Friday, July 27, 2007

Proper or be the judge.

This is a direct quote (emphasis added) from the official NIST Executive Summary on 9-11 WTC disaster...

The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001, attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact(?). In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of such magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so rapidly and with little warning.
While there were unique aspects to the design of the WTC towers and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, NIST has compiled a list of recommendations to improve the safety of tall buildings, occupants, and emergency responders based on its investigation of the procedures and practices that were used for the WTC towers; these procedures and practices are commonly used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings under normal conditions.

This language, the use of the word "terrorists," has no place in an impartial, independent, non-partisan report. The word is purely political and being used to instill an emotional component into what should be a scientific and fact-based document. It should be removed in this and any future reports.


Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report

Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST's building collapse analyses!


Leigh said...

I found it interesting that when Bill Clinton was interviewed after that attacks he said that as soon as he heard about it "he knew it was Bin Laden". Funny, how he didn't think he was a threat when he was in office but knew immediately it has him (who yes, was responbile for the TERRORISTS attacks)

Shoes4Industry said...

I find it interesting that this post has no comments.

And the one that does refers to Bill Clinton. Is that the best you can do he's been out of office for six years!

(not everything is his fault, but wouldn't you love to be sitting on that budget surplus he left you right about now?)

Leigh said...

Actually, I could do ALOT better but I don't have days on end to say on this site.

I know not everything is Clinton's fault it's GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT (yawn).

Is that the best YOU can do? Budget surplus?

Shoes4Industry said...

We are happy that you are independently wealthy and are not part of the, soon to be destroyed, middle class... which goes to prove the adage "There are only two kinds of Republicans, Millionaires and Fools."

Leigh said...

"Republicans either Millionaire or Fool".

Democrats either Millionaire or ?

Shoes4Industry said...

Leigh said...

"Republicans either Millionaire or Fool".

Democrats either Millionaire or ?

We don't understand what you are trying to say here Leigh.

The point we are making is the Republican agenda does not have Middle to lower-economic class American's interests in mind. It is the party of the rich, rich corporations and fools who are neither of those.

Leigh said...

What don't u understand Shoes? U say Republicans are the party of rich millionaires. And I'm saying there are plenty of RICH MILLIONAIRE DEMOCRATS. What's the difference??

Shoes4Industry said...

the DIFFERENCE is that the Democratic agenda benefits the poor, middle class, and NON-MILLIONAIRES, The Republican agenda hurts them.

got it?

Leigh said...

Shoes: How does the Dem. agenda "benefit" the poor. Their agenda only continues to make them government dependent (that's what happens when you keep giving to people who don't want to help themselves) Got that?

Don't want an education-NOT govt. fault.
Don't want to work-NOT govt. fault.
Want to have lots of kids when you don't even have a spouse and can't even take care of yourself-NOT govt. fault. Did you get that?

Shoes4Industry said...

Now THAT is bordering on HATE speech.
We will leave it posted as an example of what we are referring to in the future.

So tell us, what do the Republicans do for the poor and underprivileged beside let them drown?

Anonymous said...

The Republicans didn't let the people drown (I take it you are referring to NO). It was a city full of poor people LONG before a Rep. administration. It was a city with a DEMOCRATIC mayor and a DEMOCRATIC governor that did NOTHING to prepare or help these people. Why do we have local & state governments? Just WHAT was their role in that mess?

Just because you prefer not to face the truth don't label it "hate-speech".

This is the LAST place that should be accusing anyone else of hate-speech. You spew it constantly.

Shoes4Industry said...

Last time we checked FEMA was not headed by a Democrat and it certainly wasn't 2 years ago during Katrina.

Heck of a job Republicans!

The flooding was direct result of the national government's ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS inadequate construction and design of the levees.

Regardless, the Federal (lead by Republicans) response over the past two years is nothing less than a crime and national disgrace, period. So before you go "blaming the victims" look at your own shortcomings and selfishness.

Janet said...

Where was it

stated that the victims were being blamed?

Since you seem to have all the answers (one more time):
Why did the DEMOCRATIC mayor and DEMOCRATIC governor do NOTHING to prepare for this disaster? It was known LONG ago (way before Bush, as a matter of fact) that the "big one" could wipe out this city. And the LOCAL DEMOCRATIC government weren't prepared at their level.

Let's put all the blame on the white president who hates all blacks but none on the black mayor.
Racism goes both ways doesn't it?

Shoes4Industry said...

The Democratic Mayor and Govenor did what they were able to do to prepare. It was the feds failure to properly build and maintain the levees that caused most of the destruction, not the Democrats (even though you'd like to think so.)

Janet said...

If the mayor & governor had no plan to evacuate (which one would think would be the FIRST & MOST IMPORTANT plan) then they DID NOT do all that they could. So, what did they do? Blame the Republicans, of couse.

