Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Philip Mudd (Former CIA/FBI) passes on question about WTC 7 free-fall

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


posted on May, 19 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
. I believe if more people experienced what Alex Grey's paintings are about things would be different.
edit on 19-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)


Yes, but a bunch of people that can think for themselves and see what is actually going on isn't good for the establishment. That's why they are taboo and not allowed. Maybe one day we will not be ridiculed for our beliefs until then we have each other.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If one is to talk of a thorough investigation in any true sense of the word then evidence has to be sifted through in fine detail. This of course was not possible because the evidence was removed before being examined and long before the inquiry was ordered.

Also being ignored are the members of the committee who claimed it was set up to fail.

I refuse to get in a flame war but stand by my statement that without the vast amounts of material evidence that was removed and the commission not set up till Nov. 2002 then I feel it was not properly investigated to the depth, rigour or intensity that the statement on the video suggested.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch

If one is to talk of a thorough investigation in any true sense of the word then evidence has to be sifted through in fine detail. This of course was not possible because the evidence was removed before being examined and long before the inquiry was ordered.

With respect, that is not entirely accurate:

amhistory.si.edu...

There is valid criticism to be had about the lack of debris available for later investigations. However, if that is your contention, then no investigation could ever be 'thorough', so we would still have to fall back on NIST as the most thorough.

I fervently believe that people should take the time to read the NIST reports, at least the executive summaries. They really do answer a lot of questions and will give you a lot of information on the buildings and events.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I accept what you are saying but the evidence that truly would have explained the collapse was in the steel beams and they were shipped, I cannot recall from memory just how little was left, it was a small enough percentage for me to label the investigation less than thorough. Plus the commission members even whilst using the NIST report claimed themselves 'set up to fail'. Not going to put the video up but it's a fact that NIST's lead claimed no molten steel across the whole site contrary to all evidence. Once again leading to my claim that it can be in no way considered thorough.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by exponent
 

I accept what you are saying but the evidence that truly would have explained the collapse was in the steel beams and they were shipped

Again with respect, how do you know this? The investigation team tagged interesting steel pieces but in the end it was the visual and modelled evidence which was most informative to NIST.

Not that I'm arguing against debris recovery, just saying it is potentially wrong to assume that vital evidence was missed.


Plus the commission members even whilst using the NIST report claimed themselves 'set up to fail'.

This is in a fairly different context, the 911 Commission had little directly to do with the NIST report and was released a fairly decent period before it.


Not going to put the video up but it's a fact that NIST's lead claimed no molten steel across the whole site contrary to all evidence. Once again leading to my claim that it can be in no way considered thorough.

I think the problem here is that you've only really seen one 'side'. The evidence for molten steel can be made to look strong through selective quoting and posting photos of 'hotspots' but the evidence is substantially less impressive on balance. Essentially all we know is that temperatures were around 1000-1100C which is perfectly plausible for the types of materials burning. We know that 'molten', 'glowing' material was seen on site. But that is it. There's no record of measurements outside the normal fire range, only speculation based on the assumption that it was molten steel.

This has to be taken into account with the weight of other evidence and alternative theories. For example, thermite burns rapidly, within seconds or a few minutes, not for many days. Furthermore, generally thermite is referred to in theories as nano-thermite, supposedly able to slice a beam like a shaped charge but without the noise. If this is the case, there would be only miniscule amounts of molten steel that would surely cool in the collapse.

The lack of a plausible explanation for the source of molten steel, coupled with the lack of verifiable evidence leads me to believe that it probably didn't exist. Just as bodies hitting the ground were referred to as 'explosions', confusion on the day can lead to all sorts of wild hypotheses.

edit to add:
If you would like plausible sources for glowing molten material then there's quite a list. Glass is a high contender, melting at those approximate temperatures and glowing brightly. Various metals are also present in large quantities. The towers were entirely clad in Aluminium and Glass, they contained many thousands of kilometres of Copper wiring, and in some cases (glowing material dripping from the south tower) there were large banks of Lead Acid batteries. All of these are potential sources, but I feel Glass is the most likely. Have a look on youtube for videos of glass processing and it looks remarkably like molten metal until it cools significantly.
edit on 19/5/13 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You ignore the fact that the computer simulations used by NIST to get the results they had to have to cover up the facts are forbidden to all scientists and the public. They say it is to protect the public, which is nonsense...the fact remains that if they showed the inputs they used it would be easily proven to be an outrageous and unscintific attempt to explain the inexplicable. If it took NIST 8 years to figure out a way to try and explain the free fall speed, that is because they know that the computer models had to be tweaked with ridiculous data dna that any engineer would instantly cry foul and expose the fallacies.

