NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
I am challenging your beliefs and your lack of knowledge of what the evidence is and tells us.

I am challegenging YOU. Bring to the table the evidence then. Not some report telling us what the evidence is. Reading comprehension is not our problem.

I'll refer you back to this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read carefully.

And if you refuse for the umpteenth time, we will all know who is the one without knowledge.

The burden of proof remains on you to refute the evidence, Griff.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT!!!!!!! Period.

You know what the evidence is. That's why you don't want to discuss it and cannot refute it.

I have never done this before because I have always felt that everyone has something to say. No matter how unintellegent they are.

IGNORED!!!!!

reply to post by seanm


Since you have bought into the official story hook, line and sinker, how do you refute what these Physicist and Scientist have to have to say about the
NIST report?

Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation’s neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: “Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST’s numerous volumes of study.”

Some of NIST’s own scientists are questioning its reports. Dr. James Quintiere, former chief of the fire science division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, recently said that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable” and called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the WTC towers.

Quintiere has called attention to many problems with NIST’s investigation and reports: the absence of a timeline, failure to explain the collapse of WTC 7, the spoliation of the evidence of a fire scene, reliance on questionable computer models, the absence of any evidence for the existence of temperatures NIST predicts as necessary for failure of the steel and a Commerce Department legal structure that instead of trying to find the facts “did the opposite and blocked everything.”

On Aug. 27, 2007, a prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science, Dr. Lynn Margulis, dismissed the official account of 9-11 as a “fraud” and called for a new, thorough and impartial investigation.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



edit to fix url





[edit on 24-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

I have NOT argued Flight 11 did not exist. I have NEVER implied I believed it didn't exist either.

Exactly. Thanks for admitting it. And that's the point, after all. It demonstrates that you are not serious about discussing evidence just as it became apparent you weren't serious in the discussion of AA77. But you can't have your cake and eat it to, coughymachine.

Your suggestion that I have is a lie. If you disagree, post my comments here, with a link.

And your additional misrepresentation of what I wrote is duly noted. Everyone can read the original post in which I asked you:

So let's start with the fundamental question:

Did AA11 exist as a regularly scheduled Boeing 757 [sic] flight on 9/11 or not?

If so, what happened to it? If not, what hit WTC 1?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Either AA11 existed as regularly scheduled Boeing 767 flight on 9/11/2001 or it did not. Explain to all of us why you refuse to answer that question, coughyman.

Oh, I forgot. You put me on ignore. How convenient.

Originally posted by Griff
I have never done this before because I have always felt that everyone has something to say. No matter how unintellegent they are.

IGNORED!!!!!

You did that before, then came back. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by seanm

You know what the evidence is. That's why you don't want to discuss it and cannot refute it.

the evidence is overwhelming.
the towers were blown by a shadow cabal of military/industrial overlords.

no one really needs to refute the official story. it refutes itself.

(shhhhhhh, don't mention building seven)

Originally posted by seanm
You did that before, then came back. Make up your mind.

Theres no point in him arguing you. You bring nothing to the table only your opinion, rock solid OV bias and a wtc.nist.gov link with so called "massive evidence" to the contrary of whoever you argue with(those dastardly thruthers).

Originally posted by seanm
I think you must realize that we are tired of such assertions. Please provide the necessary evidence to support your claims.

If only we could all do that seanm. Hmm......IRONY
Perhaps you would like to refute this post from ULTIMA earlier.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
How can the REPORT not face scrutiny after this statement from NIST themselves. You seem to think we should all live in a fantasy land, not questioning anything "official" and revelling in gullability.

Originally posted by seanm
But reading comprehension amongst 9/11 Truthers is extremely poor.

Originally posted by seanm
I think you've adequately demonstrated that only you and 9/11 Truthers live in a fantasy world.

Originally posted by seanm
You guys never bother to think before writing.

At this stage, reading over your posts in the last few pages of this thread alone i can see you are a childish troll resorting to name calling and little snide remarks whenever you get BEAT DOWN in an arguement.

Originally posted by seanm
It would help you to think before you write something silly.

Originally posted by seanm
DO catch up with what's written before replying next time.

Originally posted by seanm
Funny how 9/11 Truthers love to engage in logical fallacies. Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

Again and again and again, your arguments and presentation of evidence astounds me. How you have been given right up until now to troll the occupants and contributers to this forum i will never know.

Originally posted by seanm
I was disabusing Ultima 1 of his fantasies.

Originally posted by seanm
Eventually, 9/11 Truthers are going to have to sit back, take a deep breath, and evaluate why they are so easily taken in by such irrational nonsense.

He has a mission, to argue the governments postition no matter what, and wont flinch when shown or informed of anything to the contrary. I'd respect this if you actually had anything other than your opinions and insults to throw back at those who you debate. No, you are not patriotic, people like you are here for one purpose, you are here to obfuscate and waste time. You are here because its so important for you to do your mission, insert a snide remark and bring nothing to the table.

