Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by loveguy
 


When will we be massacring Saudi's for their oil?

I don't know.
I guess when we use up all that oil we got from Iraq.


Thanks, I didn't expect that.

Lithium in Afghanistan?


THE GIST
• Nearly $1 trillion of mineral wealth has been discovered in war-ravaged Afghanistan.
• Lithium, gold, iron and copper are among the minerals identified.
• Little has been exploited because the country has been mired in conflict for three decades.





The spoils of war?
edit on (6/3/1212 by loveguy because:





posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by maxella1
 

You mean where he says the cause was "structural failure due to fire". That's a very detailed analysis. I'm sure that never would have occurred to anyone. Thanks Mark! You're right the NIST study was a waste of time.

Most people thought that the buildings exploded on 9/11, because that what it looked like. But not psycho Mark right?

“And then I witnessed both towers collapse. One first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”

Fox news had a camera setup right in his apartment the whole day. Just saying...


How do you know they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition?



NIST FAQs

To respond to a number of the questions raised about the collapses of the WTC towers, NIST posted a fact sheet in 2006 stating that NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives or by missiles. In 2007 and 2008, additional fact sheets addressed later questions from the alternative theory groups, including questions related to the collapse of WTC 7. The information from these fact sheets has been consolidated into the current FAQs on the WTC towers and WTC 7. NIST respects the right of others to hold opinions that do not agree with the findings and conclusions described in its reports on the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. However, the WTC investigation team stands solidly behind these findings and conclusions, including the failure mechanisms defined for each building and the sequences of events leading to the initiation of the three collapses.



NIST WTC 7 FAQs

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.


Well they considered the possibility but no witnesses ever reported any explosions, and they couldn't hear the loud booms in the videos, so there must have been no explosives.
lol



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 

You may have missed my point.
We didn't get any oil from Iraq. Except that which we bought.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But you miss the point. They didn't go into Iraq to get their oil, they did it to keep it in the ground.

To keep up the artificial scarcity in order to raise prices, and to keep the Iraqi's from being financially benefited.

It is not the first time they've done this...

Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Most people thought that the buildings exploded on 9/11, because that what it looked like. But not psycho Mark right?
I didn't. It looked like structural failure to me (on TV, of course).


Well they considered the possibility but no witnesses ever reported any explosions, and they couldn't hear the loud booms in the videos, so there must have been no explosives.

So now you're disputing the results of the investigation. That's a different thread. I thought you wanted to know why "we needed to waste money" on the investigation. I thought you wanted to know the purpose of it.
edit on 6/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by loveguy
 

You may have missed my point.
We didn't get any oil from Iraq. Except that which we bought.



WMDs?

Real Estate appears the objective?

15 Saudis.

relationship
edit on (6/3/1212 by loveguy because:




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





So now you're disputing the results of the investigation. That's a different thread. I thought you wanted to know why "we needed to waste money" on the investigation. I thought you wanted to know the purpose of it.


Yes that's right. Why did we need to pay them so that they can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosions, and listen for something to go boom on videos? That could be done for free, like Mark Walsh did for example.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by loveguy
 


When will we be massacring Saudi's for their oil?

I don't know.
I guess when we use up all that oil we got from Iraq.


Probably when the Saudis stop doing business with the Bush family.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I didn't. It looked like structural failure to me (on TV, of course)


Seriously? You were watching the buildings collapse on TV, and explosives never crossed your mind?

I don't know what you were watching because on 9/11 people were comparing WTC collapse with controlled demolition on almost every channel. As people were coming out of the buildings a lot of them were saying that a bomb went off in the lobby, some were saying that something exploded in the lobby first, and then the plane hit the building.

But you knew what was happening, and it wasn’t explosives ?
Sorry but that’s very hard for me to believe, unless you were watching TV somewhere with George Bush. By the way do you know that he saw the first plane hitting the tower live on TV?

This movie is a compilation of what was on TV in first few days.

