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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Audio of NIST WTC 7 Press Briefing. About 1 hour. See here for more information:
wtc.nist.gov...



www.liveleak.com...




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Well considering NIST was not invovled in the investigation until 8/21/02...i doubt there was much steel left at the site:


So how can NIST come out with any kind of official report that can be believed if they were not involved in at the beginning and failed to recover steel for testing?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You're aware that the crash of the airliners into WTC1 & 2 resulted in massive damage to WTC7?


You're aware that most of the reports state the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

Also i have shown steel buidlings that had longer fires and as much or more structrual damage then the WTC buidlings and did not collaspe.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Start reading, listening, or watching since I have posted audio, video, and text from NIST.

thank you



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Start reading, listening, or watching since I have posted audio, video, and text from NIST.

thank you

Please answer the question, Thank you.

So how can NIST come out with any kind of official report that can be believed if they were not involved in at the beginning and failed to recover steel for testing?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


You're aware that most of the reports state the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

Also i have shown steel buidlings that had longer fires and as much or more structrual damage then the WTC buidlings and did not collaspe.


Hey Roger.. we are discussing the NIST report on WTC7. Please stay on topic.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST Video:
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Building Fell

www.nist.gov...





Is this video for real???

I'm sorry,,, This looks nothing like the collapse... All the video documentation of that day show a steel building liquifying and falling very fluidly.

This video does not seem to be very representative of what I have witnessed.

I am not an expert, but I am also not a complete fool.

However my cast iron pan had a total collapse when I was frying an egg! Hell my burner did to... all that blue flame put such stress that it crumbled



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Hey Roger.. we are discussing the NIST report on WTC7. Please stay on topic.



What a chidish thing to do, jump on me about changing subject when it was SAP that made the statement i answered.

Also stop changing the subject and be adult enough to answer the question.

Please answer the question, Thank you.

So how can NIST come out with any kind of official report that can be believed if they were not involved in at the beginning and failed to recover steel for testing?


[edit on 21-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Well folks, case closed, no need to discuss it further, NIST took care of it for us. This is a joke to my intelligence and everyone reading this... Read elsewhere on ATS, seekers of knowledge, and skeptics, here is your answer, now get off this site!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by Griff
 


Excellent.

Now let me show you something.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Notice, you could actually SEE the explosions and HEAR the explosions. Yet, on 9/11, we never heard any explosions or saw any explosions with the exception of the initial impact of the airplanes. This alone is proof the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were NOT controlled demolitions. I have absolutely no qualifications in this field, but I have seen enough controlled demolitions to know the WTC was not a controlled demolition. The only characteristic they share is a vertical collapse. That is it.


The thing is that the tops of those buildings didn't start out falling vertically above where the plane struck. They rocked to 1 side, then came back. Which begs the question of how enough force was there to push the other side of the building down in such a vertical style.

That is something that has always bugged me and made me go hmmm. Would the top have not need to fall flat down to get the pancaking effect?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

I am not an expert, but I am also not a complete fool.


Um... but you stated this:



I'm sorry,,, This looks nothing like the collapse... All the video documentation of that day show a steel building liquifying and falling very fluidly.


Do you think WTC7 was the Wicked Witch of the West?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So how can NIST come out with any kind of official report that can be believed if they were not involved in at the beginning and failed to recover steel for testing?


You have NOT READ IT.

READ it FIRST .... THEN comment on it. Jesus H. Christ.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Do you think WTC7 was the Wicked Witch of the West?


Do you think that buidling 7 was the only steel building in US history to collapse from fire?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You're aware that the crash of the airliners into WTC1 & 2 resulted in massive damage to WTC7?

Massive? How massive? Massive is a relative term.



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


If NIST could not verify the actual construction, then how do you know how massive the damage was?

It may have been massive damage for a weak construction. It may have been very little damage for a strong construction.

Let's look on the bright side - I'll be able to read a new fairytale to my children at night. Thanks, NIST!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The devil is in the details, my friends.

So it took 114 pages to make up an excuse?

I'll bet if people were being much more honest with themselves and others, you could sum up what happened in less than 20 pages. 114 pages? They tested no steel, and they relied almost entirely upon their confidence that they could find their pre-determined outcome. I doubt most of the people who worked in this "investigation" seriously weighed the possibility that WTC7 was collapsed by SOME SORT of means of demolition.

But you would have to ignore what you observe in order to come up with the kinds of "answers" that they are coming up with.

The building collapsed completely and globally and evenly in just about 7 seconds.... and yet for some reason it would take a few days to explain to me what 7 seconds worth of video says...in 7 seconds. Pictures are worth a thousand words... and take a thousand words times the frames per second it takes to record seven seconds of video.... thousands and thousands of words of truth IGNORED by people looking for a predetermined solution.

#ing illogical! Don't believe somebody just because they say that they are an "expert". They only know what they personally observe, and observations can be colored by many belief systems...and even the most brilliant physicist is not immune to the effects of certain indoctrinations.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by dunwichwitch]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Above 15 floors. Yes it is the first.

On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world's first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain. Because she was the first...does that mean it could not have happened?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world's first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain. Because she was the first...does that mean it could not have happened?

Completely off-topic crap. You and Slightly Above Par seem to enjoy bringing totally unrelated arguments into this thread about Building 7.

Stop the derailing attempts and stick with the topic at hand.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
The only evidence you have is the same evidence millions of people saw live on television. That's it. So, tell me why I should believe you over the official report.


And what I saw on live TV was the BBC report the building had collapsed 20 minutes before it did while the building was in the background of the reporter


On top of this, CNN reports that the building will collapse?

How is it that both BBC and CNN believe that the building has/will collapse when at the time there was only fire on one floor of the building.

See my 2nd post on the first page for both videos of this happening.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Above 15 floors. Yes it is the first.


Gee, so many frist that day huh?

First time 4 planes never got off any emergency call or signal when hijacked.

First time NORAD failed to intercept planes.

First time 3 steel buildings collapsed from fire in the history of the US.

First time the FBI only spent 5 days on a major crime scene (after stating it would take 30).

First time we have no official investigation into the plane crash (crime scenes)

Gee thats a lot of first and still counting.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Above 15 floors. Yes it is the first.

On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world's first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain. Because she was the first...does that mean it could not have happened?


Can you please explain how that example is valid here? If it was successful, the n the controlled environment was successful. Now, having a test tube and a baby just happening to form would be a valid example.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join