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

[Bob0627]

Wow. Still not getting it on a fundamental level.

Wrong, I got YOU on a very fundamental level (see my prior post).

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

So then your prior comment was not only based on a red herring but it seems by the above you admit it was worthless. Whether there's anything new or not, the author does describe some highly compelling issues and quite logical. Not compelling to you of course because all you seem to know how to do is defend the OCT and ridicule those who won't swallow it and any and all arguments they may write.

 

[mike2810]

Is concensus911 a unbiased source?

If yes, then explain your answer.

 

[Bob0627]

Is concensus911 a unbiased source?

Is the US government an unbiased source?

If yes, then explain your answer.

What answer to what question?

 

[Mark F]

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:

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.

Consensus 911 | The 911 Best Evidence Panel

Presuming you are quoting in context (a big if no doubt) then my first comment in post #3322 stands. This is faulty logic. The only cause given for "a crystal clear open-and-shut demonstration of how brazenly (and stupidly) NIST lied" is alleged legislation passed before NIST even published a single word.

THAT is faulty logic, having nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or the content of anything NIST would later publish.

It also - as most CT arguments do - completely misses the point. Attacking NIST is a colossal waste of time. It has been a complete waste of time for the last 7-8 years and will continue to be so for the next 700-800 years. Saying NIST got this, that or the other wrong doesn't change what actually happened. Saying NIST lied (a far greater and more difficult BOP) does not change what actually happened either.

In other words, nothing NIST said years later can or does change history.

Before NIST the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 was impact + fire. If you throw NIST out completely the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 is still impact + fire. Certainly in the case of the North Tower and Building 7 that has been a true statement since before they even collapsed. Nothing has happened in the intervening 13 years to move that needle one bit.

Wanna make progress?

Move the needle.

 

[mike2810]

Is the US government an unbiased source?



What answer to what question?

Same old response from you. Answer a question with a question and a derail.

Try being respectful and answer my question with your opinion and I will do the same in return.

 

[SanderO]

Mark... the thing is most people don't dispute the causes... fire and mech damage. But many wanted to understand the process... the mechanisms of how fire and mech damage did the entire building in. NIST attempted to explain how it might have happened. Nat Geo did also, Purdue I believe as well.. and so on. In the end it seems that no simple clean explanation / mechanism for the whole thing emerged. Most explanations seem to miss something or have iffy assumptions.

But it seems impossible to know EXACTLY what happened so we are left with a serioes of educated guesses... some better than others. Not "lies".

 

[Mark F]

Mark... the thing is most people don't dispute the causes... fire and mech damage. But many wanted to understand the process... the mechanisms of how fire and mech damage did the entire building in. NIST attempted to explain how it might have happened. Nat Geo did also, Purdue I believe as well.. and so on. In the end it seems that no simple clean explanation / mechanism for the whole thing emerged. Most explanations seem to miss something or have iffy assumptions.

But it seems impossible to know EXACTLY what happened so we are left with a serioes of educated guesses... some better than others. Not "lies".

Fire + time + gravity is complicated.

Bomb make building go boom is easy.

Some people need easy.

Agreed there will always be plenty of room for interpretation at the detail level as many of the details can not and will not ever be known - they can't be known. Informed speculation is the best we have some bits of the overall picture. Most rational people accept that as a fact of life AND that disagreements over details do not overturn the overall conclusions (you can argue if it was beam 7269, girder 112 or column 25 that failed first and how it failed - but either way it was still fire + time + gravity). The same folks who require easy answers don't get that. This is why they argue the details and ignore the big picture.

 

[SanderO]

Fire + time + gravity is complicated.

Bomb make building go boom is easy.

Some people need easy.

Agreed there will always be plenty of room for interpretation at the detail level as many of the details can not and will not ever be known - they can't be known. Informed speculation is the best we have some bits of the overall picture. Most rational people accept that as a fact of life AND that disagreements over details do not overturn the overall conclusions (you can argue if it was beam 7269, girder 112 or column 25 that failed first and how it failed - but either way it was still fire + time + gravity). The same folks who require easy answers don't get that. This is why they argue the details and ignore the big picture.

