Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again
    Which parts or points are you objecting to exactly?

    Which parts are not accurate?


  • Options
    #63
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which parts or points are you objecting to exactly?

    Which parts are not accurate?

    It came out in court NIST was lying. Aegis insurance vs WTC7. Even though they did not agree with the truther stance about how the collapsed happened. They produced drawings in that court case that showed column 79 and 44 had shear stud connections. NIST removed shear studs to support their case. Skeptics have ignored this finding by claiming NIST probably was looking at different drawings? They just throughout this strawman argument hoping it sticks with no proof whatsoever it happened like this.


  • Options
    #64
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Try again

    I genuinely cannot understand your stance here

    1. You are an expert or specialist who believes you have objectively found particular flaws in the NIST investigation report. Not impossible. Considering the overwhelming support this investigation has among experts (architectural, engineering), it does veer towards the unlikely. If so, contact them, give them your findings.

    2. You are a layperson who doesn't understand or can't interpret portions of the NIST report. Fair enough, it's complex stuff. Ask on engineering and related forums.

    3. You are a layperson with a persistent dogmatic view or belief that the report is flawed for nefarious reasons, that the experts and investigators with the evidence and material related to the investigation have missed this or are "in on it", the peer reviewers have missed it (or are "in on it") and any recognised engineering or architectural organisations or bodies have missed it.


  • Options
    #65
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I genuinely cannot understand your stance here

    1. You are an expert or specialist who believes you have objectively found particular flaws in the NIST investigation report. Not impossible. Considering the overwhelming support this investigation has among experts (architectural, engineering), it does veer towards the unlikely. If so, contact them, give them your findings.

    2. You are a layperson who doesn't understand or can't interpret portions of the NIST report. Fair enough, it's complex stuff. Ask on engineering and related forums.

    3. You are a layperson with a persistent dogmatic view or belief that the report is flawed for nefarious reasons, that the experts and investigators with the evidence and material related to the investigation have missed this or are "in on it", the peer reviewers have missed it (or are "in on it") and any recognised engineering or architectural organisations or bodies have missed it.

    Architects and Engineers who worked in this profession have disagreed with the NIST report. They have the background and knowledge to dispute NIST findings.

    You prefer to listen to random Skeptics on boards that they know more than the professionals. Most of those people debunking have no expertise to judge.


  • Options
    #66
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    weisses wrote: »
    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again

    benthamitemetric, is a lawyer who posts on Metabunk he has no expertise in engineering and architecture.

    Mike West is a computer programmer again his not an expert.

    When they debate someone who had the background and worked with engineers on his projects, the Skeptics could not debate him properly, and they lost the argument. Skeptic debating among themselves doesn't address anything they are basically agreeing with people with similar positions.

    This thread is very enlighting when Skeptics try to gang up upon someone who knows his stuff and they fall back on same whataboutery and ad hominems when they know they're losing the argument.

    https://www.metabunk.org/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.t2332/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Architects and Engineers who worked in this profession have disagreed with the NIST report.

    Individuals. And a conspiracy group.

    No recognised group or organisation


  • Options
    #68
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    This thread is very enlighting

    Does the guy give a reasonable explanation of what alternatively happened with evidence?

    If not, then he can be ignored

    Why can he be ignored? because if no attempt is made to get to the truth, the facts, the evidence and so on, then it's simply another exercise in tying people up with details and trying to "win" by finding parts they can't explain 1000%. Which is relatively simple.


  • Options
    #69
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Individuals. And a conspiracy group.

    No recognised group or organisation

    Conspiracy groups are only people doing the work. Skeptics prefer to sit on forums complaining.

    Every Architect and Engineer signed up AE911Truth has a credible background and education. Nobody on there is a fraud. You need to stop listening to people on Skeptic forums who have no clue what they are talking about.

    It kind of hilarious you disagree with AE911Truth when it was them who forced NIST to change their statement from no free fall to yes there was free fall. Even AE911Truth through investigation found the original drawings for WTC7 and confirmed there were shear stud connections on the concrete floor slabs and girders (column 79 and 44) This was proven in a court case Aegis insurance vs WTC7. Still, to this day NIST has not revisited this mistake.


