NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Bsbray11

Your input will be considered, and taken into consideration by staff. However it is suggested that all future posts and contributions to this thread be topic related, and all members focus on such.

Please stay on topic, and get back to the material of evidence, and shy away from debative opinions. Educated and source supported information on the subject of the "Towers Collapse", being said subject.

Thank you.

I have started a thread for the purpose of discussing the content of the NIST letter on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

due to the fact that the original topic on the current thread has been successfully (and I personally believe intentionally) derailed.

reply to post by Griff

Being in a similar situation and actually possessing a degree in Civil engineering with a structural background and working as a structural engineer, I was in awe when they fell. I guess to each his own.

Classic! To have a COMPLETE collapse as was seen on 9/11 due damage that the designers of the WTC said was sustainable by the design, is incredible. For it to happen twice, IN THE EXACT SAME WAYis virtually impossible, sans some help.

You pile two towers of bricks 2x2 bricks square and 10 ft tall, and push both in the middle, neither will collapse the same way. The WTC was no different, yet both towers collapsed in totality with next to nothing left above ground level afterwards. It just doesn't happen naturally.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit



No, the designers did NOT say it was sustainable. They didn't even come close to saying that.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
For it to happen twice, IN THE EXACT SAME

I don't see why this would be a problem. The buildings were identical twins. Both had airplanes rammed into them in the same manner. Why can't they fall in the same fashion? Your argument isn't any stronger than the argument that they should fall in the same manner. See how they both did fall the same, I'd say your argument was actually not a very good one.

Originally posted by Valhall
I'll repeat (in line with the subject of the thread)

NIST has admitted they will remove critical statements from the report because they don't want to be bothered with trying to answer questions about them. AND, they cherry picked the damage models they chose to report on based on whether those damage models would meet their a priori assumptions or not.

Could you provide that quote from NIST for us?

And while you are at it, can you please explain to us how not analyzing the global collapse has any bearing on the cause of the collapse? Could you please also tell us how this makes them criminals? I mean we'll forget about your dishonest description there and just focus on those points.

reply to post by Valhall


The thread mentioned above will be strictly ENFORCED WRT ON TOPIC discussion ONLY per the enhanced enforcement this forum has required..

There are a number of members who feel this letter is an important enough poece of the puzzle that wish to discuss THE LETTER without getting into the typical bollocks that ensues in most 9/11 conspiracy/no conspiracy debates.

Springer...

reply to post by ADVISOR


I truly hope it is.

The member in question has repeaditly resorted to blatant obfuscation, deflection of questions and topic changing all in an attempt to inflate his/her ego and or disrupt and derail this thread.

Not to mention the demeanor of the member in question toward other members who do not agree with him/her is derogatory, demeening, and condescending at best.

There truly are members of ATS trying to find out the truth as to what happened on 9-11.

When legitimate questions are raised by members about the procedures, exclusions and methodologies of the NIST report and they are confronted in the manor and fashion the member in question has exhibited which is essentially an attempt to stifle informed debate among members who have various view points and concerns then I think some action has to be taken by the Admin of ATS regarding said member.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by etshrtslr]

Well, we have two people here - seanm and snoopy - who are deliberately and repeatedly (even after administrative request) twisting people's words and making false accusations against other members.

...in a thread that was originally about a topic of serious importance and implication.

I think it is an intentional derailment.

reply to post by etshrtslr


To answer that question, yes. I have opened an investigation into the conduct of certain member/s activities within the mentioned thread. After thorough review, corrective action will be administered and again certain member/s will be handled by staff.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, we have two people here - seanm and snoopy - who are deliberately and repeatedly (even after administrative request) twisting people's words and making false accusations against other members.

...in a thread that was originally about a topic of serious importance and implication.

I think it is an intentional derailment.

Are you kidding? YOU are the one who is is deliberately and repeatedly twisting peoples words. This is why I keep asking you for the actual quotes of these accusations you keep making.

And the topic of the thread alone is a flat out dishonest lie. Let's keep that in mind. And let's not forget your accusation that people are deliberately trying to derail the thread which you are obviously accusing me and sean of doing (which we clearly are NOT) when the real cause is simply the conspiracy shuffle. That is when an issue is addressed, people have to start throwing out other conspiracy theories as an argument if the original is shot down. But clearly someone disagreeing with your claims of criminal activity override seeing that.

So if you want to claim that people discussing the questions you posed or asking you why you think that the paper that the thread refers shows a criminal act, then I don't know what you expect. If that's not on topic, then pleas tell us what is. Please point out where I have made false accusations. Was is somewhere during the part of you calling people tards?

Thread LOCKED until pending investigation completed.

READ BEFORE POSTING

Having finished my investigation of all every exhausting last page of this, I am tentatively re-opening this thread so that discussion may continue ON TOPIC. Please make a note of the following:

User "seanm" has been post-banned - Having read through every last one of his replies, as well as his responses in the other threads, it is blatantly obvious he is nothing more than a troll. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to any of the threads he has posted in, insulted our fellow members, and has deliberately baited others with inflammatory responses.

