I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope.
I would highly suggest reading the legislation that provided the funding and genesis for the NIST report. It was called the National Construction Safety Team Act (PL 107-231). Congress was quite specific when it directed NIST to study the WTC collapse. Furthermore, the report was not intended entirely as an investigation, but also as a research project whose purpose was to make recommendations for making skyscrapers safer in the future.
I want to know where the core went.
I don't understand this statement. What are you referring to?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only covered from the hit to the initiation of collapse.
Indeed. NIST was operating on the very valid and scientifically accurate assumption that the towers had no ability to arrest collapse once it began. Any public safety improvements generated through the NIST report would be aimed at preventing the collapse initiation state, not at designing buildings that are capable of stopping collapse once it begins.
I have not read the entire report, but have read both sides' analysis, and several key parts.
Here is where you and I differ. I have read the entirety of the NIST report, and the bulk of it sits in my office. I have also read the various criticisms of the NIST report, and I've found all of them to be intellectually vapid. They are the product of poor research, quote mining and misleading statements.
And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7.
I apologize for not being clear in my question. I managed to disguise 3 seperate statements into one. For instance, do you believe that no airplanes were flown into the towers (remote or not)?
There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion.
Why not state it here for the record? You're entitled to have your opinion, but I'm going to criticize that opinion if I think it's not based on sound rationality and backed by evidence.
Consider the possibility that the deed was done, partly from within and partly from the outside, and our President was told who to blame. And consider that OBL could have Bin set up as the patsy this way also.
That sounds like an amazingly vague, yet convoluted answer. It appears that you're using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The evidence which points to bin Laden was actual evidence, but the evidence which fails to was fabricated by the FBI. If bin Laden has been set up, all of the evidence to convict him would be readily available.
The one thing that doesn't make sense is: why would Bush falsely blame a known CIA agent and his family business partner?! Surely Michael Moore could dig that info up! (Actually, it was already dug up; Moore borrowed the work of others there). So it must have Bin Bin, right?
While it is true that the Bush family has relations with the bin Laden family, you're claiming that Bush had specific dealings with Osama bin Laden himself. That's a demonstrably false statement.
(I know I'm going to get scolded for not providing proof. I wasn't there!)
Indeed you are. You're operating on a rather childish paradigm. In the same post, you've criticized NIST for failing to prove to you how the towers collapsed, and now you ask us to believe your opinions without a shred of proof. How is that logical? Where do you draw the line between what you require evidence to believe and what you believe because it fits with your world view?
