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.
It was suppossedly a terrorist attack. Terrorists use bombs a lot. They even did at the same place in '93. But, according to hooper, the use of explosives was not probable. I really don't get the logic of the shills and their supporters.
No original thoughts..
Original thoughts are great....if you're writing a fictional novel. You writing fiction?
Does the NIST report withstand scrutinity from experts not under the NIST umbrella?
If the NIST was so confident of its enquiry, why then did it take numerous attempts under the FOIA plus a lawsuit against their none compliance to the FOIA requests before they released anything they used in that inquiry.
I'm sorry, believing that a building can collapse because a 100 ton plane traveling near the speed of sound filled with tons of jet fuel is not exactly the same as believing in magic.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by kwakakev
If the NIST was so confident of its enquiry, why then did it take numerous attempts under the FOIA plus a lawsuit against their none compliance to the FOIA requests before they released anything they used in that inquiry.
My thoughts exactly. It has to be said, they don't seem particularly forthcoming when it comes to handing over anything they have used in order to reach the determinations in their investigation which in my opinion automatically renders all of their putative scientific data and evidence suspect. NIST's computer models constituting the basic substance of evidence for a fire-induced collapse cannot even be checked independently since they have resisted subjecting them to such testing and have bypassed FOIA's under the incredulous pretension that it may inadvertently 'jeopardize public safety'. I don't think NIST's report or models would hold up against a genuine, disinterested peer-reviewer which is why I think they are so unwilling to hand over anything for independent scrutiny and I think that fact places NIST's report beyond the scope and jurisdiction of real science in the same realm as religion and political ideology. Until NIST's models can be checked and verified by outsiders for their claimed veracity they remain merely imaginative speculation. I suspect the only reason they even went about manufacturing computer models in the first place is because they did not have the necessary evidence at hand to make their case compelling.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, and you no doubt are already aware, NIST did not "show their work" when it came to their computer models and other critical areas where numerous variables from structural data would be required, they never published the full structural documentations for any of the 3 buildings and neither did anyone else (making it impossible for the general public to do accurate analyses, and requiring assumptions to be made of structural components) and there are members of the ASCE and other organizations who have went public with professional criticisms of the report even without access to the full data used by the authors of the report. All of which you dismiss out of hand, with one bigoted word: "truther." Congratulations on already having made your mind up before ever coming to these discussions. NIST's report still proved nothing.edit on 15-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)
You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.
Now truthers, on the other hand, although mostly unqualified to offer an opinion, keep saying things like only explosives could have brought them down, virtual free-fall speed, dustification , only an OS sheep could believe it etc.etc.
What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community. If it is so plain and obvious to truthers that jetliners and fire could not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and that fire could not bring down WTC 7, why can't the qualified see it ?
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
C'mon...leave the guy alone. He's obviously practicing writing the next great "fictional novel" with "original thoughts". I also like the way he avoids mentioning the fact that those Towers were designed to handle multiple airline strikes from a Boeing 707. Only people with insidious agendas present information in such a deceitful and underhanded way.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, and you no doubt are already aware, NIST did not "show their work" when it came to their computer models and other critical areas where numerous variables from structural data would be required, they never published the full structural documentations for any of the 3 buildings and neither did anyone else (making it impossible for the general public to do accurate analyses, and requiring assumptions to be made of structural components) and there are members of the ASCE and other organizations who have went public with professional criticisms of the report even without access to the full data used by the authors of the report. All of which you dismiss out of hand, with one bigoted word: "truther." Congratulations on already having made your mind up before ever coming to these discussions. NIST's report still proved nothing.edit on 15-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)
You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.
Now truthers, on the other hand, although mostly unqualified to offer an opinion, keep saying things like only explosives could have brought them down, virtual free-fall speed, dustification , only an OS sheep could believe it etc.etc.
What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community. If it is so plain and obvious to truthers that jetliners and fire could not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and that fire could not bring down WTC 7, why can't the qualified see it ?
Originally posted by Alfie1
You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.
What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community
Originally posted by Alfie1Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.