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.

 

Funny example of circular reasoning by NIST!

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...


While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
...but by the same logic, it means that NIST should have looked into the possibility that the towers were brought down by heat beams from Martian war machines. There was no evidence of Martian war machines in the vicinity, so it's a given that investigating whether the destructive effects we saw were from Martian war machines isn't goign to turn anything up.

There is no way, shape, or form, that anyone could plant secret controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without being seen, particularly when they were gigantic as the towers were...and there were TWO of them. It's like saying someone could put a second refrigerator in your kitchen without your noticing it. If you can't get past that, then the claims of controlled demolitions doesn't even get out of the gate, and thus, investigating pointless scenarios like controlled demolitions or heat beams from Martian war machines are pointless.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

There is no way, shape, or form, that anyone could plant secret controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without being seen, particularly when they were gigantic as the towers were...and there were TWO of them. It's like saying someone could put a second refrigerator in your kitchen without your noticing it. If you can't get past that, then the claims of controlled demolitions doesn't even get out of the gate, and thus, investigating pointless scenarios like controlled demolitions or heat beams from Martian war machines are pointless.


Not even close. There are so many holes in this type of argument that i am at a loss for words why you would even try it.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I find it decidedly interesting that this post is under staff scrutiny after one reply...

Kinda telling.

@goodoldave

...but by the same logic, it means that NIST should have looked into the possibility that the towers were brought down by heat beams from Martian war machines. There was no evidence of Martian war machines in the vicinity, so it's a given that investigating whether the destructive effects we saw were from Martian war machines isn't goign to turn anything up.


Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

You are missing OP's point.

OP is stateing that without looking for evidence of Explosives, (As NIST clearly states they did NOT do) it is immposible to assertain whether this evidence actually exists.

Me: "are their clouds in the sky?"

You: "I have seen no evidence of clouds!"

Me: "Did you even look outside to see if there were clouds?"

You: "There is no reason to look outside, I have seen no evidence of clouds."

Me: "Your not going to find evidence of clouds unless you look outside..."


There is no way, shape, or form, that anyone could plant secret controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without being seen


Logical Fallacy: False Attribution

You are... of course... Wrong.

I can prove this by citing the 1993 World trade center terrorist attacks, in which someone planted secret controlled explosives inside the very same building.

That is what is known, as Scientific, Peer reviewed proof that refutes your statement.

Do try harder next time, ok?


It's like saying someone could put a second refrigerator in your kitchen without your noticing it.


A: No, it's not...

B: Im pretty sure that you are not stareing at your refrigorator 24 hours a day, without sleep, work, going out to eat, etc...

It would be quite easy thing to do... get into your house without you knowing.

Otherwise... why would we have burgler alarms to place on our houses to prevent intruders if there is no possible way that someone can enter without our knowledge.

Your correlation is fallacious, and so very incorrect.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule


If you can't get past that, then the claims of controlled demolitions doesn't even get out of the gate


Well, Im glad we are past that then.


and thus, investigating pointless scenarios like controlled demolitions or heat beams from Martian war machines are pointless.


Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule...

You really are a one trick pony aren't you Dave...

And you used the word pointless in that sentence, Twice.


For Dramatic effect, I am sure.

-Edrick

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yeah, Dave, I agree. I could sit and watch your house and break in and mess with your refrigerator pretty easily if I really wanted. Or whatever other obstacles there are, you know they could be overcome. If not by me, then certainly by special forces/special operations.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Geeze Dave do you have any clue what logic is?

By law NIST was supposed to test for explosives, and by 'coincidence'
NIST was staffed by some of the foremost experts on nano-thermite and explosives in the entire world.

Was NIST Itself Directly Involved In The WTC Destruction?

And once again, why did NIST lie and say they found no trace of explosives, when they did not even look for explosives?

And why did NIST Lead Engineer John Gross lie and state there was no evidence of molten pools of metal under the WTC?

Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the most investigators to the NIST WTC investigation.

SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites.

Was NIST itself directly involved in the deliberate destruction of the World Trade Center?

SAIC was also the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing. So Dave, do you have a personal reason why you are so committed to defending NIST, knowing that they have deliberately lied to the American people? You did know that NIST works for us, didn't you Dave?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

posted by GoodOlDave

There is no way, shape, or form, that anyone could plant secret controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without being seen, particularly when they were gigantic as the towers were...and there were TWO of them.


Gee Dave this guy got in with a security pass. As far as you know, hundreds of people had these 'special' security passes.

Who Signed Sakher Hammad's WTC Basement Level Pass?

If security was compromised, it would be easy to plant explosives and nano-thermite wouldn't it Dave? If they had security passes and if they had security guards with them, then who would care if they were seen?

Maybe Turner Construction had some 'special' security passes and planted your explosives which you claim in no way, shape, or form, could be planted.

