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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
"We told them to pull it, and they pulled it.. then we watched the building (7)come down." almost the exact same quote Larry told the world on WTC 7. And if it were true that fires cause collapsing of the building then it's the third building to come down in history due to fires...WTC 1 & 2 were the first as we are told, but we all know that 9/11 WAS an INSIDE job! We've all seen the explostion and demolitions of these building, there's no way in hell that these buildings fell due to fire. Think of the LA build that burned for over 14 hours with 20 floors on fire...it never collapsed, like that skyscraper in Asia that caught 40 floors on fire, burned for over 24 hours, and it never came down, but yet due a couple of fires in different sections of the buildings, all three came down, and one wasn't even hit by a plane.... what BS!

Say No to Bush,
Don't believe in the Media,
Open your own eyes,
Research, Read, and Listen
The Truth is all around you!
Talk about, Stand and Ask questions!
We Will Not Stop Until The REAL Criminals are in Prison!

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!

Canadians/Americans must stand together!! We MUST not let our citizen die in vain!!!




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Remember that the "cause" of the towers' global collapse was DAMAGE and FIRE.


Damage to columns/transfer truss caused by debris and diesel fires were the original cause given for the WTC 7 collapse by the NIST... now simple office fires do it. Neat.


Originally posted by Griff
Where O' where are our fellow engineers Pootie?


Far more believe now most still unwilling to speak publicly. A lot has happened since I stopped posting here for a while in that regard. Other than on this board I know of virtually no one that still believes the "official stories". Engineers, pilots, housewives, CEOs, and at least one federal agent
... no one believes anymore. It did take me a long time starting when I was the poster formerly known as "Slap Nuts" but no one believes this crap. Sadly, many are trying to save ther IRAs from destruction, homes from foreclosure or just happy to be hanging on... I think we have moved now to where the majority feels trapped in many regards and sadly 9/11 is just one of those things they "can do nothing about".



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Pootie
 


Pootie...

Stop the hand waving and read the report. It will explain all of that to you.





No hand waving... from the report... ONE column:


The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.


OK.. maybe TWO charges would be necessary to replicate this chain of events then?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Concerning the JFK assassination:

The constant drumbeat of 9-11 CT'ers comparing the JFK assassination to 9-11 is laughable.

9-11 CT'ers likening the assassination of JFK with 9-11 is like claiming JFK was never shot. All the eyewitnesses were part of a massive “psy op” and didn't actually see anything. The evidence that he was shot - the Zepruder (sp?) film, JFK's brain matter all over his wife, the gun shot wound to the governor, the bullet holes in his limo, to name but a few....were all faked.

And this is the topic of ‘serious’ conversation.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


Done building strawmen yet? Because it's certainly not possible that I was comparing the laughable official explanations of the events that happened. But I sure do notice you were more than happy to add a ton of things I didn't even say or refer to and then beat that down.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



You've got me wrong, my friend. I am not now and never was a truther.

I seek the truth.... but sometimes even I'll admit that a lie is more comfortable, like watching TV and taking comfort in its plastic fakery for some reason... instead of using my brain.

Although I must ask why you would think genuine truth seekers in the "Truth Movement" would revel in this sort of thing. I mean... if you don't forget about this stuff every once in a while and just enjoy life (EDIT: or at least become preoccupied with it), you're liable to have a few mental breakdowns in a row... because the hits just keep on coming. The lies just keep on being stripped away, and comfort is less and less accessible. Why would I seriously want this? Do you know how many times I've tried to forget a glaringly obvious lie with the farthest reaching implications imaginable? Do you lose sleep at night over this? Cuz sometimes, I do... when I'm no too busy trying to cover up my horrible discomfort by burying myself in my own selfishness and denial.

I've read enough on the subject. For a while, I attempted to debunk building 7, but found that all of the data in the world flung at me at once couldn't cover my eyes to what I saw.

I'm not saying that all involved in the NIST studies were Nazis or government shills, but that doesn't mean they weren't biased. What scientist trying to do his country a service while also trying to keep his funding and reputation wouldn't be biased, even if they themselves would probably not think so?
It's the unfortunate downfall of American Philosophy. We could do no wrong, unless the government admits it. Then, it's okay and we can forgive and forget, yet we're perfectly fine writing it off as a one time thing and ignoring all the other "one time things" that have happened and everything else bubbling up just under the surface because of this selfish delusion we're all locked into. What would that do to our everyday lives if we really admitted that this is all a falsehood? That veil of illusion is a very thin, but very provocative surface (like a silky fine mesh), and once the veil is removed, you can't go back to being under the veil without knowing that there EXISTS a veil and that it is brighter and clearer to see without it.

I don't blame the people of NIST as a collective. I blame the oversight of superiors, I blame economic narrow mindedness ingrained in us from a very early age, and I blame American Pride/Ignorance/Apathy/Bias.

Simple stuff.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by dunwichwitch]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
According to their theory you would only have to blow one column in one spot, right?

There goes the "it would take too much time and effort to rig the building" argument right back out the window... that is if you believe the NIST.


So I guess anyone who believe this report must permanently cease using the argument that rigging the building would be difficult?


Exactly my point. But, you stated it better than I did.

