NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[stundie]

It is your opinion regarding fraud.

Well of course its my opinion? It is also the opinion of many others experts with the relevance expertise too.

However, more importantly, it's also proven by the evidence.

Love the way you try to dodge and misdirect.

Whose the one dodging and misdirecting?? lol

 

[mike2810]

Well of course its my opinion? It is also the opinion of many others experts with the relevance expertise too.

However, more importantly, it's also proven by the evidence.
Whose the one dodging and misdirecting?? lol

You mean like Gage, et.al.?

 

[stundie]

You mean like Gage, et.al.?

No, I mean like most of the guys over at this forum...

The 9/11 Forum • Index page

And other people who I have spoken too privately over the years.

 

[mike2810]

No, I mean like most of the guys over at this forum...

The 9/11 Forum • Index page

And other people who I have spoken too privately over the years.

Seems there is no real conciseness of fraud from posts on that site.

I am very familiar with that site. Good analysis and discussion. Though not very active anymore..

Which tread in particular would you consider supports the fraud by NIST.

This site also has good information
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=103&MMN_position=235:235

I have never said that the NIST report was perfect. I do not believe the report represents fraud.

 

[stundie]

Seems there is no real conciseness of fraud from posts on that site.

Well join and ask some of the members what they think of the WTC 7 report.

I am very familiar with that site. Good analysis and discussion. Though not very active anymore..

That's because OCT supporters generally don't do to well over there when trying to support the NIST version of events.

Cause they know it's BS and even the ones who do not support a conspiracy understand the poor quality of the NIST reports.

Which tread in particular would you consider supports the fraud by NIST.

No thread, I've spoke with most members over the years to know their opinions, although I do not wish to speak for them.

This site also has good information
JREF/ISF 9-11 Forum - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

I know, Major Tom has done an excellent job of analysising and collecting information.

He has done a brilliant job with virtually no resources and the information available within the public domain.

 

[Buck Naked]

Buck Naked, I'm going to continue this conversation over at the other thread named "WTC7, The 2.25 seconds, what caused it?" instead of replying within two threads.

Ok, I'll carry your posts 3290 and 3291 over to the other thread

 

[Thoreau72]

Seems there is no real conciseness of fraud from posts on that site.

I am very familiar with that site. Good analysis and discussion. Though not very active anymore..

Which tread in particular would you consider supports the fraud by NIST.

This site also has good information
JREF/ISF 9-11 Forum - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

I have never said that the NIST report was perfect. I do not believe the report represents fraud.

Understand you think the report was imperfect.

Do you think the report was true?

 

[mike2810]

Understand you think the report was imperfect.

Do you think the report was true?

To vague of a question HD.
If your asking if I accept the finding of a fire induced collapse. yep.

 

[Bob0627]

To vague of a question HD.
If your asking if I accept the finding of a fire induced collapse. yep.

That's too vague. What do you mean by you "accept it"? I accept all theories on 9/11 as theories, including the OCT, it doesn't mean I find them all valid.

 

[mike2810]

That's too vague. What do you mean by you "accept it"? I accept all theories on 9/11 as theories, including the OCT, it doesn't mean I find them all valid.

Let me more clear for you. The question asked was, "Do you think the report was true?"

Can one find parts of a report to be true while other parts not true?

If the answer is yes, then is the report true or false?
If the answer is no, then your rejecting the parts that are true.

Like you Bob, who believes it was CD, yet do not know what explosives was used.
I believe wtc7 failed because of damage from falling debris and fire for hours. (can anyone prove what support gave way first for certain? I doubt it, but that does not take away from the conclusion of what caused the collapse.)

 

[Bob0627]

Let me more clear for you. The question asked was, "Do you think the report was true?"

Can one find parts of a report to be true while other parts not true?

Yeah many parts. For some examples, the author of the report is NIST, WTC7 was damaged, on fire and collapsed, all these are true. So what?

If the answer is yes, then is the report true or false?

