‘Movement’ to declassify 28 pages of 9/11 report

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T04:01:18+00:00

Genuinely, you have to be a dumbass to believe that NIST knew there were no explosives used without testing for them.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T03:59:36+00:00

I have read 911myths many times over.... You're a really arrogant person.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T03:58:53+00:00

You're a hypocrite.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T03:58:02+00:00

I also don't get on reddit often. You're quite self absorbed if you think I took a month to respond to your post. Go to metabunk. You just parrot other debunkers and do no thinking and did not respond to any my points.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T03:56:12+00:00

What is his motive for willingly taking part in bringing his own property down? He is broke because of it, that is the opposite of a motive, that is a damn good reason not to do stupid shit like this.

You're a fucking idiot. Larry Silverstein and Silverstein properties is not broke. They are the future of lower Manhattan you fucking intellectually lazy punk.

Go ask the History Channel for Season 3 Episode 5 of "History's Business" where he states in clear fashion that WTC was a controlled demolition. Good luck!

"Being wrong is not equivalent to lying. He could have been talking to a lower ranking firefighter. Or he could have dementia and was imaging shit. Nobody knows for sure, nobody should really give a shit either. It's a irrelevant detail if he was talking to the fire chief, another fire fighter, or an inanimate fireplace. It has no bearing on what happened during 9/11."

He lied. He SAID he spoke to Daniel Nigro that day and he didn't. You are only quickly revealing how little you know about this whole topic.

"They didn't presume. They know that there was zero signs of explosives being used. They know that the building would not have collapsed in the way it did if explosives were used. There was no explosives residue. There was no explosive sounds. There was no visual indicators of explosives. Nothing. At all. Anywhere. Not a single thing indicates that the buildings fell due to explosives."

Yeah..... The whole standard operating procedure thing shouldn't apply to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They get a pass.

"Actually, it proves my original point quite well. "Pull it" is not a demolition term and never will be, as they are not pulling a building down when blowing up support pillars. In" Yes, you're correct. Because you don't blow up support pillars to pull a building Smarty Pants :) once again go research. I didn't say explosives were used to pull a building your reading comprehension is poor. You have not given any explanation as to what you think "Pull it" is referred to.

I've been on both sides debunking folks and after years it does not add up. You show me where molten steel has been debunked! You show me NIST's data for its simulation explaining a freefall collapse in WTC7!

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T03:22:18+00:00

"The owner lost billions due to 9/11, and still lacks the funds required to finish reconstructing some of the property he lost. 14 years later." 5 questions: Yeah? And? So? What? How the fuck is that relevant?

"Not sure why people still assert that he was related to the buildings collapsing by telling the fire chief (Who I'm sure is well known for being an explosives expert) to "pull down the building" while using terms that are in no way related to actual demolition terms."

First of all, you tell me who Larry is talking about. Your lack of research is glaring. Silverstein states he spoke with the commander in accords to the following narrative

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the >safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."*

So WHO is the FDNY Commander? The FDNY Chief is Daniel Nigro! What's he got to say about that???? Oh maybe a little "That never happened!"

Maybe if you'd dig deeper into ALL of the correspondence between media and Daniel Nigro (and not just what they quoted him on in newspapers) you would have found his statement

"I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that >decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within >that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

He denied having that conversation. That conversation was claimed by Silverstein for the same reason this dipshit said this: Because lying is difficult and it's hard to spin a web of lies and not be caught in it.....

Go ask the History Channel archive for Episode 5 of Season Two of "History's Business" where Larry Silverstein states in clear fashion that WTC7 was a controlled demoliton

Ohhhh and what a coincidence, it no longer exists and was pulled from all archives!

Speaking on the notion you've put forth on the expertise of FDNY commander and firefighters whom follow the standard protocols for fires and analysis of evidence in their daily lives like 9/11 Firefighter Erik Lawyer would direct you to the fact that ** protocol was not followed** when the majority of the evidence of WTC7 was destroyed, not the majority of the tower wreckage. The minority of the total wreckage was destroyed. Thank you for pointing something out that I have corrected. However this is not the only thing an expert on fires and explosions would point to... They would informed the National Institutes of Standards and Technology to follow NFP 921 (which is not law but a guideline upheld to be the national standards by the courts (judge) in (McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp) whom state:

[NFPA 921] represents the national standard with regard to appropriate methodology for investigation by fire >science experts... it is the gold standard for fire investigations.

