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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Have to agree with you, by not mentioning that building it is not telling a full story.

Its called the 9/11 commission report, so surely it must report what actually happened in full on that day.


These reports and the like are what will be remembered throughout history. Once governments get censorship over the internet, (you cant deny they are not trying to) who knows what content future generations will be allowed to read and view or not to as maybe the case.


History has a funny way of changing itself over time, its not the people taking part that write it, its the people in charge.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Horus12]




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


and I quote...rotf


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.


A complete account, right?


BTW I have the link to the Commission page at the OP of this thread!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Horus12
 



Have to agree with you, by not mentioning that building it is not telling a full story.

Its called the 9/11 commission report, so surely it must report what actually happened in full on that day.

These reports and the like are what will be remembered throughout history. Once governments get censorship over the internet, (you cant deny they are not trying to) who knows what content future generations will be allowed to read and view or not to as maybe the case.

History has a funny way of changing itself over time, its not the people taking part that write it, its the people in charge.



Well said, thank you!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Please drummer, I don't do anything here! So please stop the finger pointing.

The Preface again says this:

"Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2000,” 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.”


I have not done anything except QUOTE the Government, this has nothing to do with me.

...enough said about that...





posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




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


Again, that's a major stretch and a pretty lame argument. By that logic, if the report also did not list the names of every victim, their birthdates, annual income, surviving family and mother's maiden names, technically there are "facts" omitted.

Following the word "facts", the preface listed clear directives. Building collapses were not in the directives. Therefore, expecting WTC7 to be present is in error and claiming intentional deception on that basis is a fallacious argument. Nice try though.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I have presented a very logical debate, in which you wish to continue to see otherwise.

We disagree.

If you have something to bring to the table to discuss with the thread at hand please do so, otherwise,

I disagree with you, good day!




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I have presented a very logical debate


Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.



I rest my case.

as I stated earlier:


I have presented a very logical debate, in which you wish to continue to see otherwise.

We disagree.

If you have something to bring to the table to discuss with the thread at hand please do so, otherwise,

I disagree with you, good day!



or as most have come to say, don't feed the trolls!




[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The reason why WTC 7 was left out of the 911-commission report was our government blew up the WTC 7, in their false flag operation of shock and awe, into deceiving the American people. The 911 commissionaires could not think up a good enough lie to try to cover up the government treasonous crime. The commissionaires could not come up with a lie to explain why the WTC 7 fell in a few seconds, or how every floor simultaneously broke away from every corner simultaneously, and landed perfectly in it’s own footprint.
The 911 commissionaires knew there were only a few small fires on some of the floors and photos prove this, and certainly not enough to bring down the 47 story building.

Some of the OS believers will try to convince you all, that part of the north or south tower fell on WTC 7, and the problem with this fallacy is they cannot prove it.
There are no clear photos showing any significant damaged of any large gash into the WTC 7. The only photo I have ever seen that the OS believers will try to convince you to is there is one photo of WTC 7 that has an “unexplainable” shadow and that is all it is, a shadow. It does not prove a thing, sure the OS believers have there “opinions” but no tangible credible facts that can back up any proof that this shadow is a gash. The OS believers can argue until the cows come home but they cannot prove a thing but only give their opinions.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Reason WTC 7 was not mentioned is simple - the mandate of the 911
Commission was to investigate how the terrorists were able to
enter the country. receive flight training, board airliners and then hijack
and fly said airliners into buildings.

WTC 7 WAS COLLATERAL DAMAGE - smashed and set on fire by collapse of WTC 1 . It was not like other buildings (WTC 1, WTC 2, Pentagon
and presumably either White House or Capitol) directly targeted.

I notice WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) was also not considered either - it too was collateral damage destroyed when WTC 2 and WTC 1 fell on it

Unlike WTC 7 several dozen people (including many FDNY members)
were killed there.

So why not "investigate" WTC 3

Just another pathetic truther lie......



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Just another pathetic truther lie......



This is a quote from a government document, what does it have to do with truther lies?







posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 





“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.”


I dont see anything here about "investigating" reason all the buildings at
WTC collapsed - refers to intelligence, law enforcement, immigration,
aviation. Nothing about investigating WTC 7....

Lie comes in when you post crap and claim something its not ....



