Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 38
218
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You must learn to base your evaluations on independently substantiated data rather than emotional responses that the corporate owned media has programmed into you.


So where is the substantiation of NIST's truss connection failure hypothesis? They rebuilt the truss/perimeter set-up in their lab, and put fire to it, but didn't reproduce their hypothesized failure mechanism, namely a sagging from heating that exerts tensile and shear forces on the connections.

And where was NIST's hypothesis peer reviewed or independently substantiated? They wouldn't even publish all of their data/parameters from their computer simulations so they could be verified/reproduced.

The TRUTH, which is FACTUAL, is that they didn't test or ever prove their hypothesis, and if you think they have, (a) be the first person to ever find it, or (b) realize that YOU are the one basing your opinions on emotional feelings of what is "correct" and not substantiated data. Because the data was not substantiated in any way.




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So where is the substantiation of NIST's truss connection failure hypothesis? They rebuilt the truss/perimeter set-up in their lab, and put fire to it, but didn't reproduce their hypothesized failure mechanism, namely a sagging from heating that exerts tensile and shear forces on the connections.

And where was NIST's hypothesis peer reviewed or independently substantiated? They wouldn't even publish all of their data/parameters from their computer simulations so they could be verified/reproduced.

The TRUTH, which is FACTUAL, is that they didn't test or ever prove their hypothesis, and if you think they have, (a) be the first person to ever find it, or (b) realize that YOU are the one basing your opinions on emotional feelings of what is "correct" and not substantiated data. Because the data was not substantiated in any way.



I don't have any involvement with NIST. They were assigned to give as best an explanation of events given the time they had and the evidence to work with.

They could not answer every possible outstanding question and no body ever will. They made judgement errors and speculations for sure. They answered most questions, what they tried to. I'm sure there is some mechanism for addressing concerns with them, and that is what you should consider doing.

There will be further ironing out of their inconsistencies in the future. NIST was not tasked to counter every conspiracy theory possible. They did not try to disprove the controlled demolition theory, the No-Planes Theory, the atomic bomb theory, the space beam theory, etc.

We have a comprehensive report that did not attempt to analyze and correlate every piece of debris, only a sampling. The ultimate comprehensive test of everything would have taken decades, and people would still have find fault with the conclusions.



Mike

[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
They could not answer every possible outstanding question and no body ever will.


That has nothing to do with not proving their hypotheses or releasing their data so they could be peer-reviewed. Those are both very obviously important to any scientific process but they decided to completely neglect them.


They answered most questions, what they tried to.


No, they didn't. They were assigned to finally figure out what exactly brought the towers down, and they never did. They came up with a theory, and then never tested it. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

The other problem, is since this is the THE report, you HAVE to agree with what it says or else you are calling for re-investigation the same as the rest of us. Because it was the ONLY investigation. Everyone else just has public photos & information and YouTube videos to go off of.


NIST was not tasked to counter every conspiracy theory possible.


You have a horrible, horrible problem diverting from a topic and even putting words in my mouth. I never said NIST had that duty, but don't you think they might at least want to do the job they WERE paid to do?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I never said NIST had that duty, but don't you think they might at least want to do the job they WERE paid to do?


That's your opinion. I think they did a satisfactory job.

I see a lot of questions that need to be answered on 9/11. But warehouses full of evidence and testimony clearly shows an attack by planes. Buildings collapsed and there is an understanding of what made these unusually designed structures fall down the way they did.

Nothing has emerged that points to a controlled demolition. With millions of tons of debris, much of it chemically altered by extremes of heat, those searching for evidence of US governmental complicity isolate certain questions on the collapses and debris. There is lots of speculation and criticism of the reports, but nothing unambiguously solid showing explosives or detonation.

That doesn't stop people from speculating and some trying to make a living out of this.


Mike



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wtc_wtf
 

I already posted this once here, but it seems like it might be ok to post here too -


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
That's your opinion. I think they did a satisfactory job.


So I'll ask again -- where do they test their hypothesis?

You were just accusing someone else of not having substantiated data for what they believe. Well put up or shut up you hypocrite.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by wtc_wtf
 

I already posted this once



Notably "wtf_wtc" the Original Poster joined April 5th, started this thread, made 6 messages and was banned the same day. He got a whack of stars indicating this topic is popular. I'd say in part because one can watch so many videos on it, which is easier than reading long dry reports.


