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.

 

Leaked NIST Docs: "Unusual" Event Before Collapse Of WTC 7

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I think all three building simply collapsed that day - the fire and plane damage was purely coincidence - but unnecessary. It was time for three buildings (plus the Pentagon wing) the next day to fall, and so they did.

All this huff and fuss between good honest posters battling government stoogies simply goes to selling more advertising on ATS.

Its not necessary truly. 9-11 was a Global Collapse superfecta lets face it folks, and the authorities will get around to showing that fact eventually.




[edit on 26-6-2008 by Pawnhaus]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Pawnhaus]




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Can you show me anything from the link (or anywhere else for that matter) that would disprove the "counter-hypothesis" I offered in return? That was my point, in case you missed it, sorry. I know you wouldn't expect me to prove a negative, so show me a positive from it.


(If you don't, and I know you won't, do I get a cookie or something?)


Btw, "investigoogling" is cute coming from you.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Utter failure to even try to discredit NIST's work is duly noted.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The answer to what?


What caused it?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Utter failure to even try to discredit NIST's work is duly noted.


Discredit what exactly? That they did a little more testing on that piece and came to no conclusion other than it happened while in the pile? Good for them. What was the cause?


Keep up the good work.


I can say the same to NIST.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Your utter failure to admit that you've been wrong, all along, that NIST never talked about those 2 pieces is duly noted.

BUT, if, as you claim, NIST just did a few tests to come to their conclusions, then it should be fairly easy to counter their explanation about what caused that thinning - yes it's in there.

So I would extend the same challenge to you - do you have anything that would discredit their statements?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
All I can say is: Mainstream Media, give me your FCC License - you are REVOKED



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Your utter failure to admit that you've been wrong, all along, that NIST never talked about those 2 pieces is duly noted.


Ok. I can admit that I was wrong when I said NIST never took a look at it.

I WASN'T wrong in my assertion that they have done nothing to find the cause.

Big difference there.


BUT, if, as you claim, NIST just did a few tests to come to their conclusions, then it should be fairly easy to counter their explanation about what caused that thinning - yes it's in there.


I didn't see anything that they said. Could you point out the cause? Thanks.


So I would extend the same challenge to you - do you have anything that would discredit their statements?


Since what they say is a hypothesis, what am I to refute?


Therefore, it was unkown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature.


Please explain how that is an answer to what caused it.

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Utter failure to even try to discredit NIST's work is duly noted.


Are you not able to understand, when they never conclude anything to begin with, there is nothing to discredit?

Every time I ask anyone to show where NIST proves something or shows their work, all I get is a cutesy come-back, 4th-grade style.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Ah, I see our miscommunication now.

I've been assuming that you've been asking for what caused the thinning, and that is clearly stated: (and of course, I'm unable to grab text from the pdf now, for whatever reason)

"from a high temp, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur."

But I think the "it" you're referring to is "what caused the presence of sulfur." Correct me if I'm wrong here. Because your quote clearly comes from the para that discusses the source of the sulfur.

NIST can't help you there, nor do I see how they ever could, given the many sources of sulfur bearing materials in the rubble.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well, did ya ever stop to think that maybe you never add anything to the discussion at hand? And that's the reason why I can't take you seriously?

A good way to add to a discussion would be to attack the NIST doc referenced.

For example, do some research and determine if the process given by NIST would be impossible - like say, the temps were too low, or there's no way that the burning rubble could have added enough sulfur to the mix to accomplish the thinning, etc. Take your pick and run with it, wherever it takes you.

Until you do THAT, I just can't take your posts to heart at all. Rather, I see them as just the religious-like rantings from someone that has put their political beliefs BEFORE their quest for any truth.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Well, did ya ever stop to think that maybe you never add anything to the discussion at hand?


Did you ever stop to freaking read and realizing I am asking you a question? I am waiting for a certain response from YOU!

I've been asking it FOREVER! What is wrong with posting a simple proof from that report?? You, jthomas, and everybody else that has their heads ... somewhere else. Are you afraid of having to read something? Seriously, can you not read what I have been asking you over and over and over and over again, or are you just ignorant or what is the problem with you constantly failing to answer me? Do you think it's just some kind of bizarre coincidence that you can't prove your case?

