Amazing NIST Attitude: Unbelievable exchange between reporter and NIST spokesman

First, I'd like to play this quick compilation of WTC-7 collapse footage:




However, when NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel, this was their exchange:

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

Source: ct911truth.org...

Are you serious? This is their official response and people still take them seriously? I have always known/believed that NIST (and others) try to duck any kind of questions whose answers may suggest something on the contrary to the OS, however to be so blatant with ignorance, yet still have people take you seriously, as a scientific agency, is beyond me.

This is the kind of ignorance that we are up against. The fact that they can publicly hold this attitude and yet still win the debate, according to official conspiracy theorists is beyond me and indicative of their refusal to listen to reason or use logic when weighing the situation.

This conversation alone should speak volumes for the agency's desire (or lack thereof) to understand the truth. Here, we have NIST who admits that it is an oddity that WTC-7 collapsed, yet that's only because they are trying to fit the evidence with the pre-conceived outcome, instead of the other way around. What scientific organization does that, unless they are simply trying to cover something up? I'm sure that both "truthers" and "believers" alike can agree that this conversation was absurd and illogical.

Here is another NIST official, John Gross, also weaseling his way out of answering questions that do not conform to the OS:





--airspoon

Well, they know for a fact that there was no chance, absolutely no chance, there could have been anything that would have aided in the destruction of the building planted beforehand. Knowing this, why waste the time and resources in doing the research. (Playing devil's advocate)

I agree with what you are saying, but you're asking an organization within and setup by the government to assume there was foul play involved. Such an assumption in itself would say a lot about that organizations opinion on the event.


Though I do believe that it would be highly unlikely, if an individual would run across something that would link the collapse to a conspiracy, anyone within NIST would not be able to get said evidence out.

Just my two cents.

People should know that not one piece of steel from WTC7 was saved for examination. All of it was promptly shipped away to preclude any actual investigation.

Here's a video of the New York Housing Authority dump trucks in convoy not long after the collapse of WTC7 headed to the site to begin hauling away the evidence. Shot on Houston street between East Side NYC and East Village:



You can count 2 dozen trucks in the video alone, there were probably many more than that. Every truck had a tracking device attached to ensure that no unauthorized stops were made. Why so security conscious?

NIST is full of you-know-what (propaganda), certainly not science.
Just more evidence that someone has something to hide.
Giuliani knows a great deal more than he has told the public to be sure.

The OS breaks down to logical scrutiny every time.
The goverment cannot afford to let the truth be known. It is simply too damning of them.
If every man in america had it rubbed in his face that the goverment was stringing us along like a bunch of patsies, i am sure the revolution would be swiftly mounted against it.
The people are afraid to let their common sense prevail here, as they would be then obliged to actually do something about it.
truth is everybody knows, yet nobody wants to admit it.
Why? The fear that nothing will ever be the same after.....we are afraid of finding ourselves in a world where there is no democracy, no freedom, and where everything is not what it is purported to be.
If 9/11 is a huge lie, then what else is also a huge lie?
Damn near everything the goverment tells us!
We are too scared to stand up to reality and actually confront the PTB with their crimes.
We are afraid of what the consequences of doing so would be.
Psychologists call this avoidance, and we are into it big time.
I believe that when the conclusions are no longer avoidable,and we begin to see things for what they are,
itll already be too late to react.

Originally posted by unfndqlt
Well, they know for a fact that there was no chance, absolutely no chance, there could have been anything that would have aided in the destruction of the building planted beforehand. Knowing this, why waste the time and resources in doing the research. (Playing devil's advocate)

I agree with what you are saying, but you're asking an organization within and setup by the government to assume there was foul play involved. Such an assumption in itself would say a lot about that organizations opinion on the event.


Though I do believe that it would be highly unlikely, if an individual would run across something that would link the collapse to a conspiracy, anyone within NIST would not be able to get said evidence out.

Just my two cents.

edit on 11-10-2010 by unfndqlt because: grammer

If a lot of different people have heard explosions and where injured by these, i would expect them to investigate such things?

There where a lot of witnesses to multiple explosions.

reply to post by unfndqlt

Well, they know for a fact that there was no chance, absolutely no chance, there could have been anything that would have aided in the destruction of the building planted beforehand.

That's quite a bold statement and notion that is ill conceived. What would make you think that we know for a fact explosives couldn't have been planted - or weren't planted - beforehand?

I have heard some people cite the excuse that the thousands of employees would have noticed such an operation but that excuse is null and void, seeing how maintenance is performed on those buildings all of the time, so any employees wouldn't be able to spot the planting of explosives, say over a security system upgrade or an A/C work up.

Furthermore, Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush, was "principal" and on the board of directors for a company named Securacom, which [url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html?q=911security.htmlupgraded and installed a new security system at the WTC complex[/url], as well as contracted that security system for the complex in the years before 9/11. Now, it's important to note that the installation of a security system in a high-rise, such as TWC, is much different that say getting a system installed in your home. It actually takes some pretty thorough maintenance and access to the "guts" of the building.

This is when explosives could have been rigged in the buildings or they really could have been rigged in the buildings at any time.

However, on the weekened of 9/8-9/9, 2001, there was a "power-down" condition in at least Tower 2, according to Scott Forbes, an IT worker for one of the building occupants. Mr. Forbes also remembers workers coming in and out of the building that weekened. Being in charge of the IT for his company, he had to go in that weekened and shut-down his company's servers.

