Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I'm wondering why did we need NIST or any other agency to investigate in the first place since the cause of the WTC towers was known on 9/11? Maybe some of the expert warriors AKA debunkers here on ATS can clear this up?



I cannot speak for anyone else, but as for me, the 9/11 attack is among the most important historical events in the books, up there with Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Titanic disaster, and just like every other historical even it is our obligation to document the event as best as we can. In fact I don't mind if we have further investigations, as even Lee Hamilton admits the 9/11 commission report was only a first draft and that further information is certainly going to come out later. After all, we know the Titanic saw sunk by an iceberg but the exact physical progression of the sinking is stil beign examined even today.

What concerns me are the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites, like Richard Gage. By his own accounts, he has the blueprints, he has the video record of the collapse, he has the apparent chemical composition of the explosives used, he has 1500 experts willing to help him in anything he does, and he certainly has the cash and he certainly has the media outlets that can't be interdicted by any sinister secret agents. He is uniquely qualified to prove these alternative theories of the truthers, and in fact it would take him about a month to reverse engineer exactly how the buildings were brought down by explosives and yet all he does is come up with new and exciting ways to say the exact same thing. Anyone gullible enough to give him money will find out to their horror that he isn't using the money to find answers. He's using it to create newer and better display cases for the questions...along with paying his mortgage.

SO, the question is, why don't the truthers want a full and impartial examination of what happened? You see for yourself how, whenever a logical explanation is put forward that doesn't conform to their own alternative history, the truthers all gleefully dismiss it as being the work of sinister secret agents regardless of how well it's been researched.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
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.


These professional firefighters are talking about three secondary explosions not steel banging it's way anywhere!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





SO, the question is, why don't the truthers want a full and impartial examination of what happened? You see for yourself how, whenever a logical explanation is put forward that doesn't conform to their own alternative history, the truthers all gleefully dismiss it as being the work of sinister secret agents regardless of how well it's been researched.


Investigation should be focust on WHO are responsible for the attacks. To get to the source of it there should be people from the government questioned under oath in court. And then we can worry about what they used to destroy three buildings.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Investigation should be focust on WHO are responsible for the attacks. To get to the source of it there should be people from the government questioned under oath in court. And then we can worry about what they used to destroy three buildings.


You just contradicted yourself. In the OP you were admonishing the NIST report, and it was never the responsibility of the NIST report to cover things like Atta's connections with Al Qaida operatives in Hamburg or the breakdown in communications between the myriad government agencies before 9/11. Their responsibility was to take a stab at explaining how the buildings collapsed from the viewpoint of architectural entineering and structureal analysis. IF that's what you have concerns with then it's the 9/11 commssion report you have an issue with.

...and who are you to decide what a report should be focused on? If someone wants to create a research report on, say, the exact physical procession of the damage inflicted on the water supplies from the street to building 7 then there shouldn't be any reason why we shouldn't let them.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


I cannot speak for anyone else, but as for me, the 9/11 attack is among the most important historical events in the books, up there with Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Titanic disaster, and just like every other historical even it is our obligation to document the event as best as we can. In fact I don't mind if we have further investigations, as even Lee Hamilton admits the 9/11 commission report was only a first draft and that further information is certainly going to come out later. After all, we know the Titanic saw sunk by an iceberg but the exact physical progression of the sinking is stil beign examined even today.

What concerns me are the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites, like Richard Gage.


Why don't you go after Richard Gage then instead of spending years on here trying to ridicule members that have no association with Richard Gage?

Most people on here know the fool conspiracy websites you continually bang on about are perp created websites to spread disinfo. We have no interest in trashy disinfo people and their trashy websites.

Many members have told you this so it should have sunk in by now. How long do you have to be told by people before it sinks in?!

Maybe you just have a limited short memory and forget who tells you that they have no interest in these silly websites you constantly make references to?

Maybe you do not read people's replies carefully enough to realise that most people could not give a toss about these silly fool websites!?!

I think you should drop the hang up you have with fool conspiracy websites, and lighten up a little, have you had a holiday recently? Maybe you' need a break from the realm buddy!?!



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Every thing you post comes from conspiracy websites. You quote them. You link to them. You post pictures from them.


You're fooling no one.

How is it going with that protocol evidence. Have you found a military intercept of a private aircraft over us airspace yet ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Every thing you post comes from conspiracy websites. You quote them. You link to them. You post pictures from them.


You're fooling no one.

How is it going with that protocol evidence. Have you found a military intercept of a private aircraft over us airspace yet ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Seconded.

I'd like to see your list of "perp-created" 9/11 websites. along with any evidence you have to support that thesis.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Every thing you post comes from conspiracy websites. You quote them. You link to them. You post pictures from them.


