reply to post by hinky
I'll humor you a little bit. I'll keep this only to the topic of the opening question.
Let me humor you a little bit, had you read the official story like the 911 Commission report, you would have realized the report did not answer most
of the questions that Americans wanted. The entire 911 Commission report was nothing more than a white wash, simply implying that our Government was
not responsible for anything that happened on 911, also meaning no accountably.
The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers
that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation. Because it is
continuously engaged in scotching all attempts to distinguish better from worse leadership responses, the Commission can't discharge its duty to
educate the audience about the habits of mind and temperament essential in those chosen to discharge command responsibility during crises. It can't
tell the truth about what was done and not done, thought and not thought, at crucial turning points. The Commissioners' immeasurably valuable access
to the principals involved offered an extraordinary opportunity to amass material precious to future historians: commentary based on moment-to-moment
reaction to major events. But the 567 pages, which purport to provide definitive interpretations of the reactions, are in fact useless to historians,
because a seeming terror of bias transforms query after commissarial query—and silence after silence—into suggested new lines of
self-justification for the interviewees. In the course of blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody—blurs the reasons for the actions
and hesitations of successive administrations, masks choices that, fearlessly defined, might actually have vitalized our public political discourse.
www.harpers.org...
I noticed some new found friends took time to respond and thanks for the feedback. I must have hit close to home or a raw nerve or 2 on a
couple of people. Facing the truth hurts at times, and within this thread you see example of people's responses to this. They strike back in with
inconsequential responses or off topic responses. But then, I have kids over 30 so I'm used to it
Its so funny because your whole statement in this paragraph is *off topic*.
Your 30-year-old kids have nothing to do with this topic.
Once again, I see a commonality running though these threads, I need to provided the proof or reasoning of why I believe the Government in
this matter. No, the real question should be "Why are you a minority in this matter and why do you question an official report?". My government
provided an official report of this terrorist act.
Wow! By looking at this thread “you” are the only one making these erroneous statements so the only minority is you. Now as for providing proof,
that IS what this thread is about for the Official believers to show why they believe in the Official Story.
You ask why I question an official Government report because I live in the United States of America and I can! Furthermore, I don’t trust a lying
Government, what Country do you live in? That is what is so great about our Country our Government has to answer to the people however, since G-Bush
and his administration feel they do not have to answer to anyone, we will continue pushing for answers and keep pushing for a new investigation.
American are not stupid we know our Government is corrupt that is why we always question everything they do because (We The People) do not always
trust them.
Once again, the sheeple or whatever comments will come, but here is where the real problem lies.
You still resort to ridiculing the posters, Why?
I'm not an uneducated man living in a tent connecting to the internet from some internet cafe I happen to be digging garbage from their trash
cans. Words have meaning. I can see from the writings within this thread there are kids posting their worldly responses trying to make themselves feel
self important. I see engineering terminology used in wrong forms or just plain bad English. I can understand the English aspect due to the sad state
of our educational system or English not being a first language of some people. I can not disallow the wordage of engineering terms though. I see this
commonly throughout threads or web sites of the people trying to show that airplanes can not bring buildings down. To me, just a plain ordinary guy
will a little education and a decent job, this is a problem.
This thread, is not about the type of people who post here, so save your snide remarks, your off topic!
Sometime when a person has a little time, they should look into what the term "official report" or "final report" really is and what it
really means. Maybe even look into the legal aspect. This is part of where words have meanings. Someday, someone within this very thread may have an
important job and can fully understand the ramifications of those words and feel the full burden of placing a signature on this type of document.
People without this understanding or just aren't aware of what this document truly is, don't have a full appreciation of the Government's action.
WOW! You do not have an understanding about American rights, do you!
What has this got to do with proven why the Official Story is True?
When I glanced or just perused the NIST report, on first blush, I have no problems. But then, I don't claim to be an engineer or a fire
fighter that now saves the world. However, when I just go visit some sites that are highly recommended in these regards, I see many problems with
simple things from a complex engineering problem such as a plane loaded with fuel and striking a building at several hundred miles an hour.
So are you saying the NIST report is true and it stands up to real science.
Scholars file challenges to NIST reports on 9/11
Submissions may shatter the cover-up, founder declares
Madison, WI (PRWEB) March 30, 2007 – Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan organization of students, experts and scholars
dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, have filed complaints against the National Institute of Standards and Technology for
legal defects in its studies of events of 9/11 involving the Twin Towers and Building 7.
James H. Fetzer, the society''s founder, believes these actions have the potential to break the back of the cover-up that has enveloped these
events.
"It would be nice if the government would tell us the truth about our own history," Fetzer said. "But all we get from the President, the Vice
President, the Secretary of State and former Secretary of Defense is a ''song and dance'' that keeps the American people in ignorance." The
complaints have been filed by Ed Hass, who edits The Muckraker Report; Morgan Reynolds, past Chief Economist in the Department of Labor in the Bush
administration; and Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University. Reynolds and Wood are both members of the society.
The complaints, which are archived and available to the public at www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619 , fall
into three categories. The complaint by Ed Haas concerns claims that NIST has advanced asserting that it has found "no evidence of a blast or
controlled demolition event" in relation to Building 7. Haas alleges that this is false and misleading insofar as NIST has never looked for evidence
of this kind. Moreover, NIST denies having found any "corroborating evidence" supporting the hypothesis that the building was brought down by
controlled demolition, which is inconsistent with evidence it acknowledges.
Indeed, in his complaint, Haas observes that the gross features of the collapse of Building 7—a 6.6 second, complete, symmetrical, and total
collapse—qualify as evidence of controlled demolition of that building, which contradicts NIST''s affirmations. In a second complaint, Haas
observes that conflicts of interest affect using many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and others who were responsible for research on
the Twin Towers to conduct research on Building 7 as well, which tends to taint their objectivity.
