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.
Originally posted by jfj123
So logically you must assume since no conclusion is reached in this part of the report, you must look elsewhere for their final cause right?
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by jfj123
There was plane wreckage scattered about around the buildings.
Was any of this alleged evidence ever confirmed to be the wreckage of the alleged flights AA11 or UA175?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jfj123
So logically you must assume since no conclusion is reached in this part of the report, you must look elsewhere for their final cause right?
Actually, not necessarily. NIST left a lot unanswered. That's what people mean when they say, NIST left a lot unanswered.
NIST refuted "pancake theory" but offered no specific global collapse theory of their own. So that's another example.
NIST also says each floor could withstand the equivalent of 6 more floors impacting it. So what about the first floor to theoretically fall, when it hit the floor just below it? That's another question NIST never answered.
It's so easy, just not answering questions. It's as if the questions will just never exist or matter.
FEMA even left WTC7 as a huge, blatantly unanswered question. NIST is still trying to answer that one, since someone is obligated to.
Originally posted by jfj123
Well since we're speculating and playing the "What if" game,
What if the buildings were just built poorly? That's pretty common unfortunately.
Originally posted by jfj123
Did I ever, at any point, say it was? NO.
Am I claiming, based on available evidence, that SOME TYPE of large planes hit the WTC's? YES.
Originally posted by jfj123
So logically you must assume since no conclusion is reached in this part of the report, you must look elsewhere for their final cause right? Is there somewhere else in the NIST final report that states what the cause is?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Did I ever, at any point, say it was? NO.
Am I claiming, based on available evidence, that SOME TYPE of large planes hit the WTC's? YES.
Oh, so now you agree you have no evindence that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers? So does that mena you do not believe the official story now?
Originally posted by jfj123
So logically you must assume since no conclusion is reached in this part of the report, you must look elsewhere for their final cause right? Is there somewhere else in the NIST final report that states what the cause is?
Originally posted by jfj123
they never would have made a final report. Preliminary reports in investigations are very common.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
they never would have made a final report. Preliminary reports in investigations are very common.
But a final report should not completly contridict what all prior reports state.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But a final report should not completly contridict what all prior reports state.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How can the final report state that the collapse was caused by impact and fire when their own computer model states that the impact and fire did not cause the collapse?
Originally posted by jfj123
Why not? What precident has been set that this cannot happen?
Originally posted by Disclosed
So if an agency puts out a preliminary report, then subsequently find new information that changes some outcomes, they should not include that in their final report?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
That indicates that they (so far) believe the planes and the fires did cause collapse to start. The 'other' factor in the collapses isn't necessarily explosions or thermite, it may be that the buildings were more severely damaged by the impacts than has been considered due to structural issues (pre-existing) and that could mean they fell apart more easily than the design dictates as collapse progressed (the lack of resistance thing).
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Why not? What precident has been set that this cannot happen?
Becasue that would mean they were either wrong or lied on the prior reports or on the final report.
The reports should not completly contridict each other.
Originally posted by jfj123
New evidence may come into light or variables that may not have been considered were considered later.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Plus the fact that several other reports disagree with the NIST final report, and NIST is not the main investigating agency for 9/11 the FBI and NTSB are.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But that still does not explain the molten steel in the basment and debris.
• The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
• In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Originally posted by Disclosed
You seem to be fixated on finding flaws in it....yet you keep saying its not part of the main investigation.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
But a source of heat is the only explanation for that, like post collapse fires in the rubble unless you have proof that there were no fires.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed
Also NIST still has not been able to come out with a official and proper report on building 7 after 7 years becasue they failed to recover any steel for testing.
The NIST final report for building 7 is due out this year. I've never seen a statement by the NIST that says, "We can't come out with the final report because we failed to collect steel samples for testing". Could you please post that statement from the NIST? Thanks.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
But a source of heat is the only explanation for that, like post collapse fires in the rubble unless you have proof that there were no fires.
But where did the source of heat come from?
We know the fires in the building were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse.
So where did the heat source come from to melt steel and keep it molten for up to 6 weeks?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But where did the source of heat come from?
We know the fires in the building were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse.
So where did the heat source come from to melt steel and keep it molten for up to 6 weeks?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The post collapse fires - they were hot.
Didn't they get IR imaging from space?.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How did the fires from the towers get hot enough to melt steel, they were burning out before the collapse?