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.

 

Who defends the 911 comission/Nist report

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
"Find little to no fault", what makes you think that? And whats wrong with the engineers of engineers for 9/11 truth and other engineers? Only because a professional does not say anything either way does not mean he finds little to no fault with the NIST report.

It really just means that not every engineer in the world looked into 9/11. So where are the engineers and architects to back up NIST? Where are your experts? Defeaning silence. And NIST wasnt thousands. It is clear that not a scientific approach was used, but a political approach, to dig for soemthing to support a predetermined conclusion.

You are a conspiracy theorist. You talk like one, act like one, you seek to support a conspiracy theory with nothing at all, that is has a presidential seal makes no difference. You are the one twisting reality, in your mind its still 2001/02.

Also what do you mean by "them" . Apart from the fact that engineers and architects for 911 truth are not the only ones speaking out, what makes engineers and architects for 911 truth not credible? Not one of you delusional 911 deniers even attempted to elaborate on that. It is pretty clear that in 911 denier world anybody who finds reason to question the goverment sponsored comissions is a twoofie by default and can not be trusted.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Why should the world's engineers have to " look into 9/11 " ? Can't they just tell it was a cd by looking at it as so many on here can ?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Thousands of experts came out against the NIST report and the report compiled by the 911 comission.


Yes , yes they did ... out of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions ?) of qualified proffessionals who have not thrown common sense and intellect to the wind .

What about the scores of proffessionals from other countries , over whom the USG holds no sway ? How would jumping on some wild conspiracy bandwagon adversely affect their careers due to repercussions from a foreign government entity ? Can you explain that , in a legitimate manner ?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Well Herrit was Danish for one. So you do find experts and professionals in other countries who did come out against the NIST report. Only because somebody does not say anything either way does not mean he agrees with the NIST report by proxy. We can turn that around and say he agrees with firefightersfortruth, pilotsfortruth AEfor911truth.org and all the others by proxy.

Somebody not saying something either way means he did not look into the matter himself to a degree to pubicly contribute to the discourse.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



What if the government was duped?


Yes , as well as the intell agencies .

By a group of hardcore muslim extremists , who succeeded in hijacking commercial airliners and using them as weapons of mass destruction .

Hmmm , fancy that ... nothing like getting caught with your pants down ...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
All i have to do to remind myself the "official version" was a lie is watch the way building 7 collapses.

It is that simple.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Their other crazy claim, that there is some kind of conspiracy by those indipendent PH.Ds who spoke out


No , no conspiracy , just a lack of diligent unbiased research .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Herrit and Jones did find an explosive material.


Yea , shouldn't have required too much effort on their part to be able to find aluminum and rusty iron particles in the debris of buildings that were constructed of aluminum and iron . Imagine that .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BrainGarden
 



Massive steel reinforced structures


Please explain what you mean by "steel-reinforced" , and in reference to which buildings .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



can we conclude that at least in the educated world it is a small and exclusive club that gives the 911 comission report and the NIST report any credibility ...


No , we cannot conclude with such a premise , as the facts unequivocally prove otherwise .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



There is only one way all four outer walls can end up ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building.


No , this fallacy has been proven wrong to you in these threads more than once . You only persist in repeating this mantra due to a biased perception of reality .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



When you acquire a weapon of mass destruction you use it, you don't hold on to it


Really ? Someone should relay this to those entities who have sat on them for years .

What is the purpose of disarmament , if that is the case ?

Or , were you referring to the terrorists who acquired airplanes and used them as WMD ? In that case then , yes , you are correct . They used them immediately .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


What facts? I am not aware of any PH.Ds except for those who composed the NIST report to come out in defense of it. Most are staying away from the topic altoegether for political reasons.


There is only one way all four outer walls can end up ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building.


No , this fallacy has been proven wrong to you in these threads more than once . You only persist in repeating this mantra due to a biased perception of reality .

The scenario presented to achieve this without the use of CD has a very low chance of probability to occour. Even if it would have been theoretically possible you would have sooner won the lottery. There is a reason CD takes carefull planning and is not achived by random damage and fires.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



The conspiracy theory started soon after the attacks, with the MSM


Yes , of course , even my local newscasters were in on the cover-up . How silly of me to think otherwise ...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



while it is the uneducated and ignorant who clinge to the official conspiracy theory.


Yes , everyone who doesn't agree with you is "uneducated and ignorant" . Must be lonely there at the top , huh ?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
"Find little to no fault", what makes you think that? And whats wrong with the engineers of engineers for 9/11 truth and other engineers? Only because a professional does not say anything either way does not mean he finds little to no fault with the NIST report.

