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.
Originally posted by amfirst
Get over this bull. I'm sick of hearing the same old tread, every day.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by CameronFox
We are in agreement. I'm assuming Cameron Fox's side of the story is in agreement with the official story as it appears he is presenting science supporting that.
I agree with the NIST report. That is becasue their studies have been peer reviewed by hundreds of engineers. Anyone that has come out against it has NEVER had their theory peer reviewed.
Now..on to the 911 Commision Report. Thats garbage. I'm sure most agree with that.
[edit on 2-12-2006 by CameronFox]
The NIST report is for crap. And that takes no peer review. They claim steel experienced creep at no more than 300 C for less than 1 hour. That's an idiotic (or if you prefer a downright intentionally false) statement to make.
They state no structural element experienced temperatures in excess of 250 to 300 C and was not exposed to fire for the duration of time between the impact and the collapse. Their own diagrams do not show sufficient damage to structural elements due to initial impact to allow a global collapse.
If you want to go with the official story and feel comfortable, you might re-think your position. You're standing on shifting ground. There's been statements made that CTr's have "changed their story" over the years. But the log in your NIST eye has obviously got your mote-seeking eye clogged. The NIST changed their story for five years straight....and then they settled on one that is scientifically perverse. It's an embarrassment. By the way, that abortion of a report cost the U.S. tax payers $16.5 million. What an expensive turd to have delivered to our dinner table, huh?
In fact, I was just in a business meeting yesterday in which we were creating a potential pool of experts on a particular research subject to draw from for research purposes, and one of them was involved with NIST - I had their name removed from the list of possible candidates. We don't need that idiocy involved in our efforts...not if we want to deal with real science.
[edit on 12-2-2006 by Valhall]
Originally posted by Valhall
No he doesn't. There's no one obligated to prove a negative. If your theory is that 911 was an inside job, you are obligated to prove that. But absolutely no one is obligated to prove it is not true.
You're kind of losing sight of logic, aren't you?
Originally posted by jinsanity
not really. I have a right to ask this question. It was asked of me when I was on the otherside of the coin and i'm forever thankful that I wasn't able to conclusively prove.
I've already provided conclusive proof.
Find my post
Read it and Weep CT deniers. 9/11 undeniable controlled demolition.
the link was 9/11 proof or something like that.
"There's a BOMB in the building...start clearing out..." NY firefighter on 9/11.
Originally posted by thesneakiod
Planes have even hit houses yet they never fell. Wasnt there a building in madrid that
was hit, burned for hours but still stayed upright?
It doesnt make any sense.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Do I feel comforted by the NIST report? not really...is it 100% accurate? I doubt it! Yes, they have changed their findings as they become available to them. Remember FEMA called it a pancake collapse. As you learn more...you make changes. Remember the original theories from the CT'ers? Pods under the planes! NO PLANES? Holograms, Computerized voices to loved ones....... The "officials" have to make changes as evidence gets looked over. Just like those that question it.
I don't see anyone jumping on the hologram theory that often. NOR do I see the "deniers" jumping on the "pancake collapse" theory.
The bottom line... WERE there explosives in the WTC? Besides Mr. Rodrequez and a few others...there is not ANY proof of this. I'm still looking to find out what floor in the basement the K9 police officer was on in the North Tower. Seismic activity does not support a bomb in the basement levels.
I'm not qualified to make 100% CERTAIN that there wasn't a bomb or bombs...but of all the evidence that I have read leads me to believe that there wasnt. It's MY belief. Until I see some pretty good evidence, I will stay with the "offical" NIST report.
This does NOT mean I am not for a NEW 911 Investigation. This would be to find out WHAT, WHY, and HOW our government FAILED in protecting us. As I have stated several times here...I came here to find information on what Bush DIDN'T do.. and what others thought. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield are all dirty.
Just my Sunday morning rant. (Bored at work today)
Yes but Moussoui was found guilty.
Sad ,but true.How can anything be proven with no evidence.The only way it can be proven is if someone comes forward and admits it.No chance of that cause whoever was involved laughed all the way to the bank.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by CameronFox
Do I feel comforted by the NIST report? not really...is it 100% accurate? I doubt it! Yes, they have changed their findings as they become available to them. Remember FEMA called it a pancake collapse. As you learn more...you make changes. Remember the original theories from the CT'ers? Pods under the planes! NO PLANES? Holograms, Computerized voices to loved ones....... The "officials" have to make changes as evidence gets looked over. Just like those that question it.
I don't see anyone jumping on the hologram theory that often. NOR do I see the "deniers" jumping on the "pancake collapse" theory.
The bottom line... WERE there explosives in the WTC? Besides Mr. Rodrequez and a few others...there is not ANY proof of this. I'm still looking to find out what floor in the basement the K9 police officer was on in the North Tower. Seismic activity does not support a bomb in the basement levels.
I'm not qualified to make 100% CERTAIN that there wasn't a bomb or bombs...but of all the evidence that I have read leads me to believe that there wasnt. It's MY belief. Until I see some pretty good evidence, I will stay with the "offical" NIST report.
This does NOT mean I am not for a NEW 911 Investigation. This would be to find out WHAT, WHY, and HOW our government FAILED in protecting us. As I have stated several times here...I came here to find information on what Bush DIDN'T do.. and what others thought. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield are all dirty.
Just my Sunday morning rant. (Bored at work today)
You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation (pfffft - okay, pun wasn't intended). The NIST accepted the mandate to find out what caused the towers to collapse. They took over 16 million dollars of taxpayer money. They delivered such a scientifically-flawed report that if my son handed me that I'd take him behind the woodshed and whip his ass.
It's not a trivial matter. There can be no "New investigation". The evidence is gone. The chance was pissed off by a group who stole our money and fed us cake.
Compare this to Pain Stewart's learjet mishap. 5 radio hails, no response. 20 minutes later Norad has a squadron flying alongside the Learjet.
At least after I saw the documentary Fahrenheit 911
Originally posted by jinsanity
I'm curious to see what passes off as the official story these days.
So go for it. Fungi, Cam etc... I'm all ears. If you can quell the swirling ideas of inside job then I'll be there front and centre.
[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]
[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]
Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm just not educated in the field of structural engineering and demolition to call them on what they post. (most of the time)