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.

 

Did Journalist Christopher Bollyn Solve 9-11?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, I would call it what it's actually called- the 9/11 Commission report.

So, what I call, the 'Official Account', you call the 911 Commission Report? What happened to NIST and FEMA?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
That way, I'd know that you actually read the thing and actually know what the supposed falsehoods actually are before you accuse it of being full of falsehoods. I can then look up the bibliography and see precisely which one of the witnesses you're accusing of being a liar.


Actually, I have read the report, but I'm afraid I am not in a position to know specifically who is lying and about what. However, people far better qualified than I (and, I suspect, you), have claimed the report is based, at least in part, on lies or misleading statements from some government officials.

Take John Farmer, for example, Senior Counsel to the Commission... he is quoted as saying that the Commission...



...discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue


And then there's the Chairman of the Commission, Thomas Kean, who said:



We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth


Anyway, let's just stop with this silly game of semantics - the labelling of the body of evidence presented by the Commission and various government agencies, such as NIST and FEMA does amount to an 'Official Account'. If you still don't accept this, then please give me a proper alternative term... one that respects the fact not everyone agrees that events unfolded in the way the 911 Commission Report, for example, says they did.

And, given the fact the damn thing was based, in part, on lies, this should be an easy thing for any reasonable person to respect.
edit on 23-5-2011 by coughymachine because: fix tags

edit on 23-5-2011 by coughymachine because: spelling




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 
Well done, Coughy. Dave's not sure what he believes, I believe. Defending the in-defensible has got to be hard as hell, and since he's been unable to explain why he tries so hard to polish the turd OS, I pity the twit. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive. Fire up a big fatty Dave, and loosen up a bit you 'Damn Fool'



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


And...a very well said to you too...
Hopefully your post doesnt get deleted.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Thanks! It seems this group can say anything they want, without fear of censorship. On the other hand, some of my best stuff has been slashed within minutes of posting. But that's OK, because the truth has a way of finding it's way in spite of these guys.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, I would call it what it's actually called- the 9/11 Commission report.

So, what I call, the 'Official Account', you call the 911 Commission Report? What happened to NIST and FEMA?


NIST and FEMA were set up to address why/how the towers collapsed, and had nothing to do with documenting the attack itself. The 9/11 commission was set up to document the attack itself and had nothing to do with addressing why/how the towers collapsed. You cannot accuse the 9/11 report for lying about three story tall bulges in the side of WTC 7 any more than you can accuse the NIST report of lying about German intelligence observing Mohammed Atta meeting with Al Qaida agents while in Hamburg. Plius, you can't even say the NIST report is "official" since it said on page one that it was a hypothesis and shouldn't be considered gospel.


Actually, I have read the report, but I'm afraid I am not in a position to know specifically who is lying and about what. However, people far better qualified than I (and, I suspect, you), have claimed the report is based, at least in part, on lies or misleading statements from some government officials.

Take John Farmer, for example, Senior Counsel to the Commission... he is quoted as saying that the Commission... [etc etc etc]


...and as I posted in that other thread, you (or to be more precise, the damned fool conspiracy web site you're getting this bit from) are deliberately quoting that Washington Times article out of context. The full article shows there had been massive coverups of gov't bungling and mismanagement (I.E. chasing a ghost flight 11 long after the planes already impacted the towers) so this only proves my assertion the attack succeeded because of sheer incompetence on the gov'ts part, and only disproves your claims of sinister secret conspiracies to stage false terrorist attacks.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, BTW. I'll be sure to catalog it for the next time someone tries to pull that stunt.



Anyway, let's just stop with this silly game of semantics - the labelling of the body of evidence presented by the Commission and various government agencies, such as NIST and FEMA does amount to an 'Official Account'. If you still don't accept this, then please give me a proper alternative term... one that respects the fact not everyone agrees that events unfolded in the way the 911 Commission Report, for example, says they did.


One question before I do- is the Perdue study that explored the actual impact damage to the towers considered "the official story" as well? They modelled the building and they modelled the planes, and their study contradicts both the NIST and FEMA reports by showing the planes did much more damage to the structure than suspected, not because of the plane itself but becuase of the incompressible fluids aboard the planes hitting the structure like a wrecking ball.

How about Dr. James Quintiere's report? He was a NIST engineer who refuted the NIST findings, as his study showed the towers never had sufficient fireproofing on the support columns to begin with. NIST didn't concur so he published his report on his own.

