Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Flawed
prisonplanet.com — NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7 Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues
oddjobsbowler- 124 diggs
- digg it
- yellowcakewalk, on 08/22/2008, -5/+37The term "pull it" is just industry jargon for "new phenomenon".
- SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -7/+3I'm no fireman, but "Pull it" probably refers to the rescue operation or firefighting efforts in the building...
- phracktivist, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1That's a misnomer; there weren't any firefighting operations going on in Bldg 7.
- SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -7/+3I'm no fireman, but "Pull it" probably refers to the rescue operation or firefighting efforts in the building...
- arabesque, on 08/22/2008, -6/+28Looks like I need to write another top 10 list.
Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd (their report on the twin towers)
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-10-re ...
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/911-nist- ...
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-tra ...- SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -7/+1Just because the current administration in the US is a bunch of arrogant, incompetent morons who don't feel like doing their jobs by finding out exactly what knocked this building down is NOT proof of a conspiracy.
Just like the puffs of smoke, which came after the building started to fall, not before as they would in a controlled demolition, is a fully debunked conspiracy theory, the building 7 collapse is no more a 'smoking gun' than any of the half baked crackpot ideas I have seen floated by the troofer movement. This crap is 'much ado about nothing' so someone can make a few bucks off the 911 tragedy, just like the 'bigfoot is real' morons last week, they know the more interest there is in bigfoot the more money goes in their pockets. 911 troof is no different from the bigfoot scam, and its a LOT more callous. It also has a following with the same IQ challenged dipships who believe we never went to the moon.. and the anecdotal proof is about as compelling as it is for that farce.- arabesque, on 08/23/2008, -1/+7Look up "straw-man" and "ad hominem" argument . That's the substance of your post.
NIST report is a farce. It is a lie and a sham.
It took them 7 years to tell us that "fire" knocked this building down. The FEMA report couldn't explain it and their theory in their words "had a low probability of occurrence".
NIST is hiding from the blatant evidence of molten steel. The FEMA report mentioned it. This is all you need to know to figure out that the NIST report is a sham.
Building 7 is an obvious an example of controlled demolition.
Do a little research before swallowing the propaganda - Parapadrifter, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2NIST is a bunch of arrogant, imcompetent, morons.... You can't seriously claim that these shills had no pressure to just pursue truth and not the wishes of a 3rd party... If they came out with "7 was controlled demolition" heads would roll and you know it. - i Have 0 fayth in my governmental bureaucracies.
- arabesque, on 08/23/2008, -1/+7Look up "straw-man" and "ad hominem" argument . That's the substance of your post.
- SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -7/+1Just because the current administration in the US is a bunch of arrogant, incompetent morons who don't feel like doing their jobs by finding out exactly what knocked this building down is NOT proof of a conspiracy.
- kazz67, on 08/22/2008, -5/+25FTA:
"If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?"
With every attempt they make to cover-up and distort the truth behind 9/11, they show themselves to be liars.
Surely NOW the population of the world will start to notice the flaws in the official story! No? o_O - joshstone100, on 08/22/2008, -5/+22WTC 7 is the key to their whole operation. When it started to fall, it had a classic crimp at the top. In other words, the central column was taken out first. Is this the building "flight 93" was supposed to hit but encountered a situation reaching the intended target, so the perpetrators decided to bring 7 down anyway, figuring nobody would notice? All the media broadcast was WTC 1 & 2 collapses over and over. Yet no footage of WTC 7 was televised. The media was on board and definitely complicit.
Look at WTC 7 and the glowing, hot molten metal in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7 which lasted for weeks after the collapse. NIST failed to take this oddity into account for the record. Why wasn't this molten metal discovered underneath any of the other buildings that were closer, had more debris fall on them and had more fires? None of the other buildings imploded into their own basement, with nothing left standing of the reinforced steel central support columns, only Larry Silversteins buildings did.
Why wasn't this little discrepancy further investigated? http://digg.com/world_news/Israelis_Arrested_On_9_ ... - 2bsbc, on 08/22/2008, -4/+24I am interested in hearing from an actuary on how they plan to assess the risk associated with this "New Phenomenon." Can you imagine the impact to the risk premiums of every building, bridge, antenna tower etc. around the world. You can't just go throwing new theories around like a baseball in a window factory and not see effect.
If there is evidence that such a new threat exists in the world then look to risk assessment to prove it's truly being considered. Personally, I think it is a desperate attempt to try and put to rest a massive cover up. But, what do I know. I'm just another "conspiracy nut" on the internet...- joshstone100, on 08/22/2008, -2/+9Questioning, doubting or not buying an official story doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist... It means that you don't believe everything you hear...
- sportsstar67, on 08/22/2008, -23/+9Oh *****, the truthers are back in conspiracy mode
- 2bsbc, on 08/22/2008, -6/+17Come on sportsstar. I see you in these threads more than I do most of the people you consider truthers. Admit it, you're a closet believer. You just haven't found a way to come out.