  • Options
    #70
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Conspiracy groups are only people doing the work.

    Conspiracy enthusiasts (in my experience) are people who look for conspiracies

    For example, when a major attack happens, conspiracy enthusiasts go to work on forums trying to discredit events in order to project that the event is a false flag

    Next time a significant attack or shooting happens.. go to conspiracy forums to see this in effect. The faulty techniques are no different than those displayed in threads like these

    It's a backward and frankly dishonest way of thinking


  • Options
    #71
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Conspiracy enthusiasts (in my experience) are people who look for conspiracies

    For example, when a major attack happens, conspiracy enthusiasts go to work on forums trying to discredit events in order to project that the event is a false flag

    Next time a significant attack or shooting happens.. go to conspiracy forums to see this in effect. The faulty techniques are no different than those displayed in threads like these

    It's a backward and frankly dishonest way of thinking

    Alex Jones of the world? Even I know Alex is a nutter and every event that happens is a conspiracy. He even said that shooting at the Youtube headquarters was a false flag. I don't like Alex Jones and people like him are only hurting credible investigations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Alex Jones of the world?

    People who suspect something is a conspiracy from the outset and work backwards from there to discredit the event in order to portray it as a conspiracy

    It's a hobby.


  • Options
    #73
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Alex jones called 9/11 before it happened. He said they would blow WTC and blame it on Bin Laden


  • Options
    #74
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    People who suspect something is a conspiracy from the outset and work backwards from there to discredit the event in order to portray it as a conspiracy

    It's a hobby.

    9/11 is full of holes. Even insiders have come forward saying it was a cover-up.


  • Options
    #75
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Was thinking bout the planes and should they hve buried into the buildings like they did. Wings certainly are known to be light enough. The hologram theory is fascinating


  • Options
    #76
    Sirius87
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Sirius87


    As well as the World trade towers collapsing upon themselves that day, another 47 story building, known as World Trade Center No. 7, also collapsed upon itself. To watch videos which are readily available on the net of its collapse, to me, it looks very much like a controlled demolition. 'Uncontrolled fires' were to blame for its collapse, making it the first ever steel skyscraper to ever collapse from a fire alone.


  • Options
    #77
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    To watch videos which are readily available on the net of its collapse, to me, it looks very much like a controlled demolition.
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?


  • Options
    #78
    Sirius87
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Sirius87


    King Mob wrote: »
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?

    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.


  • Options
    #79
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.

    Here's a building being demo'd - shot from a helicopter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2E_m7l2Rww

    WTC 7 was filmed collapsing from many angles, some relatively close

    Why do none capture controlled demolition explosions?


  • Options
    #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.
    Yes, I have watched many of the videos, from various angles, including ones with sound. Example here: https://youtu.be/s9B9noU2UC8?t=557
    In addition, there are no reports of any sounds like that from anyone at the site that day. If there were, conspiracy theorists would be holding up those reports all the time.

    There are no such explosions.

    And no, you do not need to be close to the building to hear loud explosions. That's not how sound works.

    So again why do you think that there was no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?


  • Options
    #81
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?

    There was a loud bang heard on video before the Penthouse collapse. The noise was picked up blocks away so it could be multiple explosions going off at one time but sounded just like one bang far away?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Here's a building being demo'd - shot from a helicopter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2E_m7l2Rww

    WTC 7 was filmed collapsing from many angles, some relatively close

    Why do none capture controlled demolition explosions?

    It looks like a controlled demolition the only way you can tell for sure is hearing the sound. The building came down like most other demolitions you see on a video.

    A loud bang was captured on video before the Pentahouse collapsed its false to say no explosion or bang or sound was heard before the collapse.


  • Options
    #83
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.

    This video is worth studying. 1 minute and 31 seconds you hear that loud boom and sound and 1 to 2 seconds later the Penthouse collapses. Both events are connected. Does not mean this was explosions going off equally it could be a noise caused when the building floors collapsed, but to say no sound was heard before the fall is false.



  • Options
    #84
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There was a loud bang heard on video before the Penthouse collapse.

    There were multiple bangs and noises as the internals collapsed. A collapsing building makes a decent amount of noise.

