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.

 

Council on Tall Buildings Chairman Comments on NIST-WTC7 Report

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Chairman David Scott of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat had this to say:



I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.

However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.


www.skyscrapercity.com...

Here is a little bit about CTBUH:


The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat studies and reports on all aspects of the planning, design, and construction of tall buildings. Also of a major concern is the role and impact of tall buildings on the urban environment. Our membership -- uniquely interdisciplinary -- includes some of the world's top authorities in their specific profession

www.ctbuh.org...





Thanks to Travis @JREF!




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I only have 2 quotes for this..

"All Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the mass of people will more easily fall victim to a greater lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Soon we will find out what is happening..

I don't give a crap what side of the fence you are on ThroatYogurt.. There is a change happening... and the truth will come out soon..

Things are heating up in the states, people are going to start paying attention more.. This gig with Ron Paul is just the beginning... Just so you know..

I really don't care what you shills have to say anymore.. In the end it will be we are right and you are wrong.. It don't take rocket science to see why 9/11 and how it is effecting us today.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded


I really don't care what you shills have to say anymore.. In the end it will be we are right and you are wrong.. It don't take rocket science to see why 9/11 and how it is effecting us today.



You shills? The Chairman of a very respected organization is a shill? Why? Because the Truth Movement has failed to offer any evidence to prove their fantasy?

In the end? When is that? 7 years now. Same old recycled theories with the same old lack of evidence.

This article actually favors both sides of the discussions. He is not satisfied with the NIST report... and he thinks the CT's are bunk.

He is a shill even though he is questioning a report that is paid for by the government?

How Shilly is that?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers.

That's pathetic. It really is.

Planes did not hit WTC 5, 6 or 7. Their 'failures' were not an indirect result of the planes hitting the towers. How far do these people have to stretch the point to join their dots to reach their conclusion?

Besides, no one has been able to identify the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers, so even that's still up for debate.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

You shills? The Chairman of a very respected organization is a shill? Why? Because the Truth Movement has failed to offer any evidence to prove their fantasy?


More because the evidence for the official story, especially the NIST 'investigation' ultimately boils down to 'Because I say so.'.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Besides, no one has been able to identify the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers, so even that's still up for debate.


What is pathetic is a statement like this.

I'm curious...were the Towers alleged?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
BTW, one "reputable" Certified (or certifiable) Conspirologist did try to prove that north tower wasn't hit by the airplane. He took his "evidence" from the fuzzy YouTube video of the only film made by French team. Certainly, you can not tell from this video what hit the building. So he immediately claimed that it is a missile.
On DVD version of this video you can clearly see it was an airliner.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
That's pathetic. It really is.

Planes did not hit WTC 5, 6 or 7. Their 'failures' were not an indirect result of the planes hitting the towers.

Yes they were? Planes impacted WTC 1 and 2, the structural damage and the fire resulting from the impact caused their collapse. This collapse caused severe structural damage to all the immediately adjacent buildings, and started fires and/or caused structural damage in buildings slightly further away. They clearly did fail as an indirect result of the plane crashes. If the planes had not hit the towers, these buildings would not have fallen.


Besides, no one has been able to identify the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers, so even that's still up for debate.

Plenty of people have, tell me, what evidence would you require to believe that the planes did in fact hit the buildings?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by exponent]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Years after 911, while driving on the West Side Highway in NYC, I've been seeing damaged unoccupied buildings near ground zero that were considered to be stable, but structurally unsafe. They were trying to figure out whether to tear them down or fix them. And they didn't finish fixing them till like a year ago. It's just to say that damage to surrounding buildings was rather severe. So I am not surprised by WTC 7 collapse whatsoever.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
They clearly did fail as an indirect result of the plane crashes. If the planes had not hit the towers, these buildings would not have fallen.

You might as well go on record as stating that box cutters caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, if you're happy enough to believe that airliners did.

Afterall, if the terrorists didn't have the box cutters, then they couldn't have killed the pilots and gained control of the planes and smashed them into the towers.

You might as well go on record as stating that airline security caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, as they didn't find the boxcutters the terrorists had on them.

You might as well go on record as stating that the president caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, as he ignored warnings of attacks and should have beefed up security.

Haven't you read the NIST report? WTC 7 fell due to thermal expansion, not airplanes.


Plenty of people have, tell me, what evidence would you require to believe that the planes did in fact hit the buildings?

Wow, ok. Show me who has identified the alleged planes that hit the towers? I want undeniable proof, not hearsay.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You might as well go on record as stating that box cutters caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, if you're happy enough to believe that airliners did.

