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.

 

Not one word: WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This is were my mind has been regarding the issues with 9/11 and the way our country handled the tragedy.


Not one word: WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report

On the First Page of the 9/11 Commission Report, paragraph four, quoted directly:



“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.”

www.9-11commission.gov...

Now they speak of law, yet what does the report state regarding the WTC 7 issue?


NOT ONE WORD!


Now the fact is, no matter what you believe the building, WTC 7 came down at 5:21:10 PM

Now where is the statement of this well known fact in the law driven Commission of 9/11?


Well?

This is a serious issue, not only does the Report omit this, but in Preface says the law that they must include this issue in the report and they don't! Thus making this report, biased and unworthy of being FACTUAL.


They broke they law, it even says that on the first page!

Now tell me what I am suppose to believe about 9/11!

If they cannot report what actually happened, then the report is not based upon anything other than a plan!

my 0.02




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
This is were my mind has been regarding the issues with 9/11 and the way our country handled the tragedy.


Not one word: WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report
Now tell me what I am suppose to believe about 9/11!

If they cannot report what actually happened, then the report is not based upon anything other than a plan!

my 0.02


WTC 7 wasn't as high a priority to the 9/11 commission as it is to you becuase it had been fully evacuated by the time it collapsed so noone was killed. There were only three people in the building when the North tower collapsed on it and they all survived, so WTC 7 became yet another building that was damaged/destroyed as a chain reaction of the towers' collpase on that day. On the other hand, the Marriot next door to the south tower suffered fatalities when it collapsed, and this WAS mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

Besides, The report didn't go into any detail on what caused the towers to collapse, either. The 9/11 commission report wasn't set up to document what happened to every nut, bolt, and toilet seat throughout the course of 9/11. It was to document who did it, how they got away with it, and our responses before and during the attack, as well as some recommendations. They left the technical analysis to other reports.

What benefit would it give you for the report to mention that an empty building collapsed and killed nobody, exactly?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
This is a serious issue, not only does the Report omit this, but in Preface says the law that they must include this issue in the report and they don't! Thus making this report, biased and unworthy of being FACTUAL.


They broke they law, it even says that on the first page!

Now tell me what I am suppose to believe about 9/11!

If they cannot report what actually happened, then the report is not based upon anything other than a plan!

my 0.02


The preface you posted includes no requirement to explain details about WTC7 and lack of inclusion does not make the rest of the report non-factual. Most of the listed requirements have nothing to do with explaining any of the building collapses. It seems your stance is quite a stretch.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Read what the preface states, that by law they are required to review the facts.

Meaning they need to report on what happened.

Facts are WTC 7 fell, and there is not a word mentioned about it.
Now why?

It has nothing to do with FATALITIES, at all.

Wouldn't the collapse of a 47 story building be an ISSUE? Definitely serves to be a fact, it did indeed COLLAPSE!

It has in my opinion to do with ommiting those things that cannot be answered, in direct correlation to the agenda. Because if they do, it will require a REAL investigation.

Which the 9/11 Commission was anything but.

So they leave it out.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It seems your stance is quite a stretch.



How is this stretch?? My stance is what they claim, this is not a thread about explosives, not a thread about no planes, not a thread about various myths.

This is about KNOWNS!


Facts of 9/11 WTC 7 fell at 5:21:10 PM

Preface states that that the FACTS OF 9/11 by law are required to be investigated!

There is 500 plus pages that no word is metion of wtc 7.

Thats ignoring facts.

Why would it be ok for them to OMIT this?

Which they state on the first page to be against the LAW!

[edit spelling added quote]



[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




WTC 7 wasn't as high a priority to the 9/11 commission as it is to you becuase it had been fully evacuated by the time it collapsed so none was killed.


This is intresteting that you believe that a 47 story building succumbing, no matter what way, isn't a HIGH priority!

All engineers throughout the world do believe this to be a HIGH priority! Because if buildings just start to fall,

ohh no biggy, that isn't a high priority!
what?


....sorry that doesn't make sense that the commission takes such stance, when it is their duty to report such huge issues with engineering, and safety to the american population.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability

How is this stretch?? My stance is what they claim, this is not a thread about explosives, not a thread about no planes, not a thread about various myths.


It's a stretch because you use the word "facts" to validate your desired requirement that it include details about the WTC7 collapse. The following listed details in the preface mention nothing about any building collapses whatsoever and mention a "sweeping mandate". Based on the listed details it should be clear that the mission was to find out what the hell happened and how to deal with preventing another one, not to explain the the details of each collapsed building.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
In that case, Facts are WTC 7 fell, and there is not a word mentioned about it.
Now why?

It has nothing to do with FATALITIES, at all.


Yes it does. The Commission report also didn't mention that the Verizon building to the west of WTC 7 and the US post office to the east of WTC 7 was smashed up by falling wreckage either, nor that a chunk of wreckage wound up sticking out of the side of a church several blocks away. Take a good guess why.

On the other hand, I can make a pretty good guess as to why YOU aren't mentioning it.


It has in my opinion to do with ommiting those things that cannot be answered, in direct correlation to the agenda. Because if they do, it will require a REAL investigation.

Which the 9/11 Commission was anything but.


All right, let me answer your question with another question- When, for instance, the commission report says NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact areas of the towers reported the support columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, how is this shown to be a lie from the report not mentioning the time that WTC 7 fell?