Yet one can discuss possible processes of the collapse... the ROOSD is pretty good for the collapse phase... sagging trusses don't cut it for me and so we need a few "schemes" which match the observed movements. Of course assumptions will be made... we can't know which columns and beams were going first and the sequence of them.

++++

I proposed a concept of frame distortion from elongation of beams leading to axial misalignment of columns.. one after the other until the axial capacity was driven below the service loads and then the collapse began in earnest. NB the column ends in the designs were NOT restrained... ergo subject to misalignment easier than typical restrained columns ends. For the top sections to drop... axial capacity had to be destroyed. Heat weakening is not likely the main cause.

I've always been interested in discussions about the so called "imitation" period... post plane strike to tops dropping. This doesn't seem to inspire too many to speculate.

Why?

 

[505]

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.

Consensus 911 | The 911 Best Evidence Panel

Woodworth fuel can't melt Stahl beams.

 

[Bob0627]

The pattern as I itemized earlier is the same of course. It will never change and I certainly don't expect it to.

Presuming you are quoting in context (a big if no doubt) then my first comment in post #3322 stands.

Unlike you who simulates a quote by using italics but actually introduces the usual red herring (intellectual dishonesty at its finest), I always quote verbatim. So yes your red herring stands as a red herring.

This is faulty logic.

Yes your logic is not just faulty, it's a complete fake since it's based on a red herring using a sleight of hand.

The only cause given for "a crystal clear open-and-shut demonstration of how brazenly (and stupidly) NIST lied" is alleged legislation passed before NIST even published a single word.

A simple reading of the article shows that's a bold faced lie.

THAT is faulty logic

Yes your logic is not even logic.

Attacking NIST is a colossal waste of time. It has been a complete waste of time for the last 7-8 years and will continue to be so for the next 700-800 years. Saying NIST got this, that or the other wrong doesn't change what actually happened. Saying NIST lied (a far greater and more difficult BOP) does not change what actually happened either.

In other words, nothing NIST said years later can or does change history.

So your claim is that attacking NIST is a "colossal waste of time" because it doesn't change what happened on 9/11. By that logic then any investigation into any crime would be a waste of time because it would never change the crime (or history). Talk about faulty logic this is as absurd as it gets.

Before NIST the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 was impact + fire. If you throw NIST out completely the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 is still impact + fire. Certainly in the case of the North Tower and Building 7 that has been a true statement since before they even collapsed.

So then you want to throw out NIST and pretend NIST, whose publications are a vast portion of the OCT which in turn is the pretext for the vast majority of the US government agenda since 9/11, is "irrelevant". But at the same time, you want to parrot the very theory NIST fraudulently pushes as fact. And also at the same time, you want to give NIST a pass because it's your job to defend these hucksters (in this case by trying to make them irrelevant). Your pretense is a clear indicator that you understand quite clearly NIST's role is to push a propaganda story that's fraudulent on every level.

Wanna make progress?

Not with you, that's impossible. But that was never my intent anyway.

 

[Bob0627]

But it seems impossible to know EXACTLY what happened so we are left with a serioes of educated guesses... some better than others. Not "lies".

No we're not, we're left with a massive fraud perpetrated on Americans which is being used as the basis for an agenda for genocide and other crimes against humanity.

 

[Mark F]

Bob,...

The real take-away from my previous post, the one you (probably deliberately) side-stepped is this:

Before NIST the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 was impact + fire. If you throw NIST out completely the only working hypothesis for building collapse on 9/11/2001 is still impact + fire. [/b]

Why not stay on-topic and address that? Its the only bit that really matters. The personal attacks on me certainly don't.

 

[Thoreau72]

Mark

The real take-away from all your posts is that you are hopelessly dissonant and gullible, and dependent upon authority figures to do your thinking.

 

[Bob0627]

Why not stay on-topic and address that? Its the only bit that really matters.