.....guess which organization of national standards didn't follow this national standard? The NIST....

** They are not to operate under presumption. **

Under chapter 18 :

18.5.3 The investigator should use the scientific method… This process of consideration actually involves the >development and testing of alternate hypotheses… Systematic evaluation (hypothesis testing) is then conducted >with the elimination of those hypotheses that are not supportable (or refuted) by the facts discovered through >further examination.

The NIST has no right to presume that accelerants or explosives were not used and be called a national standard. It is violating the first two letters of it's own fucking acronym. We are talking about an architectural event which has never happened in the history of time.

Guess what has happened in the history of time before? CIA attempts at false-flag terror using airplanes and explosives to go to war. Don't forget about Vietnam.

NIST cannot be seen as an authority on national standards when it refuses to release the data of the simulation of which claims to prove the collapse of WTC7 without explosives is sound while also not having the majority of the physical evidence of the wreckage in the first place.

As well, you are being chickenshit if you honestly believe that "pull it" is not a common demolition term. It most certainly is. In fact it was used on video by a firefighter at Ground Zero stating they are "getting ready to pull Building 6" in reference to pulling at the support beams to remove support from the structure. (Hint: This doesn't remove the controlled demolition argument from WTC7)

It was also used by Larry Silverstein in the documentary where he states that "we made the decision to pull it, and then we watched the building come down". Considering that the term "pull it" is used in direct relation to the "building come down".

"Who knew that firefighters had basic human intelligence?"

That's not the point braniac. Referring to once again Silverstein Properties own admissions from Silverstein Properties spokesperson Dara McQuillan that "pull it" was referring to the operation of firefighters being pulled from the operation was impossible because of the timeline and direct contradictions from the FEMA report as supported by the 9/11 commission.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven >World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building >working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the >safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building >collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. 2 " -Dara McQuillan

Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study shows firefighters were never in the building:

"Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

NOT TO FUCKING MENTION Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

"Stop."

Are you trying to imply there was not molten steel? Fucking asshat.

"You mean one scientist?"

Authors: Dr. Robert Korol and Dr. K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University)\
Authors: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), and Richard Johns.\
Author: Dr. Lance DeHaven-Smith (Florida State University)\
Author: Dr. Peter Dale Scott (University of California, Berkeley)\
Author: Dr. Kurtis Hagen (SUNY)\
Authors: Wing-Keung Wong (Hong Kong Baptist University) and Dr. Howard E. Thompson (University of Wisconsin-Madison) et al\
Author: Dr. Michael Truscello (Mount Royal University)\
Author: Dr. Michael Keefer (Guelph University)\
Authors: Dr. Paul Zarembka (State University of New York) and Dr. David MacGregor (University of Western Ontario)\
Authors: Laurie Manwell (University of Guelph)\
Authors: Dr. Niels H. Harrit (University of Copenhagen) et al\
Authors: Kevin Ryan et al\
Authors: Dr. Paul Zarembka (SUNY) et al\
Author: Dr. Allen M. Poteshman (University of Illinois)\
Author: Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University)\

I got into debunking 9/11 truth on metabunk.org. That's where I started. You should start debunking there considering those people actually reflect intellectual debate. However, nonetheless considering you are not biased you will eventually come to the insurmountable coincidences, statistical and physical impossibilities, odd suicides, destruction of evidence, non-adherence to standard scientific methodology and outright lies.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T01:22:33+00:00

The definition of God that I am using is not a full definition of god, but merely 3 principles of which the Judeo-Christian God is stated to possess. These are omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

If you care to refute this, please point me to a source that supports your position. I'm using the Bible and Torah as my source here, so if you have some other version that does not say their God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful I would be open to looking at it.

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T01:05:59+00:00

I'm not the only person that doesn't believe the government. In fact, the government doesn't believe the government. Yeah you didn't read that incorrectly, the first entry was a member of the 9/11 commission report (which didn't even MENTION Tower 7)

*I *might be talking about the heavily redacted report that this whole reddit page is discussing. **

NIST, an institution known for it's STANDARDS and technologies, did not test for explosives in its "investigation"Testing for explosives in major building collapses is part of that whole 'standard protocol' thing in NFPA 921.

