more problems with 911 NIST doesnt know how they came down

[xtratabasco]

double negitives throw me off, and bad spelling doesnt help either.


so get back on topic then.


thanks



from the Harvard cumladogs best of the best of getting their shit straightened out

XT

ps lets just stick to the topic....


those that love the lies of this government and 911 will change the subject and spam cuzz they hate the truth.

[kwanton]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[jay_a2j]

double negitives throw me off, and bad spelling doesnt help either.


so get back on topic then.


thanks



from the Harvard cumladogs best of the best of getting their shit straightened out

XT

ps lets just stick to the topic....


those that love the lies of this government and 911 will change the subject and spam cuzz they hate the truth.

Dude, no offense but you have problems. We were on topic. 911 conspiracy remember? And seeing no double negatives were posted, I think it may be the English language that throws you off. Sorry if this sounds a little abrasive but I can't sit back and watch you be so condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. <rant over>



Now..... back on topic

[Iliad]

Locker down!

[DaGip]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

[Iliad]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

we have he just dismisses it. But we shouldn't be the ones who bring it up anyway. He proposes a theory which goes against mainstream. He should be the one providing evidence. Not only has he changed his theory about what happened he has provided no evidence except for people who don't believe in it. Good for them! I don't give a shit! Not only they know jack shit about what they're talking(one reporter which thinks the scraps are too small is right while 140 witnesses are wrong?) for some reason xtra thinks we will give a shit if some random idiot doesn't believe in 9/11.

[DaGip]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

so another that tells NIST to f*ck off.


wow if you cant belive them, then who do you belive in? bush and the neocons?



damn you guys are tools

Who are you talking too? MY post was talking about unriggable.

Yeah, I think you were mistaken, Xtra...jay was talking about unriggable. And all Xtra is saying is for us to try to stay on topic and not meander away from it...then we start to lose focus on what Xtra is trying to convey to us. That is when mistakes in communication start to happen. Just stick with the topic and refrain from ridiculous comments and personel attacks. And it would also help if Xtra would do the same...just answer and debate clearly and openly without having to call each other names. Just state the facts as you know them to be. Fact: Something happened on 9*11 Fact: I saw an airplane on LIVE TV run into one of the TwinTowers Fact: I saw on LIVE TV both Towers collapse Fact: I rember people saying that there were explosives in the buildings Fact: WorldTradeCenter7 mysteriously collapsed and no one had any answers

Can we just stick with the subject at hand?

[kwanton]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

Evidence? What do you call my post? I have provided solid evidence that lackattack is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. That wasn't enough for you?

[Iliad]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

Evidence? What do you call my post? I have provided solid evidence that lackattack is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. That wasn't enough for you?

That is false! Dancing mustard provided even better evidence that it was Spiderman!

[Dancing Mustard]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

Evidence? What do you call my post? I have provided solid evidence that lackattack is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. That wasn't enough for you?

That is false! Dancing mustard provided even better evidence that it was Spiderman!

You're damn right I did!



Does anybody here have pics of spiderman not fucking up the Pentagon on 911?






Thought not.







I R TEH WINARZ OF TEH THREDZ

[xtratabasco]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

so another that tells NIST to f*ck off.


wow if you cant belive them, then who do you belive in? bush and the neocons?



damn you guys are tools

Who are you talking too? MY post was talking about unriggable.

Yeah, I think you were mistaken, Xtra...jay was talking about unriggable. And all Xtra is saying is for us to try to stay on topic and not meander away from it...then we start to lose focus on what Xtra is trying to convey to us. That is when mistakes in communication start to happen. Just stick with the topic and refrain from ridiculous comments and personel attacks. And it would also help if Xtra would do the same...just answer and debate clearly and openly without having to call each other names. Just state the facts as you know them to be. Fact: Something happened on 9*11 Fact: I saw an airplane on LIVE TV run into one of the TwinTowers Fact: I saw on LIVE TV both Towers collapse Fact: I rember people saying that there were explosives in the buildings Fact: WorldTradeCenter7 mysteriously collapsed and no one had any answers

Can we just stick with the subject at hand?

you have to understand that these people here love this war and love this president, they dont want to think about the fact that it is/was wrong and the neo-cons did 911 to get us into a never ending war with boogiemen.

there part of the 18-24% that love bush and the neo-cons

[Dancing Mustard]

OMG! HOW DID I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

xtra is completely right

The "official" story on 9/11 was completely fabricated. The person responsible was not who the government blames. it was not terrorism. The culprit is actually here. Closer than you may think.

Yes. It was Lack who was responsible for 9/11.

think about it. All the evidence points to lack. He knew that by coordinating the attacks on the WTC et al xtra would make several conspiracy theory threads. In fact, he knew that xtra would make so many, that eventually CC would be the first result on any google search for 9/11. This definitely takes the cake for most ingenious marketing ploy.

Look at it more tho. Here is a direct quote from lack himself. Yes he said these words. Straight from the devil's mouth.

