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.

 

A Question of Accuracy in FEMA Reports

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Lately I have been consistantly quized about the reliability of the data I bring to the table regarding the 9/11 issues. I agree that I need to be kept on my toes about my stance.

Yet what I don't understand is how questioning my sources is regarded as due process, no one seems to look at the validity of reporting on the MSM side.

I have one example that stands out and suffices to say that no offical stance will include any truth about 9/11 in any report.

Here let me explain:

The FEMA Report Here

On page two states this about the ACCURACY and RESPONSIBILITY of the the reports FEMA and the US Government release.


"The statements and recomendations in this report are those of the individual team members and do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations they belong to, The U.S. Government ,FEMA and other Federal agencies in paticular. The U.S. Government, FEMA, and other Federal agencies assume no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information herein."



In other words These agencies Do Not Care if complete, accurate reporting is accomplish with 9/11 and reports released.

Amazing.....


[edit on 24-4-2010 by theability]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
That's about the same thing with the NIST report. They have disclaimers that say that NIST could not verify many things and had to pretty much guess or do their own tests and calculations. For example, they had to guess how many core columns were damaged from the plane impacts because there's no possible way to know for sure. But on that subject, they changed their numbers at least once to fit their agenda.

Although there may be some truths or accuracies in the NIST and FEMA reports, neither can be relied upon as definitive proof of what happened on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Although there may be some truths or accuracies in the NIST and FEMA reports, neither can be relied upon as definitive proof of what happened on 9/11.



Well Said!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability

"The statements and recomendations in this report are those of the individual team members and do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations they belong to, The U.S. Government ,FEMA and other Federal agencies in paticular. The U.S. Government, FEMA, and other Federal agencies assume no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information herein."



In other words These agencies Do Not Care if complete, accurate reporting is accomplish with 9/11 and reports released.


Now this is REALLY grasping, even for you conspiracy people. That prelude is standard boilerplate disclaimer which appears on pretty much ever publication there is. It's to protect the group as a whole in the event one of the members manages to insert his own personal opinions unrelated to the report material (I.E. anti-Muslim bias), and it was almost certainly put there by the publishers, rather than the writers.

If you ask me, instead of griping about it, you conspiracy people ought to be adopting this disclaimer as well. That way, you controlled demolitions people won't be associated the "no planers", the "nukers" and the "pod people" that make the rest of you look like crackpots by association.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you ask me, instead of griping about it, you conspiracy people ought to be adopting this disclaimer as well. That way, you controlled demolitions people won't be associated the "no planers", the "nukers" and the "pod people" that make the rest of you look like crackpots by association.

We already have. Perhaps you've missed my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's about the same thing with the NIST report. They have disclaimers that say that NIST could not verify many things and had to pretty much guess or do their own tests and calculations. For example, they had to guess how many core columns were damaged from the plane impacts because there's no possible way to know for sure. But on that subject, they changed their numbers at least once to fit their agenda.


I suppose I could agree that some educational guesswork appeared in the NIST report, but then again, it goes without saying that the core columns actually were damaged, as the emergency stairwells were in the core along with the columns and the plane impact destroyed the emergency stairwells and trapped the peopel to their fate. The destruction/damage of one necessarily means destuction/damage of the other due to their proximity to each other.

I don't have to tell you that argung over exactly how many columns had been damaged by the impact is being rather pedantic, since if even ONE column had been destroyed by the impact, it necessarily means the impact did in fact have the ability to bring the towers down and the NIST account is correct after all. This tact smacks of an exasperation to push your own agenda out against the body of evidence that shows it to be nonsense, more than it does anything else.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The destruction/damage of one necessarily means destuction/damage of the other due to their proximity to each other.

That is a 100% false assertion:





See all the open spaces between the columns? 300,000 pounds of aircraft traveling circa 500mph would have no problem getting plenty of debris through those spaces in between the columns. The walls of the stairwells were not very strong nor made to resist such impacts, so the debris would have had no problem penetrating the walls and causing debris to pile up in the stairwells.