Yeah why don't you ever stay on topic? This thread is called "NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11", not what you want to discuss (YOUR alleged "only working hypothesis before NIST"). It works for you to maintain your job but it doesn't work for the millions who know the ONLY working hypothesis that makes any sense with or without NIST is the CD of the twin towers and WTC7. And that NIST committed a massive scientific and criminal fraud, helped and enabled (and still so) by the White House and Congress and in some cases the courts. And that's not the only "bit" that matters, there's a bigger "bit" that also matters, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children under pretext of 9/11 and the massive fraud by NIST concocted to help create that agenda.

 

[Bob0627]

Mark

The real take-away from all your posts is that you are hopelessly dissonant and gullible, and dependent upon authority figures to do your thinking.

I disagree, he knows exactly what's up. His pretenses are way too transparent.

 

[mike2810]

Mark

The real take-away from all your posts is that you are hopelessly dissonant and gullible, and dependent upon authority figures to do your thinking.

These types of post by you just reminds me how useless they are.

How about sharing some more of your sources of information so we also can strive to be a "free thinker"

 

[Mark F]

Yeah why don't you ever stay on topic? This thread is called "NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11", not what you want to discuss (YOUR alleged "only working hypothesis before NIST"). It works for you to maintain your job but it doesn't work for the millions who know the ONLY working hypothesis that makes any sense with or without NIST is the CD of the twin towers and WTC7. And that NIST committed a massive scientific and criminal fraud, helped and enabled (and still so) by the White House and Congress and in some cases the courts. And that's not the only "bit" that matters, there's a bigger "bit" that also matters, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children under pretext of 9/11 and the massive fraud by NIST concocted to help create that agenda.

That's a mighty big conspiracy ya got goin' on dere. Hundreds of engineers at NIST, the Executive Branch, Congress, the federal (and presumably state) courts,... who else? The FBI? Yeah, they had to be in on it too, as well as state & local law enforcement, the CIA, NYC engineers, the NYC Port Authority,... the list just keeps on growing.

And yet oddly, not one person has spilled the beans.

Contrast that with say Watergate where there were maybe 10 guys who were in on the plot, almost all of them specially trained to keep secrets - and that whole thing started falling apart in days.

Damn those Bush boys were good. Remarkable they aren't still in power really.

 

[mike2810]

That's a mighty big conspiracy ya got goin' on dere. Hundreds of engineers at NIST, the Executive Branch, Congress, the federal (and presumably state) courts,... who else? The FBI? Yeah, they had to be in on it too, as well as state & local law enforcement, the CIA, NYC engineers, the NYC Port Authority,... the list just keeps on growing.

And yet oddly, not one person has spilled the beans.

Contrast that with say Watergate where there were maybe 10 guys who were in on the plot, almost all of them specially trained to keep secrets - and that whole thing started falling apart in days.

Damn those Bush boys were good. Remarkable they aren't still in power really.

Or maybe they still are. (bolded) :mrgreen:

What is interesting is how every little detail of the NIST report is looked at. Yet, AE911T gets a pass for just providing general explanations (i.e. it was CD). Even Prager and his mini neutron bombs does not provide details. Nor does DRGriffen, etc.

You would think one would want the same level of analysis.

 

[Bob0627]

That's a mighty big conspiracy ya got goin' on dere. Hundreds of engineers at NIST, the Executive Branch, Congress, the federal (and presumably state) courts,... who else? The FBI? Yeah, they had to be in on it too, as well as state & local law enforcement, the CIA, NYC engineers, the NYC Port Authority,... the list just keeps on growing.

No, no one wants to scam you, especially no one in government, just keep your head in the sand and make believe all is fine in your fairyland.

 

[Bob0627]

What is interesting is how every little detail of the NIST report is looked at.

Why is that "interesting"? Do you believe everyone should just accept everything NIST published on faith?

Yet, AE911T gets a pass for just providing general explanations (i.e. it was CD). Even Prager and his mini neutron bombs does not provide details. Nor does DRGriffen, etc.

You would think one would want the same level of analysis.

