NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There are so many glaring anomalies about the planes and Towers that I was leaning to the no plane side, but how on earth could explosives have pushed those beams INWARDS?

We must be watching different things.

The Twin Tower collapses I saw had the vast majority of their masses (debris) being thrown OUTSIDE of the footprints -- "falling" outwards in all directions moreso than it was falling "down," or certainly "in" (which it was not at all). This is all demonstrable from photos of Ground Zero, unless you think the columns had legs after they landed.


Thus, you really have just what you said you would expect from explosives:



"Out," not "in" or even so much "down." (directions of falling mass, if you represent them as vectors of momentum or etc.)

Originally posted by gormly
three 100% infallible statements thing continues to slap me into reality and I am surprised more of you do not feel the same.

(probably a believers tendency to ignore the obvious)

1. The Bush Administration could not possibly have kept this a secret in any shape or form.

2. The Bush Administration could not possibly have killed all the people they would have needed to kept this a secret in any shape or form.

3. The Bush Administration is too incompetent to have possibly pulled this off in any shape or form.

You say these three "infallible" statements but what is the obvious proof of them?

You are biased into thinking a certain way. I don't think Bush was responsible at all, but neither does Bush control much of anything in the US like so many believe. Try to justify what you're saying to us with logic.

If you want to know what's technically wrong with your reasoning, you can try a "non-sequitur" for a start: none of those reasons have a damned thing to do with physics.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by gormly
no matter how swayed I get toward the "government did it" theory three 100% infallible statements thing continues to slap me into reality and I am surprised more of you do not feel the same.

1. The Bush Administration could not possibly have kept this a secret in any shape or form.

2. The Bush Administration could not possibly have killed all the people they would have needed to kept this a secret in any shape or form.

3. The Bush Administration is too incompetent to have possibly pulled this off in any shape or form.

ah, the old too-stupid to do it defense. I don't buy that one either. For a quick example, look at the Manhattan Project. The idea started in 1939, and the project actually went into development in 1942. It was carried out on over 30 research cites, and in 3 main cities, yet it was so secret, Truman (vice president at the time) didn't know about it until after Roosevelt died in 1945.

Not to get off topic, since this is technically supposed to be about NIST, but I noticed this was a great place to counter your comment.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by scientist]

reply to post by bsbray11


i could be mistaken but i think eyewitness may have been referring to the photo i had in my last post in this thread that i pulled out and started a new thread for so's not to derail this one.

it can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I still am newbie? SO please excuse me and send me an email if this is the wrong thing to do. www.captainsherlock.com... has many piolots
who have over 20, and most have 30 years of being on huge planes and caring for them, they are experts. They all agree that no man could of possibly done that, that it had to be a remote operation? When are we going to say enough is enough?

For crying outloud, I see us as a big bucket of cold water, being heated to a boil, yep, they did make it sort of hot, so I'll just rise one more level, I'm sure they didn't mean to, O, now it is getting hotter, but they won those two times, so I'll stand back and watch? As 70 million people were killed in the last century for their faith? What? We going to be the 70 this century? They are CRMINALS!!! They are mass murderers. What more does it take?