Aircraft debris getting through the spaces of the core columns and penetrating the stairwells is absolutely not dependent and far from related to any core columns being damaged.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't have to tell you that argung over exactly how many columns had been damaged by the impact is being rather pedantic, since if even ONE column had been destroyed by the impact, it necessarily means the impact did in fact have the ability to bring the towers down and the NIST account is correct after all.

And now one can see that it's no wonders that you believe the impacts could actually bring those towers down. You are of the logic that the structures were frail and could collapse from any loss of structural integrity. Steel-structured highrises are built to resist collapse and to stand tall and strong. Most buildings like the WTC were over-built to resist collapse even with a considerable amount of structural integrity taken away.

And thus we are now at the crux of the whole argument. On one hand, we have a handful (or two) of structural engineers and scientists who think the structures were frail and that a small amount of structural integrity taken away with some office fires could bring 3 buildings down on 9/11 and 9/11 only.

Then on the other hand, we have thousands of architects, engineers, scientists and physicists from all around the world that beg to differ. Because they know how strong steel-structured highrises are built and that no fires have ever brought these steel-structured highrises to the ground in history before 9/11 or after.

And in fact, there are a significant more professionals that have come out against the official conspiracy theory than have came out to support it. And one could say that all the schools teaching these professionals that have come out against the official conspiracy theory might have just had bad education, but that would be quite a leap, wouldn't it? Especially if two people from different sides of the fence were from the same school?

The stairwells being blocked from debris had absolutely no relation to how bad the core columns were damaged or how many. Especially when the only parts of a jetliner that could actually have damaged the core columns were the engines and landing gear at that speed.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

See all the open spaces between the columns? 300,000 pounds of aircraft traveling circa 500mph would have no problem getting plenty of debris through those spaces in between the columns. The walls of the stairwells were not very strong nor made to resist such impacts, so the debris would have had no problem penetrating the walls and causing debris to pile up in the stairwells.


That would be true, presuming you were talking about mosquitos trying to slip through a window screen to get at the people behind it...but you're not. You're talkign about aircraft wreckage travelling at ~500mph, and it isn't going to twist and dodge in between the structural supports tryign to get at the stairwells. It's going to mindlessly smash up everything in between it and the stairwells, up to and including the support braces and columns. The whole reason why wreckage would be going through the empty spaces beyond the structural supports is becuase the wreckage was first broken up from hitting the structural supports to begin with. It is not for debate that the structural supports were damaged. The debate is whether they received enough damage to cause the collapse we all saw.

To me, your bickering over exactly how many columns were damaged and over the exact extent of the damage smacks of an agenda to shove your conspiracy stories back into the mix via whatever crack or crevice you can find, rather than out of any true desire to learn the facts behind the events of 9/11. You might as well be arguing over the exact number of rivets that were popped out of the hull of the Titanic when the iceberg hit it.




Then on the other hand, we have thousands of architects, engineers, scientists and physicists from all around the world that beg to differ. Because they know how strong steel-structured highrises are built and that no fires have ever brought these steel-structured highrises to the ground in history before 9/11 or after.


But to your lament, these professionals include the likes of physicist and materials engineer Dr. Judy Wood, whose research concludes the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Such people aren't using their expertise to derive a legitimate answer from the available facts. Such people are coming up with their own personal crackpot fantasies beforehand and they're using their expertise to give their crackpot fantasies false credibility. I've seen you tangle with such people yourself and you certainly know that already, so you'll forgive me when I say I'm not impressed.

Besides, using your own logic, this would likewise be the first time in history before or after 9/11 that secret agents had successfully sneaked into an occupied skyscraper and secretly planted hidden demolitions without the occupants noticing, and yet that doesn't stop you from subscribing to the idea. It seems to me that you're picking and choosing logical fallacies as it suits your purpose.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



...it goes without saying that the core columns actually were damaged...


