptable. But when a whole case is just relying on just one scenario when there is other possible scenarios all aspects like how building would react during collapse must be addressed. Do you really believe the government if they did plan attacks wouldnt have reason to explain buildings collapse? You really are nieve arnt you.. With event this important every aspect must be addressed, not just first scenario that is given to you.

If you honestly believe that is acceptable response you are an idiot..

Also why want you explain NIST denying hot pools of metal and etc? When clearly they existed..

edit: gravy did you watch video he said he was there that day and never saw them or heard about it before. Why would NIST fail to report on this? If you are building case you must be able explain all of evidence with scientific packing, not just ignore evidence that in the too hard basket..

 

[The Doc]

I think a lot of people fail to see NIST's goals.

NIST did not investigate the collapse of the World Trade Centers to satisfy Conspiracy Theorists.

NIST shows us the buildings collapse was not initiated by explosives or thermite, but rather the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns. These columns bowed inward due to the sagging floor trusses.

What kind of demolition plan relies on that? The building begins to fall - it keeps falling. The momentum provided far exceeded the capabilities of the lower structure. Simple.

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

 

[Anti-sophist]

Are you kidding ur selves? you are trying say that since there is a explanation for the lead up to the collapse, there is no need to address how building would fall?

Right. Because it's blantantly obvious, trivial to show, and scientifically uninteresting. Only severely undereducated individual question what should happen after the collapse has begun.

Just because you are given one explanition by someone that is quiet possible, doesnt mean you are to ingnore all the other factors like how building would react due to method of collapse. That doesnt make any sense espically with somthing that is so important.

I agree. The only problem is there is no evidence contradicting the official story. If you can come up with some, I will be happy to entertain your alternative hypothesis.

Do you really believe the government if they did plan attacks wouldnt have reason to explain buildings collapse? You really are nieve arnt you.. With event this important every aspect must be addressed, not just first scenario that is given to you.

Ad hominem. Who wrote the report doesn't change what the report says. If you can't argue with the science, you aren't worth talking to. Dismissing the report solely because the government wrote it is intellectually lazy.

Also why want you explain NIST denying hot pools of metal and etc? When clearly they existed..

NIST never denied hot pools of metal.

 

[The Doc]

NIST investigated the collapses to prevent it happening again in the future. The findings of NIST based on the WTC buildings will help future construction of skyscrappers deal with similar situations. The did no not investigate the collapse to shut Conspiracy Theorists up.

 

[beachnut]

Are you kidding ur selves? you are trying say that since there is a explanation for the lead up to the collapse, there is no need to address how building would fall? Just because you are given one explanition by someone that is quiet possible, doesnt mean you are to ingnore all the other factors like how building would react due to method of collapse. That doesnt make any sense espically with somthing that is so important.

also A W Smith yes with ur story that is acceptable. But when a whole case is just relying on just one scenario when there is other possible scenarios all aspects like how building would react during collapse must be addressed. Do you really believe the government if they did plan attacks wouldnt have reason to explain buildings collapse? You really are nieve arnt you.. With event this important every aspect must be addressed, not just first scenario that is given to you.

If you honestly believe that is acceptable response you are an idiot..

Also why want you explain NIST denying hot pools of metal and etc? When clearly they existed..

You must not be an engineer. Most engineers need no one to explain that the aircraft impact and fires destroyed the towers. No extra input is needed. Most engineers can calculate the energy involved and with what they saw on 9/11 come up with what you saw on 9/11. What you call the official story. I have not seen an official story document yet.

This is why only 0.00067 percent of all engineers, of all kinds are in the idiot parade of truthers.

Which means over 99.99 percent of US engineers understand 9/11 and have not pursued the Pulitzer Prize that eludes the expert truthers in the movement of lies.

To summarized; intelligent people could independently confirm what you call the official story without government supplied work. Can you? (I am an idiot, and I can. Where does that leave you?)

 

[GMotives]

Right. Because it's blantantly obvious, trivial to show, and scientifically uninteresting. Only severely undereducated individual question what should happen after the collapse has begun.



I agree. The only problem is there is no evidence contradicting the official story. If you can come up with some, I will be happy to entertain your alternative hypothesis.



Ad hominem. Who wrote the report doesn't change what the report says. If you can't argue with the science, you aren't worth talking to. Dismissing the report solely because the government wrote it is intellectually lazy.



NIST never denied hot pools of metal.

Please dont bother twisting words. You cant not provide any resonable answer. Yes ur good at attacking my character by saying im uneducated. Or saying my response is not good enough for you. You making alot assumptions like no need to investage because its obvious wow did you just steal that of John Gross. Gee you really do think for ur self dont you.. Most obvious scenario is not alway right, and what is wrong with want rock solid invesgation that would prove with out doubt offical story right? Why would you ignore important aspects becuase it obvious (in ur opion) which is just pure speculation, you have no grounds to say that it is right cause you have no scienific backing. All im asking is scienfic explanation on way it would fall. Is that asking to much is it?

 

[Gravy]

edit: gravy did you watch video he said he was there that day and never saw them or heard about it before. Why would NIST fail to report on this? If you are building case you must be able explain all of evidence with scientific packing, not just ignore evidence that in the too hard basket..

From the NIST FAQ:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. 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.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

If you can't be bothered to read the NIST reports, at least read the damn FAQ, will you?

 

[A W Smith]

Are you kidding ur selves? you are trying say that since there is a explanation for the lead up to the collapse, there is no need to address how building would fall? Just because you are given one explanition by someone that is quiet possible, doesnt mean you are to ingnore all the other factors like how building would react due to method of collapse. That doesnt make any sense espically with somthing that is so important.

also A W Smith yes with ur story that is acceptable. But when a whole case is just relying on just one scenario when there is other possible scenarios all aspects like how building would react during collapse must be addressed. Do you really believe the government if they did plan attacks wouldnt have reason to explain buildings collapse? You really are nieve arnt you.. With event this important every aspect must be addressed, not just first scenario that is given to you.

If you honestly believe that is acceptable response you are an idiot..

Also why want you explain NIST denying hot pools of metal and etc? When clearly they existed..

Show physical or even plausible evidence that an alternate scenario exists. Because in five years no one has done so. Layman's opinions of youtube video are not evidence. There is no evidence of explosives. The buildings fell as engineers worldwide would have expected. You arguments are those of incredulity . By insulting me you are violating the terms of use here and you are treading on thin ice risking a suspension. Now try again politely and show us real evidence.