^^ I can't have a serious discussion with someone who thinks that the pentagon was faked to destroy documents

BUT CAN'T YOU SEE I AGREE WITH YOU, LOOK AT MY POSTS
More on that supposed "confession" from Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Quote :

"CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO Nov. 18, 2005 — Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors. [...] According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques: ...6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. [...] According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

AMAZING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY FROM THE 9/11 EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TAPES RELEASED IN AUGUST '05 DESCRIBING EXPLOSIVES GOING OFF JUST BEFORE THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSES

The testimony of Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.):

Quote :

"A. ...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been the result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. [...] Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion on the upper floors. A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF

(see pp. 14-15 of PDF file for above quotes)


The testimony of Chief Frank Cruthers:

Quote :

""And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

(see page 4 of PDF file for above quote)

The testimony of Daniel Rivera (Paramedic, EMS):

Quote :

""It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

(see page 9 of PDF file for above quote)


The testimony of Captain Karin Deshore of emergency medical services:

Quote :

""Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occuring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion. I don't know if we are all going to be safe here."

http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

(see page 15 of PDF file for above quote)


READ THESE TESTIMONIES! "Popping sounds" associated with red and orange flashings going around the building. Witnesses describing explosions and material shooting out of the building and then a delay before the collapse. Witnesses saying they thought it was a “controlled demolition.” TELL ME THAT THERE WEREN'T EXPLOSIVE CHARGES IN THE TOWERS. TELL ME THAT ISN'T A DESCRIPTION OF A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

5/8/2011 10:56:07 AM

Quote :

"^^ I can't have a serious discussion with someone who thinks that the pentagon was faked to destroy documents"

You're misunderstanding me. I don't believe this at all. It's just a theory as to why they would be so reluctant to releasing videos and other information regarding the attack. There are other possibilities, including that the Pentagon actually was hit by a plane. There isn't enough evidence for me to come to any conclusions. I think another investigation would be necessary to prove anything. Please stop attempting to derail the thread. If you don't want to discuss it, you are welcome to ignore it.

[Edited on May 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

5/8/2011 11:01:48 AM

Actually just did some more reading and I do believe the Pentagon was hit by a plane. There are enough eyewitness accounts to corroborate the story. Still confused why they were reluctant to release video, and why it was such poor quality.

[Edited on May 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

5/8/2011 11:18:41 AM

^^ so wee those flashes recounted by multiple people adequately explained?

what caused the flashes, and the sounds that some people heard?

5/8/2011 11:22:02 AM

I think it was a wizard? I think I heard that somewhere.

5/8/2011 12:03:48 PM

Why would there not be secondary explosions? Are there zero transformers or exchangers in a high rise office building? Have you ever seen a transformer go? I'll give you a hint, there's a flash.

5/8/2011 12:17:22 PM

"9/11: Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration" by Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391

********************************************************************

FOX affiliate airs story on 9/11 cover up

FOX 40 of Binghamton, NY ran a 2-part story on "Loose Change", a student documentary on 9/11, alleging government involvemnent in the 9/11 attacks. The story is notable in that it did not portray these skeptics of the official story as "nuts", but was unbiased (for the most part) and allowed the skeptics to present their argument.

Here's the links to the story and video from the FOX 40 website.

Part 1 of story
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=282

Part 2 of story
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=291

Another source for the video of the FOX 40 "Loose Change" story
http://tree3.com/video/fox.wmv (part 1 only)

Reference source:

9/11 Story Pulled--then restored
http://www.stopthelie.com/911_story_pulled.html

********************************************************************

5/8/2011 12:47:28 PM

No one in this thread is arguing that the towers were blown up by the government. Adultswim has said a couple things that are incorrect (and admitted to most of them) however to characterize Adswim as one of the government conspiracy wackos is completely unfair. I think there are a significant number of people who saw some red flags in how the killing of OBL was handled. This on top of (potentially) falsified videos certainly raises the question of what exactly was going on there. Exactly how involved was OBL?

[Edited on May 8, 2011 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ^No one is seriously trying to argue these points. I feel like burro but STRAWMAN!!!!!]