P.S.
http://digg.com/world_news/Fed_agency_New_phenomen ...
We're winning. Don't worry though, you still have friends over at Popular Mechanics.
That is all.- sportsstar67, on 08/22/2008, -20/+6You conspiracy theorists are nuts...You aren't winning anything..Bush will soon be gone and few people even give a crap about 911..Quit living in the past and move on for God's sake..Not everyone in the world is out to get you !! BOO !!
- Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -17/+5The X-Files movie tanked, they've got nothing better to do.
- card51short, on 08/22/2008, -4/+12"Not everyone in the world is out to get you !! BOO !!"
Only arabs in turbans with ak-47s right, conspiracy boy? - SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -9/+2"we're winning"? wow.. thats the same mentality religious people have, when the are clearly not winning and are morons... as are troofers.
- 2bsbc, on 08/23/2008, -0/+8Spoken like a true "SuperWinner." Keep in the game kid. I have a feeling you're a lot of fun.
- 2bsbc, on 08/22/2008, -6/+17Come on sportsstar. I see you in these threads more than I do most of the people you consider truthers. Admit it, you're a closet believer. You just haven't found a way to come out.
- 2bsbc, on 08/22/2008, -3/+23That's where you're making the mistake. It's not about Bush. Second, a lot of people care about 9/11. And, it's a window into your mind when you make reference to the fact that people have lost concern as to the human cost that tragedy brought/brings our country. Third, if you don't learn from the past you continue to repeat the same mistakes. I'm on the side of study and solution. You're on the side of excuses and wash-rinse-repeat. Finally, I am not worried about anyone being out to get me. I am interested in the truth. Fear isn't my thing.
- yellowcakewalk, on 08/22/2008, -4/+23I think we need a full, independent, and transparent investigation of the entire matter. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. An investigator would look for motive, means, and opportunity. An investigator would ask "who benefitted". And an investigator would ask about the character of the people who were nominally in charge of the country at the time.
- Catspaw, on 08/22/2008, -1/+18Just as the Warren Commission's picture of Oswald as a lone assassin didn't work with the evidence available, the account of what caused Building 7 to fall doesn't work. I think we need to demand a new investigation before this slips into history as another case of criminals in government not being held accountable for their murderous actions.
- razorsharpwit, on 08/22/2008, -9/+2weak
- savitr, on 08/22/2008, -1/+17At the NIST press conference, chief NIST spokesperson Shyam Sundar said that only a really huge amount of explosives could bring down WTC 7. That was one of the reasons they discounted the idea of pre-planted explosives out of hand.
But then he also said that the building was oddly and remarkably fragile, so that ordinary office fires were able to bring it down, by means of a completely new mechanism. Remember, WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically in, I think it was, a mere 7 seconds.
You can't have it both ways, can you? The building is either flimsy or strong, but not both... right? Or am I just some sort of tin-foil hat nut, to wonder about this?
If steel frame buildings are this risky, all such buildings, world-wide, should be demolished. For that purpose I would recommend using thermate cutter charges on the support columns. The buildings will then fall at near free-fall speeds. It is quick and easy. - stienster, on 08/22/2008, -10/+7I've spent the better part of today listening to and watching and reading research on "the no planes" theory. It's a question that's been plaguing me for almost a year. Now I can honestly say I no longer believe there were any planes on 9/11 related to the attacks. Here's a link for a long but not boring read, that covers every angle of the 9/11 attacks:
http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html- kizkiz, on 08/23/2008, -5/+6i'm not denying video can be faked but are you seriously saying that all the thousands of people both on the ground (as well as those inside the WTC who survived) are lying about the massive planes they saw and heard with their own eyes smash into the buildings?
You need to get out of the basement and spend some time off the internet.- SuperWinner, on 08/23/2008, -11/+4yup, thats exactly what this troofer retard is saying..
- Bagos1, on 08/23/2008, -4/+3As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, the most senseless is the no plane theory. Delusional.
- stienster, on 08/23/2008, -3/+3Dear trolls Bagos1 and kizkiz>>>> have either of you boneheads bothered to do your own seriously research?- What am I SAYING! that's not the job of the troll... you only spew vile filth like the good little puppets you are. Just go back into your hole and shut up. And good luck with eternity btw. You'll have a lot to explain.
- BrapAllgood, on 08/24/2008, -3/+2I have to admit that 'September Clues' was very thought-provoking.
- kizkiz, on 08/23/2008, -5/+6i'm not denying video can be faked but are you seriously saying that all the thousands of people both on the ground (as well as those inside the WTC who survived) are lying about the massive planes they saw and heard with their own eyes smash into the buildings?
- ThetaDot, on 08/22/2008, -11/+4it appears i have stumbled into a twilight zone of 'rational' commenting
- Bagos1, on 08/25/2008, -0/+2You really think that the planes crashing into the WTC's were not real?
You give troofers a bad name.
Complicity, no doubt.
Planes used, no doubt.
You are morons, no doubt.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is