letter to NIST

hello all, great site.

just wanted to share a letter i wrote to mr.sunder regarding his theory.



Mr. Sunder

Devastating and instant loss of credibility. Shame on you all and my sincere condolences to your families. They surely cannot deserve this embarrassing abandonment of integrity and honor.

Most men can only dream of such a monumental opportunity, as was afforded to you, to stand in honor before the world and give righteous testimony to laws so great that none could deny their magnitude or importance. Knowing that with it, under the significance of something so massive, nothing could befall him. Thus leaving this providential speaker of the truth in a cloak of comfort that allows his affirmation to flow in a harmony that all it's beneficiaries can easily compass.

Instead, Mr. Sunder, you chose to regurgitate an impossible, yet very predictable, Conspiracy Theory that we are so diligently trying to remove from your shallow pool of utter explanation. Please make an effort in the future, as we are all coming soon in demand of it. The future does not have room for everybody.

Thanks anyway,

Future Dweller

My Email to NIST:

please explain this..? honest mistake or an attempt at what...?

video.google.com...

seems this question is the same as my question...?

video.google.com...

Please answer the above questions in the release, or face it in public.

BornPatriot
Sovereign Citizen of the Great State of Florida

Originally posted by Zerbst

Mr. Sunder

Devastating and instant loss of credibility. Shame on you all and my sincere condolences to your families. They surely cannot deserve this embarrassing abandonment of integrity and honor.

Most men can only dream of such a monumental opportunity, as was afforded to you, to stand in honor before the world and give righteous testimony to laws so great that none could deny their magnitude or importance. Knowing that with it, under the significance of something so massive, nothing could befall him. Thus leaving this providential speaker of the truth in a cloak of comfort that allows his affirmation to flow in a harmony that all it's beneficiaries can easily compass.

Instead, Mr. Sunder, you chose to regurgitate an impossible, yet very predictable, Conspiracy Theory that we are so diligently trying to remove from your shallow pool of utter explanation. Please make an effort in the future, as we are all coming soon in demand of it. The future does not have room for everybody.

Thanks anyway,

Future Dweller

Dear Mr. F. Dweller,

There are thousand pages of reports.. It’s on the website. I urge you to read it, understand it, and when you’ve understood it, we can have a discussion.

You can submit questions to us in writing and we will look at what you have to say. But I will reassert what I have said all along, that the findings that we have got, we are very comfortable with. It’s based on sound science, it’s consistent with the observations, it’s simple, it’s straightforward, it’s elegant, it’s practical. It’s understandable by people. When all of the alternative theories that were presented. There were only a few that rose to be credible in our technical judgment. When we see evidence that in fact you have robust science behind alternative theories, we will look at them.

Sincerely,

Mr. Sunder

(taken partially from the press conference on 8-21)

reply to post by Dr Love


Dear Mr. Love:

I urge you to read it, understand it, and when you’ve understood it, we can have a discussion.

-Mr. Sunder

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by Zerbst

Mr. Sunder

Devastating and instant loss of credibility. Shame on you all and my sincere condolences to your families. They surely cannot deserve this embarrassing abandonment of integrity and honor.

Most men can only dream of such a monumental opportunity, as was afforded to you, to stand in honor before the world and give righteous testimony to laws so great that none could deny their magnitude or importance. Knowing that with it, under the significance of something so massive, nothing could befall him. Thus leaving this providential speaker of the truth in a cloak of comfort that allows his affirmation to flow in a harmony that all it's beneficiaries can easily compass.

Instead, Mr. Sunder, you chose to regurgitate an impossible, yet very predictable, Conspiracy Theory that we are so diligently trying to remove from your shallow pool of utter explanation. Please make an effort in the future, as we are all coming soon in demand of it. The future does not have room for everybody.

Thanks anyway,

Future Dweller

Dear Mr. F. Dweller,

There are thousand pages of reports.. It’s on the website. I urge you to read it, understand it, and when you’ve understood it, we can have a discussion.