You're fooling no one.

How is it going with that protocol evidence. Have you found a military intercept of a private aircraft over us airspace yet ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


I dont post anything from the perp 'truther' websites that your colleague mentioned. I post factual evidence from serious websites. But depends what you actual definition of a conspiracy website is?

You're on a conspiracy website (ATS) so if you have a problem with conspiracy websites why are you and your colleagues on ATS?

I've already posted a link twice that provides evidence that jets were scrambled from Andrews AFB, you either do not pay attention or choose to ignore relevant information. That's you're problem, not mine.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Every thing you post comes from conspiracy websites. You quote them. You link to them. You post pictures from them.


You're fooling no one.

How is it going with that protocol evidence. Have you found a military intercept of a private aircraft over us airspace yet ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Seconded.

I'd like to see your list of "perp-created" 9/11 websites. along with any evidence you have to support that thesis.



Ask your buddy good old dave, he seems to go on about them all the time, I've asked him for a list of these fool websites he is always going on about, so when he posts them all you will have your list!



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
I dont post anything from the perp 'truther' websites that your colleague mentioned. I post factual evidence from serious websites. But depends what you actual definition of a conspiracy website is?

You quote cluesforum. The site that says that victims of 911 were faked. You endorse these beliefs.

In no way do you post 'factual evidence' from 'serious websites'. You post fantasy evidence from sites that literally claim there are no space stations, no satellites, and that all space travel is faked.

QED.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

Investigation should be focust on WHO are responsible for the attacks. To get to the source of it there should be people from the government questioned under oath in court. And then we can worry about what they used to destroy three buildings.


You just contradicted yourself. In the OP you were admonishing the NIST report, and it was never the responsibility of the NIST report to cover things like Atta's connections with Al Qaida operatives in Hamburg or the breakdown in communications between the myriad government agencies before 9/11. Their responsibility was to take a stab at explaining how the buildings collapsed from the viewpoint of architectural entineering and structureal analysis. IF that's what you have concerns with then it's the 9/11 commssion report you have an issue with.


Look, NIST and 9/11 Commission both were covering up for somebody for some reason . The 9/11 Commission was controlled by a White House insider, and so was NIST. Just based on these two issues of conflicts of interest it is safe to assume that neither NIST or The Commission would print something that wasn't approved by the White House.

In the OP I asked a question why did the tax payers had to pay NIST since they ignored eyewitnesses that were talking about explosions all over the place. And this here is the “scientific” explanation given by NIST--

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.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


First: ( a flat out lie that) no eyewitnesses reported explosions !
Second: they could not hear blast sounds
Third: They are pushing the same nonsense that you do. “applying explosives would have been impossible” crap.

And finally they just wrote a book about (Psycho Marks) theory which he already knew on 9/11.
So why did we had to pay NIST ???



...and who are you to decide what a report should be focused on? If someone wants to create a research report on, say, the exact physical procession of the damage inflicted on the water supplies from the street to building 7 then there shouldn't be any reason why we shouldn't let them.

I decide nothing, in fact I think that you should start your own investigation into space lasers and holograms. I'll even donate $5 if you start making bumper stickers to support your investigation.
But you know well enough that until we get Who? with who's' help? and why? answered, nothing matters.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 

I started a thread on this subject. I'd be happy to have your comments there rather than drag this thread further off topic.

link



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Every thing you post comes from conspiracy websites. You quote them. You link to them. You post pictures from them.


You're fooling no one.

How is it going with that protocol evidence. Have you found a military intercept of a private aircraft over us airspace yet ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Seconded.

I'd like to see your list of "perp-created" 9/11 websites. along with any evidence you have to support that thesis.



Thirded. Whether the truthers realize it or not they ARE quoting the material coming from those damned foo conspiracy web sites. "No fires in WTC 7" came from Richard Gage, Pull it is lingo for controlled dmeolitions" came from Alex Jones, "and so on and so forth. This baloney about "does the order still stand really means stand down order" didn't just spontaneously appear into the truthers heads. Someone specifically created it and passed it around. Just becuase it's passed through several associations between the truthers and those con artists it doesn't mean the truthers are being any less gullible in quoting them.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Thirded. Whether the truthers realize it or not they ARE quoting the material coming from those damned foo conspiracy web sites. "No fires in WTC 7" came from Richard Gage, Pull it is lingo for controlled dmeolitions" came from Alex Jones, "and so on and so forth. This baloney about "does the order still stand really means stand down order"

didn't just spontaneously appear into the truthers heads. Someone specifically created it and passed it around.