If the report is based on fraud then it's automatically not true. A report is not just a conclusion.

If the answer is no, then your rejecting the parts that are true.

That's correct, I find the report to be false even if the conclusion is 100% correct. If it's based on fraud it's not valid, period.

Like you Bob, who believes it was CD, yet do not know what explosives was used.

I don't need to know what explosives were used or how it was accomplished to know it was a CD. For the same reason that if I find a dead body with a couple of holes in the back of the head, I don't need to know who did it, what gun was used, what the exact circumstances were, when and/or how to know that person was murdered. You however, need to know how a fire could have caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did to know the fire induced theory is valid since that never happened before, it defies physics and logic and unlike CD, which is well known to fully destroy steel frame buildings in the manner of WTC7, fire induced collapses have never been and cannot be reproduced via experiment.

I believe wtc7 failed because of damage from falling debris and fire for hours. (can anyone prove what support gave way first for certain? I doubt it, but that does not take away from the conclusion of what caused the collapse.)

You can believe anything you want, it doesn't make it true.

You still haven't answered the question. Do you believe the NIST report is true?

 

[Thoreau72]

To vague of a question HD.
If your asking if I accept the finding of a fire induced collapse. yep.

Yes, "Do you think the report is true?" is to[sic] vague a question. When I asked the question I knew you would dodge it.

Too vague, a 7 word question. :lamo

 

[mike2810]

Yeah many parts. For some examples, the author of the report is NIST, WTC7 was damaged, on fire and collapsed, all these are true. So what?



If the report is based on fraud then it's automatically not true. A report is not just a conclusion.



That's correct, I find the report to be false even if the conclusion is 100% correct. If it's based on fraud it's not valid, period.



I don't need to know what explosives were used or how it was accomplished to know it was a CD. For the same reason that if I find a dead body with a couple of holes in the back of the head, I don't need to know who did it, what gun was used, what the exact circumstances were, when and/or how to know that person was murdered. You however, need to know how a fire could have caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did to know the fire induced theory is valid since that never happened before, it defies physics and logic and unlike CD, which is well known to fully destroy steel frame buildings in the manner of WTC7, fire induced collapses have never been and cannot be reproduced via experiment.



You can believe anything you want, it doesn't make it true.

You still haven't answered the question. Do you believe the NIST report is true?

I answered as clear as I am going to.

What part of the conclusion of a fire induced collapse don't you understand?

 

[mike2810]

Yes, "Do you think the report is true?" is to[sic] vague a question. When I asked the question I knew you would dodge it.

Too vague, a 7 word question. :lamo

Yep. I have started to reply like you. Sorry the response was to complex for you. :lamo


Is the AE911T stance regarding 9/11 all true? Yes or No.?

Is Prager's explanation regarding 9/11 all true? Yes or No?

 

[Bob0627]

I answered as clear as I am going to.

Which is not an answer, just an evasion, but I can understand your evasiveness. It's difficult to commit to something that you know is illegitimate, yet you desperately want to believe the conclusion is true.

What part of the conclusion of a fire induced collapse don't you understand?

That also doesn't answer whether you believe the NIST report is true or not. I fully understand preconceived conclusions alright, don't you? Anyone can do that and miraculously morph it into an official conclusion. A report is based on an investigation, one that is legitimately performed using industry accepted standard protocols and techniques followed as meticulously as possible. Any report that does not even approach such a methodology is not worth the paper it's written on, even if the conclusion is 100% correct.

 

[mike2810]

Which is not an answer, just an evasion, but I can understand your evasiveness. It's difficult to commit to something that you know is illegitimate, yet you desperately want to believe the conclusion is true.



That also doesn't answer whether you believe the NIST report is true or not. I fully understand preconceived conclusions alright, don't you? Anyone can do that and miraculously morph it into an official conclusion. A report is based on an investigation, one that is legitimately performed using industry accepted standard protocols and techniques followed as meticulously as possible. Any report that does not even approach such a methodology is not worth the paper it's written on, even if the conclusion is 100% correct.