I wonder whos the one wasting their time at the end of it all. Whos the one who has nothing better to do than come here and argue the nutcase truthers, while being way too lazy to actually contribute to either side of the debate.

Originally posted by seanm
Talk about "brick walls!"

Oh yeah, if you cant learn to actually bring anything to the table, at least learn to use the edit button. This is not a race to have the most single reply posts in one thread.

Originally posted by seanm

Take a look at any video of WTC 1 and 2's collapses. The top block of WTC 1 was 40,000 tons that came down as one piece on to the rest of the building. It fell 6 feet before meeting any resistance.

Excuse me? Could you please explain the failure scenario that would allow the "top block" to fall as a whole unit? Do you understand how silly you look when you make this claim and then on the same page of a thread defend the NIST report? NIST has never been so stupid as to claim what you're claiming. In fact, short of you I've not seen any one stupid enough to make that claim.

The TOP BLOCK was a section of 30 some stories that began to tilt over and fall. Then something miraculous happened: In violation of all known laws of physics, the rotation of the block, the movement of one side down, STOPPED and instead the entire section, instead of falling into the street below, fell straight down. This can be caused by only one thing: The section that was at the pivot point, where the BLOCK was still in contact with the rest of the building below, simply GAVE WAY !! That section where the BLOCK was touching and allowing the angle of fall to occur, simply WENT AWAY!!

Imagine that!! The laws of physics state that a body in motion will continue in that motion UNLESS some other force affects the whole. What was that force? That is the question. And, don't forget that the entire BLOCK did NOT simply crush all below it as some would imagine and end up as a huge section atop a pile of rubble..no. What happened was the BLOCK simply turned into dust!! When the BLOCK enters the smoke and dust zone it never makes it out at the bottom!! It is turned into dust just like the rest on the building!!

Now, what could cause a huge section of building, already cut off as a unit and isolated from the rest of the building except for the tiny area where the pivot point was, to simply turn into dust? According to the people who believe that the weight of that section was able to crush the steel supports down to the ground , there should be a big section of BLOCK still remaining after it finished crushing the rest...but it is not there. It is all dust. So unless someone can tell us what forces were at work that could account for the dustification of that section of BLOCK, they cannot at the same time insist that the section had enough weight to crush the rest of the structure. If the section was being turned into dust, where does the massive weight come from?

There are SO MANY incredible and amazing and ridiculous assumptions that have to be accepted before one can believe the official story: All one needs to believe that it was an inside job have to do is use common sense and evaluate the evidence with an open mind. It staggers me that after all of the proofs that have been given about this event that there are still people who believe the official story. It can only be a case of classic denial, morbid denial. There is no other answer unless one has a mission, a calling, so to speak, or an agenda. Taken in totality, the evidence is clear and unambiguous: Inside job and controlled demo all the way. Any other view is laughable under the circumstances.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Structural Engineering 101

I sat there in awe as they stood as long as they did, with the smoke billowing from the building, knowing the intense heat at which jet fuel burns.

Jet Fuel 101

Jet fuel only burns with intense heat when it is inside a working jet engine. It is the compressed air that gives the jet fuel aka kerosene its intense heat. Take away the compressed air provided by the compressors in the engine and you have the heat of a kerosene lantern.

The top block of the South Tower has puzzled many people and no-one has offered a proper response regarding it. It should have continued its rotation, keeping with the law of conservation of angular momentum.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by talisman]

reply to post by groingrinder



One has to take into account - if they are going to remain within the realm of the NIST report - that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion that occured at impact. Therefore, the fires have to be viewed as with the fuel available from building finish out materials and office materials.

This covers the 9/11 Truth Movement pretty well:

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

We are in danger of losing our grip on the concepts of truth, evidence, objectivity, disinterested inquiry. The preposterous environment in which academic work is presently conducted is inhospitable to genuine inquiry, hospitable to the sham and the fake. Encouraging both envy and resentment of the sciences, it has fed an increasingly widespread and articulate irrationalism.

Susan Haack

That is preposterous which puts the last first and the first last. . . . Valuing knowledge, we preposterize the idea and say . . . everybody shall produce written research in order to live, and it shall be decreed a knowledge explosion.
-- Jacques Barzun1

There is, to be sure, a lot of misinformation about, and that is, certainly, a problem. But what concerns me is a deeper and more disturbing development: a rising tide of irrationalism, a widespread and increasingly articulate loss of confidence in the very possibility of honest inquiry, scientific or otherwise.

A hundred years or so ago, C. S. Peirce, a working scientist as well as the greatest of American philosophers, distinguished genuine inquiry from "sham reasoning," pseudo-inquiry aimed not at finding the truth but at making a case for some conclusion immovably believed in advance; and predicted that, when sham reasoning becomes commonplace, people will come "to look on reasoning as merely decorative," and will "lose their conceptions of truth and of reason."2

This is the very debacle taking place before our eyes: genuine inquiry is so complex and difficult, and advocacy "research" and politically-motivated "scholarship" have become so commonplace, that our grip on the concepts of truth, evidence, objectivity, inquiry has been loosened. I want to talk about how this disaster came about, and the role played by the phenomenon Barzun calls "preposterism" in encouraging it.