Between the Lies (2009)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I just posted this in another topic but a FORENSIC investigation by an independent scientist has been done. It was published in a book titled Where Did The Towers Go by Dr Judy Wood.
Dr. Wood received her

B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

She doesn't jump to conclusions of Who or Why they did it she simply provides evidence and comes to a conclusion of What and How it was done. If you read this book with out prior judgments on the subject you will know what happend on that day in New York City



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Yes that's right. Why did we need to pay them so that they can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosions, and listen for something to go boom on videos? That could be done for free, like Mark Walsh did for example.


I really do wish truthers would get it out of their heads about explosions = explosives. For starters, you have the people describing the plane impact as an explosion. Let us delete those eyewitness accounts as we know the source of the "explosion", ie, the plane crash. This includes those that saw and heard the plane crash, just saw the fireball and explosion, or were in the building during the impact. Then you have those that were inside when the fireballs and jetfuel and elevators exploded and came crashing down, causing more "explosions". We remove these accounts. Next we move on to those that described the sound of the bodies hitting the ground. Many said they sounded like explosions. We can remove these next. Next, the sound of airplane debris, or any heavy debris hitting the ground or the sounds of structural failure. They do make a loud report, sounds like an explosion. So that can be removed from the list. Ok, now we have those that recall hearing random explosions from the towers as nearly 25-30 acres of offices and two airliners were burning for an hour. Next we have those that described the collapses of the towers as explosions. Some thought the towers "exploded" when they were collapsing. This does not mean explosives either, it is just a way people described the event. So we remove those accounts of "explosions." Next the sound of the collapse or the descriptions of the floors falling and pancaking down during the collapse. No explosives, but they used the sound of "boom boom boom" to described the collapsing building. So we remove those accounts as well. Now, both towers are down, many cars, trucks, fire trucks, firefighter's oxygen tanks, police ammunition, gas tanks, pipelines, gaslines, electrical conduits, etc, have been destroyed, crushed, burning, severed, or heated to critical. Now they are going to make loud explosions and reports amid the devastation. People heard explosions in the rubble after the collapses. A few buildings are now burning and also having some internal failures. Remove those accounts. WTC7 took a direct hit setting off fires that burn uncontrolled for hours. Some described the impact as an explosion. Delete those accounts. Now we have the sound of WTC7 collapsing. No detonations heard prior to collapse. Also, we have false and edited videos with added in "explosions" that are fake. They do not count either.

After going through the accounts, boy oh boy, what exactly is left in terms of actual eyewitness accounts of actual explosives going off? Nothing. Not a darn thing. Some people need to really go through the accounts and see what they are actually talking about when they say, "It sounded like and explosion." "There was an explosion. " "I heard an explosion."

Hearing explosions in a MASSIVE fire and crash is nothing new. But please, if you have any actual evidence of actual explosives in any of the WTC Towers that were not mentioned above, please post them for me.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

OIL


Well there was several reasons...but i tend to always look at it from the perspective of who i believe the real criminals to be,,,,MOSSAD.

Ariel Sharon....the instigator..but...nope....further deeper than that...the SOR(state of Rothchilds)....The creators of wars...the manufacturers of EVIL.

Yes it was oil...but people seem to think of oil for the west....not sure why that is...Is it because of this....MARCH 20,2001

then we understand that he says...." I want to tell you something very clear, don 't worry about America... we. the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."




then we look at when it started...


How Israel lobby controls US
Jeff Gates | Arab News

IN the early 1960s, Sen. William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: A foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.
.

Source

Now i know it will be said that is biased...I am to use to these threads...

so here goes...


Born in Sumner, Missouri, he earned a political science degree from the University of Arkansas in 1925, where he became a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity. He was elected president of the student body and a star four-year player for the Razorback football team from 1921–24.[1][2]

Fulbright later studied at Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar at Pembroke College, graduating in 1928. He received his law degree from The George Washington University Law School in 1934, and was admitted to the bar in Washington, D.C. and became an attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Fulbright was a lecturer in law at the University of Arkansas from 1936 until 1939. He was appointed president of the school in 1939, making him the youngest university president in the country. He held this post until 1941. The School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas is named in his honor.