Turner Construction working on WTC Renovations prior to 9-11?

Lucky for you that the experts in explosives and nano-thermite technology working for NIST decided not to test; right Dave?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...


While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.


NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….


What a can of worms you have opened for the gl tail chasing puppies here bouts.
I can see it now. Like watching a squirrel chasing his tail while he is riding on a high speed merry-go-round.
I am blowing a kiss to Jennifer this moment.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The tenacity of certain posters who hang on to the Official Fairytale no matter how ridiculous it becomes is truly extraordinary.

The most obvious riposte to the argument that "it would be wasting effort to test for something that's not there" is that, at the very least, you're eliminating a possibility. Not a waste of effort, rather a sensible MO.

As for the ludicrous Martian War Machines... no, there's no evidence for them. But there IS evidence for explosives, and if someone can't or won't see it, one is forced to wonder whether that person is being paid or merely has a pathological need to defend their government.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

You are missing OP's point.

OP is stateing that without looking for evidence of Explosives, (As NIST clearly states they did NOT do) it is immposible to assertain whether this evidence actually exists.


Who told you that? Unless these are some super alien explosives from the planet Nudnik, you wouldn't need to look under rocks and use microscopes to find any evidence of explosives. They'd necessarily have to follow the laws of physics that all other explosives would need to do, and that means leaving behind blatantly obvious evidence of explosives I.E. blast marks on the steel, significant damage to areas that would be surrounding the steel, and so on. What, do you think the Nazis needed to analyze chunks of blown up masonry under a microscope to learn whether airplanes had dropped bombs on their buildings?

It isn't particilarly hard to find photographs of the structural steel floating around the internet. They were almost certainlt taken by Joel Meyerowitz, a NYC photographer who documented the cleanup of ground zero, and you can see right away there is NO EVIDENCE OF BLAST MARKS WHA?TSOEVER on any of the photos he took. They were either snapped like a twigor bent in ghastly angles before being ripped apart like paper.



Me: "are their clouds in the sky?"

You: "I have seen no evidence of clouds!"

Me: "Did you even look outside to see if there were clouds?"

You: "There is no reason to look outside, I have seen no evidence of clouds."


Bad logic. We know for a fact that clouds are in the sky as we have all seen clouds in the sky, at one point or another. What evidence do you have that any operation in the past was able to successfully plant controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without any of the occupants noticing?

After all, it's your side who says it's impossible for fires to bring down steel buildings becuase it never happened in the past, so the same logic would necessarily have to apply to anyone being able to plant secret explosives in a building without anyone noticing, RIGHT???



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

posted by GoodOlDave

Bad logic.



Damage Control Dave hard at it again and using your finest expertise?


posted by GoodOlDave

It isn't particilarly hard to find photographs of the structural steel floating around the internet.

bent in ghastly angles



Funny you should mention that Dave.

This WTC structural steel photo has been floating around the internet hasn't it?

Steel Beam Bent Like A Horsehoe From Extreme WTC Heat

And of course we all know that it would have taken thousands of degrees for hours and hours to bend this 8-ton strucural steel column into a horseshoe shape without tearing and cracking and buckling the steel.

Correct Dave?




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

And of course we all know that it would have taken thousands of degrees for hours and hours to bend this 8-ton strucural steel column into a horseshoe shape without tearing and cracking and buckling the steel.

Correct Dave?


This question cannot be answered by the insignificant information you present. The bend in the metal shows no signs of discoloration from heat, meaning that the major clue that shows what happened to it would be at the ends, where the steel was being held in place as it was being bent, which your video doesn't show with any usable detail. For example, if the ends showed that the steel had been torn like a piece of paper, then it'd be obvious the steel was bent from massive forces bearing down upon it. On the other hand, if the steel was all sloppy/messy and all melty, it would have supported the claim of thermite.

As it stands, your video really doesn't support anything.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


There was zero probable cause. There was zero indication. There was zero reason to go looking for evidence of explosives. The buildings were witnessed by thousands and millions of persons being struck by huge, fuel laden planes moving at approx. 65% of the speed of sound resulting in enormous amounts of structural damage and then consequently subjected to intense fires.

Then they fell down.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The probable cause and indication that explosives could have been used, is that those three steel high-rises are the first in history to collapse due to "fire".



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360
The probable cause and indication that explosives could have been used, is that those three steel high-rises are the first in history to collapse due to "fire".


...which is offset by the fact that these would have been the first high-rises in history where controlled demolitions were planted in occupied buildings without any of the occupants noticing. So, your probable cause still goes back to zero.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360
reply to post by hooper
 


The probable cause and indication that explosives could have been used, is that those three steel high-rises are the first in history to collapse due to "fire".


If I am not mistaken, and you can correct me on this, these were the first high rise buildings wherein the fires were started by having huge passenger jets explode inside them.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join