You can submit questions to us in writing and we will look at what you have to say. But I will reassert what I have said all along, that the findings that we have got, we are very comfortable with. It’s based on sound science, it’s consistent with the observations, it’s simple, it’s straightforward, it’s elegant, it’s practical. It’s understandable by people. When all of the alternative theories that were presented. There were only a few that rose to be credible in our technical judgment. When we see evidence that in fact you have robust science behind alternative theories, we will look at them.

Sincerely,

Mr. Sunder

(taken partially from the press conference on 8-21)

EXACTLY correct, ThroatYougurt. NONE of these 9/11 Truthers have bothered to read the report nor, if history is a lesson, will they EVER read the NIST WTC 7 report.

I think it's important to emphasize one key sentence from Sunder's statement:

"It’s understandable by people."

reply to post by jthomas


JT. Correct.

What is interesting is that some truthers are actually crossing over. (see Sizzler at the Jref Forum)

In addition, some skeptics are not happy with the changes NIST is recommending. They don't disagree with their findings, but think some of the changes are unnecessary.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Dr Love]

Just ask one question, did NIST look at the possibility of explosives were in WTC 7...? Yes or No and if they say yes, then how come they made it seem like fire destroyed WTC 7. very suspicious in my opinion.

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Just ask one question, did NIST look at the possibility of explosives were in WTC 7...? Yes or No and if they say yes, then how come they made it seem like fire destroyed WTC 7. very suspicious in my opinion.

How can something seem suspicious if you haven't looked at the report at all? Or watched the press conference?

Yes they looked at all credible possibilities. Instead of reading the entire report, I suggest you watch the press conference. He hits on the alternative theories in pretty good detail.

Thanks,

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Yes they looked at all credible possibilities. -TY-

How could they look at all possibilites if they failed to recover any steel from building 7?

reply to post by BornPatriot


Yes, they did a serious investigation of the possible use of explosives in the most effective form (HE shaped charges) which turned out to be approx 9lb minimum with a pre-cut column. There was no evidence of such large explosions being seen, heard or felt. There were reports of explosion sounds but they were nowhere near the required magnitude.

Thermite was also considered and ruled out early in the investigation for what I consider good reasons like the quantity needed per column cut (min 100 lbs) and problems of holding a 2500C+ reaction against a vertical surface long enough to melt through.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Yes, they did a serious investigation of the possible use of explosives in the most effective form (HE shaped charges) which turned out to be approx 9lb minimum with a pre-cut column. There was no evidence of such large explosions being seen, heard or felt. There were reports of explosion sounds but they were nowhere near the required magnitude.

Thermite was also considered and ruled out early in the investigation for what I consider good reasons like the quantity needed per column cut (min 100 lbs) and problems of holding a 2500C+ reaction against a vertical surface long enough to melt through.

How could they look at all possibilites if they failed to recover any steel from building 7?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The HE and thermite seem to be ruled out but if you have another plausible possibility besides fire they're welcoming suggestions until 15th September.

Just email [email protected]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima... we heard you the first 700 times you posted that. Thank you. Noted.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The HE and thermite seem to be ruled out but if you have another plausible possibility besides fire they're welcoming suggestions until 15th September.

How could they be ruled out of there was no testing?

Oh and didn't FEMA find thermite-like residue on the steel it tested?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ultima... we heard you the first 700 times you posted that. Thank you. Noted.

Then why are you and other beleivers still posting about NIST doing tests?




[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Please watch the press conference, read the report, and watch the videos.

NIST will be entertaining questions until September15th. MAke sure you copy us all on your e-mails to them.

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Please watch the press conference, read the report, and watch the videos.

I have read the reports, the ones that contridict each other.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

What type of contradictions are you talking about?

thanks.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

What type of contradictions are you talking about?

Well the fact that the original NIST computer model states that the towers did not collapse from plane impact or fire.

Second the NIST report that states they did not recover any steel form building 7 for testing.