Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

a reply to: neutronflux

After 15 years, no conspiracy person has came up with a more studied and scientific explanation than the NIST. You have AE911Truth, Gauge, Jones, Dr. Hulsey, and Dr Wood. Where does all their money go?

Probably the same place NIST money went. Yes, let's talk about how much money NIST was giving?

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

911research.wtc7.net...

The NIST reports even survived a lawsuit of insurance companies and engineers against the owners of WTC 7. The lawsuit claimed design flaws. Nothing about explosives. In a court system that found the USA government and EPA liable for the damage done by reporting WTC dust was not toxic.

Nothing about explosives? Of course not! The fact is, most judges are corrupt and are bought by big money, including government money.

Do you really believe the Court Judges are going to allow the truth to be told?

No steel worked on by demolitions backed by metallurgy samples of WTC steel.

"Opinion" not a fact.

No seismic proof of demolition charges setting off

False there are numerous 911 threads done by TaBTop with credibal science that support there was. The fact is, you have not been able to debunk any of it, but only ridicule it.

No way a system of detonation and demolitions would have survived jet impacts that cut elevator cables, wiring, and fire water mains.

Your "opinion" not a fact.

No why a system of detonation and demolitions would survive wide spread and extensive office fires.

Your "opinion" not a fact.

a reply to: neutronflux

You think the NIST research is not fact because you don't take the time to look up all research conducted by teams that was peered reviewed and published in scientific journals that compose the NIST reports.

I read your rant and your presentations of your so called NIST peer reviewed which was nothing more than proven "opinion" piece of yellow journalism.

a reply to: Informer1958

More ranting, more speculation, no evidence
Need to check you fasts.

www.google.com...

First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: cedb.asce.org...

Second, NIST's findings re the collapse initiation of WTC 7 were all corroborated under oath by several preeminent experts (e.g., Guy Nordenson, Joseph P. Colaco, and Jose Torero) who independently created and analyzed their own collapse model at Edinburgh University: www.ca2.uscourts.gov...=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/de cisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

a reply to: Informer1958

Why would jet impacts that took out steel beams, fire mains, building services, leave a sophisticated and elaborate CD system intact?

It's just common sense that impacts and fires that left building services and emergency systems useless would also render a system of demolitions as useless. Especially if the initial jet impacts and fuel fires didn't set off the charges.

a reply to: Informer1958

Here is the whole quote on seismic evidence....


No seismic proof of demolition charges setting off. The recorded activity is explained by collapse. None of the seismic activity was exclusive to charges powerful enough they could create seismic activity 26 miles away. No supporting physical evidence. No supporting atmosphere pressure waves that are used to prove seismic activity is from detonations.


selective quoting is not very nice.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thoughts from a Former 14 year long NIST Employee :
www.ae911truth.org...

How is your "unbiased" research working for you now?

The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring,
dismissing, and denying the evidence.

Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at freefall acceleration.

I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don't add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add.

What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years
at NIST.

First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data,models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided.

For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent
that outweighs the competing need for accountability?

Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting. Te remainder ofthe explanation is a perfunctory statementthat total collapse is inevitable and obvious.It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance
of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office.

There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts
of their research?

Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning. The level of interestin "15 years later" is a good example.

Due to the nature of communication in today's world, that awareness may increase approximately exponentially. Why not NIST blow the whistle on itself now
while there is still time?
Truth is where our healing lies.

www.ae911truth.org...

selective quoting is not very nice.

Pot calling Kettle.


Do you even read what people post to you?

I may as well just talk to a wall.

a reply to: Informer1958

You have one example of a person that didn't like the NIST and doesn't give any evidence to prove what documents were wrong and how they were wrong.

It be nice just to know what documents are being referred too.


So you have a person with opinions.

No proof of what documents the person was referring too.

No examples of misconduct.

This is from the same person who, on 9/11 ATS threads, is repeatedly asking about the credibility of the NIST in multiple threads.

On those multiple threads, it's proven over and over again the NIST reports are comprised of research from individuals and teams who's work is validated by colleges, peer review, and scientific /engineering journals.

It's also been shown the NIST WTC 7 report stood up in court against opposition from insurance companies lawyers, engineers, and paid experts.

Then you get angry at the proof the NIST is a valid scientific organization using scientific method and peer review.

Then you fall back on it's a lie.

Why the same arguments over and over if you are going to state it's a lie and not argue a theory to supersede inward bowing.

Better yet, if the NIST reports are so easily dismissed, why doesn't Richard Gauge, Steven Jones, Dr Wood, and Dr. Hulsey conduct their own peer review? Because it's not about the truth for them. It's about speaking tours, notoriety, their books, their dot orgs, and not killing the conspiracy cash cow.

Truth hurts.

a reply to: neutronflux

You have one example of a person that didn't like the NIST and doesn't give any evidence to prove what documents were wrong and how they were wrong.

Just one person? This proves how ignorant you really are.

So you have a person with opinions.

So you believe one person is the only scientist on A&E and no one else? What ATS readers are you trying to fool in here, seriously.

No proof of what documents the person was referring too.

Fact, for 12 years these people have shredded the NIST Report and have given what documents and references and written technical papers that stand up to REAL science.

Would you like me to flood this thread with all their technical papers to prove what pseudoscience the NIST report really is?