5/8/2011 12:56:13 PM

This thread would have annoyed me less had adultswim simply included the disclaimer that he is just now - nearly 10 years after the fact - learning about the 9/11 attacks. After all, future generations will have to undergo similar learning, and it could be useful for the rest of us to be able to anticipate the types of questions that might be asked by children. It's not unlike how children of my generation were a little skeptical upon first learning that Japan was able to nearly wipe out our entire Pacific fleet without us catching wind of the coming assault.

5/8/2011 1:01:50 PM

^
Well I'm not exactly a child now, but I was 12 when the attacks happened. I bought the official story until the recent OBL shenanigans caused me to reconsider and do my own research. I'm trying to get my facts straight.

5/8/2011 1:15:32 PM

^Wow thanks for making me feel old

5/8/2011 1:23:37 PM

someone explain this:

WTC BUILDING 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admits in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition:

1 minute video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Watch demolition charges going off at the top right of WTC 7 in the following video clip[/b]:

http://infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV

Just getting started...got a whole lot more

5/8/2011 1:30:50 PM

There are no demolition charges going off.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

WTC 7 burned for hours and then collapsed. "Pull" means pull with cables.

Quote :

"Just getting started...got a whole lot more"

Please don't, if what you're going to continue with is of the same non-quality as what you've started with.

[Edited on May 8, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2011 1:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Please don't, if what you're going to continue with is of the same non-quality as what you've started with."

He's copy-pasting salisburyboy posts.

5/8/2011 1:56:35 PM

i think one of those is from salisburyboy, maybe 2

5/8/2011 2:10:50 PM

Very informative criticism of NIST's report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg

5/8/2011 11:02:07 PM

Some claims from this retarded video:
"No tall building has ever collapsed primarily due to fire."
1)So?
2)WTC went down due to fire + structural damage from having two much larger building collapse near it.

"There are over 1000 architects and engineers that disagree with this claim [that WTC7 went down due to fire"
1)Irrelevant. Argumentum ad populum. And the populum isn't even impressive. Far more (and better credentialed) people agree with the findings of the NIST and the 9/11 commission in general.

"Claims regarding engineers were only given pieces of the duty and had no access to other engineers' data for review".
1)Unfounded claim. How could anyone prevent the investigators from sharing data? Why do you come to this conclusion?

"The NIST model collapse did not match the observed collapse."
1)A computer didn't get a complex event like a building collapse right? Color me surprised.

"The building caught fire before WTC 1 and 2 went down."
1)Proof? None of your videos have timestamps and nothing corroborates this claims.

"NIST exaggerated the duration and temperature of the fires, neither can be verified by observation."
1)Unfounded claim. Fire investigators are proficient at estimating temperature and duration of fire using observation of damaged materials.

"NIST lied about shear studs being on the girders."
Nowhere in the entire report (read for yourself: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) is this claimed. It states in key places of failure, lateral shear stud support was lacking. The only place in the entire report where "shear" and "girder" are in the same sentence are in the recommendations to check other buildings as one of many steps to ensure the building will stand up to thermal differential such fires can cause.

The text in the screenshot is not found anywhere in the NIST report.

I'm not going to continue. Halfway through this garbage they're outright lying. Do you bother fact-checking before posting this shit?

5/9/2011 9:40:34 AM

He doesn't bother thinking, why would he fact check?

5/9/2011 11:14:58 AM

If you have to question whether Osama really did orchestrate 9/11...

1) you're very young when it happened.
2) you enjoy spinning up controversy just for the sake of it.

5/9/2011 12:22:38 PM

Quote :

""No tall building has ever collapsed primarily due to fire." 1)So? 2)WTC went down due to fire + structural damage from having two much larger building collapse near it."

Disagree with first point. Agree with second point, but even NIST said the building collapsed because of the fires.

Quote :

""There are over 1000 architects and engineers that disagree with this claim [that WTC7 went down due to fire" 1)Irrelevant. Argumentum ad populum. And the populum isn't even impressive. "

I agree.

Quote :

"Far more (and better credentialed) people agree with the findings of the NIST and the 9/11 commission in general."