Fulbright's sister, Roberta, married Gilbert C. Swanson, the head of the Swanson frozen-foods conglomerate, and was the maternal grandmother of media figure Tucker Carlson.[3]



Perhaps his most notable case of dissent was his public condemnation of foreign and domestic policies, in particular, his concern that right-wing radicalism, as espoused by the John Birch Society and wealthy oil-man H. L. Hunt, had infected the United States military.[citation needed] He was, in turn, denounced by conservative Senators J. Strom Thurmond and Barry M. Goldwater.[citation needed] Goldwater and Texas Senator John Tower announced that they were going to Arkansas to campaign against Fulbright,[11] but Arkansas voters reelected him


Source

As you can see back in these times you can see the concern of infiltration of US policy.(If the shoe fits)

back back onto the oil....what oil were they trying to protect in this case?...does the puzzle come together?....was it oil for the US?...or was it to feed the SOR war machine through Israel(SOR)?.




but no worries....there is so much more....just read it in my signature 911 thread if interested.

Always remember...this is not about JEWS...IT is About ZIONISM......GET IT STRAIGHT!
edit on 033030p://f26Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 033030p://f28Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





After going through the accounts, boy oh boy, what exactly is left in terms of actual eyewitness accounts of actual explosives going off? Nothing. Not a darn thing. Some people need to really go through the accounts and see what they are actually talking about when they say, "It sounded like and explosion." "There was an explosion. " "I heard an explosion." Hearing explosions in a MASSIVE fire and crash is nothing new. But please, if you have any actual evidence of actual explosives in any of the WTC Towers that were not mentioned above, please post them for me.


There were no fire where some of the explosions were reported. But we already talked about that .

The point is that hours after the attacks most people could not have known the exact result of NISTs investigation. Especially some "psycho Mark" who is know for being a (psycho). The way he described it on fox, is obviously not what he could have known with out somebody telling him to say that. So here you go... NIST first had the approved result of their "investigation" and then they wrote a book about it. And now you are fighting for that book like a good little slave.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
why didn't the government just hire this guy?
911 was a crime the only reason not to properly invstigate is to help the criminals escape justice

as ro the NIST report and money:
NIST WAS A VERY LARGE WASTE OF MONEY and that is NO EXCUSE for not doing it right.
unless all you are doing is covering up a crime


However, one of this article’s co-authors, David Chandler, used video analysis to show conclusively that for 2.5 seconds (about 100 feet) WTC 7 was in complete free-fall. He publicly challenged NIST’s claims at the technical briefing and he, along with others, filed formal requests for corrections.

NIST were forced to reverse themselves in their Final Report and acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall. Yet they did not reconsider how this was compatible with their analysis. A network of heavy steel girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building for eight floors. However, a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall, so the structural support had to be removed by something else—explosives. The free-fall of Building 7 is a smoking gun

www.worldarchitecturenews.com...



Scientists have pointed out that the government has no explanation for the molten steel. NIST has been forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free fall for part of its descent...

In fact, the government has not explained anything. The NIST report is merely a simulation of what might have caused the towers to fail if NIST’s assumptions programed into the computer model are correct. But NIST supplies no evidence that its assumptions are correct.

www.globalresearch.ca...

of course they don't
BECAUSE THEY CAN"T
edit on 9-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by maxella1


Yes that's right. Why did we need to pay them so that they can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosions, and listen for something to go boom on videos? That could be done for free, like Mark Walsh did for example.


I really do wish truthers would get it out of their heads about explosions = explosives. For starters, you have the people describing the plane impact as an explosion. Let us delete those eyewitness accounts as we know the source of the "explosion", ie, the plane crash. This includes those that saw and heard the plane crash, just saw the fireball and explosion, or were in the building during the impact. Then you have those that were inside when the fireballs and jetfuel and elevators exploded and came crashing down, causing more "explosions". We remove these accounts. Next we move on to those that described the sound of the bodies hitting the ground. Many said they sounded like explosions. We can remove these next. Next, the sound of airplane debris, or any heavy debris hitting the ground or the sounds of structural failure. They do make a loud report, sounds like an explosion. So that can be removed from the list. Ok, now we have those that recall hearing random explosions from the towers as nearly 25-30 acres of offices and two airliners were burning for an hour. Next we have those that described the collapses of the towers as explosions. Some thought the towers "exploded" when they were collapsing. This does not mean explosives either, it is just a way people described the event. So we remove those accounts of "explosions." Next the sound of the collapse or the descriptions of the floors falling and pancaking down during the collapse. No explosives, but they used the sound of "boom boom boom" to described the collapsing building. So we remove those accounts as well. Now, both towers are down, many cars, trucks, fire trucks, firefighter's oxygen tanks, police ammunition, gas tanks, pipelines, gaslines, electrical conduits, etc, have been destroyed, crushed, burning, severed, or heated to critical. Now they are going to make loud explosions and reports amid the devastation. People heard explosions in the rubble after the collapses. A few buildings are now burning and also having some internal failures. Remove those accounts. WTC7 took a direct hit setting off fires that burn uncontrolled for hours. Some described the impact as an explosion. Delete those accounts. Now we have the sound of WTC7 collapsing. No detonations heard prior to collapse. Also, we have false and edited videos with added in "explosions" that are fake. They do not count either.

