L.C. Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) Hah, even NIST (National Ins!@#$%^&*ution for Science and Technology) questions the truthfulness of 9/11. http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...hsy24133_0f.htm http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (Links ordered from newest to oldest.); besides that, a gigantic list of 100s of professors, engineers, architects, senior military/intelligence service/law enforcement/government officials, professors, entertainment and media professionals, survivors and family members, 50+ some pilots and aviation professionals @ patriotsquestion911.com. Sorry about the structure of that body of text..was a copy and paste setup. Edited October 18, 2007 by L.C.
NBVegita Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 "In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conslusion is supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." I'm just wondering if people ever actually read those 6 pages reports, or if I'm the only one.
Aileron Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 So, out of a world of 5 billion people and in a nation of 300million people, "hundreds" of people, most of them college professors, doubt the truthfullness of 9/11. I could find a few hundred people who honestly believe the world is flat.
ThunderJam Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 Seems like he posted this without knowing what he was doing, judging by how he just gave into NBV's take on the do!@#$%^&*ent.
L.C. Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 Seems like he posted this without knowing what he was doing, judging by how he just gave into NBV's take on the do!@#$%^&*ent.That and decided to stay more neutral about the whole subject, as well as keeping it to myself. I admit I was wrong, and my prejudging (and without actually looking into the do!@#$%^&*ent but taking it for granted) was especially wrong. Next time I will read through something myself before I decide to even consider posting about it.
Recommended Posts