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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
They could not answer every possible outstanding question and no body ever will.
They answered most questions, what they tried to.
NIST was not tasked to counter every conspiracy theory possible.
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?
Originally posted by mmiichael
That's your opinion. I think they did a satisfactory job.
Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by wtc_wtf
I already posted this once
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.
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]
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.
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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Substantiated by evidence for people demonstrating objective knowledge of the disciplines involved.
You refuse to answer the simplest question - why blow up destroyed buildings? Because there is no answer.
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.
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?
Originally posted by mmiichael
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.
It doesn't make sense and nothing has ever surfaced materially that corroborates it.
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.