These are all reports independent of what you call "the official story" but they still laregely support it, so are these "official stories" to you too? If not, what are they? I'm not the one whose caught up with the need to catagorize all the myriad reports and hypothesis under a single catch phrase, like you are. This is because I'm not desperately trying to defend a political agenda to favor one scenario over another, like you are. To me, Dr. Quintere's hypothesis has the same possibility of being correct as the NIST report does.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
NIST and FEMA were set up to address why/how the towers collapsed, and had nothing to do with documenting the attack itself. The 9/11 commission was set up to document the attack itself and had nothing to do with addressing why/how the towers collapsed.

I am well aware of this. But, as I already mentioned, conspiracy theories are not bound by the remits of the these investigating agencies, which is why the term, 'Official Account' applies to their combined body of work, whether they claim their work is 'official' or not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You cannot accuse the 9/11 report for lying about three story tall bulges in the side of WTC 7 any more than you can accuse the NIST report of lying about German intelligence observing Mohammed Atta meeting with Al Qaida agents while in Hamburg.

I am aware of this too... which is why I have never done this.


...and as I posted in that other thread, you (or to be more precise, the damned fool conspiracy web site you're

And, as I replied in the other thread, my source was not a 'damned fool conspiracy web site', it was wikipedia. However, it doesn't matter what the source is... if the information is true, it's true. In this case, it's true.


One question before I do- is the Perdue study that explored the actual impact damage to the towers considered "the official story" as well?

My personal opinion is that none of these studies form part of the official account.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Plius, you can't even say the NIST report is "official" since it said on page one that it was a hypothesis and shouldn't be considered gospel.


Interesting you should point that out. There was a long argument in one thread recently, where OSers denied the FACT that the NIST report is simply a hypothesis, and can not be used as proof as to how the WTC buildings collapsed.

The OSers claimed that the computer models were proof of what NIST claimed, and therefore it was a theory.

So finally an OSer that admits the NIST report was nothing but a hypothesis, and was not, and is not, proof the towers collapsed from fire, planes, and gravity alone.

Shame you missed that discussion huh? I wonder who's side you would have argued for in that instance?

Maybe you should help us to explain to your buddies that the NIST report should not be taken as gospel eh?

Thanx, Dave...



edit on 5/25/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



So finally an OSer that admits the NIST report was nothing but a hypothesis, and was not, and is not, proof the towers collapsed from fire, planes, and gravity alone.


Well, here is how it works - until something better is presented or until someone presents demonstrable facts that falsify the report, the report stands as proof that the towers collapsed as a direct result of the effects of the plane impacts.

I know, you throw around words like "proof" and "hypothesis" hoping that you may be able to pull some poor unsuspecting soul into the swamp of confusion that is the truth movement. Fortunately, most persons are not so easily decieved and do not confuse the process that we call the scientfic method wherein a "hypothesis" is tested and the process we use in deciding issues at law where we consider evidence of theories as proofs.

The reports in question are ex post facto examinations of an event. They were prepared and presented in a professional manner. Only contrary presentations made to same level of professionalism and completenesss would be consider on an equal bearing.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Warren Commision report was prepared and presented in a professional manner, and we all know what a complete waste of paper that was. Your argument won't hold water, you guys know it, and you grasp at any opportunity to discredit those that question it. Good luck.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



The Warren Commision report was prepared and presented in a professional manner, and we all know what a complete waste of paper that was.

Your opinion. Thank you, however, that does not rise to the level of "professionalism".

Your argument won't hold water, you guys know it, and you grasp at any opportunity to discredit those that question it. Good luck.

Well, based on the simple notion that there is not any movement for a new investigation, no professional associations objecting, etc. I would posit that my argument is, in fact, the only one that is holding water.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
My personal opinion is that none of these studies form part of the official account.


All right then, when I say that I do subscribe to the Perdue study that suggests the myriad incompressible fluids aboard the planes acted like a battering ram and did more damage than what the FEMA report takes into account...mainly because a) the FEMA study didn't perform the level of computer simulation that Perdue did and b) I'm an advanced open water scuba diver and know from personal experience what getting hit in the face by a four foot wave feels like...how does that fit into your "official story" pigeon holing?

