It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST Declines Debate with American Taxpaying Public

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
A few questions:

1. If you wrote a 20,000 page report... Wouldn't you jump at the chance to defend and answer questions regarding said report?

2. If the "conspiracy theorists" asking for an open forum with the NIST are so easy to debunk, wouldn't the NIST JUMP at the chance to prove them wrong?

3. Is their report the only deliverable/accountablility that they believe they owe the American tax paying public?

4. Do they fear something or are they far to elite to answer to meager old scientists?

5. Does academia, white and blue collar America not deserve a few question and answer sessions with the guys who investigated the crime of the century?

6. Are we to dumb to understand so they refuse to tell?

Please answer ONLY the questions posed and stay on the topic.

www.teamliberty.net...




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Clearly the reason they won't debate any of us is they know they are wrong.

I mean why would they first act like they were going to debate us then back out?
Obviously they took it seriously then realised how educated some 9/11 researchers are, and that we would probably beat them in a debate.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Clearly the reason they won't debate any of us is they know they are wrong.


Though I agree with you, I hesitate to use the word "us". I am your average engineer at a Fortune 150. I do not believe that they should be out debating every guy with a BS from a Big Ten school, janitor, bum or CEO.

However, I do believe that when a highly educated group files the right paper work, makes the right requests, bends over backwards on dates and times, does their homework and asks for some answers... They should get it. I trust that the ST911 group can speak/debate better than I can.

Where is the transparent government?
Where is the open discourse?
The checks and balances?
The accountability of public servants to the people who write their checks?
Why do they NOT EVEN GIVE A REASON for declining the discourse?

So easily they have supressed the opposition with a single paragraph.

No matter what side of this you are on, that alone should OUTRAGE you.

THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLINE DISCOURSE WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.


[edit on 6-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

1. If you wrote a 20,000 page report... Wouldn't you jump at the chance to defend and answer questions regarding said report?



the 20,000 page report
is supposed to stand-by-itself, it represents the breadth & depth of the NIST
investigation & the consensus of measured, scrutinized conclusions.

? are you suggesting that NIST should have to panel an ongoing debate team
& periodically have open ended Q&As about the next theory that gains public
attention.

The budget for this extra layer of information/entertainment would have to
be passed along to the taxpayers.

In America, the NIST report stands as the benchmark,
any & all private investigations by individuals, groups or investigative reporters
are free to do so, that's what a free democracy is about.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
? are you suggesting that NIST should have to panel an ongoing debate team
& periodically have open ended Q&As about the next theory that gains public
attention.

The budget for this extra layer of information/entertainment would have to
be passed along to the taxpayers.


When legitimate questions are raised regarding the accuracy of the "benchmark report" they have an obligation to answer/respond/refute or reinvestigate.

If you read my posts, I am not "suggesting that NIST should have to panel ONGOING debate..."

I am suggeting that ONE Q&A Session with non-government officials or ONE debate IN FIVE YEARS is not a lot to ask for.

As to your "money" argument... I will PERSONALLY pay for the 7 plane tickets and 7 hotel rooms...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
[I am suggesting that ONE Q&A Session with non-government officials or ONE debate IN FIVE YEARS is not a lot to ask for.


A voice of reason with a reasonable argument.

Pity that any effort in getting any (official) public debates off the ground will crash-and-burn on the "No-Can-Do-National-Security" mantra.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I don't think the NIST is known for its rigorous investigative techniques like the NHTSB, or the FAA. And their investigations are looking for slightly different conclusions.

The report concludes with a list of 30 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved building evacuation, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training. link

My impression is that the report is not supporting any particular cause, but to provide some framework for the recommendations and standards that were generated. And admittedly, the entire report could have used computer modeling as its basis.

A large government agency, that needs to spend its budget would jump at the opportunity to spend 3 years working on a project of this magnitude.

My thoughts on why they declined the invitation to debate?...
1) They are employed by the government.
2) They really can't support the science in the report.
3) I doubt they even imagined it being an issue.
4) Because they can.

I'm not trying to write a defense of their actions here. It is a shame the report can't be debated or publicly questioned. However, if I had to justify 3 years of work and a report consisting of 20,000 pages, the first thing I would do is shut my mouth. Particularly since there is zero impact from doing just that.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
... It is a shame the report can't be debated or publicly questioned.


As public servants and a government entity I believe it is their LEGAL OBLIGATION to answer inquiries regarding an investigation costing THEIR BOSSES (re: US) $20,000,000.

As to your reasons:

1) This does not exclude them from accountability... as a matter of fact they legally held to a HIGER standard of accountability than the public at large.
2) Most likely candidate.
3) How could they NOT imagine that there could be other ways for the collapses than the pancake theory? They are really poo-ey scientists if that is the case and a NEW investigation MUST be opened.
4) So now we live under a FASCIST regime and it is OK?