You are beating a dead horse, and you will not win by being dishonest, asking redundant questions, and ignoring scientific evidence that has been giving to you for many years now.

No examples of misconduct.

You have been giving evidence of misconduct by me twice and once in this thread, are you going to deny this?

Thoughts from a Former 14 year long NIST Employee :
www.ae911truth.org...

Are you going to pretend that I did not post this to you?

I do not need to go any further on this Topic with you, seeing that you have demonstrated repeatedly that you are ignoring evidence that I, and many ATS members have giving you.

Truth, and what Truth might that be?

My News Year Resolution, Ignore arm chair pseudo intellectuals.

*ref steps in* TKO

But please continue, neutron, convincing yourself whatever it is you are trying to convince yourself of.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: MALBOSIA
From what I understand traditional skyscrapers are structurally different than the WTC buildings. Essentially they were stronger in the past. WTC wanted to reduce the number of materials used because costs. They used hte latest science and research. Maybe it backfired on 9/11. My feeling is if there's a conspiracy, it's that or regulatory offenses.

Also from what I understand the WTC buildings were NOT made to be hit by the aircraft which hit them at the velocity it hit them.

No, they were stronger than normal skyscrapers because they were a building within an outer building. There were really two steel structures in one.

They were built to withstand multiple such impacts.

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
*ref steps in* TKO

But please continue, neutron, convincing yourself whatever it is you are trying to convince yourself of.

Sorry, it's the same arguments after 15 years.

Please do provide and cite examples of pseudoscience from the NIST reports.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

They were not stronger, the floors were designed to be lightweight and not use concrete supports/columns along there long spands.

In fact, the WTC support structure was designed on steel without using reinforced concrete to save on money and weight.

Please see www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Informer1958


More ranting and no proof.

Why not give a specific example of the NIST pseudoscience.

I think you know what you would post has been proven as false accusations of pseudoscience against the NIST reports.

You don't have to flood the thread, just champion the one paper you think is the most credible and damming.

How many times have you been proven wrong on your opinion the NIST avoided peer review and scientific method? At least on two to three threads.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please do provide and cite examples of pseudoscience from the NIST reports.

The proof cited and examples of pseudoscience from the NIST reports are in the below thread that you have spent a lot of your own time in.

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

If you cannot present, outline, and context a specific example of pseudoscience, then you have no proof.

You cannot cherry pick one item from the NIST reports and describe it at length?

And after 15 yesrs, cannot give and outline a theory to supersede the supposedly fictitious inward bowing cause of collapse?

Very telling.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why not give a specific example of the NIST pseudoscience.

I have so many times, you just ignore it.

I think you know what you would post has been proven as false accusations of pseudoscience against the NIST reports.

Not false accusations, proven scientific facts.

How many times have you been proven wrong on your opinion the NIST avoided peer review and scientific method? At least on two to three threads.

Now you are being dishonest again. I do not state that my "opinions" as facts, as you do.

The fact is, I do not have to be dishonest to present my side of the argument. If one is going to be dishonest what is the point of discussion 911?

How about you stop being so dishonest in here.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you cannot present, outline, and context a specific example of pseudoscience, then you have no proof.

On the contrary, you been lead by the ears so many times of NIST pseudoscience and showing proof.

Playing ignorant does not help your case does it?

And after 15 yesrs, cannot give and outline a theory to supersede the supposedly fictitious inward bowing cause of collapse?

15 years and you are still parroting the OS narratives as the holy grail of truth. Every question you have asked has been answered hundreds of times yet you don't open your eyes to read any of it.

I am done talking to ignorance.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Why not give a specific example of the NIST pseudoscience.

I have so many times, you just ignore it.

I think you know what you would post has been proven as false accusations of pseudoscience against the NIST reports.

Not false accusations, proven scientific facts.

How many times have you been proven wrong on your opinion the NIST avoided peer review and scientific method? At least on two to three threads.

Now you are being dishonest again. I do not state that my "opinions" as facts, as you do.

The fact is, I do not have to be dishonest to present my side of the argument. If one is going to be dishonest what is the point of discussion 911?

How about you stop being so dishonest in here.

You could cherry pick an example and out line your case, but decided to rant?

You must have a specific instance of NIST pseudoscience you can at lease state in a paragraph.

I can say allegations of visible CD explosive blasts at WTC 1 and / or 2 are not based on real evidence.

One, a visible CD blast would have created a distinct 140 db sound wave easily filtered and isolated from 9/11 video.

Two, witnesses close to a CD explosion would have ruptured eardrums.

Three, witnesses close enough to see and hear interior CD explosions would likely have been injured by shrapnel.

Four, if the CD explosions could be seen from the street, then there should have be a rain of demolitions shrapnel.

originally posted by: ColoradoGold
We found this to be rather enlightening.

Incontrovertible - New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke

Excellent Documentary!



This should be required watching for the incoming Trump administration, imho.

originally posted by: searcherfortruth

Why is this video still doing the rounds? You do realize that it is fake? Originally made in 2006 using stock footage from a helicopter. The fraudster inserted the "missile" footage into the stock helo footage.

See following links. Note original uploader who created the fake in 2006 and side by side footage demonstrating that the "missile" strike was inserted.