Whenever the "official story" slogan is used here on ATS it's always in reference to the planes being a legitimate terrorist hijacking and the impact instigating some form of chain reaction of fatal damage to the WTC, regardless of the specific details of the hijacking or of the physical progression of the chain reaction. It's always been used as a catch all phrase to include anything that does NOT support these half baked conspiracy stories of controlled demolitions, cruise missiles, faked crash sites, or whatever. If this isn't the context that you yourself are using it, then I think maybe that you are the one who isn't understanding the phrase correctly, not me or anyone else.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Interesting you should point that out. There was a long argument in one thread recently, where OSers denied the FACT that the NIST report is simply a hypothesis, and can not be used as proof as to how the WTC buildings collapsed.

The OSers claimed that the computer models were proof of what NIST claimed, and therefore it was a theory.


I cannot comment on why others support the NIST reports, The NIST report doesn't take the effect of the structure being hit by a large mass of imcompressible fluid into account while the Perdue study didn't have the benefit of interviewing eyewitnesses, so the two studies are largely independent in how they came to their conclusions.


So finally an OSer that admits the NIST report was nothing but a hypothesis, and was not, and is not, proof the towers collapsed from fire, planes, and gravity alone.


That other poster before you just said that only the NIST, FEMA, and 9/11 commission reports are considered the "Official Story". As I also subscribe to the Perdue study and at least entertain the possibility of Dr. Quintiere's study, by your own definition I'm not an OSer.

What say you conspiracy people all get together and hash out the definitions of the cute little buzz words you're coming up with and then get back to me.


Maybe you should help us to explain to your buddies that the NIST report should not be taken as gospel eh?


All right, then, the NIST report should not be taken as gospel. The NIST report itself says the NIST repost should not be taken as gospel. It does, however, have the benefit of actually being a scenario based upon the available evidence and eyewitness testimony, and doesn't need to rely upon childish excuses of imaginary armies of sinister secret disinformation agents being planted everywhere as a crutch.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, here is how it works - until something better is presented or until someone presents demonstrable facts that falsify the report, the report stands as proof that the towers collapsed as a direct result of the effects of the plane impacts.


No that is not how it works. There is lots of evidence the report is wrong, you just refuse to except that.


I know, you throw around words like "proof" and "hypothesis" hoping that you may be able to pull some poor unsuspecting soul into the swamp of confusion that is the truth movement. Fortunately, most persons are not so easily decieved and do not confuse the process that we call the scientfic method wherein a "hypothesis" is tested and the process we use in deciding issues at law where we consider evidence of theories as proofs.


LOL no that is not why those words are 'thrown around'. You are the one being deceived and trying to deceive others by claiming a hypothesis is proof of anything just because it is the only 'official version' of the events.


The reports in question are ex post facto examinations of an event. They were prepared and presented in a professional manner. Only contrary presentations made to same level of professionalism and completenesss would be consider on an equal bearing.


According to you. An hypothesis is not a theory. A hypothesis can not be tested in a lab. The collapses of buildings can be tested in a lab, so why do you insist the NIST report is a valid theory for the collapse of the WTC buildings? You should be demanding the same thing from the government you are demanding from 'truthers'. The NIST report has no more validity than an ATS poster.

You are arguing for an hypothesis as if it's fact. An hypothesis at least has to follow the known laws of physics.
NIST was smart enough to not call their paper fact because they know it's not fact. What is the point of an investigation that offers only an hypothesis and doesn't bother to investigate past that? That should raise reds flags of the most ardent skeptic. Unless of course if you don't even understand the physics in the first place, or you are here to do nothing but disrupt discussion rather than add to it.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If this isn't the context that you yourself are using it, then I think maybe that you are the one who isn't understanding the phrase correctly, not me or anyone else.

With respect, please don't tell me that my use of a phrase you refuse to even recognise as legitimate is wrong!!! This suggests that you can define it and have been playing games with me all along by pretending it doesn't exist.

I do not use the term 'official account' (note, by the way, I never use 'story') as a "catch all phrase to include anything that does NOT support these half baked conspiracy stories of controlled demolitions, cruise missiles, faked crash sites, or whatever." For me - and regardless of how other might use it - it means the accounts produced by government, its agencies and/or any other body established by the government for the purposes of investigating the events of that day. If the Perdue study, or any other study, had been commissioned by the government, then I would consider it part of the 'official account', regardless of its findings.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join