Do you think I'm just going to keep brushing it off, like it doesn't matter that you can't prove anything you say?


If you think your opinion of what happened that day has any more standard verification than mine, you are wrong. End of story. I don't care what you say, I don't care what you think. Post the damned evidence to prove me wrong if you think I am. You won't, you can't, you never will.


I am the one with questions, and you cannot deliver on the evidence I need.

Next "debunker," please?

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
NIST can't help you there, nor do I see how they ever could, given the many sources of sulfur bearing materials in the rubble.


So the National Institute for Standards and Testing can't help me out in finding out what this unusual event was caused by? They can't do some testing to find out what materials could possibly be hazardous to steel buildings? And will just let us continue to build with them?

BTW, who's to say that those materials couldn't have been present at the impact floors since everything was mashed up by the plane, burned and helped cause collapse? Just because this one piece was found to be in the rubble, doesn't mean that the steel at the impact sites couldn't have undergone the same thing given the circumstances of what happened up there.

So, I do believe they should figure out what caused it because it still could have aided the collapse.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And yet, you STILL wonder why I can't take you seriously after that rant. Sounded like something from a Jimmy Swagert clone or something.

The evidence and discussion you seek is in the referenced link. The proof is in the entire 4 pages of narrative, so it would be dumb to post the whole thing.

Do like I said and find a piece that you disagree with, and can back it up with some science WHY it couldn't happen as NIST says, then we can have a discussion.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Apparently not. Did you ever consider that it may be impossible to figure out EXACTLY from which of the materials present the sulfur came from?

I have no idea, since I'm not a chemist. A better way to question their reasons would be to get a chemist that could testify that the sulfur should be able to be tracked, since it would be bonded to other elements in specific ratios, etc. Kinda like how Jones is saying that his "dust" proves thermate.

Try it and see where it takes you. if the answer is that indeed, it's impossible to track the source of the sulfur, then you have your answer about whether or not NIST should be able to determine where it's from.

And of course, the reverse would also apply. And THEN you'd have something.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The evidence and discussion you seek is in the referenced link. The proof is in the entire 4 pages of narrative, so it would be dumb to post the whole thing.


You haven't even read the NIST report enough to know what I am talking about. Even if you had, Griff just showed they never figured out what caused the corrosion from a quote taken from that same document. Hello?


There is nothing to "disagree" with. You are simply confused.

I'm done with you until you can show where NIST validated their truss failure hypothesis or anything else with actual testing and/or documented and verifiable calculations.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Maybe I should post what should be obvious:


NIST is a federal agency that was contracted to figure out what happened to the towers. Ie, an investigation. With evidence.

It's not anyone's job to simply entertain them and try to prove them wrong. They haven't proven anything themselves to begin with. Thus the whole "investigation" was a sham.

When anyone can show where they actually proved anything, I won't have to post this anymore.




Edit to try to further explain this to Seymour in particular: I would not be obligated in a court of law to go through the entire report just to show they never proved anything. That is what's referred to as trying to "prove a negative." It is a ridiculous thing to ask someone to do when a single positive proof is all that's needed.

It would be up to the defendant, the "debunker," the one who thinks they already have the answers, to find the actual answers & their supporting evidence.

If they could not do so, they would lose the case. Plain and simple. They did not do, what they were contracted to do.

If you have been convinced that they have evidence, then you must have seen it before, or else you are just a sheep. Sheep are very easy to manipulate, and I don't like them. Where is the evidence you've seen? Show it to me.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm done with you until you can show where NIST validated their truss failure hypothesis or anything else with actual testing and/or documented and verifiable calculations.


Try and stay on point here.

the discussion was about the thinning steel.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Ok, then:


NIST could not determine what actually caused the corrosion. They even said this themselves.


Debunk me.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That is what's referred to as trying to "prove a negative."


You obviously don't know what this means, so just stop trying to use it as an excuse to not doing a little work.

I gave you examples of what to do, regarding trying to disprove NIST's narrative about the thinning steel.

That's NOT proving a negative, it's disproving a point made by NIST.

Try to learn the difference before you embarass yourself any more.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join