Based on your logic then
CIT conclusion with the Pentagon is a fraud and wrong.
AE911T conclusions regarding 9/11 is a fraud and wrong.
Prager conclusion regarding 9/11 is a fraud and wrong.
etc.

Sorry you can't see that.

I will ask you is AE911T and their papers truth?
Is Jones papers true?
Is Prager's paper true?
How about DRGriffen's books, all true?
or CIT flyover, all true?

Evasion seems to be your style Bob.
You will most likely come back and say this thread is about NIST and not the groups/people I asked you questions on.
Yet, in specific threads dealing with alternative explanations you tend to bring it back to what you call OCT. That is a double standard.

and you summary opinion is noted about reports and investigations.

Here I will give a more clear answer.
Based on what NIST discovered, researched, analysed etc. the possible explanation/report given is true. WTC collapsed due to damage and fire induced collapse.

If you come back with an answer to my questions by responding with.
- you don't know,
- I should asked AE911T, etc
that will be a dodge.

So Bob is everything posted by AE911T, P4911T, Prager, Jones, CIT true?

 

[Bob0627]

Based on your logic then
CIT conclusion with the Pentagon is a fraud and wrong.
AE911T conclusions regarding 9/11 is a fraud and wrong.
Prager conclusion regarding 9/11 is a fraud and wrong.
etc.

No that's based on YOUR logic and makes zero sense. None of the above are official so although they could be 100% wrong, they can't be characterized as fraudulent because they are not officially accepted and endorsed by any authority. It's like saying the person who decided there's a god in heaven committed fraud because he didn't follow standard investigative procedures and protocols to reach that conclusion.

Sorry you can't see that.

Sorry you come to silly conclusions, perhaps that's why you rely on fraudulent investigations to cling to your beliefs.

I will ask you is AE911T and their papers truth?
Is Jones papers true?
Is Prager's paper true?
How about DRGriffen's books, all true?
or CIT flyover, all true?

None of these have anything to do with NIST's fraud, other than that some of them expose the fraud for what it is.

Evasion seems to be your style Bob.

Deflection is a a poor discussion tactic, no I haven't evaded anything just because you avoid answering a simple question.

You will most likely come back and say this thread is about NIST and not the groups/people I asked you questions on.

Your crystal ball seems to be in good working order but I'm sure you didn't need it to come to that conclusion. It's not only not part of this discussion but again, they have nothing to do with NIST's fraud.

Yet, in specific threads dealing with alternative explanations you tend to bring it back to what you call OCT. That is a double standard.

If you say so. In this thread however, the subject is NIST's fraud which gave us a major portion of the OCT. If you'd rather avoid that subject and bring up everything else you'd rather discuss, let me know so I won't bother to respond in this thread.

and you summary opinion is noted about reports and investigations.

Ok, so do you have an actual opinion on that point or just a statement on your mental note?

 

[Thoreau72]

Yep. I have started to reply like you. Sorry the response was to complex for you. :lamo


Is the AE911T stance regarding 9/11 all true? Yes or No.?

Is Prager's explanation regarding 9/11 all true? Yes or No?

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I'm not so sure.

Yes and Yes to your questions.

See how easy direct and truthful answers are Mike?

You must dodge, evade and qualify because you're pushing a bull**** story, and we all know it.

 

[mike2810]

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I'm not so sure.

Yes and Yes to your questions.

See how easy direct and truthful answers are Mike?

You must dodge, evade and qualify because you're pushing a bull**** story, and we all know it.

of course other than both thinking it was CD. AE911T does not support nukes.

See, both cannot be truthful or correct. In fact, neither one is.

 

[Bob0627]

There is a very interesting 17 page fully annotated article I just read that incorporates several issues worthy of discussion.

It is titled:

"Evolution of the 9/11 Controversy: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracy Photographs"

American Mensa Annual Gathering, Louisville, KY, July 3, 2015
Donald E. Stahl

Evolution of the 9/11 Controversy: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracy Photographs

Some excerpts:

We see from this that NIST's plan was never to investigate what happened.