What danger would the public be in if they had the inputs used to justify an impossible evenT they are covering their rear ends and keeping up the charade...No government scientists will debate the peers in their disciplines because they would be shamed off the stage, Bldg. 7 was a classic demolition, no one can refute that with science, and the media is so craven that they will not even question the official fairy tale. it is beyond insane that anyone would believe the official excuse and no professional can support the official story without his peers proving a scam.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


This Disclaimer really bugs me, though:


Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).

In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been
provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.


There were literally tons of evidence, why must "certain evidence" be "not directly related to the building fire being investigated"?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by exponent
 
You ignore the fact that the computer simulations used by NIST to get the results they had to have to cover up the facts are forbidden to all scientists and the public.

Actually just the public. You might have noticed the huge list of engineering companies that worked on those simulations with NIST.


They say it is to protect the public, which is nonsense...the fact remains that if they showed the inputs they used it would be easily proven to be an outrageous and unscintific attempt to explain the inexplicable.

How do you know this if the evidence hasn't been released? Oh of course if the evidence isn't released it's faked, but if it is released it's faked. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


that is because they know that the computer models had to be tweaked with ridiculous data dna that any engineer would instantly cry foul and expose the fallacies.

But tens of thousands of engineers aren't crying foul. In fact many of NISTs conclusions are widely endorsed by such organisations as CTBUH.


No government scientists will debate the peers in their disciplines because they would be shamed off the stage

NIST employed private sector scientists, and papers covering every part of the collapse have been published in peer reviewed journals, so clearly what you're saying is not true at all.


Bldg. 7 was a classic demolition, no one can refute that with science

Aaand here's the rub. NIST and the rest of the scientific world must somehow reason you out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into. An impossible task.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomeoneWatching
reply to post by exponent
 

This Disclaimer really bugs me, though:
...
There were literally tons of evidence, why must "certain evidence" be "not directly related to the building fire being investigated"?

I believe they're talking about things like office layouts, that sort of thing. Stuff that companies do not want other companies knowing about.

Why does it bug you so?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Actually just the public. You might have noticed the huge list of engineering companies that worked on those simulations with NIST.


In your opinion, why is the public not allowed to review the simulation model they used for the investigation?

edit on 25-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SomeoneWatching
reply to post by exponent
 

This Disclaimer really bugs me, though:
...
There were literally tons of evidence, why must "certain evidence" be "not directly related to the building fire being investigated"?

I believe they're talking about things like office layouts, that sort of thing. Stuff that companies do not want other companies knowing about.

Why does it bug you so?




Disclaimer No. 3 Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).


Correct me if I'm wrong please...

The NIST Director was given authority to determine what evidence was or was not directly related to the building failure. To me that sounds like ONE person had control over what the thousands of scientists had access to. So all those honest and hard working scientists and architects and engineers can only report what they find in the evidence provided to them by apparently ONE person.

As far as I know NIST is a non-regulatory agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration.

Donald L. Evans was in charge of the U.S. Commerce Department at the time. He also happens to be the Man in the News; Donald L. Evans: Bush's New Campaign Chief Has Been a Steadfast Friend.

If this is the case, then...... Well you know.... No need to have all the scientists "in on it" for the cover up.

Bush tells his friend to make sure that no evidence of explosives ever make it to the lab, Evens tells the NIST director to make sure no evidence of explosives ever makes it to the scientists, NIST director determines that anything that may reveal explosives is irrelevant, scientists never see it and it's successfully covered up. Pretty simple, don't you think?
edit on 25-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
In your opinion, why is the public not allowed to review the simulation model they used for the investigation?
edit on 25-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)

Honestly? I don't think there's a good reason not to release it. I'd expect it would be treated like all other evidence has been, ie immediately scoured for anything that looks good for the truther side. If not then it'd be discarded as more trickery.