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." --Scott Forbes

Because Mr. Forbes worked on that weekened, he took the day of Sept. 11 off, which is the only reason he is still alive, according to him.

Here is a video of Mr. Forbes:



Now, I'm inclined to believe that this may have been the "arming", "charging" or final preperations of the demolitions before the big day that would come on the following Tuesday.

The notion that it is a fact that explosives couldn't have been planted in any of the buildings before 9/11 is entirely false. If we can cut through the enormous amounts of ignorance concerning 9/11, then we haven't a chance of exposing the truth, regardless of which side of the fence you sit.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Add to that they pulled the explosive sniffing dogs from the WTC several weeks before 9/11.
Just one more coincidence?

reply to post by airspoon


I'm sorry, can't watch that video right now. Which version of his story is he telling on it? The " the whole building was powered down" or the more accurate (by his own admission) " the power was down on the floors my company occupied" story?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Umm, no, for several weeks they had EXTRA bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC complex. It was those dogs that were removed. The dogs normally assigned to the complex, were still there.

reply to post by vipertech0596

I'm sorry, can't watch that video right now. Which version of his story is he telling on it? The " the whole building was powered down" or the more accurate (by his own admission) " the power was down on the floors my company occupied" story?

He has always maintained that he can only speak for the parts of the floors of that he worked on. If there was confusion, it was probably due to him not stating it clearly. When he first spoke up, he was talking about a power-down in Tower 2, simply just as that. He never implied that he knew anything else, after all, how could he?

Now that's not to say that the rest of the building or even the other buildings didn't have power-downs, only that he can only speak to his floors in his building.

Disinformation propagators and illogical reasoners, deliberately try to confuse his words, in some kind of benine and ill-fated attempt to discredit him, a man who has nothing to gain by coming forward with his information.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Wrong answer. The first time he came forward, his story was different. It was only when he got caught telling mistruths that he started changing his story.

Proof or it didn't happen and no, a pundit's claims aren't proof. He wasn't "caught" telling any "mistruths". Just because someone is not specific enough on a matter that is implied anyway to anyone above the 2nd grade, doesn't mean that they weren't telling the truth. It's pretty much implied that he can only speak for what he knows (i.e. his own experiences), at least to anyone intelligent enough to comprehend his claims in the first place.

With that being said, I believe I can remember when this guy first came forward and I don't remember anything other than this guy clearly stating that he can only speak for his experience as far as the power-down, however I can certainly understand how the disinformation propagators would try to twist his words around if he wasn't specific enough.

Can you provide any kind of proof or a source such as a taped interview from him? If you can't, then that means it probably didn't happen and instead is only a tactic to propagate ignorance and obfuscate the truth. There really is not other purpose to these kinds of tactics, other than obfuscation to deliberately deny people the truth, in which case motives need to be ascertained.


--airspoon

I seems damned obvious to me that everyone was told to button their lips. We have far too many men in this country with no balls.

tt

Hey guys was watching 9/11 coincidences last night and noticed a statement made by william rodriguez (a.k.a last survivor) "I was on the 33 floor going up to help people when i heard the strangest sound coming from the 34th floor above me. It sounded like a dumpster on metal wheels being moved around. And I knew for a fact that floor 34 was a construction floor, it was hallow. The elevator did'nt even stop ther you needed a special key to get off on that floor. But whatever it was it scared me." How curious is the word 'scared' when william stayed for over an hour in the buliding helping people, aparrently not afraid at that stage, but the second he hear those noises he knew something wasn't right. THE U.S GOVERNMENT IS FAKE!!!!

reply to post by airspoon


I would like to reiterate that I was playing devils advocate, and was merely trying to convey the thought processes of an individual doing an investigation within NIST. Why would a government organization need to look for anything other than what the official story dictates? Anyone who was watching tv that fateful day saw what happened. All that happened ;-)

Oh, and I have seen the video where the firefighter comes out of what i think is the first building with blood all over his face saying there was an explosion in the lobby, and he keeps saying that is just is'nt right. I'll try and find the video,

not the vid I was referring to but, still I think it fits the argument.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by airspoon

 

Add to that they pulled the explosive sniffing dogs from the WTC several weeks before 9/11.
Just one more coincidence?

Has any reason for this been quoted? It seems a little suspicious that a security measure such as sniffer dogs would be pulled abruptly, unless it ties in with alternative security measures being introduced...

Originally posted by Gilbo303

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by airspoon

 

Add to that they pulled the explosive sniffing dogs from the WTC several weeks before 9/11.
Just one more coincidence?

Has any reason for this been quoted? It seems a little suspicious that a security measure such as sniffer dogs would be pulled abruptly, unless it ties in with alternative security measures being introduced...

As was pointed out above; the normally assigned dogs were still there. Sirius died in the attack :-

our.homewithgod.com...

reply to post by airspoon


I don't see anything bizarre in NIST's response. How much time should be devoted to searching for things for which there is no evidence ?

I don't suppose they spent much time on considering DEW weapons or alien death rays either.

If a man is knocked down in the street by a truck and has obviously been crushed to death, how much time would the police spend looking for spent bullets and empty cartridge cases ?

Great thread,airspoon! s&f for ya! NIST's attittude is typical of any government agency the problem is,they did not expect so many people to raise so many questions we must always remember at the time the feds were hiding behind the general public's desire to believe whatever offical will say.