The report not mentioning one item doesn't mean the items it does mention are false.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


FACT the Verison building did NOT FALL to the ground!

THAT IS KNOWN...ok

We are talking about HUGE engineering issues here, not a building with debris, or even dead people for that matter.


FACT is WTC 7 no matter what way you look at it, should have been reported in the 9/11 Commission.


The report not mentioning one item doesn't mean the items it does mention are false.


ONE item, man, 47 story building is more than just an item!

In so many ways!


[it sure is amazing how fast a 9/11 topic is OT these days....]



[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Let me clarify my topic and thread:

This is about 9/11 Commission and the mentioning of WTC 7 in that report.


Please see OP

It is not about:

  • Firemen
  • Police Helicopters
  • or anything else beyond the scope of the OP


questions?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
This is intresteting that you believe that a 47 story building succumbing, no matter what way, isn't a HIGH priority!

All engineers throughout the world do believe this to be a HIGH priority! Because if buildings just start to fall,

ohh no biggy, that isn't a high priority!
what?


All right, if you're going to go that route, then may I ask why do you conspiracy people care more about empty buildings than you do human life? When the south tower fell, wreckage fell on the Mariott next door which killed people in the hotel. The 9/11 commission report documented that people were killed in the Mariott but I haven't seen boo mentioned in any of those conspiracy web sites you frequent. You're so wound up over a collapsing building that caused no fatalities and yet you don't give a flip about the people who died during the day.

So, you'll forgive me if I don't subscribe to the idea that the Commission should have seen the collapse of a pile of steel, drywall and glass as more important than a family somewhere instantly becoming fatherless.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


FACT the Verison building did NOT FALL to the ground!

THAT IS KNOWN...ok

We are talking about HUGE engineering issues here, not a building with debris, or even dead people for that matter.


No, *you* are talking about huge engineering issues. The 9/11 commission report was never set up to discuss any of the "huge engineering issues" of why any of the buildings collapsed. It was to document who did it, how they did it, and what the US was doing as they were doing it. They left the "huge engineering issues" for other reports to address (I.E. NIST and FEMA).

For most people, the understanding that massive mounts of wreckage from the north tower falling all over the place instigated the collapse of WTC 7 is sufficient. I don't know the exact physical progression of the sinking of the Titanic either but that doesn't mean it wasn't sunk by an iceberg.


FACT is WTC 7 no matter what way you look at it, should have been reported in the 9/11 Commission.


All right, fair enough. How does their not mentioning that WTC 7 collapsed matter in the least?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



All right, if you're going to go that route, then may I ask why do you conspiracy people care more about empty buildings than you do human life?


AS I stated this thread is about facts of 9/11.

We know that WTC 7 fell, as did WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Now out of three building that day, the 9/11 Commission Forgets 33.339% of the facts that day about buildings that fell.

THATS HUGE! You cannot deny this instance of issue with the 9/11 Commission, thats down right denial!

Forgeting to mention that third building defied engineering and architecture principles, is beyond my scope of believing!


It has nothing to do with the people that died, it has to do with responsibility of our government to do reporting based upon reality, not disposition that certifies agenda.

Which omitting the facts is all about!
If your so worried about those who died, then why accept a Commission report that is based upon, 66% of fact of building collapse that day?

So omission of this non-issue if I may quote you is acceptable?

how?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This isn't a conspiracy btw,

I have documented the issue and outlined the reason.

If facts are to be included in the 9/11 report, then WTC 7 must be mentioned.

Simple enough.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The Commission did a future specific investigation into WTC7 and only WTC7. It was released in 08 maybe? They said that corner support columns were crushed by debris and it caused the building to fall into itself.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

If facts are to be included in the 9/11 report, then WTC 7 must be mentioned.


There is no requirement for WTC7 to be mentioned.

That's why it's not there.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




There is no requirement for WTC7 to be mentioned.

That's why it's not there.


No requirment????
Why is it so hard to Comprehend the Preface of the 9/11 Commission?

If you read the Preface, it simply states that by LAW, Facts must be investigated.

The WTC 7 collapse is a fact, therefore by law, must be investigated.

Is that hard to comprehend?

I didn't write this, again read what I have posted, it most certianly does state that WTC 7 should be mentioned, as they who wrote the document says, by law!

No matter what you say, there is clear definement of what is to be included in the 9/11 Report...


...that is what happened, what was documented, seen and transmitted across the world.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

If you read the Preface, it simply states that by LAW, Facts must be investigated.


It does say that. Then it immediately details very specific areas which must be investigated. The collapse of WTC7 is not listed. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


There is no amount of symantecs that can change the meaning of the preface.

Omitting facts is called lying, distortion, falsification.

Choose whatever word you might, nevertheless: Facts are omitted and avoided, downright denied, that is the issue!

I comprehend that WTC 7 was not included very well. Hence the OP and thread at hand!



[edit spelling]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
and I quote....



The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

www.9-11commission.gov...




This was about the attacks, the planning, the players and the intel failures. NIST is the organization that was tasked with the structural investigation of why the buildings failed.

FEMA was there to clean up. Know the players and maybe that will help you figure out 9/11.

This gives you a list of what is in the report but I suggest you read it.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join