Source? Unless you're talking about common opinion, in which case I'd ask how many of these credentialed people have read the reports AND the criticisms.

Quote :

""Claims regarding engineers were only given pieces of the duty and had no access to other engineers' data for review". 1)Unfounded claim. How could anyone prevent the investigators from sharing data? Why do you come to this conclusion?"

I can't find any evidence of this either. I'm going to message the uploader and ask.

Quote :

""The NIST model collapse did not match the observed collapse." 1)A computer didn't get a complex event like a building collapse right? Color me surprised."

True, maybe it's the closest approximation they could get.

Quote :

""The building caught fire before WTC 1 and 2 went down." 1)Proof? None of your videos have timestamps and nothing corroborates this claims."

Three people independently claimed that the fires started at 9:30.

Quote :

""NIST exaggerated the duration and temperature of the fires, neither can be verified by observation." 1)Unfounded claim. Fire investigators are proficient at estimating temperature and duration of fire using observation of damaged materials."

Without their data, we can't be sure.

Quote :

""NIST lied about shear studs being on the girders." Nowhere in the entire report (read for yourself:"

The newer version of the report is phrased differently. It still claims no shear studs were used on the girders.


Other points the video made:

-NIST Fire Investigations Manual says any investigation with a total collapse should look for evidence of accelerants. NIST did not do this.

-Report was not peer-reviewed correctly (they hired contractors to review it--the data they used is not public).

-NIST assumed no thermo-conductivity of steel.

-The model only shows part of the collapse.

-NIST heated the girders in their model, but not the concrete. Concrete can expand and contract with steel due to heat. It's

-Finally, and most importantly, neither the model nor the data has been released to allow for public peer review.

I submitted an FOIA request for the modeling files. Should be interesting whether they give me the files or not.

Quote :

"He doesn't bother thinking, why would he fact check?"

Actually I am thinking. This is the first time I've ever thought about this stuff. I'm asking for second opinions about the information I find, and I've admitted being wrong on several occasions. I could research this independently and avoid being called crazy. Instead, I'm putting my ass on the line here to get my facts straight. The people who aren't thinking are the ones who aren't reading my posts and immediately decide I'm a nutty conspiracy theorist who is not open to different opinions.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 1:02:28 PM

Quote :

"NIST Fire Investigations Manual says any investigation with a total collapse should look for evidence of accelerants. NIST did not do this."

An accelerant like jet fuel? I think there was ample evidence of that.

5/9/2011 2:07:50 PM

^
The NIST report analyzes WTC 7, which was not hit by a jet.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 2:17:35 PM

This thread = facepalm

5/9/2011 2:20:46 PM

This is why people think we didn't land on the moon, because they were too young or not born yet and missed out on watching the shit go down on tv in front of their eyes. I mean I watched an airplane hit a building on live tv (and subsequently from multiple additional angels) but I'm supposed to think that the official story is covering up some kind of shady shit regarding the buildings collapse? give me a break.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM. Reason : angels, angles... whatever]

5/9/2011 2:21:18 PM

Quote :

"This is why people think we didn't land on the moon, because they were too young or not born yet and missed out on watching the shit go down on tv in front of their eyes. I mean I watched an airplane hit a building on live tv (and subsequently from multiple additional angels) but I'm supposed to think that the official story is covering up some kind of shady shit regarding the buildings collapse? give me a break."

No one in this entire thread has said that a plane did not hit the WTC towers. You are proving your ignorance of the content of my posts again and again.

5/9/2011 2:22:29 PM

are you not questioning what brought it down and claiming there was some shady shit? cause thats what my post said. you god damn retard.

5/9/2011 2:25:25 PM

^

Quote :

"The NIST report analyzes WTC 7, which was not hit by a jet."

If you want to prove that I'm the one who's not thinking and you are, respond to my post above (the response to disco_stu)

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 2:26:07 PM

Substantial damage:

Quote :

"The NIST report analyzes WTC 7, which was not hit by a jet."

No, but the building contained 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel for generators.

5/9/2011 2:35:13 PM

^
Yup, seen that picture.

Quote :

"No, but the building contained 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel for generators."