Mike




[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
That's your opinion. I think they did a satisfactory job.


So I'll ask again -- where do they test their hypothesis?

You were just accusing someone else of not having substantiated data for what they believe. Well put up or shut up you hypocrite.



I said repeatedly I am not a spokesman for NIST and don't claim to be able to elaborate on everything written.

You repeatedly ask the same type of question trying to provoke a different response to impress your acolytes with some basic knowledge of science. And now I'm a hypocrite for not feeding your trollishness.

You have to listen to yourself, no one else does.

No further comment.

Mike



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by wtc_wtf
 

I already posted this once


Notably "wtf_wtc" the Original Poster joined April 5th, started this thread, made 6 messages and was banned the same day. He got a whack of stars indicating this topic is popular. I'd say in part because one can watch so many videos on it, which is easier than reading long dry reports.

Mike

[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]


If there's any confusion on this point, this video is something brand new, and the other place I posted it ( if you hit the link ) is in a different thread. This is the first time I've posted it in this thread ...

Interesting about the OP'er as well - I've been around ATS for about 6 months now and it seems very common for members here to multiple 'aliases' even though, strictly speaking it's against the T&C ...



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I said repeatedly I am not a spokesman for NIST and don't claim to be able to elaborate on everything written.


Of course not but you will gladly tell me you think their report is satisfactory even though they didn't substantiate a damned thing with good data.

And then you tell other people they need substantiated data to support their opinions.

You are a hypocrite.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Hello

what's the verdict?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I said repeatedly I am not a spokesman for NIST and don't claim to be able to elaborate on everything written.


Of course not but you will gladly tell me you think their report is satisfactory even though they didn't substantiate a damned thing with good data.

And then you tell other people they need substantiated data to support their opinions.

You are a hypocrite.


Substantiated by evidence for people demonstrating objective knowledge of the disciplines involved. Not someone anonymous online who can throw out suggestive information.

You refuse to answer the simplest question - why blow up destroyed buildings? Because there is no answer.

Anyway this get's tiresome.

This is about you trying to demonstrate how much you think you know.

9/11 threads devolve this way. Why so many have learned to avoid them.

I'm sure this will provoke another insulting comment from you.

And 10 people will star it.

You're part of a community that loves patting itself on the back by criticizing anything they consider official.

The Unofficial Story has enough holes to fly a plane through it.



Mike




[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Substantiated by evidence for people demonstrating objective knowledge of the disciplines involved.


For? You mean from? That is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, not objective data. You might as well stop, because no matter how many times you repeat their credentials, the data they lack isn't going to magically appear. And it doesn't make their actual work (or lack of) any more acceptable.

And it doesn't get you off the hook for being a hypocrite, because Jones, et. al. published actual scientific data. Whether you agree with it or not, they actually provided data that would support their hypothesis. NIST did not. Hypocrite.


You refuse to answer the simplest question - why blow up destroyed buildings? Because there is no answer.


Actually you never asked me that, and it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. But this is how you play your little game, I know.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
OK. My father's best friend is Dick Cheney. They pay me $9.25 an hour to deflect from the real Truth that brilliant scientific geniuses like yourselves have discovered. 9/11 was a false flag operation. Millions were spent to drill through cement to apply super-duper-nano-thermite. The workers were shot afterward. the timing was split second and the MSM didn't notice.

Everyone in the government knew it was coming. Mossad helped on the logistics. Dick said "We need a climax they won't forget. I want those buildings completely leveled that day."

They never anticipated out-of-the-box thinkers would catch on. You guys are the real heroes. You are helping save America from the depravity of the NWO.

Girls who thought you were nerds will realize you are cool. They'll drop the guys with the money and sports cars when they are made aware of your self-sacrificing quest for truth, sitting through all those videos and reading all those technical specs.

The world is a better place for the likes of you and your unflinching efforts for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.


Mike




[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Ok, next time I call you out on being a hypocrite, instead of posting a lot of sarcastic nonsense like that, why don't you just concede that I have a point and "soften up" a little on accusing everybody of never being able to prove a damned thing? Or should I continue drilling the fact that you can't substantiate your opinions either?

[edit on 6-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Molten rivers of metal and red paint chips thought to be thermite are TWO totally different conversations.

