Are real scientists expected to believe NIST?

A growing number of scientists are opposing reports by NIST and Fema regarding the 911 World Trade Center collapse.

I personally will not take it upon myself to say how these buildings collapsed. I find it strange that somebody that calls themselves a scientist would agree with NIST findings just because of NIST reputation, and not because of the content of their findings. I find these reports of the National Institute of Science and Technology unsound. They are just very flawed.

Towers 1 and 2 were structurally sound. The findings basically point to deteriorating structure, impact of large airplanes dislodging fire proofing, and jet fuel heat, and a pancake effect.

Does anybody not find this absolutely absurd?


Seven hours after Tower 1 and Tower 2 fell, the 47-story WTC Tower 7 collapsed. Supposedly, fire and debri caused Tower 7 to fall in the form of a highly professional demolition. Anybody who knows anything about demolition knows a collapse of a building that perfect is like saying the artwork on Mount Rushmore occured by natural erosion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, no!!! Not THIS old stuff again!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One alternative is that the buildings are actually designed in such a way that all three of them can fall into their own footprints if they are struck hard enough from a random direction and set on fire.

Calling it "this old stuff" doesn't cut it.

 

My point in calling it "old stuff" is that we've been over and over this a hundred times or more. Neither side is EVER able to convince the other of anything! It's all a wasted effort.

All any of us can do is just repeat the same arguments as before - what's the point of that? It's not going to go anywhere this time around either. :shrug:

 

I wonder in all of those prior discussions how many people actually thoroughly went over the data, and have the necessary expertise in those areas. I assume that would be necessary, so I have stayed away from these discussions.

 

okay, i will then.
they collapsed from the impact site and proceded to crumple into dust until hardly anything was left.
they fell in a manner totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

 

I don't see anything about the tower's collapse that could be called perfect. I do think NIST has reliable scientists. They are career scientists, not politically appointed.

 

So it's nuts to think that the Bush administration had prior knowledge, but it is sane to believe that the Saudis did it and the Bush administration helped cover that up.

Not all that much difference between those two theories, really. Either way Bush got his Reichstag fire.

 

Why is anybody just getting around to it now? I have no idea. Same with the non-scientists. I wonder how come there was seemingly very little interest around the time of 9/11?

I don't get it. They were Saudi hijackers, but, correct me if I'm wrong, they were part of a group that was primarily located in Afghanistan. I'm not aware of any evidence besides hijacker nationality that indicates Saudi Arabian involvement, nor do I see why Saudi Arabia would have an interest in doing this. If they had, they would of potentially opened themselves up for what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq, which I imagine would have looked like a golden opportunity to the likes of the Bush administration.

 

Honestly I don't understand these people.

First, they call Bush a dumbass.

Then they procede to show how his government masterminded a vast 9-11 conspiracy that has most of the people in America convinced that a group of Islamofascist dumbasses from Saudi Arabia pulled it off.

How in the hell do you think he could do this within his first ten months in office, and not manage to ``find'' weapons of mass distruction in Iraq to vindicate his war to the world?

God you people are stupid.

 

Ben, you are employing the "rational man" fallacy. Also, I don't think that anyone believes that Bush was the actual mastermind or has the capacity.

 

Bush did have prior knowledge of a terrorist attack, the National Security Briefing delivered by Condi. All he had to do was nothing, let it happen, and not allow a complete investigation afterwards.

 

Buildings that large can't tilt too much. If it breaks unevenly it doesn't matter as it will be compensated by all the weight being on the rest of the body (crushing the rest of the body so that it eventually will be evenly after all).

 

Sure, this isn't what is being debated. I was saying that the people who think that the government had some hand in masterminding 9-11 are complete idiots---this government has never been particularly good at masterminding anything.

Ummm perhaps. I guess this is a logic term for appealing to ration in a flawed manner? I would call it common sense. In order to explain this conspiracy, you need a whole edifice of other conspiracy theories that hold it up, such that there are no major leaks which some intelligent young reporter from the New York Times might stumble upon.

Give me a break here---do you really believe that a government that couldn't even pull off an invasion of Iraq could possibly pull of a a conspiracy on such a massive scale?

 

the most telling evidence is the videos of the collapse.
the only real questions surround building 7, and those can be answered by studying where building 7 was constructed.

 

This whole business will continue forever, just like the "Roswell Crash Site."

The idiots of the world along with the bored, gullible, crackpots, etc. have to have SOME fantasy to hang onto. And this one will do until something else comes along for them to latch onto. :shrug:

 

See this web page.

But...you've been warned.

 

What is the crackpot part of this? That members of a government would do the conspiracy, or that the particulars of the conspiracy, like how the buildings fell and whatever other technicalities the conspiracy theorists bring up?

I haven't looked into the technicalities at all, but it seems to be a complicated issue, even for people in relevant fields. I think back in 03 or 04 (I think) when Popular Mechanics wrote their original refutations of conspiracies, dealing with the technicalities, and most of their refutations were so poor that they lost a large chunk of subscribers. Just because of their poor science, nothing to do with believing in conspiracies or not.