Correct. You said jet fuel, though. The diesel fuel, according to NIST, only contributed to the spread of the fire, not the structural weakening of the building. They should have tested for other accelerants.

From NIST's report:

Quote :

"The diesel fuel could have contributed to the initial ignition and spread of the fire on the south side of FLoor 7 and on the west side of Floor 9, but these fires would have been far removed from the critical structural systems on the east side of WTC 7. Based on these analyses and review of the numerous interview transcripts, NIST cocluded that it was highly unlikely that any fires on the 5th or 6th floors contributed to the collapse of WTC 7."

From FEMA's report:

Quote :

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Can someone please respond to ALL of the points in my previous post?

5/9/2011 2:49:29 PM

look, adultswim, people have already explained all of these things. You can find the answers on google, by not being a retard, or at http://www.debunking911.com .

while it is somewhat interesting watching you figure this out before our eyes, it doesn't overcome how retarded this thread is. please think about things in your head for a bit instead of through your posts.

hell, at least one old thread has most of those answers. they have already been answered ON THIS SITE.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 2:50:42 PM

So what's your argument? That WTC7 shouldn't have collapsed?

5/9/2011 2:51:34 PM

it had documents inside that needed to be destroyed. DOCUMENTS!

5/9/2011 2:54:33 PM

^^

Quote :

"So what's your argument? That WTC7 shouldn't have collapsed?"

Maybe. Or it shouldn't have collapsed in the way that it did.

The only thing I am sure of is that the data for NIST's study needs to be released for a proper peer review. I can't think of any reason why they would need to keep it from the public.

5/9/2011 2:56:24 PM

How should it have collapsed?

5/9/2011 2:59:51 PM

^
I can only theorize, but it seems unlikely that it would fall straight down at near-freefall speeds (I know it's an old argument) from the damage it sustained.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 3:19:00 PM

why would anyone want to change how it collapsed, and how would they do that?

5/9/2011 3:30:58 PM

Things fall at free fall speeds.

Would you expect it to collapse one floor at a time or something?

5/9/2011 3:36:59 PM

^^
I don't think anyone changed the way it collapsed. That makes no sense at all.

The only possibility I can think of is that it didn't collapse on its own (or from damage by surrounding towers), and someone wanted it to fall for some reason.

Quote :

"Things fall at free fall speeds. Would you expect it to collapse one floor at a time or something?"

No, but I would expect some resistance.

Will one of you please respond to my post above

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 3:39:46 PM

who wanted it to fall, for what reason, and how did they secretly do it?

5/9/2011 4:45:20 PM

And what in the fuck does any of this have to do with "Did Osama really orchestrate 9/11?"

5/9/2011 4:52:00 PM

Quote :

"who wanted it to fall, for what reason, and how did they secretly do it?"

Do not know.

Quote :

"And what in the fuck does any of this have to do with "Did Osama really orchestrate 9/11?""

It's semi-related, but I should have picked a better thread title.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 4:57:07 PM

Quote :

"Do not know."

so then you realize how absurd it is?

5/9/2011 5:25:12 PM

Quote :

"so then you realize how absurd it is?"

Uhh, no? Any number of people/organizations could have wanted WTC 7 destroyed. The fact that I haven't constructed an outcome doesn't invalidate the questions surrounding the events.

Tenants:

Quote :

"Salomon Smith Barney ITT Hartford Insurance Group American Express Bank International Standard Chartered Bank Securities and Exchange Commission Internal Revenue Service Regional Council United States Secret Service New York City Office of Emergency Management National Association of Insurance Commissioners Federal Home Loan Bank First State Management Group Inc. Provident Financial Management Immigration and Naturalization Service The Department of Defense Central Intelligence Agency"

I find it absurd that you're grilling me for theoretical conjecture, but you're flat out ignoring the real evidence and questions I've proposed.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 5:27:32 PM

give me a scenario that is not absurd explaining who wants it down, why, and how they secretly did it

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 5:30 PM. Reason : your "evidence" was responded to already. just search 9/11 in the soap box]

5/9/2011 5:29:39 PM

Quote :