Where is the *SNIP* outrage?

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

4) So now we live under a FASCIST regime and it is OK?

Where is the f****** outrage?


Neatly suppressed by spin, disinformation and propaganda.

Most people are clueless there is indeed such a regime in place (how else would you call it?)



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I agree on the accountability issue, but would need something to support any claim of "legal" obligation or higher standard.

The NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency. They produce nothing that can be described as legally binding. Every bit of their output is standards and recommendations. All of their work is focused on improving performance, standards, and technology. That's all they have to defend.

The statement "because they can" has nothing to do with a fascist state. Most of us typically drive well over the speed limit "because we can". There are probably many more examples of everyday "because we can"s. So basically, they can and did.

Again, I'd love to see them attempt to scientifically support the contents of their report. However, they do what they do in order to make a living. They produced a report that is not going to cause them any heat from above. (And if you think they regard "us" as their boss,....heh,heh.) They're not fools; they don't have to debate it and they're probably not going to.

This doesn't outrage me. The NIST could use "The Posiedon Adventure", produce another large report, and conclude with some standards and recommendations that would be perfectly applicable to the cruise ship industry. All they have to do to justify their work is arrive at some standards, measurements, and recommendations. They did that. This report may be just as much fantasy as the film, but its output is what the agency is tasked to do.

Where is the outrage about the "official" 9/11 Commission?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I'll tell you what, Why don't you start the debate right here. Please provide information of all of the strucutral engineers that support the demo theory.

When you have done that, then maybe NIST will listen.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'll tell you what, Why don't you start the debate right here. Please provide information of all of the strucutral engineers that support the demo theory.

When you have done that, then maybe NIST will listen.



Why ONLY SE's Howard? Why not CE's, ME's and Physicists? Are only SEs qualified? How about military demolition experts?

Is your assertion that they are such ELITE scientists that they should not have to answer to anyone other than a large group of SEs that I personally assemble and you approve?

Did the NIST ONLY consult with SEs Howard? What is your fascination and divine reverence for SEs?

Would you let Steven Hawking question them? After all, he only has twelve honorary degrees and a Ph.D... NONE of which I beleve are in structural engineering

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Let me ask you a question. How come no structural engineers have come forth stating that they believe that the collapses were the results of a controlled demo?

Structural engineering is a highly developed field. Structural engineers all over the world study buildings. They also study structural failures to learn from past mistakes. What does a mechanical engineer who specialized in moiré interferometry know about designing a building?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Structural engineering is a highly developed field. Structural engineers all over the world study buildings. They also study structural failures to learn from past mistakes. What does a mechanical engineer who specialized in moiré interferometry know about designing a building?


Actually mechanical engineers would probably know a little bit more about how a building collapses. Structural engineers study how to make buildings stay up...i.e. statics. Mechanical engineers study how moving parts work....i.e. mechanics. A building failing has moving parts....therefore a mechanical engineer would be a very good person to ask these questions.

Plus, since structural engineering and mechanical engineering are both based off of physics, physicists can be lumped in there also.

Funny how you always say "but what about the structural engineers" but bow down to your god Dr. Eager. You do know that Dr. Eager is a materials engineer do you not? There's a huge difference between a structural engineer and a materials engineer.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How come no structural engineers have come forth stating that they believe that the collapses were the results of a controlled demo?


You are taking this off topic...

Why won't the NIST come forth and discuss their findings in a public forum?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Simple.
There is no need for them to.
Its obvious that the data is BS...(at least I think)


The million dollar question is this:

What in the hell can we do about it ?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How come no structural engineers have come forth stating that they believe that the collapses were the results of a controlled demo?


You are taking this off topic...

Why won't the NIST come forth and discuss their findings in a public forum?


They do so when they release their reports!

At that level of study and reporting, anything NIST has to say on the topic would be covered in the reports. They don't leave points out of a final report so they can revisit them later.

In any event, is there some documentation that NIST has refused some sort of a formal request?

[edit on 6-7-2006 by vor75]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
Its obvious that the data is BS...(at least I think)



For example?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
In any event, is there some documentation that NIST has refused some sort of a formal request?
[edit on 6-7-2006 by vor75]


Yes.... All of them and without reason.

www.teamliberty.net...

I really do not like the idea that after they publish their report many of you think they should be immune from answering questions regarding their report.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
For example?


Take it to a different thread please guys. No offense intended.

I am not questiong the details of the report itself here, rather the refusal of conversation/debate regarding the report by the NIST.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join