Pseudo-Inquiry; and the Real Thing

A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. This is a tautology (Webster's: "inquiry: search for truth . . ."). A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.

Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bull#ter.)3 Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.

Continued at: www.csicop.org...

Sorry if someone has raised this before, but it's an important point.

I was in the WTC several times in the 1980s & 1990s. It was always full of people. Thousands of people worked there, and tens of thousands visited, and it was busy 24/7.

Some people will not accept that the buildings' collapse was caused by a combination of the planes bursting some of the structure on entry, and the conflagration of 24,000 gallons of avaition fuel gradually weakening the rest. After all, buildings like this are designed to collapse vertically on themselves in case of catastrophic failure of this type.

There is an implication that explosives were planted in the building, on several different levels and in different locations. By whom, exactly, when and how? Where is the evidence for this? To plant tons of explosives in the WTC could not have been done covertly, the building was just too busy. It must have involved dozens or hundreds of planters, with detonators, wiring and other equipment. Where exactly were these explosives supposed to be placed and stored? Why didn't the army of people employed in cleaning and maintaining the building notice all this? People who worked there all the time would have been suspicious.

So where is the evidence? I have never seen any. Or is the suggestion that the explosives were built into the structure in the 1970s, knowing in advance that the Bush administration would be elected to office 20 years later and want to demolish it in some super-conspiracy plot?

It's a completely mad idea if you ask me, and just not necessary to explain how and why these buildings collapsed. But if someone can produce some evidence of how, where and when all these explosives were placed, and by whom, in what way, and why it wasn't noticed by any of the thousands of people who worked there, well then I'm open minded. Let's have some sworn testimonies from some of the explosives-riggers please. Otherwise, it's just a crazy and unsupported lunacy with nothing to back it up, except that's the way you want the world to be and you won't offer any evidence.

Originally posted by seanm
This covers the 9/11 Truth Movement pretty well:


Continued at: www.csicop.org...

Nice try. Another obvious attempt at obfuscation.

Now why dont you show us in the NIST report where they address.

the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall

[edit on 25-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by bovarcher
To plant tons of explosives in the WTC could not have been done covertly, the building was just too busy.

When was the last time you closely watched what a construction worker or maintenance guy was doing?

When was the last time anyone here actually walked up to a construction or maintenance worker and pestered them about what they were doing, because it looked suspicious?

Nobody does that in real life.

There's even less of a chance of there being a problem when you close sections of the building off at a time, and work in groups isolated from civilians. I'm talking about a front team, of course, which shouldn't be too hard to conceive given the subject and the fact that the CIA openly admits to having used front teams and even stores and companies during past operations.

Originally posted by bovarcher
By whom, exactly, when and how?

Securacom 1996-2000... they had four years, access and the excuse of installing "new security systems".

Check out who ran Securacom sometime.

FWIW - Working in the WTC gives you no more credibility than anyone else here so you can leave those prefaces off of your posts.

For everyone else - Is Seanm the fifth incarnation of "vushta"?

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Pootie]

When was the last time you closely watched what a construction worker or maintenance guy was doing?

When was the last time anyone here actually walked up to a construction or maintenance worker and pestered them about what they were doing, because it looked suspicious?

Well sorry, I don't buy it. Because something might be theoretically possible does not mean it happened, just because someone wants to believe it.

If someone can produce sworn testimony that this was done, and can explain how, and by whom, on what dates and with what materials, and produce corroborating evidence to support their testimony, then I will give it some credence. Until that time, it's just a wild fantasy unsupported by anything. It's not even consistent with the buildings collapsing.

Who exactly detonated these 'explosives', from where and how? What is the proof of this?

The towers didn't even 'need' to collapse; the terror outrage had already been committed. You could say the job would have been far more effective if they'd stayed standing, with massive damage visible for miles around and for years before repair or demolition. That to collapse the towers might even dilute the impact on the popular consciousness. It doesn't make any sense.

Is it your idea that the bombings in London and Madrid, and all those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Egypt and everywhere else are also carried out by the secret US government or whatever? That there are no extremist suicidal jihadists, that it's all some kind of illusion invented by whoever?

Originally posted by bovarcher
Well sorry, I don't buy it. Because something might be theoretically possible does not mean it happened, just because someone wants to believe it.

I'm not saying I think it was an inside job because people don't really check up on maintenance guys. I was just responding to the idea that no one could rig the buildings when they were occupied, which is a naive idea. I think it was an inside job for a number of other reasons, where the rest of your rant would just be non-sequitur.

Here's an update of this story

McIlvaine, Jones, Ryan and Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have now filed an appeal to NIST's reply.

911blogger.com...