Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: neutronflux

Two, how hot was the temperature for the model. By 1202 degrees Fahrenheit, structural steel losses fifty percent of the strength.

Three, are the models based on insulation damage protecting the steel?

Four, you used the term controlled fire? Why. Was that the only model ran? Controlled fire?

Five, you said pseudoscience? Scientific theories supported by available evidence to point to the most likely cause. That is a far cry from the claims of pseudoscience.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

www.journalof911studies.com...

Once again you demonstrated that you never bother reading the above report I sent you.

This Report answers all your questions, and proves without any doubt that NIST Report is pseudoscience.

This report is not about your "opinions" of blasting caps, shape charges, or control demolition it is a report that exposes the serous flaws in the NIST report.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Two, how hot was the temperature for the model. By 1202 degrees Fahrenheit, structural steel losses fifty percent of the strength.

Three, are the models based on insulation damage protecting the steel?

Four, you used the term controlled fire? Why. Was that the only model ran? Controlled fire?

Five, you said pseudoscience? Scientific theories supported by available evidence to point to the most likely cause. That is a far cry from the claims of pseudoscience.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

www.journalof911studies.com...

Once again you demonstrated that you never bother reading the above report I sent you.

This Report answers all your questions, and proves without any doubt that NIST Report is pseudoscience.

This report is not about your "opinions" of blasting caps, shape charges, or control demolition it is a report that exposes the serous flaws in the NIST report.

Why not just answer the questions?

I thought this was about actually evidence and most likely cause. You keep bringing up explosions which cannot be heard on video. WTC being one of the most video taped attacks.

A biased conspiracists report claiming another report is pseudoscience? How funny. And strange you cannot articulate a convincing argument the NIST reports are pseudoscience on your own and after studying? Weak.

a reply to: Informer1958

Easy questions. The WTC towers. On what floors and where on each floor were the charges placed?

a reply to: neutronflux

Why not just answer the questions?

I thought this was about actually evidence and most likely cause.

A biased conspiracists report claiming another report is pseudoscience? How funny. And strange you cannot articulate a convincing argument the NIST reports are pseudoscience on your own and after studying? Weak.

This debate is not about me, or what you think about me, much less any conspiracies theorizes.

A biased conspiracists report claiming another report is pseudoscience?

Everything is biased if it speak against the official narratives, don't you agree?

How funny. And strange you cannot articulate a convincing argument the NIST reports are pseudoscience on your own and after studying? Weak.

Again you just demonstrated that you never read the report. I do not need to articulate a convincing argument that surly doesnt prove something that was not tested in the NIST Report.

What you are asking me to do is prove a negative.

All your questions about the pseudoscience in the NIST Report is in the above sources. I would like to hear from other ATS members their "opinion" about this report.

I would like to know if other ATS members believe this is a good examples report, that points out some of the major flaws were NIST did not run test to validate their scientific findings.

a reply to: neutronflux

Easy questions. The WTC towers. On what floors and where on each floor were the charges placed?

The above Report does not talk about explosives being placed in the WTC. I am not going to give you an "opinion" and call it a fact. So what is your point in revelation of asking questions that are not in the report?

What does charges have to do with this Report? Nothing.

a reply to: Informer1958

I read it and it is quite logical and unbiased in how it looks at all the NIST conclusions while at the same time showing how NIST has disregarded their own tests on steel heating when shown that those tests did not repeat what their conclusions claimed happened, and refuse to answer that disparity as if they didn't just contradict their own data.

Quite damning indeed. Any person no matter what they think happened, after reading this very lucid report would be able to disparage this report and walk away with a straight face unless they were nuts in my opinion. OF course there are children minds who will still try like we see a lot.

This report is undeniable in how it shows NIST to be criminally negligent and shows it was simply a paid for outcome of snake oil for the American public, and even the world public. Just like the Condon report was, or the Robertson Panel was.

The big problem when the government pays for a big lie like that is that the future always unravels the falsehoods because falsehoods as you well know are inferior constructs which eventually destroy themselves because of their inherent flaws of deceit. It's embarrassing at some point to see people continuing to cheer-lead these inferior constructs after they come unraveled

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I read it and it is quite logical and unbiased in how it looks at all the NIST conclusions while at the same time showing how NIST has disregarded their own tests on steel heating when shown that those tests did not repeat what their conclusions claimed happened, and refuse to answer that disparity as if they didn't just contradict their own data.

Quite damning indeed. Any person no matter what they think happened, after reading this very lucid report would be able to disparage this report and walk away with a straight face unless they were nuts in my opinion. OF course there are children minds who will still try like we see a lot.

This report is undeniable in how it shows NIST to be criminally negligent and shows it was simply a paid for outcome of snake oil for the American public, and even the world public. Just like the Condon report was, or the Robertson Panel was.

Thank you. I see you read the report and have come to the very same conclusion that I did. I agree this report is very damning and indeed exposes many of NIST failed testing results that didn't stand up to their own hypothesis and also showed evidence where NIST speculated instead of doing the proper testing to prove the real outcome of their hypothesis of the weakening of the steel floor supports and supporting beams.

Even with some of the heating testing they did, it did not give them the results NIST wanted in supporting their hypothesis.

