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 _Del_
You wouldn't be cherry picking from a preliminary report from June of 2004 when the final report is available would you? Because that would be dishonest, wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by _Del_
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by _Del_
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that.
Sure just like NIST never recovered any steel from building 7 to test, that shows that NIST is not very good at doing completed data.
Do you really think the computer model was completely wrong, becasue the final reports states exactly the opposite of what their own computer model states?
Plus the fact that many other reports also state that neither the plane impacts nor the fires were enough to casue the collapse.
[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
Originally posted by _Del_
If the NIST is so terrible at it's job, why are you citing from it
Originally posted by _Del_
I'm certainly saying the NIST final report has a greater likelihood of being true if there is a contradiction.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why becasue it goes along with the official story?
Originally posted by _Del_
Becasue[sic] it is the final report. The result of all the research. The conclusion. Finis. End.
I'm sorry I don't choose my data with the same evident bias that you do.
Originally posted by _Del_
I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Sad someone would go out of their way to twist terrible events to market a book.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
Originally posted by _Del_
Just like we've provided evidence to refute your claims on every other inane event you've invented.
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.
Originally posted by _Del_
You're right of course. I live in a fantasy world because I'm not smart enough to figure these things out like you, or I'm too afraid to admit the truth.
Originally posted by _Del_
So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by _Del_
So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?
Why do you have to insult me because i am trying to find the truth? You must not care about the people that died that day or you would want to find the truth too.
You have not posted 1 single official report or 1 shred of hard evidence.
[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by _Del_
You must not care about the people that died that day or you wouldn't package tripe for profit.