IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Have You Ever Discussed The Official Nist Statements?, Amazing stuff!

clue2mystery
post Jul 21 2008, 07:18 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



April 5, 2005 with plenty of information:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

December 12, 2006
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 21 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #2





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (clue2mystery @ Jul 21 2008, 07:18 PM) *


Umm, your are missing a few chapters there skippy. rolleyes.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 21 2008, 07:55 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



QUOTE
WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October
2005; final for December 2005

QUOTE
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure


And much more

If there will be a final report, I am sure without surprise! But I wonder who will sign it, especially from technical side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 21 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #4





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (clue2mystery @ Jul 21 2008, 07:55 PM) *
And much more

If there will be a final report, I am sure without surprise! But I wonder who will sign it, especially from technical side.


Cover page of the "leaked" document.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 22 2008, 07:48 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



Anyhow, itís a big mistake! Official statements should be taken very seriously.

Otherwise you are faster then you can look in the basket of the conspiracy people Ė and we know what Bush said. Next step is you are helping terrorists and subsequently you are a terrorist.

So take the official statements very serious and ask the right questions.

What I could find out till now of NIST papers, would result in a first insignificant question like:

No bombs have destroyed WTC 7, have you, because of missing facts this simulated in your computer?

(Hopefully yes.)

Then for sure you have analyzed with your computer simulation, that it is also not a controlled demolition.

(Hopefully yes.)

What is the difference between the pictures we know from TV and your simulation between a controlled demolition and a Ö whatever the final report brings.

Aso.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 22 2008, 07:58 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I'm a little confused here JFK, but I'm pretty certain that clue2 isn't a native US "English" speaker if that helps... dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 22 2008, 08:03 PM
Post #7





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



I DO take the official reports seriously.

ALL reports to date only deal with the collapse initiation.

NONE of them deal with the collapse from that point on.

The simulation WAS "tweaked" to produce the pre determined result.

You should download and READ all of the NIST NCSTAR and FEMA 403 documents.

I have a hypothetical question for you..... WHAT IF the terrorists consist of high ranking members of the US government ?

As for a simulation of the collapse, I have none..... yet. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 22 2008, 08:36 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



I agree with you in most points, but your strategy could be improved. NIST with itís statements is not the government. The government can easily change from WMDs to free a land. But NIST can NOT!!!!

So take their statement very seriously and you have a very good chance to confute them with their own statements.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 22 2008, 08:47 PM
Post #9





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (clue2mystery @ Jul 22 2008, 08:36 PM) *
I agree with you in most points, but your strategy could be improved. NIST with itís statements is not the government. The government can easily change from WMDs to free a land. But NIST can NOT!!!!

So take their statement very seriously and you have a very good chance to confute them with their own statements.


FEMA is.... Especially if Bush should decide to declare a national emergency.

Perhaps you should also read the executive orders and the NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0070509-12.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 22 2008, 09:09 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



G.W. is yesterdays, and McCain the next, I guess.

Your links are difficult to find out what you mean. First link brings me to a site I know, but with many topics. Second is a very long directive and I need some time to read and understand without help, even in German. Not so easy to find out the main important points of such a text.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 22 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #11





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (clue2mystery @ Jul 22 2008, 09:09 PM) *
G.W. is yesterdays, and McCain the next, I guess.

Your links are difficult to find out what you mean. First link brings me to a site I know, but with many topics. Second is a very long directive and I need some time to read and understand without help, even in German. Not so easy to find out the main important points of such a text.


The second is the key to the first links. wink.gif

But yes, they are confusing.... They are intended to be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shoon
post Jul 24 2008, 06:58 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 202
Joined: 22-October 06
Member No.: 126



Th most of people wouldn't read whole document especially people who do not want to believe our government did it.
When somebody just quote from this incomplete NIST document, the reader would say "See NIST says it happened from the damages".
We are dealing with people who still are not capable of understanding the facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 25 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



QUOTE (shoon @ Jul 24 2008, 08:58 PM) *
Th most of people wouldn't read whole document especially people who do not want to believe our government did it.
When somebody just quote from this incomplete NIST document, the reader would say "See NIST says it happened from the damages".
We are dealing with people who still are not capable of understanding the facts.

That is manlike. Like I was starting to read the very long speech of Obama in Berlin. But after 2 minutes it was boring and I stopped. But if someone tells me he said Ö something interesting I will go back and read either the whole speech or search for the passage.

My conclusion: If you find weak points in NIST papers, then it is much more, more than a speech of a politician or a private opinion.

Therefore these papers should be taken very seriously, and if you find a week point you can confront others (and NIST) with adequate parts of the text. This are facts!

I will give you an example for a stupid question: Why it took so much time? All plays for NIST to give you the right stupid answer. On the other hand: Have you simulated a controlled damage and what is the difference between the pictures we all saw on TV could be helpful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 25 2008, 10:48 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



NIST = TiNRAT...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 25 2008, 10:57 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 26 2008, 12:48 PM) *
NIST = TiNRAT...

I understand your emotions, but emotions are not helpful at all. Facts can be helpful, if the facts are easy to understand and plausible for most of the people. And that is why I think you should read and analyse NIST reports very carefully.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shoon
post Jul 25 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 202
Joined: 22-October 06
Member No.: 126



QUOTE
If you find weak points in NIST papers

That's why I am trying to say "I agree with you". I also think we should take NIST report seriously because too many stupid people read wrong way somehow. Basic foundation of science education is very weak in this country. for instance, many people still believe evolution never happened amazingly. In Japan, everybody take it granted for evolution happened. I am sorry I complained about sonething elese.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clue2mystery
post Jul 25 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 80
Joined: 5-July 07
Member No.: 1,356



QUOTE (shoon @ Jul 26 2008, 02:08 PM) *
That's why I am trying to say "I agree with you". I also think we should take NIST report seriously because too many stupid people read wrong way somehow. Basic foundation of science education is very weak in this country. for instance, many people still believe evolution never happened amazingly. In Japan, everybody take it granted for evolution happened. I am sorry I complained about sonething elese.

Oh my god, our discussion was as smooth as a discussion can be. I am prepared for much harder levels in any direction.

What I think you can not only but also read here, especially the Jowenko part of this is for the NIST report interesting.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7673
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 25 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (clue2mystery @ Jul 25 2008, 08:57 PM) *
I understand your emotions, but emotions are not helpful at all. Facts can be helpful, if the facts are easy to understand and plausible for most of the people. And that is why I think you should read and analyse NIST reports very carefully.

No emotions involved clue... TiNRAT is Kevin Ryan's term for They'll Never Read All That. Perhaps there are a few of the approximately 10,000 pages in particular that you'd like to share here (specific NCSTAR #, page #, and section # would be GREAT) that will put all of our questions to rest...

BTW, I've read more of the NIST report(s) than anyone else that I know personally. I find it seriously deficient in several respects:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=7084

Post #59
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10308055

Post #11
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10494746

You will note that NIST admits to have inspected less than 0.5% of the steel crime scene evidence. I find this hardly scientific to base conclusions upon...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th April 2020 - 10:44 AM