This also explains why the NIST Report cannot be Peer Reviewed, because it cannot stand up to real science.

www.journalof911studies.com... being so weak that conspiracists are not even willing to convey or argue it's strong points. So sad.

By the why. You never answered how if whole floors of the WTC where not assisted by charges setting off from fire damage, how did the towers achieve your imagined free fall speed.

It's not about proving a negative. It's about no proof and no evidence. There was no evidence of cut steel by demolitions to lead investigators to that line of investigation. Please don't use zen out of context to be misleading. It's about the evidence that exists.

If you cannot and will not present your arguments for debate, you are ashamed of your "truth"

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
[ IF you really believe the official version then all I can say is you will need a lot of good luck to survive the future. So, good luck.

Again, survive what?

Why in the conspiracists mind must one except WTC controlled demolition if not believing the official narrative. Why?

There is no evidence of controlled demolition at the WTC.

Who sounds like the government now? I'm going to ignore your questions. Just shut up and read the biased conspiracists report, just believe, and don't ask questions. Then we will ignore your questions while us conspiracists will post comment after comment on the greatness of the biased conspiracists report.

a reply to: neutronflux

Who sounds like the government now?

The same Vogon, who constantly denies the lack of physical proof for the 'office fires weakened steel' hypothesis maybe?

And you really think anyone on Ceres cares about your dumb attempts to paint ATSliens biased while you're unable to refute their claims with plain facts?

That's funny, I always enjoy a good laugh with Vogon poetry!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Twisted, bent, and double over WTC columns soften by heat with failed connectors vs what?

No sounds of explosions?
No short sections of columns fragmented with no connections cut by charges?
No shrapnel recovered?

Have one of you guys claiming explosives at the WTC did not go off by floor by floor. How was the imagined free fall speed of the towers achieved in the conspiracist's narratives? It was only possible by floor by floor controlled demolition right?

a reply to: neutronflux

Softened by heat?

Care to elaborate on the hardness evaluation in the Nist-report and why they didn't find any physical evidence in support of that claim?
Your other points have been thoroughly debunked years ago, you may stop pretending now.

Take a closer look into the OP and read the damnd article, maybe then we'd have something to debate.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Whole pile of steel with none of it worked on by demolitions or thermite. Care to elaborate?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Why did Japan's Ministry of Defense(And almost their whole country) conclude it was false flag and to be ignored? They really could have been an asset in finding the terrorist, if you think NSA is bad, you should consider Japanese NSA.

They literally invent tons of our technology and we just assume we're smarter than they are not only at the specific technology, but investigation also. Also wasn't some large event they were part of, they got false flagged by us before? Like we knew they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, but we did nothing because we planned that for a retaliatory strike.

Why were there thousands of increased put offs and thousands of fortunes made the day of the attack on the stock market? Not just on Airlines, but specifically on Companies that had headquarters that resides in the building?

Why is there a huge conspiracy with the Pentagon, where no plane was found, and there was a supposed missile? Can a terrorist even shoot a missile from a Plane? If there wasn't a plane, where did the plane go...why were there no bodies?

Why were there no bodies at the site where it just crashed into the dirt...or really a full plane? Where did that plane go? Everything doesn't just always vaporized in a plane crash, wtf is this conditioning, I have had a personal close friend die in a plane crash and his wife sitting right next to him lived, and they hit a goddamn mountain. He still had a funeral with a body though, things don't just always get 100% vaporized. That's what bothers me most in all this, and I'm not even talking about the towers specifically.

a reply to: neutronflux

Um...when you say no evidence...you mean like these?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Local County Sheriff Bomb Squad spent 3 weeks at WTC helping clean up site

Talked to several of them - their conclusion no bombs/demolition charges ......

There were no remnants of demolition charges, no copper smear on steel from cutting charges, no wires or delay tubes,
no unexploded charges

Basically nothing having to do with demolition was found there ........

a reply to: imjack

Do you have problems with eyes....??

Or did you fail to notice the iron workers cutting up the steel with a thermal lance .....??

a reply to: neutronflux

The debate is over pal, a long time ago.

Anybody today who does not understand the deception on 11 September simply does not WANT to understand the deception.

Half or more of the members of the 911 Commission knew they were being deceived, and commented about it in public.

You are certainly entitled to your delusions, but don't pretend there is any honest debate about it anymore. 15 years have gone by and most folks paying attention understand they were tricked.

a reply to: Salander

The debate is over pal, a long time ago.

You are correct in your statement.

I did a poll back in 2010 on ATS called: The Poll

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:14 PM

This is a poll to see how many people on ATS believe that the Government has not told the Truth about the OS of 911.

Yes, they have told the truth.
No, they have not told the truth.

I will count the posters who say yes and no, you all will be able to keep tract as well.

All you have to do is post yes or no.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:58 AM

Update to the 911 poll.
No 455 voted, the government lied about 911.
Yes 20 voted, the government told the truth about 911.

I will continue counting as more votes come in.

This is evidence, that most people on ATS have done their homework on the 911 topics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This poll lasted over a year and a half.

The very fact is, It appears a very small group on the 911 threads have failed miserably to sway 99% of members opinions that the government told the truth.