...

Ladies and gentlemen, these statements make no sense. If you do not investigate the effect, how can you find out what caused it? How can you "determine how the collapses occurred" if you do not look at them? How do you determine the cause of an event if you do not look at the event? If you do not investigate the so-called collapse, you do not know what "factors" led to it, and you do not even know whether it was a collapse. If nevertheless you write a lengthy report on those "factors," you have not investigated anything, you have made it all up. These are simply facts about the word 'investigate'.

...

Kevin Ryan was an employee of Underwriters Laboratory with access to NIST's tests and computer models. According to him in the documentary Zero,[SUP]xxxii[/SUP] NIST falsified both input and output for their models, doubling some experimental quantities and halving others, and still could not achieve their desired results.

We ask, "Why model anything?" Why not simply look at what happened - if you are being honest?

 

[Bob0627]

The following is a review of the article "Evolution of the 9/11 Controversy: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracy Photographs" by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder, consensus911.org:

Excerpts:

This may well become recognized as a landmark article in the literature of 9/11.

...

Although both the government’s account and the accounts that deny it stipulate a conspiracy, it is only the side that thinks ill of the government that is branded a “conspiracy theorist” — as if it were a thoughtcrime needing to be criminalized by the government, as suggested by Cass Sunstein.

As the epitome of the disagreement, Stahl selects the contention that the Twin Towers were blown up or exploded (for which the government denies all evidence), versus the official account that they collapsed.

The spreadsheets and computer simulations backing the NIST Report of the “collapses” were afforded secrecy by new legislation (October 1, 2002) just as NIST was starting its investigation. The Director could withhold them if “public safety” was threatened.

...

It’s a crystal clear open-and-shut demonstration of how brazenly (and stupidly) NIST lied. But these lies cannot be subjected to legal discovery or FOIA requests. Their secret components may be released only at the discretion of one person (NIST’S Director).

This is outrageous, given that NIST is not in any way a security agency. It is a standards agency for the safety of public structures. The media, and indeed academia, should have been all over this fraudulent behavior from day one.

http://www.consensus911.org/

 

[Mark F]

As faulty logic goes, this one is right up there.

Because Congress passed secrecy legislation before NIST published a word, that proves NIST is lying.

Riiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

 

[Bob0627]

As faulty logic goes, this one is right up there.

Because Congress passed secrecy legislation before NIST published a word, that proves NIST is lying.

Riiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

There are several elements in your post that you typically use in all your posts.

1. Knee jerk defense of NIST, which in turn is a defense of the OCT.
2. The usual introduction of at least one red herring (in this case highlighted in red of course). There is no such sentence in either the article or the review article, nor is it implied in either article.
3. A false assertion/conclusion and ridicule/dismissal of the entire article(s) based on the red herring.
4. Not one comment regarding the contents of the article(s) other than the false claim (because of course, the entire article(s) is ridiculed/dismissed via a false claim).

NIST's lies are self evident and based on their own merit, not your red herrings.

 

[Mark F]

There are several elements in your post that you typically use in all your posts.

1. Knee jerk defense of NIST, which in turn is a defense of the OCT.
2. The usual introduction of at least one red herring (in this case highlighted in red of course). There is no such sentence in either the article or the review article, nor is it implied in either article.
3. A false assertion/conclusion and ridicule/dismissal of the entire article(s) based on the red herring.
4. Not one comment regarding the contents of the article(s) other than the false claim (because of course, the entire article(s) is ridiculed/dismissed via a false claim).

NIST's lies are self evident and based on their own merit, not your red herrings.

Wow. Still not getting it on a fundamental level.

There is BTW nothing worth further comment. There is neither anything new or particularly compelling - just more of the same-old, same old.

 

[Thoreau72]

Oh HE gets it on a fundamental level.

And so do you Mark. But where he seeks the truth and understands what happened, you understand what happened and seek to support the deception.