It really just means that not every engineer in the world looked into 9/11. So where are the engineers and architects to back up NIST? Where are your experts? Defeaning silence. And NIST wasnt thousands. It is clear that not a scientific approach was used, but a political approach, to dig for soemthing to support a predetermined conclusion.

You are a conspiracy theorist. You talk like one, act like one, you seek to support a conspiracy theory with nothing at all, that is has a presidential seal makes no difference. You are the one twisting reality, in your mind its still 2001/02.

Also what do you mean by "them" . Apart from the fact that engineers and architects for 911 truth are not the only ones speaking out, what makes engineers and architects for 911 truth not credible? Not one of you delusional 911 deniers even attempted to elaborate on that. It is pretty clear that in 911 denier world anybody who finds reason to question the goverment sponsored comissions is a twoofie by default and can not be trusted.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Have you ever actually looked through their list of "professionals"? I mean actually LOOKED?
a good 99% of the have little to no background required to make any statements about the WTCs and their collapses. Tell me, what specialty does a theologian, a history teacher, and an interior home designer, have (for example) to be able to comment on a building's collapse, and what is that worth in comparison to an actual demolition expert like the folks at Demolition World?

Also, I bet you didnt know that A&E4T used to let anyone sign up before getting hilareously punked. Lot's of people with Bachelor's degrees, or some "experience". But I can maybe count on one hand the number of people on that list that have valid background to be making any comment about the WTCs.

Have you ever heard of Anders Bjorkman? Ever seen his "professional" opinions?
sites.google.com...

Ah remember Richard "Boxboy" Gage? Yes very professional engineer, comparing the WTCs as boxes.
There is a reason why we call him "Boxboy".

Ah but dont take my word for it. Here is a site that breaksdown that list of "professionals".
ae911truth.info...

This site also goes well into whats wrong with the A&E4T as well:
ae911truth.info...

A word of advice. Just because someone has "engineer" in their title, doesnt mean squat. Just like how someone with "doctor" in their title doesn't mean anything unless its in a relevant field. A foot doctor is not trained like a doctor in brain surgery. A heart doctor is not qualified to do brain surgery.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Cassius666
 



while it is the uneducated and ignorant who clinge to the official conspiracy theory.


Yes , everyone who doesn't agree with you is "uneducated and ignorant" . Must be lonely there at the top , huh ?


I should have said uneducated and ignoreant when it comes to the subject at hand. Are you an architect? Is goodolddave one? Unless you tell me otherwise no and you are uneducated and ignorant regarding something you are trying to defend.

Many PH.Ds came out against the 9/11 comission and the NIST report. So far I am only aware of the defense of the uneducated and ignorant. Where are the PH.Ds defending the 9/11 comission report and the NIST report? Where are the PH.Ds debuking the work of Herrit and Jones?

So far only cashiers and burgerflippers "debating" them on conspiracy sites.


Originally posted by Cassius666


A word of advice. Just because someone has "engineer" in their title, doesnt mean squat. Just like how someone with "doctor" in their title doesn't mean anything unless its in a relevant field. A foot doctor is not trained like a doctor in brain surgery. A heart doctor is not qualified to do brain surgery.


All doctors in a healthcare field get a basic education, then they specialize at least it works that way here. With the many factors involved you would want a wide field of expertise. Herrit is a chemist for example.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Are you an architect?


Yes , albeit retired .



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I didn`t say ANY newscasters were in on anything.
I said the media were fed a story, which was relayed throughout America and the world.
There`s no investigative journalism in the MSM.
They all share the same stories and video etc.

The BBC reporting building 7 coming down before it did proves my point.
The reporter in New York and the guy back in London BOTH reported building seven collapsing at least 20 minutes before it came down.
That`s no accident......it was fed to them.
Why some people don`t see anything strange in that is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by okbmd
 


I didn`t say ANY newscasters were in on anything.
I said the media were fed a story, which was relayed throughout America and the world.
There`s no investigative journalism in the MSM.
They all share the same stories and video etc.

The BBC reporting building 7 coming down before it did proves my point.
The reporter in New York and the guy back in London BOTH reported building seven collapsing at least 20 minutes before it came down.
That`s no accident......it was fed to them.
Why some people don`t see anything strange in that is beyond me.


Yes the truly appaling thing is they reported that although the local reporter could clearly see that the building was still there (and the perplexed viewer although he wuld have to know what the solomon building looks like to be perplexed). It was quite apparent they reproduce anything that comes through the wire. Now to be fair they are the front end and read the news, they are not the ones who are supposed to do investigative journalism. But still the building was right there for her to see.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join