"your "evidence" was responded to already. just search 9/11 in the soap box"

Stop bullshitting by assuming all of my arguments have been debunked.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 5:44 PM. Reason : gah]

5/9/2011 5:34:38 PM

ok, lets talk about this. the NIST report is an investigation including a forensic analysis of a very complex failure. i've actually been involved in after-disaster forensic analysis of structures and have a few certifications to enter hazardous buildings after disasters (actually some to enter during too, just in case). i have never seen, nor have i been a part of, publishing any of our reports for peer review. its not an academic journal. the NIST report may have errors and it most likely does considering the complexity of the event. however, you are implying that there is motive and malice. that is a major difference, you need to propose a hypothesis why someone would do this, who that party is, and how they did it without a single person figuring it out or spilling the beans. you seem to be basing your entire theory on the idea that the building fires started before the building was damaged, and this is based on your blind faith in the memory of lay person observers (who you have not identified) and contrary to the video available and other reports.


that being said, since you tried to search pwn me but forgot to click post instead of topic, here you go:
http://thewolfweb.com/message_search.aspx?type=posts§ion=4&searchstring=nist&username=&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page=

and that's only going back to 2005, the threads about this before it were purged

so lets take a walk in your tin foil capped mind and pretend like it was intentional and the report is a cover up. why? to what end? who? offer a hypothesis that is not absurd.


[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 6:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 5:59:51 PM

Quote :

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

5/9/2011 8:05:26 PM

Quote :

"that being said, since you tried to search pwn me but forgot to click post instead of topic, here you go: http://thewolfweb.com/message_search.aspx?type=posts§ion=4&searchstring=nist&username=&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page="

Yeah, I didn't have time to fix it earlier. I entered the search wrong, but I also realized that "nist" includes "zionist" and "administration". There are some mentions of NIST, but none regarding the WTC 7 report, because it came out in 2008.

Quote :

"ok, lets talk about this. the NIST report is an investigation including a forensic analysis of a very complex failure. i've actually been involved in after-disaster forensic analysis of structures and have a few certifications to enter hazardous buildings after disasters (actually some to enter during too, just in case). i have never seen, nor have i been a part of, publishing any of our reports for peer review. its not an academic journal"

I also have done work in forensic analysis (my dad is a structural investigative engineer and I am a civil engineer). This is not on the same level, IMO. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be properly peer reviewed (which I believe it definitely should), the fact remains that they will not release their data.

Quote :

"the NIST report may have errors and it most likely does considering the complexity of the event."

Yep--it's to be expected, which is why they should open the data up for scrutinizing and corrections.

Quote :

"however, you are implying that there is motive and malice. that is a major difference, you need to propose a hypothesis why someone would do this, who that party is, and how they did it without a single person figuring it out or spilling the beans. "

This is ri-goddamn-diculous. I'm not allowed to question if I'm unable to form a conclusion?

Quote :

"you seem to be basing your entire theory on the idea that the building fires started before the building was damaged, and this is based on your blind faith in the memory of lay person observers (who you have not identified) and contrary to the video available and other reports."

Well I'm not at all basing anything on that idea, it's just one of the points made in the video. It could be wrong. They were identified in the video (proving, AGAIN, that you have no interested in responding to my actual posts, and instead are responding to the idea you have of me). Barry Jennings, Mathys Levy, and Michael Hess.

Quote :

"so lets take a walk in your tin foil capped mind and pretend like it was intentional and the report is a cover up. why? to what end? who? offer a hypothesis that is not absurd."

I'm continuing to research, so if and when I come up with a hypothesis, I'll you know. In the meantime, feel free to provide some theories as to why NIST won't release their data.

^^
That was written 3 years before the NIST report and addresses none of my questions above. I really don't understand why you won't just take my post, go point by point, and give your opinion.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2011 9:39:19 PM

Just to show that the CIA is capable and willing to perform false flag attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Quote :

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

It made it all the way to President Kennedy, who rejected it.

Quote :

"Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal"

5/9/2011 9:51:57 PM

So 9/11 was carried out by the CIA and the NIST is complicit in it?

5/9/2011 10:11:43 PM