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Only in America can a 47 storey building collapse in its own footprint, with all the earmarks of a controlled demolition, a building housing some very sensitive Government offices including the US Secret Services and NY Emergency Management and the CIA and the Dept. of Defence and nobody even gives it a second glance....

The fact that "good ole dave" and Co. see nothing amiss in this speaks volumes for their gullibility...

Nobody bothered to investigate ...NOBODY!!

No plane hit it...none...yet, after some low level fires, the building "collapsed".....the first time in World History that this has happened...ever.No building before or after WTC 7 has suffered the same fate...ever.

Any you want me to believe there's nothing to see and I should move on....??

Can you not see how ridiculous that is??

How ridiculous that you should defend this position??

How you clearly have an agenda by attempting to defend the Tripe that is the Official Story of WTC 7...

Remember...the BBC told us it had been demolished 20 minutes before it happened, with the building peeping at us over her shoulder as she spoke...!!

No conspiracy??

You need to take a good look in the mirror boys....you seem awfully concerned about the OP's sentiments and his "errors"...maybe you need to go and re-think your own arguments.

His made sense...

Yours does not...


JEEZ....



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


As has been pointed out in various posts on this thread, the commission report was never intended to cover a detailed asssessment of building damage. WTC 7 had its own discrete NIST report so it is untrue to say it has been ignored, the op is just insisting on looking for it in the wrong place.

So far as the BBC prematurely reporting the collapse of WTC 7 is concerned, I cannot believe that this keeps cropping up. Can anyone seriously believe that the supposed evil perps gave a foreign news outlet a script as to how everything was going to go down ? Even if you can swallow that, how could anyone beforehand predict that WTC 7 would be struck by falling debris and fires ignited, would burn for hours, would lean, bulge and creak but still go down at a precise time ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

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


Maybe I can help. Building 7 was not attacked.
Let´s put it this way.
The 9/11 commission had to report on the attacks.
How were they carried out??
Who did them??
What was attacked??
4 commercial flights.
WTC towers 1 and 2.
The Pentagon.
What can be done to stop this kind of thing from happening??
That´s it. The rest falls into a different kind of investigation covered later by other instances.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
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.


Where did you get the idea the commission report was a report about buildings that fell? I said several times the report was to cover who committed the attack, how they got away with it, and what our response was before and during the attack. It was to document the attack, not to document what happened to every building in Manhattan during the attack. They didn't document the fire engines being crushed by falling wreckage for the same reason.

...and you still didn't answer the question- all right, the commission report didn't mention WTC 7. So what?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and you still didn't answer the question- all right, the commission report didn't mention WTC 7. So what?


This guy thinks he can shoehorn in WTC7 based on the word "facts" in the preface. He considers this a "logical debate" but refuses to discuss the obvious fallacy when presented to him. This person is clearly incapable of critical thinking skills.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
This guy thinks he can shoehorn in WTC7 based on the word "facts" in the preface. He considers this a "logical debate" but refuses to discuss the obvious fallacy when presented to him. This person is clearly incapable of critical thinking skills.


It's not that he's incapable of critical thinking. It's just that he's been given a steady diet of NO PLANE HIT WTC 7 from these damned fool conspiracy web sites that he's been conditioned to believe the collapse of WTC 7 is of some great and critical importance to the events of 9/11, when in actuality, it's a side issue. None of the planes hit WTC 7 and noone died in WTC 7 when it was hit by falling debris or when it collapsed so the importance of WTC 7 is really just a a side issue in a report meant to document who was behind the attack and how the US responded throughout the day.

If the report was titled "Report on terrorist attacks upon the United States (and list of everything that was damaged during the attack)" he would have had a point.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If the report was titled "Report on terrorist attacks upon the United States (and list of everything that was damaged during the attack)" he would have had a point.


Agreed. But the fact that this guy believes he has a great point and has presented a "logical debate" on such a basis still makes me question his ability to think critically and objectively. This has to be up there with some of the worst of the 911 conspiracy arguments.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Agreed. But the fact that this guy believes he has a great point and has presented a "logical debate" on such a basis still makes me question his ability to think critically and objectively. This has to be up there with some of the worst of the 911 conspiracy arguments.


LOL I'd have to give that title to the claim the attack was staged by shape shifting aliens as a science experiment to see how we humans would react. The attack being staged by a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists comes in as a close second.

These 9/11 conspiracies are more of a Rorschach test that exposes how these conspiracy people tick, than they are anything else.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join