So, is it one column or does the entire building need wired? They can't have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Not a straw man, but nice try. It's an analogy. Also, it's a spot-on observation.
Both positions are equally implausible.


Analogy

Straw Man Argument

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by badmedia
 


Not a straw man, but nice try. It's an analogy. Also, it's a spot-on observation.
Both positions are equally implausible.


Analogy

Straw Man Argument

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


I see pure derailment is still commonplace here.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pootie
 


As you just engaged in. If it's a "paid dis-info agents'" attempt at derailment.......why add to it?

Stop wasting time! Stop responding to what is so obviously a 'derailment' and get on with bringing the perpetrators of mass murder to justice! Bring your superior knowledge of physics, as compared to the collective of NIST, to a sympathetic D.A. and get the murders prosecuted!

I am curious, when you go to the doctor for help, do you attempt to second guess him/her as an equal? Or, do you defer to their education, experience and on the job learning(s)?

I ask because you seem to have no problem engaging in conversation, conjecture and suppositions based on nothing but your opinion. If a doctor were to diagnosis you with pancriatitis, are you going to call him/her a ‘government shill’ and dismiss their educated opinion? Or, do you defer to their knowledge?

Of course you defer. But when it comes to the NIST, they are all “in on it”.

That’s the point.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Stop wasting time! Stop responding to what is so obviously a 'derailment' and get on with bring the perpetrators of mass murder to justice! Bringing your superior knowledge of physics, as compared to the collective of NIST, to a sympathetic D.A. and get the murders prosecuted!


Give me access to the evidence and I will ensure this happens. Remember that the gov. is still withholding thousands of photos, videos and all of the remaining physical evidence in their possession and no one outside of the NIST is examining it or allowed access to it.

I deleted the rest of your post from the block quote as it serves no purpose.

This "report" totally contradicts the "preliminary" report we have been arguing against for many years. Every user on here that stood behind the diesel that we told you years ago was recovered and a a non-factor should walk away at this point. Every user that stood behind the initial NIST damage estimates, even in the face of photo-analysis that proved them grossly inaccurate should walk away. All of those posters have been proven wrong if you believe this report. Heck, the NIST threw out their entire preliminary report and gave us this now?

Many years ago I helped with this in a tiny, tiny way. It was more accurate than the NIST prelim report then and it still is today.

www.studyof911.com...

It may even be part of the reason they backed off the "falling debris damaging columns and trusses" theory.

"Our" opinion and analysis has NOT changed since the first report was released... the NIST's has and so has that of the NIST worshipers on here.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


If I were a doctor myself, yes, I'd second guess it. Because doctors are always right, correct?

If I were an engineer (as Pootie and I are), yes, I'd second guess NIST. Because engineers are always right too, correct?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pootie
 

I believe your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. What I don’t agree with is your assertions of fact, which are really, in my opinion only, assertions of opinion.

Facts have evidence. CT's live in voids and are based on nebulous 'theories'.

I don't want our dialog to devolve into an even worse place - honestly.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by badmedia
 


Not a straw man, but nice try. It's an analogy. Also, it's a spot-on observation.
Both positions are equally implausible.


Analogy

Straw Man Argument

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


Honestly not interested in getting into a personal attack/argument here. But the bottom line is you needed to add tons of things that aren't even close to what I think or believe in an attempt to discredit me and what I said. I posted my opinion on the subject, and you simply made baseless attacks at me.

You can play semantics or whatever else you want about it. I don't really care.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
FINAL REPORT OF THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 7

Here ya go Griff and Pootie.. (and Bsbray)

114 page report.

Here is your chance to read it. THEN present questions to NIST over the next two weeks.

There is contact information within the document.

have fun!


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff!



One doctor? Absolutely fallible. A group of doctors forming, say.......a oncology team? No.

If NIST is wrong, there are a whole lot of people wrong. Massively so. Possible? Of course, I concede that. Likely? Negative.

The fallacy is that the work we are discussing came from one or two people. It came from a larger whole known as the NIST. Hence, my team of doctors analogy.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Well as they said in this NIST video. A "Rare Event."

Could someone with better math skills than me throw together a quick and dirty problem of how many skyscrapers there are in the world and the odds that 3 of them would all fall due to fire damage on ONE DAY (at free fall speed) within the time frames of that day.

I'd be really interested in seeing all those zeros after the one. Ya know, just for posterity sake. I'd like to be able to give my future children a perfect example of the worlds biggest lie.

7 years for this? Who are they kidding?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dunwichwitch
 


Read the report and tell me what they got wrong. I will write to them myself telling them where they are in error.

Thanks!

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
There is contact information within the document.

have fun


I wonder how they respond when i challenge the report on the fact that their own reports state they failed to recover any steel for testing?

It should be funny to hear them respond to that.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I care! I don't want to personally insult you. I concede your specific point. That is, you did not say a lot of what I asserted. My apologies.

My mistake was coalescing the 'typical' CT position with your specific ideas. 110% my mistake.

It's true what I said , generally (JFK = 9-11) but, it was NOT true that was your point. I hope that makes sense.

I admit when I am wrong. I was wrong.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Page 4. Disclaimer # 4.

"NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction"

That was easy.

If they couldn't verify the construction, how did they do a structural analysis?

Guess?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join