They were damaged, how do you know, were you there? DID you see the damage with your own eyes?



See this is what I am getting at, your using documents from sources that claim accuracy isn't an issue then you claim the sources you have are valid!

Now thats not a conspiracy is it!

accurate
–adjective
1.free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2.careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.


So where now is free from error MSM offical report?

Hint there isn't one!


[edit on 26-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
They were damaged, how do you know, were you there? DID you see the damage with your own eyes?


No, I am going by the fact that when an unstoppable object comes into contact with an unmovable object, one or the other will turn out to be misepresenting itself.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




No, I am going by the fact that when an unstoppable object comes into contact with an unmovable object, one or the other will turn out to be misepresenting itself.


So again, you are basing you assumptions on reports that are stated to be INACCURATE!

Thanks that is all I needed to know!

Again, the whole MSM BS is everywhere and is you do read the fine print even the government says the reports are innaccurate!





[edit on 26-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
So again, you are basing you assumptions on reports that are stated to be INACCURATE!

Thanks that is all I needed to know!


If you're attempting to argue symantecs here, then allow me to put an end to it here and now- "inaccurate" does not mean the same thing as, "as accurate as they are able to make it". The former means just plain wrong, and the latter means they did the best they could to weed out all the things they knew were wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


My bad on symantecs, my apology.

Were I was trying to go with that, was:

How am I suppose to believe the goverment and their sources, when they say right away that reporting accurate information regarding the investigation isn't a top priority.

The note they put in the performace study should say something like:
WE did everything to make sure the facts and accurate information is contained within all pages following...


right?




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's going to mindlessly smash up everything in between it and the stairwells, up to and including the support braces and columns.

And we're still at the crux of the argument that you don't seem to understand. You must really have no idea how soft and fragile aluminum is when it comes in contact with steel.

The aluminum fuselage, wings, etc, of those planes would not do any significant structural damage to the core columns of either building. As I've said before and will continue to say, the only parts of those planes that could do any significant damage to the core columns were the engines and landing gear because none of those are soft, fragile aluminum.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The whole reason why wreckage would be going through the empty spaces beyond the structural supports is becuase the wreckage was first broken up from hitting the structural supports to begin with.

See, you're getting it here, but not above. Yes, the aluminum would have been shredded to pieces from impacting the core columns, allowing those pieces to slip right through the spaces between the core columns with ease and take out the walls of stairwells.

I guess until you learn how soft and fragile aluminum is, and especially against the massive steel supports of the cores of the WTC, then I guess you won't be able to understand that there was very little damage done to the core columns and that there is no possible way those buildings could have fallen from the impacts and fires. And thus you will continue to give credence to the official conspiracy theory with no proof other than their word and your understanding of things.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

And we're still at the crux of the argument that you don't seem to understand. You must really have no idea how soft and fragile aluminum is when it comes in contact with steel.


If this is genuinely your position then you might as well throw your lot in with the "no planers" now, since the exterior perimeter of the building was made up of a series of prefab welded plates made up of structural steel 1'x1' columns with a pressure resistance of up to 100 KSI, and the "soft and fragile aluminum" travelling 400MPH was still able to punch a hole through it.


I guess until you learn how soft and fragile aluminum is, and especially against the massive steel supports of the cores of the WTC, then I guess you won't be able to understand that there was very little damage done to the core columns and that there is no possible way those buildings could have fallen from the impacts and fires. And thus you will continue to give credence to the official conspiracy theory with no proof other than their word and your understanding of things.


Of course, this whole "soft and fragile aluminum" bit is nothing but a strawman argument to begin with, as the FEMA report never says it was the physical damage from the impact that caused the towers to fall. They even acknowledge that even if there was damage to the columns, the intact columns were close to, but did not reach, their maximum load. It was the fires from the fuel and the flammable office contents that caused deformation of the steel and instigated a chain reaction of structural failure. The second chapter of the report goes into all that so I won't repeat it here. The "soft aluminum vs structural steel" argument is coming entirely from you.

