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.

 

Latest Polls after new NIST report

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   



I can tell you this, if you read the NIST report on WTC7 and continue to support the fantasy of CD, then you do not understand the NIST report or have a grasp of the evidence on WTC7.

I guess you failed to read the NIST report and find out there were no sounds of explosives.


Pretty sure the report doesn't exactly reflect the collapse if you watch a video of it.

Are you talking about something else?




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron


What size airliners flew into those builds? Were their speeds comparable to that of the WTC aircraft? How much jet fuel was involved in those fires?

If they diidnt have planes fly into them (meaning thousands of tons of material travelling at 500mph+ crashing into them....with jet fuel....then your fires are irrelevant. Apples and oranges.


Yeah but look back at WTC 7, which is the focal point of this thread, if the planes and jet fuel are your backbone.. what about building 7?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Was the 75 fire fought? WTC7 was not fought and WTC7 had a lot of damage to help the fire propagate. I heard from an eyewitness who saw WTC7 on 9/11 up close and he said it was a raging fire and the building was leaning. Apples and oranges. Do you need help understanding fire like 44 percent of the people who lack knowledge on fires, steel, and firefighting. This is the reason 44 percent of the people are wrong, it is ignorance of fire issues.
Don't get upset if you do not understand fire, gee, most the world thought the earth was flat, this will not be the first time a majority was wrong.


Aren't you kicking yourself in the head by claiming the 44% to be ignorant on what happened to the building yet you don't truely know what they know.

And what is so mysterious about fires that no one has come across yet that make us all ignorant on what happened that day?

I'm pretty sure there's a plaethora of information on the web dealing with fire and analysis of fire damage to certain structures/metals etc.

I personally can't even figure out why you, an engineer with a 6 year degree, are so supportive of something that has a huge lack of evidence to prove the conclusion.

Shall we throw a plane in the air without structural integrity tests and just make the conclusion that it'll withhold stress from the basis of "other planes can do it, ours must be able to". Basically saying why flaunt being an engineering but go out of your way arguing for something that has a huge lack of evidence for reference.

Everything coming from all three buildings should of been taken to several hangers to have analysis done to get a good conclusion, even from there its iffy but understandable.

You cannot even approach the WTC report with a 100 yard stick if you're looking for a "good conclusion".



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


What does your engineering knowledge tell you about the top rung of say a jet's cockpit entry ladder - if it were fatigued to failure by extreme heat?

As you egress onto this top step - and it happens to break free - would you expect to end up by free fall onto the flight deck – with your foot subsequently breaking through all lower metal treads?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
This whole discussion is rediculous. BBC reported Building 7 collapsing before it even collapsed... How did they report the building collapsing 20 minutes before it did!!! Are they psychic? Or did they get the report that it was being taken down.

Building 7 was demo'd everyone knows this and NIST themselves have had 10000 versions of how it went down what makes this reason any more credible. Why in the world spend 3 years determaning that fire took the building down. Have any of you imbecile(or dis-info guys) even watched the animation its hilarious.

My god Larry Silverstein said "there had been such loss of life so we decided to pull it" He friggin said he pulled it. This whole thing is just surreal that there is still complete mindless denial that even when they tell you that the building was pulled you still don't believe it.

For the simple minded i will speak caveman for you.

Here video of Larry saying he pull building ugg.
Larry says he pulled building 7

Here video of BBC reporting that 7 collapse YET it still behind her O.o
BBC broadcast saying 7 had collapsed yet it is behind her

Now that we have had a refresher on the obvious crap, go ahead and continue the back and forth of waste that the believers in the actual conspiracy of killer cave dwellers from the middle east wish to partake in.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Check out the latest poll after the Latest NIST report came out.

news.aol.com...

Do you believe that fire brought down World Trade Center 7?

Yes 43%


For some parity, five years after the attacks on 9/11 ...



43% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.


www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
NIST report poll. Remember? We are talking about the NIST report.


Well then you should not have asked me about the buildings i posted should you.