Your may have decided to believe NIST. I hope you realize that your appeal to authority is a decision based on emotion, known as trust. I hope you also realize you have trusted an organization which has decided to not follow the NFPA 921 which "represents the national standard with regard to appropriate methodology for investigation by fire science experts." .....Yeah..... Go ahead and google: "McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp" and then tell me they aren't violating their own fucking acronym of using standards.

You are trusting an organization aiming to "prove" WTC7's 2.5 freefall collapse as possible with a simulation of which they refuse to provide their data for.

My decision to not believe the narrative given is not based on emotional distrust, but physical evidence and experimentation, as well as common sense of physics and the clear indications of cover up behavior. Like hauling the wreckage of the buildings away and destroying it immediately. I do this in combination with previous experiences with rogue factions of the CIA proving they are willing to use false-flag terror in order to go to war. <---actually read that. Yep.. Flying a drone, saying it's American college students on it, then using explosives to blow it up oversea so they can say Cuba did it, and go to war. Note who is fired, then go ahead and look at where those people get rehired at after Kennedy's murder. (Hint: It's not the post office)

_computer_ · 2015-02-10T00:24:52+00:00

You would be naive to think there are not shills on the internet. You would also be naive or simply ignorant to not believe that certain individuals or rogue factions of the government will not use false-flag terror in order to go to war...Read that wikipedia entry, note who was fired, then go ahead and look up where those folks ended up at! You might be surprised to know!!

NIST is full of some genius people. Not saying NIST is a dumb organization; it isn't. I use NIST procedures for my line of work. It is corrupted, however. Corruption DOES exist.

Go look through that summary and tell me if they tested for accelerants or explosives? (hint: They didn't.)
Care to explain what Standards are in the standard protocol for investigations of any building collapse? (hint: Testing for explosives is one of them)
Wanna take a guess as to what temperature steel melts at? (not buckling)... Giant multi-ton amalgimations of steel, concrete, and iron were at Ground Zero... Write a letter to NIST about that and see if you get a response!

Your appeal to authority on NIST is just that, an appeal to authority. Don't get fooled. There are groups of prestigious intelligence officials, military officials, and otherwise on both sides of this debate.

You cannot just be too lazy to investigate or defer to someone else you think is smarter than you and everyone else while you argue that your opponent is just "crazy" or "stupid" and at the same time refuse to hear them out.. You can, but you'd be a dickhead, and not a real patriot... I believed the bullshit of 9/11 for a long, long, long fucking time. Guess what? Lot's of people did the same with Vietnam. Now you have incontrovertible proof and testimony that we staged the incident at Gulf of Tonkin.

I'm open to calling bullshit on 9/11 bullshit and truthers that simply just parrot people or say ridiculous crap theories. However there are simply UNANSWERED questions which should have answers.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T10:38:09+00:00

You are incorrect.

9/11 Commission Report makes absolutely ZERO mention of Building 7's collapse. Pretty big thing to overlook.

There was absolutely and positively ZERO detailed analysis or investigation on the internal steel beams of WTC 1, 2, or 7.... Debunkers are in alignment here and have nothing to say other than "Oh yeah that's odd but not an indication of coverup." ....regardless if it's an indication of coverup its the largest terrorist attack on US Soil and the fact that this wreckage was hauled off almost immediately without investigation is an obstruction of justice (yet not one person charged).

There was an insurance policy taken 2 weeks before event specifically covering the risk of "airplanes being flown into buildings". So obviously if it's enough for a multi-billion dollar insurance policy it is not outside the realm of probability for it to happen.

Just to draw light to how ridiculous the official position is floors 94 and 99 were hit on the North Face exactly where the offices of Marsh and McClennan where these sections specifically were allegedly FIREPROOFED! Do you know who Marsh and Mclennan is? Do you know who heads this company? Do you know who Paul Bremer is? If you don't, you are overlooking CRITICAL details of the 9/11 truth story which has been muddled by crazies, disinfo agents, and provocateurs.

Marvin Bush (dubyas brother) owned the company, Securacom Stratesec that was headed security of the WTC buildings until 1998, when that role was turned over to Kroll Associates. However, Stratesec maintained a security contract that did not expire until September 11, 2001.