It seems to me that you conspiracy people uniformly have this incessant need to misrepresent everything you touch, and it's little wonder why- the only way you can convince anyone of your "controlled demolitions" position to begin with is to manipulate the facts to your liking. You complain that the FEMA report has too many gaps and inconsistancies and yet you turn around and offer an explanation that contains even worse gaps and inconsistancies. You can't tell me that there isn't an agenda involved here.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



You can't tell me that there isn't an agenda involved here.


Your right there is an agenda, The Agenda to hide the Truth!

See this is a pittful example: Since we all saw planes there is no need to investigate why the buildings fell. Hmmm.

Plane strikes building buildings fall we have our Investigation!

Wow now I can clearly see the Agenda! Lets not include facts in our reports, since if we do our strawman argument of why we invaded two countries will be EXPOSED!




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Your right there is an agenda, The Agenda to hide the Truth!


I agree- the motive of the conspiracy mongers IS to hide the truth. Their agenda isn't to learn the facts of 9/11, since their outright manipulation and deliberate misinterpretation of the truth (I.E. "no planes were scrambled", "military was told to stand down" etc) is self evident. Their agenda is to get people to believe some secret conspiracy is at work here regardless of what the facts actually are.

I find it ironic that people like Bonez will protest against this observation with umbrage, and then turn around and come down on some poster claiming there were secret nukes planted in the basement. Actions really do speak louder than words.


See this is a pittful example: Since we all saw planes there is no need to investigate why the buildings fell. Hmmm.


In case you missed it, the OP posted a link to the FEMa investigation, so it's disingenuous to say "there were no investigations". The problem is that you don't want to accept them because the results of the investigation don't conform to these conspiracy stories of yours. This is why you people will bicker over every nut, bolt, and how many toilet seats were up vs how many were down in the FEMA report, and yet you support these conspiracy stories that are so vague and full of holes that you could drive a truck through.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists would only hold your own conspiracy theories up to the exact same stringent level of critical analysis that you do the commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




I agree- the motive of the conspiracy mongers IS to hide the truth.


This isn't a conspiracy, seriously. The matter is that the govenment had ALL THE ANSWERES immediately! That cannot happen unless you have a script.

That is the issue, not truther, or birthers or etc. You can keep blithely clinging to your MSM side all you wish to, it doesn't change the facts that NO investigation has been adequately done yet to date.

Imagine how that works for the MSM lies!

You can't have answers before an investigation, sorry.

Again to have answers one must search for them....

Sorry I do not agree with you!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the "soft and fragile aluminum" travelling 400MPH was still able to punch a hole through it.

No holes were punched in any of the outer columns, nor were any of the outer columns severed. The bolts and welds connecting the outer columns are the only thing that failed on the outer columns.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It was the fires from the fuel and the flammable office contents that caused deformation of the steel and instigated a chain reaction of structural failure. The second chapter of the report goes into all that so I won't repeat it here. The "soft aluminum vs structural steel" argument is coming entirely from you.

Actually, it's not. It's coming from you debunkers. Every time we bring up the fact the no steel structured highrise has collapsed from fire, debunkers keep bringing up the argument that the structure was severely damaged from the impacts and in conjunction with the fires is what caused collapse, and that is also false.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

This isn't a conspiracy, seriously. The matter is that the govenment had ALL THE ANSWERES immediately! That cannot happen unless you have a script.


This is deliberate bait and switch. You were talking about the investigation on how the towers fell, not the investigation on how they determined the attack was committed by Al Qaida. The investigation on how the towers fell took some nine months while the NIST report on WTC 7 took three years, so this was hardly "having the answers immediately"


That is the issue, not truther, or birthers or etc. You can keep blithely clinging to your MSM side all you wish to, it doesn't change the facts that NO investigation has been adequately done yet to date.


Before you continue, what say you explain what investigation, precisely, that you're referring to, and how you think said investigation "hasn't been adequately done".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join