    There were no explosive demolition bangs which would have been clearly audible from the multiple shots of the building

    Despite the conspiracy communities best efforts to manipulate audio and distort the information they haven't produced anything of substance


  • Options
    #85
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were multiple bangs and noises as the internals collapsed. A collapsing building makes a decent amount of noise.

    There were no explosive demolition bangs which would have been clearly audible from the multiple shots of the building

    Despite the conspiracy communities best efforts to manipulate audio and distort the information they haven't produced anything of substance

    All pictures and videos are of the northside of the building. We have no clue what was happening on the Southside just before the collapse. If we had a video of that side we have a clear picture of what happened.

    The video was not manipulated a clear bang is heard a second or two before the Penthouse caved in. Sorry but for NIST to claim no noise was heard is another lie in their long list of them.


  • Options
    #86
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Sorry but for NIST to claim no noise was heard is another lie in their long list of them.

    Incorrect. No demolition charge explosions were heard (they are extremely distinct and can be captured far from source). They are literally clear as day - watch any demolition.

    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges


  • Options
    #87
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Incorrect. No demolition charge explosions were heard (they are extremely distinct and can be captured far from source). They are literally clear as day - watch any demolition.

    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges

    Demolitions can sound different. Example in the video at 12 minutes 5 seconds only 1 bang is heard and the building collapsed and it's gone. These demolitions are set up anyways beforehand to record the event on 9/11 this wasn't the case.



    A loud noise was heard just a second before the building collapsed. That audio was picked up blocks away so it could be multiple bangs but just sounded like one bang in the distance.


  • Options
    #88
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges
    Remember also that conspiracy theorists claim that thermite was used, which is not an explosive and does not produce a banging sound.

    On top of this, we have the problem that if they indeed used thermite, then it couldn't possibly look like a typical controlled demolition as no demolition has ever used thermite.

    It's funny how they use completely contradictory claims like this.


  • Options
    #89
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Demolitions can sound different.

    There were no explosive demolition sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    There is no substantiated evidence that the building was purposefully demolished on that day

    There is no substantiated evidence or consensus of witnesses that claim the building was prepped for demolition (it would have taken weeks if not months to prep a building of that size)

    There is no reasoning provided why they would take the risk of demolishing such a building with explosives

    There are no suspects

    There is no investigation or recognised group of engineers, architects or demolition experts anywhere in the world that have posited that a demolition took place

    There is nothing credible that suggests a demolition

    Despite all this - I could probably whip up a quite convincing conspiracy youtube video on the matter in under an hour. How? Manipulation, distortion, lack of context, editing, suggestion, common fallacies, ominous music, text on the screen, all the usual tricks


  • Options
    #90
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Lol if you believe 9/11 ya would believe anything


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were no explosive demolition sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    There is no substantiated evidence that the building was purposefully demolished on that day

    There is no substantiated evidence or consensus of witnesses that claim the building was prepped for demolition (it would have taken weeks if not months to prep a building of that size)

    There is no reasoning provided why they would take the risk of demolishing such a building with explosives

    There are no suspects

    There is no investigation or recognised group of engineers, architects or demolition experts anywhere in the world that have posited that a demolition took place

    There is nothing credible that suggests a demolition

    Despite all this - I could probably whip up a quite convincing conspiracy youtube video on the matter in under an hour. How? Manipulation, distortion, lack of context, editing, suggestion, common fallacies, ominous music, text on the screen, all the usual tricks

    A sound a big bang was heard before the building collapsed that's just fact and your denials are irrelevant. What caused the bang is still a mystery.

    NIST own theories have proven to be wrong multiple times. They claimed no Iron or Molten steel was found even though countless eyewitness saw it and pieces have been recovered in a molten state. They said the building experienced no freefall even though that was proven to be inaccurate. They also stated the girders had no shear studs connections and this again later to be proven inaccurate in a court case Aegis Insurance vs WTC7. NIST has never corrected this mistake in their findings. NIST own computer simulations don't even resemble the event captured on video.

    Plenty of recognised engineers, architects and demolition experts disagree with NIST they just don't work for them.


Advertisement