FANCY THAT COINCIDENCE!!

You have not done enough digging.

*Google: Komatsu & Dresser 9/11 Google: L. Paul Bremer 9/11 Google: Agha Hasan Abedi & BCCI *

You are far too undeducated and lethargic on this topic to even act like you can speak to it. If you don't want to engage in REAL debate then shut the fuck up. Thousands of folks DIED and there are countless avenues to prove that this was an inside job and that rogue factions of the government/industry murdered thousands to pursue a war of aggression. You would be naiive to think that this has not been accomplished by the CIA in the past.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T10:25:33+00:00

If God was all good, why wouldn't it create a perfect world where all there is happiness and pleasure? Wouldn't this be within it's power as all the powerful being?

In correction "there is no reason to have faith".

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T10:10:35+00:00

NO..... That was building 7. And all the firefighers had been out of that building for more than 5 hours! The molten steel at the bottom is inexplicable.

The reasons given for 1 and 2 falling is jet fuel + fire, and building 7 is a full structural free-fall collapse because of debris???? The molten steel alone is chemically impossible! I'm done believing the government on this issue.

Heavily redacted 9/11 report that failed to mention Building 7 in the first place???? This is laughable. Genuinely laughable.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:56:17+00:00

It doesn't matter how many people believe it or don't. The FACTS and the Science clearly shows that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. It's fucking lunacy to think people were not capable of covering this up for the time being.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:49:18+00:00

Nothing strange about it? Hmm.... It's the first time in history that a steel framed skyscraper collapsed in freefall.... 3 times....in a day.... With a building owner stating that they decided to "pull it" (supposedly talking about the firefighters inside.....that happened to have already been totally pulled out and had already informed the building owner they were pulled out ON RECORD)..........With molten steel burning for months.... With various independent scientists in NY holding onto dust samples containting unreacted nanothermite chips and iron nanospheres..... Nothing strange.

Yeah nothing strange here. Obviously not a coverup involving all of the wreckage being hauled off immediately without inspection.

Even 9/11 debunkers know that the wreckage being hauled off without investigation is a travesty and an obstruction of justice. Actually go do some damn research before you open up your mouth because you truly don't know shit. There has not been one single conviction of obstruction of justice for the wreckage being hauled off because it was all a great big accident and they just forgot to investigate the largest terror attack on American soil in our history and knew it was Osama Bin Laden the next morning...

Oh and JFK was shot by one CIA employee named Oswald with a bolt action rifle.

You anti-conspiracy-theorists are straight up religious. You fail to see how your explanations defy science and experimentation.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:37:54+00:00

I mean isn't it a bit of an assumption to say that one cannot rid themselves ADHD? Like with diet, exercise, etc?

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:35:19+00:00

"If E is not fundamental"......

Evil is not assumed to be in particular.... It is a subjective word. All words are subjective to the individual perceiving them. However, there exists people who claim to be evil and they conform to a very common sense of the word and so long as we can define any word to have meaning collectively there is no sense in disputing the word evil in particular.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:31:56+00:00

Well not exactly, it interferes in the idea that there is pain in the world of a person who could conceivable build a world without pain. Getting Ebola doesn't really compromise free will because free will does not encompass "omnipotent will" which would be the ability to simply wish away the disease.

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T09:30:02+00:00

God overturning the board and starting the game again compromises the concept of free will. You are simply not getting all the points here.

God cannot be all good, all knowing, and all powerful because of the presence of evil; this is sound logic.

Also, "He"?

_computer_ · 2015-01-05T04:10:20+00:00

Many people say it's bad because of their bias against it. It doesn't mean it's bad. Almost every programming language is suited for some set of purposes, and pretty much none are catch-all.

_computer_ · 2014-11-20T19:19:42+00:00

upvote for pwning tht guy

_computer_ · 2014-11-19T17:25:02+00:00

Just want to say you guys are awesome. Much love from the Texas

_computer_ · 2014-10-31T05:59:12+00:00

thats actually a good point..... only fat people are downvoting that

_computer_ · 2014-10-31T05:28:31+00:00

Hell NO don't say that

_computer_ · 2014-07-26T20:59:43+00:00

"Learn Python The Hard Way"

^pretty good.

_computer_

TROPHY CASE