Funny how you only state about being on topic when you are proven wrong on something or cannot post evidence to support your fanatasies.

You just keep proving my points about believers.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
TY - You need to give it a rest. You're obviously on the government payroll to defend their lie of a story just like these polls suggest. Nobody believes them or you. Hopefully the mods of this board reel you in soon. You are a distraction to the path of truth. NIST has been caught in a lie, and we all know it...



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Sorry. Forget it. Idiot mistake by me.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by tezzajw]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by gavron
NIST report poll. Remember? We are talking about the NIST report.


Well then you should not have asked me about the buildings i posted should you.

Funny how you only state about being on topic when you are proven wrong on something or cannot post evidence to support your fanatasies.

Calm down, ULTIMA1, Geez!

Obviously you didnt understand my post. Let me simplify it for you even more:

You stated only the NIST report said it was a combination of events.
I was just stating this thread was talking about the NIST report, so it would be relevant to what we were discussing.

I was not stating you were off topic.

Do I need to simplify it further for you?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You stated only the NIST report said it was a combination of events.
Do I need to simplify it further for you?


Do i need to make it simple for you by repeating all the reports that state the buildings withstood the planes impacts?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Do i need to make it simple for you by repeating all the reports that state the buildings withstood the planes impacts?


umm. I know that. I even said that in my post. (duh)

All the reports also say the fires alone didnt bring down the building.

Whats that word again?

Ohhhh, thats right. It was a com-bi-na-tion of events.

Need me to get that definition for you?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
All the reports also say the fires alone didnt bring down the building.

Whats that word again?

Ohhhh, thats right. It was a com-bi-na-tion of events.


What s that word again, oh its "illiterate".

Most of the reports do state that the fires alone caused the collaspe.

Only NIST states it was a combination.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only NIST states it was a combination.


You mean the same NIST report that people answered the polls on?


What a coincidence!

Gee, dont you think it would make sense that people taking a poll on the NIST results would refer to items IN the NIST report?

You make it sound like people taking a poll on boats should consider reports on motorcycles too. They are only are refering to the boats, not motorcycles as well.

You really should have someone explain things to you, I think.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You mean the same NIST report that people answered the polls on?

.


No the NIST final report on the WTC buildings.

How old are for real? You just proved again that you cannot read, becasue you did not read the report the polls were based on did you? Also the latest report has already been debunked since they failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
the buildings fell down because they were hit by planes?

no, they fell down because of the fires.

oh, so the fires that could not have been hot enough to heat up the entire steel framework that would have been a giant heatsink according to their new theory, actually caused the buildings to come down? that doesnt make sense. we have seen hotter, longer burning fires not do that.

but those buildings were not hit by planes.

oh the planes and the fires. that makes sense. wait, 7 wasnt hit by a plane.

that was hit by other stuff.

oh, so fire and just about any other damage, together, will bring down those buildings? is that what these reports really say?

no, they say it was the fires that brought the buildings down.

wait, i thought we covered that, the fires were not that hot and did not burn that long.

you are forgetting the planes.

oh right....


and around we go.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


why the dance?
just tell him if you know.

frickin' propaganda dance.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ok Ultima... you win. We should just listen to lead envelope licker at the NSA for all that we need to know.

Why listen to hundreds of the leading scientist and engineers etc??

We have Roger M. ...aka "NSA Secret Agent Man."


hundreds? really? they sure are keeping it to themselves arent they.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima.

When was the steel removed from Ground Zero?

What was the date NIST took over the investigation?

Please answer those two questions.


Uhh - the steel started being shipped out within the week! Did you really need to ask??

No idea on the second point, but I know it was all shipped off the China as it was picked off the heap.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
OK! Sombody please tell me why a gov agency is even investigating this in the first place.If it was fire like the gov said, then why are they even making it and isue? somthing stinks here. Are they afrade of something?Or mabe the Gov did another investigation because they were not sure why the WTC-7 came down in the first place. HELLO !!!!!!!!!!! WAKE THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join