Box cutters are inanimate objects. The terrorists using small knives and box cutters did however cause the direct and indirect destruction of the complex.


You might as well go on record as stating that airline security caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, as they didn't find the boxcutters the terrorists had on them.

I'm afraid this just shows your general lack of knowledge regarding this situation. Before 911, there were no rules against carrying these items onboard. They were allowed to.


You might as well go on record as stating that the president caused the indirect destruction of the WTC complex, as he ignored warnings of attacks and should have beefed up security.

I don't entirely disagree actually, indirect causes can extend as far as intelligence failures. You are obviously trying to ridicule my statement by taking it to the extreme but this is irrelevant. What caused the destruction of WTC 3,4,5,6,7 if not the collapse of the towers and subsequent fires?


Haven't you read the NIST report? WTC 7 fell due to thermal expansion, not airplanes.

Thermal expansion as a result of fire, fire as a result of aircraft crashes and building collapse.


Wow, ok. Show me who has identified the alleged planes that hit the towers? I want undeniable proof, not hearsay.

All proof can be denied, I asked you for specifics, not generalizations.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Box cutters are inanimate objects

Planes are also inanimate objects, so what's your point?

You want to blame planes, then I'll blame boxcutters.


Originally posted by exponent
All proof can be denied, I asked you for specifics, not generalizations.

Show me specifically who has proven the identity of the alleged airplanes that allegedly crashed into the towers.

Is that specific enough for you?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by exponent
All proof can be denied, I asked you for specifics, not generalizations.

Show me specifically who has proven the identity of the alleged airplanes that allegedly crashed into the towers.

Is that specific enough for you?
I am sure you will not accept it. But the proof was provided by us government hired independent contractors. Like DNA matching. Sure it doesn't make any difference to you, as log as you are fixated on conspiracy theory and will say that independent agencies were forced to do provide false results under the gunpoint.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
Like DNA matching.

So show me which DNA of the planes matched the DNA of the planes that were allegedly used to crash into the towers.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I didn't think that planes had DNA?

Please, show me some real proof.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by syeager9
Like DNA matching.

So show me which DNA of the planes matched the DNA of the planes that were allegedly used to crash into the towers.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I didn't think that planes had DNA?

Please, show me some real proof.
Are you really getting silly here? All planes that take off are usually arrive to their destinations. Sure planes have no DNA, but passengers do. And for some reason DNA of the passengers of the planes that crashed into WTC match DNA of their relatives. It's besides the fact that flight paths of the airplanes and their identity can't be disputed.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Funny thing. When you crate a "conspiracy theory" you justs get yourself into more trouble as you have to cover counter arguments. So you need to invent more "facts". Or what people will think as "facts". And it goes on and on and on. All based on false evidence and misrepresentation of known facts.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
Like DNA matching.


Heres what I dont get....

Planes hit the towers, they burn so hot "THEY FALL" ok fine, but now you expect me to believe that a fire that brought down a metal and concrete building didnt destroy any and all DNA evidence?

Wow thats a pretty far stretch.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 


Atru... not all victims were identified. It only takes a small piece of tissue to recover a valid DNA sample.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
Are you really getting silly here? All planes that take off are usually arrive to their destinations. Sure planes have no DNA, but passengers do.

No, I'm not being silly at all. Anyone suggesting that DNA evidence proves the identity of a plane that crashed is probably being silly, as planes don't have DNA.



And for some reason DNA of the passengers of the planes that crashed into WTC match DNA of their relatives.

What reason is that? Were the people on the alleged plane? Was their DNA evidence planted? Were the people on another plane instead of the alleged one? Human DNA does not identify a plane's identity.

Again, you still have not proved to me the exact identity of the planes that crashed into the towers...

As a result of boxcutters, the WTC complex collapsed, yet the missing link in the chain - the planes - can't be confirmed? Please, believers, get your story straight.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod

Originally posted by syeager9
Like DNA matching.


Heres what I dont get....

Planes hit the towers, they burn so hot "THEY FALL" ok fine, but now you expect me to believe that a fire that brought down a metal and concrete building didnt destroy any and all DNA evidence?

Wow thats a pretty far stretch.
Structure of the buildings was weakened at the initial impact. Fires just caused the deformation and weakening of the support structure. You may notice from the movies that collapse started EXACTLY where the planes hit. Not higher, not lower. This makes "controlled demolition" theory rather stupid. And as DNA is concerned, they can even extract DNA from dinosaurs. Just a microscopic fragment of human flash is enough for identification.

I think you are simply not aware about all the effort taken to identify every single victim of 911 attacks.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join