Are real scientists expected to believe NIST?

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by elsyarango, Dec 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. elsyarango Registered Member

    Messages:
    78
    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!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Oh, no!!! Not THIS old stuff again!!!!!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    What conspiracy theory do you prefer, then?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    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.
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    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:
     
  9. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    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.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Remember that NYC outlawed asbestos insulation when the towers were already half complete. As Leo says, the videos all show the collapse beginning at the impact site. It's a different location on each building which the pilots could not have hit with such precision, and both of them have subsequently been calculated by engineers to be within the optimal range of floors to cause complete collapse.

    Have the NIST and FEMA reports not been peer-reviewed? That's how science works. There are always a few dissenters and if you're truly concerned the first place to start is by checking their credentials, since there are a lot of mediocre scientists in America as well as quite a few truly bad ones; just look at the so-called "creation science" movement. Furthermore, science is on the wane in a post-Religious-Redneck-Retard-Revival America and many science graduates trade their scruples for jobs in the corporate sector. You say a "growing number" of scientists dispute their conclusions. If this issue is so important to them, why are they just now getting around to examining it?

    It sounds more like electioneering politics to me. Look at the outrageous innuendoes about Obama's religion.

    You must also peer review the competing theories. If the Bush administration was behind this and wanted to foment hatred among Americans, then why did they implicate their petro-buddies the Saudis in it? They could just as easily have arranged for the majority of the hijackers to be Afghanis, Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, and people from other Muslim countries they wanted an excuse to attack. Instead, the burning question in America now that we've caught our breath is, "Why did we bomb Kabul and Baghdad instead of Riyadh?" A much easier way to accomplish their apparent goal of pissing off the entire Muslim world, while still punishing the "purported" architects of 9/11, would have been to bomb Mecca, which is on Saudi soil.

    The real 9/11 conspiracy was to make the Saudis look blameless. It was considerably less expertly performed than the Watergate conspiracy, yet gullible Americans believed it. Even in current polls, an alarming number of Americans still believe that Saddam--leader of the only large secular, pro-Western Muslim country in the Middle East--was implicated in 9/11.
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    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.
     
  13. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    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.
     
  14. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    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.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    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.
     
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    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.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    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.
     
  18. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    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).
     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    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?
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    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:
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    See this web page.

    But...you've been warned.
     
  23. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page