Based on reading the memo they produced they were paint chips. If it was active thermite, they could have made a reaction, made a video and had some credibility. Do you not think so???

People, think for yourselves and stop letting other people influence what you believe and who you believe in.





Paint chips? oh please where was there red paint...anywhere in any of the 3 buildings. Oh and paint that survives incredible temperatures etc. Then all be in microscopic spherical form in powdered concrete? I think its time to wake up and do a little homework, even a little will open your eyes and relieve your prejudicial point of view.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Solar.Absolution]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wtc_wtf
 


This still doesn't prove that it's an inside job, it could just mean the terrorists were smarter than we thought. The planes could have just been a distraction, to make us heighten airport security, while the real terrorist infiltration was operatives who stole/engineered and place explosives.

Assuming this study is true, it seems as if the conclusions are based on speculation.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Ok, next time I call you out on being a hypocrite, instead of posting a lot of sarcastic nonsense like that, why don't you just concede that I have a point and "soften up" a little on accusing everybody of never being able to prove a damned thing? Or should I continue drilling the fact that you can't substantiate your opinions either?




OK, let's have a truce, for now.

Sort of burning out on all this. It's more like an interactive game than discussion of scientific issues.

I've seen little headway even when real scientific information is provided.

I personally have nothing invested in proving or disproving there was controlled demolition at the WTC. It doesn't make sense and nothing has ever surfaced materially that corroborates it.

Bu people will hold onto the belief and nothing that is said will change their position.

Mike



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Sort of burning out on all this. It's more like an interactive game than discussion of scientific issues.


It wouldn't be that way if you had actual science supporting your opinions to discuss.


I've seen little headway even when real scientific information is provided.


Like what? Don't tell me the NIST report. What else is there that is definitive proof of anything?


It doesn't make sense and nothing has ever surfaced materially that corroborates it.


Neither did it "make sense" to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc., in mass concentration camps, and it wasn't something widely known even in Germany until we invaded and forced German civilians living near them to come clean them out. And it certainly happened. Does it make sense to YOU that a government would do that to its own people?

Whether or not there is anything to physically corroborate it is something we are debating in this very thread. Just know that a LOT of people disagree, and those numbers only grow as government dissatisfaction grows, and it WILL grow, because our government (dominated by corporations, military/intelligence, and banks) is definitely not an entity anyone should be satisfied with anymore. They reveal their true colors more and more every day, which is waking people up to the fact that this isn't your grandfather's country anymore. They are all working against the interests of the average man, to get as much as they can out of him for their own personal benefit, just like so many corrupt governments of past ages. And they will continue to lie and mislead us until they are removed, one way or another.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just know that a LOT of people disagree, and those numbers only grow as government dissatisfaction grows, and it WILL grow, because our government (dominated by corporations, military/intelligence, and banks) is definitely not an entity anyone should be satisfied with anymore. They reveal their true colors more and more every day, which is waking people up to the fact that this isn't your grandfather's country anymore. They are all working against the interests of the average man, to get as much as they can out of him for their own personal benefit, just like so many corrupt governments of past ages. And they will continue to lie and mislead us until they are removed, one way or another.


The US government has been wrong and outright lied about many of things. Members of the Truth Movement have been wrong and outright lied about many things.

I've typed till my fingers bleed that I am not exonerating or defending the US admin or it's agencies.

But in this narrow focus aspect of 9/11 there is nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. The fact that there are more and more people who believe it and a sub-industry capitalizing on this does not change what happened.

Millions believe the US government has had contact with extraterrestrials and is concealing it. But only unreliable testimony and forged documentation supports this. A huge sub-industry has grown around this.

The wish to demonize the US government at every possible juncture has blinded many people. Find out what self-serving and corrupt activities they engage in, but don't blanketly assign every possible questionable event to some government conspiracy. That is all I say.

They may have secretly destroyed a lot of property on their own soil and elsewhere. With the WTC collapses, from a wealth of evidence it appears the planes flying into 2 of them was sufficient to bring those 3 buildings down. Reliable forensic evidence has supplied detailed specifics.

This does not stop those who choose to disbelieve and conmen who derive a livelihood out of promoting pseudoscience. The US government does not have a monopoly on misguided thinking and dishonesty.


Mike


[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]





new topics
top topics
 
218
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join