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 hooper
You're more than welcome! Just in case the readers are interested here is the entire un-cherry picked statement:
www.enfp.umd.edu...
Originally posted by Elbereth
Originally posted by hooper
You're more than welcome! Just in case the readers are interested here is the entire un-cherry picked statement:
www.enfp.umd.edu...
Yes, people should read that. It will not inspire confidence that NIST knew what it was doing or proceeded logically.
Originally posted by hooper
Actually, I think it will inspire confidence in the notion that these are professional people too busy and too knowledgeable to be chasing around conspiracy fantasies.
Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by spw184
Plenty of paper items survive an airliner accident. IIan Ramon's notebook survived the break-up of Space Shuttle Columbia....it was singed, but many of the pages were still readable.
That the NIST failed in its mandate is no conspiracy fantasy and the best argument I know for a new investigation.
Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by WarminIndy
I think that's irrational...of course it wouldn't be every ticketing agent...actually, with computers, it wouldn't have to be any. Just as any "glitch" would occur without any need for supervision, a purposeful change in a computer file would require no more knowledge than the party conducting the change, especially with back doors in the internet.
I'm just saying that while you might not agree, it's a bit of a logical fallacy to sarcastically snowball into assuming that all of AA and their ticketing agents are also involved.
Keep in mind, my comments are not really about the whole 9/11 business, rather your manner of debunking them. I mean, I'll give ya that it's a debate and all and so I suppose anything goes. However, you logic is stretching it a bit - generalizing what does not need to be generalized in order for the fact to be plausible. In effect, I'm saying you are not really debunking what he said.
Example:
Statement of conspiracy: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Attempt to debunk: The report on yellow cake from Nigeria - are you saying all Nigerians were in on the conspiracy to invade Iraq?[i/]
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Elbereth
That the NIST failed in its mandate is no conspiracy fantasy and the best argument I know for a new investigation.
Sorry, the idea that there is a professionally conducted disagreement is not evidence of "mandate failure" and does not require any new investigations. Knowledgeable professionals, will, from time to time disagree. This is not evidence of a conspiracy, but real evidence of appropriate conduct.
Originally posted by GenRadek
I love this one:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...
Richard Gage Opposed to NIST Safety Regulations
Usually I just make fun of these idiots, but the recent debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr shows just how scary these people can be. I suppose we should be thankful that Gage is now a full time nutter and not an actual working architect anymore. Based just on this exchange regarding the NIST World Trade Center 7 report, he should have his license pulled. From around 1:52 into the debate.
Mohr: Do you also oppose the fire and safety regulations that NIST has proposed in these reports?
Host: Well we have one minute now for Richard to discuss that, perhaps Richard would like to…
Gage: In fact I do, there are billions of dollars that are spent needlessly as a result of the recommendations that NIST forced, that were forced on several other building codes.
Mohr: That would scare me.
Gage: It is needless, and architects and engineers, 1400 of us are crying for a new investigation.
my bolding
The World Trade Center collapse provided the design and construction industry with an opportunity to evaluate and reexamine its processes and practices. Based upon the outstanding success of these buildings under extraordinary circumstances, it is clear that the design community can be trusted to create redundancies for typical building emergency situations, that codes are developed in a manner that provides sufficient input from all quarters to ensure adequate life safety for typical emergency situations, and that no upgrading of code requirements is warranted given the performance of these buildings.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Sphota
The point is, some people have problems accepting that paper/cardboard items can survive an airliner accident. Columbia was mentioned because similar items survived being exposed to fire much longer and still survived.
Originally posted by liejunkie01
Liejunkie has been reading up on Newton's Laws.
I will soon have a Physics challenge with Bones and Anok.
This has got to stop. What I am reading and what them two are saying do not colesce too well.
Newton's third Law does not explain everything guys.
These three laws form the foundation of what is known as classical mechanics, or the science concerned with the motion of bodies being acted upon by forces. The bodies in motion could be large objects, such as orbiting moons or planets, or they could be ordinary objects on Earth's surface, such as moving vehicles or speeding bullets. Even bodies at rest are fair game..
What about the second law? We can calculate the amount of force, velocity, and mass. Something that Lj01 is about to spend some time on when I get the time......
Originally posted by ANOK
The fact that you are confused over this is why you can't see a problem with the NIST explanation of the collapses.
Originally posted by plube
upper block apparently fall...hits lower block..