Still, I'm all for releasing it.


Correct me if I'm wrong please...

The NIST Director was given authority to determine what evidence was or was not directly related to the building failure. To me that sounds like ONE person had control over what the thousands of scientists had access to.

That's not how this works, the director is responsible for administrative nonsense, stuff like dealing with FOIAs. Imagine if you were an engineer working on this project and you were told "you don't need that". I think you'd feel suspicious, even if this was some sort of cover up they'd do it in the dark.


Donald L. Evans was in charge of the U.S. Commerce Department at the time. He also happens to be the Man in the News; Donald L. Evans: Bush's New Campaign Chief Has Been a Steadfast Friend.

If this is the case, then...... Well you know.... No need to have all the scientists "in on it" for the cover up.

This has never been a logical line of thinking. A friendship does not a conspiracy prove.


Bush tells his friend to make sure that no evidence of explosives ever make it to the lab, Evens tells the NIST director to make sure no evidence of explosives ever makes it to the scientists, NIST director determines that anything that may reveal explosives is irrelevant, scientists never see it and it's successfully covered up. Pretty simple, don't you think?

Obviously it's simple, because it's a fantasy. Just like when I dream of the lottery it's 'Buy ticket, win millions'. If only it were that simple in real life.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by whatsecret
The truth movement might be going away but it does not change the truth. WTC 7 can not and will not be explained without explosives. That's why this guy or any other official prefer to pass on answering these questions.

It already was explained without explosives. That's why there's no international outrage. That's why NISTs report was produced.

Conspiracy theorists still believe man can't get to the moon, so I don't hold out much hope of them learning facts about 911 anytime soon.

Hell the two 'debates' I am currently having are against two people who insist that their random uneducated speculation is undeniable fact, but peer reviewed science is some sort of trick that they refuse to even read or learn about.

Not a strong position. The truth movement is dead and the biggest group has been repeating claims that are incompatible with each other for their entire existence. They just don't care, it's not about truth, it's about money and influence. See Alex Jones for a perfect example, most of what he says is invented, lies or nonsense, but he lives in a multi million dollar home thanks to saps on the Internet.

Sad, but true.


Wait...you just said conspiracy theorists think that man has not been to the moon. What does that have to do with 911? And are you saying that,if I have a question about a specific topic pertaining to 911 that I should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and that I must think we have not been to the moon? You implied that. Talk about an ignorant and offensive statement. Wow!
edit on 27-5-2013 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
Wait...you just said conspiracy theorists think that man has not been to the moon. What does that have to do with 911?

It's an example of a completely accepted truth being denied by conspiracy theorists. My point being that conspiracy belief is no proof of anything.


And are you saying that,if I have a question about a specific topic pertaining to 911 that I should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and that I must think we have not been to the moon? You implied that. Talk about an ignorant and offensive statement. Wow!
edit on 27-5-2013 by amazing because: (no reason given)

Not at all. Questions are admirable, ignoring answers is the problem here.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Imagine if you were an engineer working on this project and you were told "you don't need that". I think you'd feel suspicious, even if this was some sort of cover up they'd do it in the dark.


Unless I never knew "that" existed. Are you saying every engineer knew exactly what was provided to NIST and what was given to every other engineer for analysis? Sounds pretty ridiculous, considering that so many different engineers were involved in this project.




This has never been a logical line of thinking. A friendship does not a conspiracy prove.


It's called conflict of interest. But I don't expect you to admit it. (I read your posts)




Obviously it's simple, because it's a fantasy. Just like when I dream of the lottery it's 'Buy ticket, win millions'. If only it were that simple in real life.


Maybe if you were the President of US, and you first got your old, good friend the a job as the director of the lottery commission. And maybe you had personal connections to the oil industry which pays a lot more than the lottery director makes. And after you won the lottery, your friend gets a job at the oil company from your home state. You think people would have questions?
edit on 27-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Honestly? I don't think there's a good reason not to release it


I can think of one good reason. But I was hoping you would give me another one.
edit on 27-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





It's an example of a completely accepted truth being denied by conspiracy theorists. My point being that conspiracy belief is no proof of anything.


I'm wondering who is saying that a conspiracy belief is proof of anything?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join