After going through the accounts, boy oh boy, what exactly is left in terms of actual eyewitness accounts of actual explosives going off? Nothing. Not a darn thing. Some people need to really go through the accounts and see what they are actually talking about when they say, "It sounded like and explosion." "There was an explosion. " "I heard an explosion."

Hearing explosions in a MASSIVE fire and crash is nothing new. But please, if you have any actual evidence of actual explosives in any of the WTC Towers that were not mentioned above, please post them for me.


Interesting.

You, who were NOT there, have just "deleted" the testimony of hundreds, if not thousands who actually WERE there.


Do you really think you are fooling anyone?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I guess you do not know how to eliminate the obvious erroneous information to get at the important relevant information. No surprise. Another skill truthers lack. The list is long of what is lacking (either intentionally or unintentionally) in truther world.

What I have done is gone through the eyewitness accounts and (doing something that truthers never do) reading the context of what they are saying or mention "explosions". I can then eliminate the obvious sources of said "heard explosions" or "seen explosions" and whittle down the accounts to those that may have some relevance to mysterious sources of explosions that cannot be pinned down exactly. If you are going to want actual evidence of something, you need to dig through the obvious, the erroneous, the mistaken, or stupid, and get to the important stuff.

Truthers rely on accounts of eyewitness accounts that are ALWAYS taken out of context. Yet when placed in context, it practically pulls the rug out from under them. That is why you and others never put the eyewitness accounts in context. I have read, listened and watched a majority of the eyewitness accounts, both first from truther sites, and then the actual sources. Using something called logic (item 2 missing in truther world) I can extrapolate what they were describing and then correctly deduce the source. Like I said earlier, people described the plane crash as an explosion. Bodies hitting the ground were called explosions. The collapse itself (inside and out) was described as an explosion. That is a fact. I have yet to see any eyewitness accounts of ACTUAL explosives seen to be detonating. NONE. Nada, zip. People saying there maybe "secondary devices" were under the impression that since this is a terrorist attack, there maybe explosives as well.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Interesting.

You, who were NOT there, have just "deleted" the testimony of hundreds, if not thousands who actually WERE there.


Do you really think you are fooling anyone?


Your reading comprehension could use some work. He meant by "deleting" testimonies that they cannot be attributed to explosives. Each of the instances he listed were other sources of explosive noises which were described by people. Explosions =/= explosives. There really isn't any other way to put it.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thank you! I find it is troubling to see how some people just cannot think critically or even rationally to register answers given to them in the most simplistic way. Any simpler, and we'd need to bring out sock puppets.

Like in this case. I cannot wait to see them trot out the video of the bomb scare in Stuevesant High School, and say they are saying there are bombs in WTC7.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


All you're doing is hand-waving away the explosions, you have no more proof of what they were as anyone else.

Typical OSers always want to believe if there is no evidence to the contrary then they must be right.



Fire fighters, who were there, describe the explosions as explosives going off, and you all think you know better?



"Bombs in the building, start clearing out"...



And you accuse us of claiming fire-fighters lied? I mean these guys must be lying right...



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And I'm going to reiterate... again... that the building was already collapsing ON TOP OF THEM when they noted the explosions. It can easily be attributed to the concrete and steel banging its way down to the ground, but you can't even fathom that possibility. It's like you have shut off your brain on this matter.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join