Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by thegameisup
Since you are trying to first discredit NIST and try to state I don't understand physics.etc, you start the same argument and are not presenting both
sides as always....
This OP is a power point presentation that was given to a room full of people. It is what it is and the first 10 minutes, as I stated, are filled with
garbage. So, since the OP is out of the way, let's start the same old arguments, shall we. I will be happy to answer your questions.....
For example, are you happy with the Pentagon CCTV footage they released? Does it show a plane to you? Rhetorical questions, as no, there is no plane
in the video. However, the 1000's, not 2 or 3 who saw a jet I think I will believe. There is no jet because it was not captured based on the time
frame. No conspiracy it is how they(security footage) are made.
Are you happy that NIST said there was nothing about WTC7 that made them believe explosives were used? Yes, as NIST is not supposed to test for
explosives, that is the job if the FBI. If you don't know what NIST does then leave it alone.I am sorry, but there is no one on this site who can
tear apart the NIST report for what it is and that is an investigation to make sure, structurally, this does not happen again. They gave the
recommendations and the new WTC7 was built to its standards.
Are you happy NIST did not test for explosives at all? It is NOT the job of NIST to do that and there were no explosives needed nor is there ANY
physical evidence. I would pay anything to anyone to send me definiticve proof of explosives. If you are scared you might be killed, IM me and I will
take it to some government people I know and get it to the right people but it never happens. Conjecture and paint chips...
As you can see, all I said was that NIST did not do a thorough investigation, they did not cover al lthe evidence, and they did not deliver a
These are known facts, this is just highlighting that they did not do their job properly, and they have done a great job at discrediting
I have not once said you do not understand physics, please quote where I said that?
What argument have I started? I started a discussion, and am not here to argue. I think I am quite fair with what I put across.
We have no conclusive proof who did 9/11, and when an official report leaves out a lot of crucial evidence then there will always be questions to ask
until they address their shortcomings.
So have you only watched just 10 minutes of the video? If you have then you cannot possible comment on it comprehensively, and if you have only
watched 10 mins of it, then you just wont get what his presentation is about. He is a historian, and he asks, how can we document the history of 9/11
when al lthe evidence has not been investigated, and the investigation is biased. That is not all he addresses.
There are not 1000+ witnesses that saw a plane at the pentagon, if there is can you link me to the 1000+ testimonies please?
I'm not saying that people did not see a plane, the mystery surrounding the pentagon is, did a plane hit the pentagon. It is plausible that a plane
did a flyover and a missile struck the pentagon, I personally find that theory more acceptable than the official report that says a plane crashed into
This is just my opinion, and many other people has similar opinions. I'm not saying this is fact, but if we had all the CCTV footage, then we could
possibly clear this matter up.
If you want to believe there is no plane in the CCTV because of the frame rate, then that is up to you, but there should be other video footage from
other sources available, which should show a plane if one hit the pentagon, but we are still waiting for these videos to be released.
NIST stated in their technical questions video, that they did not test for explosives because they did not see any evidence to believe explosives were
used, so if NIST state this themselves, then why do you think NIST is not supposed to test for explosives?
They made it seem in their video that they would have tested if they felt it was required, so, you are wrong to say that they are not supposed to test
for them. This clearly shows I do know what NIST should do, they stated it themselves, they never mentioned the FBI like you have, and I will post
that video if you really want me to!
If no one can tear apart the NIST report, then why are there many people doing just that?
If you most people WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, even the reporters live on air said that it looked like a controlled demolition, then
NIST should have at least done some tests. It's failings like these that lose NIST credibility. They could not even answer David Chandler's question
about freefall in the live questions. They lost more credibility when they couldn't answer that very question. Again, it's all in the same video,
and coincidentally, they removed that video from their website. Luckily it is hosted in other places on the internet.
Why do you keep saying it is not NIST's job to test for explosives, when they clearly say they would have tested for them if they thought there was a
need, that in itself confirms they would have tested for them, and therefore is their job to test for them if they suspected they were used.
Why would I be scared that I would be killed?! There are many people discussing the same things as me, are 'they' whoever 'they' are going to kill
everyone on the internet discussing the same thing? Millions of people?!
The building looked like a controlled demolition, it fell at freefall speed, and no steel framed building had fallen due to fire before, which NIST
even state themselves. Eye witnesses reported explosions at WTC7, and in my eyes that should be enough to investigate if explosives were used.
Unfortunately I cannot provide any physical evidence of explosives because I had no access to the building post-collapse, NIST did however, and they
chose not to look for explosives. If an independent investigation team could have has access to the rubble, then a thorough investigation could have
been done, but NIST only did a part-investigation, and it took them 7 years to investigate it, and in those 7 years they basically hardly did
anything. It was a poor report, and one that still needs further investigation.
It seems clear you buy everything that the offical reports tell you, and don't care for all the missing evidence from those reports?