None of those entities/people created any official report and used it as a pretext to commit genocide, war crimes, torture and many other human rights atrocities since 9/11. All of them, including YOU, have the unalienable right and duty to hold their government accountable for its actions.

 

[mike2810]

Why is that "interesting"? Do you believe everyone should just accept everything NIST published on faith?



None of those entities/people created any official report and used it as a pretext to commit genocide, war crimes, torture and many other human rights atrocities since 9/11. All of them, including YOU, have the unalienable right and duty to hold their government accountable for its actions.

what is interesting is you do not question the lack of detail in the CD explanation.
what is interesting how you seem to always respond back to the govt, yet do not question those who have put forth the CD explanation.

I agree that did not create the official report. Many outside the govt scientists, specialists, etc were involved.

Even in specific CD threads, you and others are reluctant to criticize the lack of detail in the CD explanations. Yes, plural. There is more than one.

 

[Mark F]

No, no one wants to scam you, especially no one in government, just keep your head in the sand and make believe all is fine in your fairyland.

That's an evasion.

You made a claim of a vast government conspiracy involving the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Your job then to prove it, not attack me because you can't.

 

[Bob0627]

what is interesting is you do not question the lack of detail in the CD explanation.

I don't need to question the lack of detail in any CD explanation, it is self evident to anyone with a brain and a pair of eyes. The level of detail from many reliable sources that contradict the OCT is quite adequate given what we know. None of these sources can provide detail that's unknown.

what is interesting how you seem to always respond back to the govt, yet do not question those who have put forth the CD explanation.

I always hold the US government accountable first and foremost and my position is to question everything and anything it spews because of its long history of pathological lies. It serves me no purpose to question other entities who don't have any effect on me or anyone else. What government has fed us about 9/11 is only a small fraction of the information they're holding and is only the portion they want us to know. The vast majority is being kept secret using the fake "national security" refrain.

I agree that did not create the official report. Many outside the govt scientists, specialists, etc were involved.

Yes, they're called government contractors and are the full responsibility of the US government.

Even in specific CD threads, you and others are reluctant to criticize the lack of detail in the CD explanations. Yes, plural. There is more than one.

See first sentence.

 

[mike2810]

I don't need to question the lack of detail in any CD explanation, it is self evident to anyone with a brain and a pair of eyes. The level of detail from many reliable sources that contradict the OCT is quite adequate given what we know. None of these sources can provide detail that's unknown.



I always hold the US government accountable first and foremost and my position is to question everything and anything it spews because of its long history of pathological lies. It serves me no purpose to question other entities who don't have any effect on me or anyone else. What government has fed us about 9/11 is only a small fraction of the information they're holding and is only the portion they want us to know. The vast majority is being kept secret using the fake "national security" refrain.



Yes, they're called government contractors and are the full responsibility of the US government.



See first sentence.

Not true Bob. Many people who worked on the investigations were not Govt Contractors. Follow up studies have been done that were Not govt. contractors.

I am not like you Bob. I hold the CD explanations to the same standards as the fire induced collapse explanations.
So far there is no agreement on how the CD was accomplished. Gives me reasonable doubt.

The fire induced collapse has been shown to be a reasonable explanation. CD has not. If researchers continue to look at the collapse of wtc1,2,7 , I can imaging more details may come out that do not fit the current NIST reports. Advances in science and analysis have proven that to be the case in many investigations.

Since you don't need details, then the most likely cause of the wtc failure, imo, was crashes or falling debris damage, fire, gravity, then collapse. No CD.

So why do you continue to argue the small details, when you don't expect it from the CD explanations?

 

[Bob0627]

That's an evasion.

Call it what you want, it means nothing to me.

You made a claim of a vast government conspiracy involving the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Your job then to prove it, not attack me because you can't.

Sorry, that is not my job despite your claim. I don't need to prove anything to you. Why would you even demand proof from an anonymous poster anyway? If you actually need proof that governments conspire and have always conspired throughout history, including and especially about 9/11, there's plenty of information available for you to research on your own. If you'd rather live your life through rose colored glasses, be my guest.