"My favorite country to attack in Risk is the Middle East"

*Disclaimer: Lack may not have actually said this.*

By framing middle eastern "terrorist" countries, he also harbored and nurtured the American people's lust for domination of other countries. We went to war with terrorism. Next is global domination. Global domination? Hrm that sounds familiar. It's almost like lack is playing a game of global domination and he used 9/11 as a catalyst. Now the sentiment of global domination had it's roots on September 11th 2001. I'd say 5 years is enough time for those roots to grow into a full fledged desire for bloodshed. What happens 5 years later? BANG! CC is created by none other than lack himself.

Any questions? No? Foolproof evidence that lackattack was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe in what xtra is trying to convey to you, just give him the evidence. That is all he asks. Xtra takes a lot of ridicule, but he brings up this subject to get people to start thinking about other possibilites to the attacks on 9*11. If xtra is wrong, then oh wel...he's just another cooky conspiracy buff...but, if he is right...you may very well be thanking him for his efforts. I've listened and tried to look for information on both sides...you know what? The information for the conspiracy actually may have some weight to it, but if it is so, the question is by who or whom? But, please, if you have some evidence against what Xtra is trying to say, then provide it.

Evidence? What do you call my post? I have provided solid evidence that lackattack is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. That wasn't enough for you?

That is false! Dancing mustard provided even better evidence that it was Spiderman!

You're damn right I did!



Does anybody here have pics of spiderman not fucking up the Pentagon on 911?






Thought not.







I R TEH WINARZ OF TEH THREDZ

Humperdoo.



Suffer the little Children.

[heavycola]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

so another that tells NIST to f*ck off.


wow if you cant belive them, then who do you belive in? bush and the neocons?



damn you guys are tools

Who are you talking too? MY post was talking about unriggable.

Yeah, I think you were mistaken, Xtra...jay was talking about unriggable. And all Xtra is saying is for us to try to stay on topic and not meander away from it...then we start to lose focus on what Xtra is trying to convey to us. That is when mistakes in communication start to happen. Just stick with the topic and refrain from ridiculous comments and personel attacks. And it would also help if Xtra would do the same...just answer and debate clearly and openly without having to call each other names. Just state the facts as you know them to be. Fact: Something happened on 9*11 Fact: I saw an airplane on LIVE TV run into one of the TwinTowers Fact: I saw on LIVE TV both Towers collapse Fact: I rember people saying that there were explosives in the buildings Fact: WorldTradeCenter7 mysteriously collapsed and no one had any answers

Can we just stick with the subject at hand?

you have to understand that these people here love this war and love this president, they dont want to think about the fact that it is/was wrong and the neo-cons did 911 to get us into a never ending war with boogiemen.

there part of the 18-24% that love bush and the neo-cons

You is teh smartzz.

Secretly we all know you're right, darling, but i have such a hard-on for the war and for dubya that it blinds me to the truth. It blinds me physically, too. It's massive and it's rock hard.

[xtratabasco]

im glad you finally get it.

[strike wolf]

what's funny is I went to NIST.gov/nist.org and all the other sites that I could think of and not once did I see anything like what Xtra's trying to claim. Maybe I overlooked a legitimate site or article but I didn't see it.

[xtratabasco]

what's funny is I went to NIST.gov/nist.org and all the other sites that I could think of and not once did I see anything like what Xtra's trying to claim. Maybe I overlooked a legitimate site or article but I didn't see it.

Im not sure its funny, just google it, its all over the place and read the PDF, its that simple.

I think you have been researching in the FOX archieves.

go back to the 1st page and hit the link I have, then go to the PDF link, its long but worth your time, because I think you want the truth.


if you dont want to do that or dont like the link I provided, google NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable and see for yourself

[DaGip]

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

According to the NIST...Xtra is correct! OMFG! Go figure? But according to this report, NIST goes way out of its way to try to mold the report to not cause any blatant controversy. And again, this report was issued in 2005, I believe. It sounds like what is happening now, is that NIST is backtracking even further and stating that they cannot explain the total freefall without the use of explosives, just like Xtra posted.

[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

http://911review.org/Reports/NIST.html

This is exactly what is being implicated, but I am leary on believing it fully as I am unsure of its direct source, no offense to Xtra. I think I need a little more info on this little tid bit before I fully decide to take in what many consipiracy buffs have been saying now for a long time. I mean, what experts are saying this publically? And if so, where can I watch them state this and are we sure of their credentials? The fact is that NIST does implicate that it does not support the "pancake theory", so then what? Its report goes on to blatantly refute all the other conspiracy questions, but yet the "pancake theory" can't be explained...so there is some weight to a supposed backtracking of thought on the whole report. We will have to be kept informed fully...I am sure Xtra will oblige.

[Titanic]

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

According to the NIST...Xtra is correct! OMFG! Go figure? But according to this report, NIST goes way out of its way to try to mold the report to not cause any blatant controversy. And again, this report was issued in 2005, I believe. It sounds like what is happening now, is that NIST is backtracking even further and stating that they cannot explain the total freefall without the use of explosives, just like Xtra posted.