Just becuase it's passed through several associations between the truthers and those con artists it doesn't mean the truthers are being any less gullible in quoting them.


“Then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense”

by Mark Walsh aka (psycho Mark) 9/11/2001



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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



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


Can I call it, or can I call it?


What did I just finish saying?


GenRadek
I cannot wait to see them trot out the video of the bomb scare in Stuevesant (sic) High School, and say they are saying there are bombs in WTC7


And ANOK, boy oh boy, you never fail to supply the entertainment. Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for posting the video of the BOMB SCARE in Stuyvesant High School where FDNY and other first responders set up an emergency command post. They received a bomb threat and had to clear out. Check on a map of where the high school is.

But let us see it IN CONTEXT:



Silly truthers. Always leaving things out and trying to fool ya! Thank you ANOK for proving once again, that truthers really dont do much research outside of conspiracy sites, and also require out of context quotes and videos to support crap.


You just gave me a shining reason why my previous post about clearing through the accounts and removing the not important stuff, is the correct method to get to the truth. Simply posting people saying they heard explosions during such a chaotic and insane time, is like posting accounts of people smelling smoke during a fire.


edit on 6/10/2012 by GenRadek because: edit to clarify



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Can I call it, or can I call it?




I'm Impressed.....Good Call.

My turn...... some Truther will come back with the telephone booth explosion.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GenRadek

Can I call it, or can I call it?




I'm Impressed.....Good Call.

My turn...... some Truther will come back with the telephone booth explosion.


When you do this as a career for years on end that's gonna happen every now and then.

Even a busted clock is right twice a day.

In the meantime, 911 was still an inside job.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





You just gave me a shining reason why my previous post about clearing through the accounts and removing the not important stuff, is the correct method to get to the truth. Simply posting people saying they heard explosions during such a chaotic and insane time, is like posting accounts of people smelling smoke during a fire.


So how does that prove that "definitely secondary explosions" means steel banging it's way down?

what really gets me flaming is the total disrespect you show for the firemen. They know the difference between explosions and shi* falling down in a clusterfu**!



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Even a busted clock is right twice a day.



You can't say the same about Truthers.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Look, NIST and 9/11 Commission both were covering up for somebody for some reason . The 9/11 Commission was controlled by a White House insider, and so was NIST. Just based on these two issues of conflicts of interest it is safe to assume that neither NIST or The Commission would print something that wasn't approved by the White House.


All right, we both know you're making this up. In the case of both the 9/11 commission and NIST, they didn't close themselves off in a side room and make up the "official story" as you call it. They asked many, many witnesses from FAA officials to foreign intelligence agencies to even William Rodriguez. Rodriquez for example told NIST that when the plane impacted the building fireballs came down the elevator shaft, pushed the elevator down into the basement, and severely burnd the occupant (who Rodriguez subsequently rescued). It is absolutely ludicrous to me to claim that the impact could cause such things as enough pressure to push an elevator down the shaft like a piston and turn around and claim it did no damage to the buildign whatsoverr and it was really brought down by bombs.

So please explain to me why William Rodriguez was "controlled by a white house insider" and he was "covering up something for somebody".





First: ( a flat out lie that) no eyewitnesses reported explosions !
Second: they could not hear blast sounds
Third: They are pushing the same nonsense that you do. “applying explosives would have been impossible” crap.



Okay, now here we have an issue to clear up. By now after reading all the responses to this "explosions in WTC 7" claim you have to know the two main "witnesses heard explosions" were in two cases- when Barry Jennings head "explosions" as he was trying to leave the building, which you can't NOT know was when wreckage from the north tower crashed into it, and the proverbial "witnesses heard explosions six sexonds before WTC 7 collapsed", which you can't NOT know was when the penthouse came crashing down into the interior of the building. These aren't explosions, these are obvious structural collapses whoch those damned fool conspiracy web sites are trying to pass of as explosives. So, you'll need to forgive me when I say that claims of "explosions in WTC 7" are nothing but deliberate misrepresentation.

Do you have any more information to go on other than this?




I decide nothing, in fact I think that you should start your own investigation into space lasers and holograms. I'll even donate $5 if you start making bumper stickers to support your investigation.
But you know well enough that until we get Who? with who's' help? and why? answered, nothing matters.


Without meaning to, you bring up a valuable point, which I've pointed out before- Richard Gage has the funding, the research material, the pool of expertise, the funding, and the media outlet to do his own investigation that reverse engineers exactly how these controlled demlitions were used to destroy the buildings, and he refuses to do it. My position is that controlled eemolitions didn't bring them down and he's tryign to prove two plue two equas five, so he has to resort to these "building what" children's games. What's YOUR take on it?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join