"Building 7 has been of special interest lately," Fetzer remarked, "since archival footage from the BBC has been discovered, where a female
reporter is explaining that Building 7 has also collapsed." The problem is that the building only collapsed at 5:20 PM, while and she is reporting it
at 4:57 PM, which is 23 minutes too soon. "You can find a dozen articles about it on 911scholars.org, which is the society''s web site. You can
even see Building 7 clearly standing in the background over her left shoulder in these news video clips, which raises disturbing questions about the
media in all of this."
The second complaint, which has been filed by Morgan Reynolds, disputes NIST''s explanations of the jetliner-shaped holes in the Twin Towers.
According to NIST, the North Tower (WTC-1) was hit by Flight AA 11, a Boeing 767, traveling at an estimated 443 mph, yet its tail section disappears
within 0.25 seconds. And it claims that the South Tower (WTC-2) was hit by Flight UA 175, another Boeing 767, flying at an estimated speed of 542 mph,
where its tail section disappears into the building in approximately 0.20 seconds.
Reynolds observes that the planes are 159 feet in length, which means that, on the NIST account, Flight AA 11 lost only 2% of its speed in despite
massive resistance from a steel/concrete building. Similarly for Flight UA 175, the airspeed of which did not decline in spite of its impact with
steel walls and concrete floors, as well as the dense steel core consisting of 47 columns. The complaint contends that real jetliners would have been
dramatically slowed by the impact, which implies that the NIST report is not only factually wrong but also physically impossible in violating physical
laws.
"Morgan poses a substantial number of anomalies that NIST will be hard pressed to explain," Fetzer said. "But the greatest challenge to its
scientific integrity is posed by the complaint filed by Judy Wood, which is a veritable tour de force." While the documents filed by Haas and
Reynolds run less than ten pages in length, the one filed by Wood runs forty-three pages, including photographs and other supporting evidence. "It is
a powerful critique that demonstrates the government has completely and utterly failed to explain what happened to the World Trade Center on that
tragic and fateful day."
Fetzer characterizes Dr. Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, as the leading expert
on technical aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center. "There are experts in many areas of science and of engineering studying 9/11," he
explained, "but she has degrees that are centrally focused on critical areas in which competence is required to begin to understand what happened on
9/11. No one else in the 9/11 community comes close to her level of expertise."
Her complaint, technically, Request for Correction, like the others, asserts that the basic integrity of NIST''s report, called NCSTAR 1, is lacking
because, by its own admission, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: "The focus of the investigation was
on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." This means that the NIST report does
not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as "the
probable collapse sequence."
"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a
collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees
Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an
hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn''t even reach the point at which a ''collapse'' of any kind would be
''initiated.'' The situation is quite remarkable."
Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and
quality standards. In contrast, Dr. Wood''s RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence that confirms highly unusual energy effects seen by all
as the Twin Towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height
of 110 stories, a result she demonstrates in relation to the law of falling bodies.
nWood also points out other compelling evidence that NIST ignored, including visual evidence of unusual and unexplained devastation to vehicles parked
blocks away from the WTC complex, including some with disintegrated engine blocks but unexploded gas tanks. And she notes the peculiar damage of
perpendicular gouges in WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as other distinctive effects, such as cylindrical holes in these buildings and even in
the street, which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. "These outcomes appear to be inexplicable if only conventional explosives, much less fires,
were involved," Fetzer said. "Cars burned, paper did not."
Indeed, Wood goes further and points out that the huge quantity of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegration, some of which was
captured on film, combined with these other effects suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons. Another element of Wood''s proof
is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. "Where did it go?", she asks. Whatever the source of energy and heat may have
been, it had no effect upon massive quantities of paper floating around the city.
Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who is also a member of Scholars, represents the complainants in this effort. Leaphart states that
NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken or other legal action could be pursued. "Anyone with a serious
interest in what happened at the World Trade Center has to read Wood''s complaint," Fetzer added. "It is a stunning indictment of the NIST''s
failure to come to grips with the problem. In my opinion, these submissions have the potential to shatter the cover-up in one of the greatest murder
mysteries in history. We are all indebted to them for doing this."
James H. Fetzer Founder Scholars for 9/11 Truth
911researchers.com...
www.911scholars.org...
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity
www.911blogger.com...
You wanted to know why I believe the official report. I haven't seen anything at all that makes me believe otherwise in regards to the
collapse of the towers. At least nothing that makes sense to my untrained eyes.
You must not read very well:
Wisconsin academic: 9/11 report a fraud
"It's now very clear," he told me. "The official 9/11 report is a complete fraud." Barrett says a close examination of the twin towers falling
shows puffs of smoke, a sign the buildings were pre-planted with explosives, and the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition.
www.cnn.com...
Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11
Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive
Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member
Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with
the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little
practical significance." NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus
could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not
clear this up?)
All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and
their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York
flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be
thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.
www.911truth.org...
640+ Engineers and Architects
150+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
320+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
180+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
patriotsquestion911.com...
You need to do some real research before you start condemning people, who do not agree with your opinions. However, your opinions are always welcome
but don’t insults other people who do not agree with you. These 640 + Engineers and Architects are risking their reputations and careers because
they do not believe in the Official Story. Do you also think they are a bunch of immature 30-year-old kids?
This thread is only about why people believe or do not believe the official report. Other facts or made up facts about everything else is for a
different thread.
No, this thread is about why“YOU” believe in the Government 911 Story.
And to show us why it is true. However, you have failed to show anything as of proof; the only thing you did give us is your opinions.
[edit on 12/5/2008 by cashlink]