[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

http://911review.org/Reports/NIST.html

This is exactly what is being implicated, but I am leary on believing it fully as I am unsure of its direct source, no offense to Xtra. I think I need a little more info on this little tid bit before I fully decide to take in what many consipiracy buffs have been saying now for a long time. I mean, what experts are saying this publically? And if so, where can I watch them state this and are we sure of their credentials? The fact is that NIST does implicate that it does not support the "pancake theory", so then what? Its report goes on to blatantly refute all the other conspiracy questions, but yet the "pancake theory" can't be explained...so there is some weight to a supposed backtracking of thought on the whole report. We will have to be kept informed fully...I am sure Xtra will oblige.

NIST never said that. Show me the exact link on their website where they say that the building fell in free fall, that the building fell because of all the columsn failing at the same exact moment, and where they "support" the conspiracy theory.

Heres something they do say - "NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

Also - "NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

Source - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Question 2 in that link.

You might wanan read all the questios, it answers pretty much everything you ignorantly argue.

[DaGip]

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

According to the NIST...Xtra is correct! OMFG! Go figure? But according to this report, NIST goes way out of its way to try to mold the report to not cause any blatant controversy. And again, this report was issued in 2005, I believe. It sounds like what is happening now, is that NIST is backtracking even further and stating that they cannot explain the total freefall without the use of explosives, just like Xtra posted.

[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

http://911review.org/Reports/NIST.html

This is exactly what is being implicated, but I am leary on believing it fully as I am unsure of its direct source, no offense to Xtra. I think I need a little more info on this little tid bit before I fully decide to take in what many consipiracy buffs have been saying now for a long time. I mean, what experts are saying this publically? And if so, where can I watch them state this and are we sure of their credentials? The fact is that NIST does implicate that it does not support the "pancake theory", so then what? Its report goes on to blatantly refute all the other conspiracy questions, but yet the "pancake theory" can't be explained...so there is some weight to a supposed backtracking of thought on the whole report. We will have to be kept informed fully...I am sure Xtra will oblige.

NIST never said that. Show me the exact link on their website where they say that the building fell in free fall, that the building fell because of all the columsn failing at the same exact moment, and where they "support" the conspiracy theory.

Heres something they do say - "NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

Also - "NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

Source - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Question 2 in that link.

You might wanan read all the questios, it answers pretty much everything you ignorantly argue.

I did read those, and didn't you read my post? You are jumping to conclusions and letting your emotions get the best of you, my freind. The link I gave you clearly states that the NIST does NOT support the pancake theory, I pulled the quote directly from THEIR site. I also stated that the current back tracking on the demolition issue is not yet convincing to me because of the lack of credible sources yet.

I agree with you that that is what the report says, because the NIST has an obligation to offer some answers to the collapse, but the pancake theory is clearly refuted...you will have to go back to the link and re-read, sir.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This is the website for NIST. I am posting it a second time for you, go to it and read the paragraph right above the image of the buckling trusses.

Are you so much in denial that you clearly are overlooking what the NIST is stating itself? Please read what the NIST is saying in its 2005 report on the pancake theory. It cleary says that it does NOT support the theory and that is what the subject of this post is. You can not deny what I am saying because it is right there in black and white: Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

If we would all just stick with the subject at hand, we could logically draw conclusions based on evidence provided; but remember, NIST is offering a report done by EXPERTS, should we consider that evidence? In a court of law you would, I am assuming. So the pancake theory, according to the NIST itself, falls flat on its face.

[Snorri1234]

So basically, they don't support the pancake theory but do support the other reasonable explanation, as opposed to supporting the theory that it was a controlled demolition.

[DaGip]

So basically, they don't support the pancake theory but do support the other reasonable explanation, as opposed to supporting the theory that it was a controlled demolition.

Yes, according to the 2005 report, the NIST refutes both controlled demolition and pancaking. But there are new implications (the credibility of sources is yet to be determined) that the NIST is back pedalling and may, in fact, re-conclude that the WTC was brought down by some form of explosives. I am not supporting this as of yet, because I am unclear of the source.

You can read this source at this website:

http://911review.org/Reports/NIST.html

[DaGip]

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This is stated at the end of the NIST WTC answers page...in which it is clearly stated that this investigation is in no way final.

[xtratabasco]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

does this guy use untrue language?

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program. 20-year Air Force career.

Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.

The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break.

[xtratabasco]

how about this guy?


Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Former William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Author or co-author of several books on economics and politics, including; The Supply-Side Revolution (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of the Socialist Era (1990), The Soviet Union After Perestroika (1991), The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (2003).

Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out: "This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government." http://www.interlinkbooks.com


Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

[Titanic]

how about this guy?


Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Former William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Author or co-author of several books on economics and politics, including; The Supply-Side Revolution (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of the Socialist Era (1990), The Soviet Union After Perestroika (1991), The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (2003).

Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out: "This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government." http://www.interlinkbooks.com


Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

So its an economist telling us about physics?