Shoes4Industry said...

The evidence speaks for itself.

You seem to be good and pointing out the short comings of Democrats and then blaming them for not being more pro-active. According to your "theory" they were incapable of doing more so, how can they be at fault, you can't have it both ways.

Shirley Heezgay said...

"It was a city full of poor people LONG before a Rep. administration. It was a city with a DEMOCRATIC mayor and a DEMOCRATIC governor that did NOTHING to prepare... Why do we have local & state governments? Just WHAT was their role in that mess?"

Now who's playing the blame game?

Was N.O. poor before the Bush Administration?--Yes.
Does it appear that a Democratic mayor and governor did little to prepare?--It would seem so.
Did local/state government do anything?--Not enough.

The real question you should ask yourself now is:
Who was sitting in his chair in the Oval Office when the disaster happened? Where was FEMA for days on end?

Why has YOUR "leader" and YOUR government not rebuilt New Orleans, two years later?

Take a trip and see with your own eyes and tell me WHY the government--any government--shouldn't DO SOMETHING!

Everyone is so consumed with trying to find a spot where their pointing fingers can land, they're forgetting that all this crap is still happening.

-Independent Investigation into ALL the events of 9/11.
-Rebuild New Orleans and reunite families.

Lee said...

Once again, all important issues are the fault of the President.

Like Pavol's dog who cannot stop drooling when the bell representing food is rung, Bush-Bashers cannot stop from using ANYTHING that occurs in our world as an opportunity to bash him.

moneysmith said...

Well, lee, Bush is the "decider" and the "commander guy," in his own words. So where should the blame for disasters that occur while he's in office be placed?

Lee said...

Disaster - "a sudden great misfortune". And sometimes Mother Nature hands us a disaster which man can't control. Why do we always have to "blame" someone? Our society is ALWAYS asking "Who's fault was it"? Always pointing fingers.

As the saying goes - "Sometimes shit just happens".

moneysmith said...

How eloquent, lee. It was not a natural disaster, but the failure of the levees that caused the flooding in New Orleans. For years, it was widely known that the levees were inadequate and that the wetlands needed to be protected and restored.

Before you say "Clinton didn't repair the levees," let me remind you that Clinton also did not squander a trillion dollars in taxpayer money on an unnecessary war that has claimed nearly 4,000 troop lives and wounded tens of thousands of others, American and Iraqi.

A trillion dollars. Think about what we could have done with that here.

Lee said...

The hurricane that struck NO is what initially caused the rains that then caused the leevs to break. So, without that natural disaster the rest would not have happened.

Maybe if Clinton had at least spent SOME of taxpayers money on fighting terrorism, we wouldn't have been hit on 9/11. Then maybe, there it wouldn't have been necessary to invade Iraq.

And do you really think, that all the problems in this country would be solved if it weren't for this war? Do you really believe those trillions of dollars would have been spent here?

Shirley Heezgay said...


Obviously no person- Dem or Rep- can be held responsible for a natural disaster.

I think you're distractingy yourself from the point that I and others on this thread are trying to make.

Despite the mistakes or inaction of groups or individuals before Katrina, Bush was the "commander in chief" when it happened and his administration has a responsiblity to respond to those poor souls.

Have you seen NO yet? Have you seen it recently?

Here's just one:

Or take an up close tour of New Orleans with Google Earth.

Now tell me if anyone is responsible for helping your fellow Americans?

Shoes4Industry said...

We are happy for you Lee, that you are independently wealth, and will never have to rely on the Government for your health, safety, or well-being. CONGRATULATIONS on "Livin' the Dream"!

Lee said...

Why are you relying on a government you hate; one that constatly lies to you; one that you don't trust?

If independently wealthy means working hard to make a comfortable life, as opposed dependently non-wealthy because you are waiting for that government check every month then I guess I'm guilty.

And would you like to explain why people from countries all over the world come HERE (Land of opportunity) to start over? Many have FAR less than the poor in this country. Some can't even speak the language yet they manage to find work, work hard, buy homes, save money, send their children to college,etc. Yet generation after generation that were born and raised in this land of opportunity can't get out of the rut.

Shoes4Industry said...

We here at S4I do not "hate" the government, we are simply not willing to follow it blindly like so many Americans seem to be comfortable in doing. Disagreeing with a corrupt administration is not the same as "hating the government."

Shirley Heezgay said...

"Why are you relying on a government you hate; one that constatly lies to you; one that you don't trust?"

Well, shouldn't the government respond appropriately to the 26% of Americans that DON'T hate them?

Lee, are you saying that you can rely on, love, and trust your government and "leaders?"

Or maybe only about 26%?