User "snoopy" has been warned - Snoopy, I believe, actually started his participation in this thread with good intentions, but began to obsess over his demand for a computer model. These demands eventually became less and less professional, and eventually turned into outright derailment. I don't think Snoopy walked into this with the intent to derail, but rather got overheated on an otherwise very emotional subject. Still, this behavior is not acceptable, hence the warn. Snoopy, you stepped out of line, and you need to take a very deep breath, collect yourself, and when you come back, I expect a much calmer attitude from you. I think you've got valid input, but need to learn not to take these discussions so personally.

Before a single one of you says anything to the effect that I am favoring one side or the other, I suggest you read this. If you still have a problem with the way I handled it, file a complaint.

The next person I see derailing this thread will get warned. The next person I see insulting another member in this thread is looking at a probable post-ban. I hope I have made myself crystal clear.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit.

You pile two towers of bricks 2x2 bricks square and 10 ft tall, and push both in the middle, neither will collapse the same way. The WTC was no different, yet both towers collapsed in totality with next to nothing left above ground level afterwards. It just doesn't happen naturally.

there ABSOLUTELY should be a pyramid shaped pile of debris in a gravity driven collapse of such a tall structure.

(not really a 'one liner')

EDIT: my original post here was off topic and i posted without reading the entire thread to see how it had degenerated so badly.

my apologies, eyewitness, im starting a new thread about this post. i tell you this so that anyone reading your post wont be confused.
thanks

new thread here

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Damocles]

Looking at that picture above convinces me pretty much that some aircraft hit that Tower.There are so many glaring anomalies about the planes and Towers that I was leaning to the no plane side, but how on earth could explosives have pushed those beams INWARDS? The framework, the outer framework, is obviously showing that it was pushed IN..not out, as an explosive would do. The explosives would have to have been attached to the outside of the Towers in order to achieve the effects seen, but that is not likley.

It seems that some planes, no proof as to if they were the highjacked ones or not has been verified, hit the Towers and caused the localized damage that was the excuse needed for the total destruction of the Towers. There is NO doubt that it was an inside job totally and that explosives were used throughout the event, and no doubt that with HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' still waiting for a rational answer, the average person will never accept the official story.

Why is it that some people just cannot see the obviousness of it all? How do they account for all the concrete turning into a dust so fine that is was described as being like ' flour ' ? The DUSTIFICATION of all those hundreds of tons of concrete had to come from an energy source massive enough to turn the buildings and people into rubble.

Just recently they found some human remains on top of a nearby buildings roof, and the pieces were tiny..the relatives wondered how they could have been blown that far away by a gravity collapse (!!) and WHY were all of the human remains from the upper areas reduced to tiny fragments as well? Anything with a water base was blown to smithereens but paper and such was left intact to litter the streets.

I think that some people get the idea that there was some great heavy block crushing down on top of the building and reducing it to dust, but that cannot be. Gravity might have made chunks and large pieces but to dustify means another thing altogether. How to get around the dust? How do they do it? there is NO scientific rationale for it: No way to get gravity and fire supposedly weakening steel and then dropping down to create a force that could UNIFORMLY, all over the Towers ( both) turn all of the concrete to dust. It staggers the sound mind to think that anyone could believe that.

And, how do they get around the fact that in order for their belief system to be true, they would have to accept the hilarious story that localized and cool fires could weaken the steel of both Towers in brief periods of time enough to make them give waY totally, and all of it AT THE EXACT SAME TIME !! Imagien that!! The fires heated the steel so evenly, so totally uniformly in both cases that the tops fell straight down into the footprint!! Isn't that amazing? HOW could steel weaken all over at the same time in the core and the perimeter steel lattice when the fires were not universal?

My God the Official story is so full of embarrassing holes that no sceenwriter would dare bring a script like this to the table..what a laugh. To think that two 100 story buildings, made to withstand almost anything at all, overengineered and strong, could fall straight down and turn to dust all the way to the bottom, with the core turning to dust also!! HOW do they get past the CORE turning to dust as well? Just ignore it and move along? What are we to do with the people who blindly stagger thru life looking but not seeing?

I am not a structural engineer and on both sides it's easy to sway me but no matter how swayed I get toward the "government did it" theory three 100% infallible statements thing continues to slap me into reality and I am surprised more of you do not feel the same.

(probably a believers tendency to ignore the obvious)

1. The Bush Administration could not possibly have kept this a secret in any shape or form.

2. The Bush Administration could not possibly have killed all the people they would have needed to kept this a secret in any shape or form.

3. The Bush Administration is too incompetent to have possibly pulled this off in any shape or form.


Seriously, isn't that enough proof?
If not.. why not?


I think explaining how they could have kept this a secret is harder than trying to prove "they" did it.

reply to post by gormly



Question.

Why did it take "Deep Throat" over 30 years to confess who he was (on his deathbed)? 30 years after Nixon went down. What was he still afraid of?

reply to post by gormly

I don't especially want to perpetuate an off-topic line of enquiry but, even if 9/11 was some sort of self-inflicted wound, who said the Bush administration was responsible for it?