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

[Thoreau72]

Your position is more reminiscent of a religion and less of reasoned thought.

Not really.

My position began the same as yours. I believed that nonsense for a number of years before I realized how wrong I was. Nothing about the story fits. It is all contradicted by the facts and evidence.

Reasoned thought is what I engaged in to reach this position.

For example, I reasoned that since all the pictures that day, and all the witnesses on the spot in Shanksville could not find a Boeing, and that I could not find a Boeing watching the live overhead videos from there, that Occam's Razor must have been validated: the reason nobody could see one or photograph one, was simple--there was no Boeing there.

That is reasoned analysis Maus.

An example of the Poisoned Mind Dogma is saying, well, it doesn't matter if nobody there could see one or take a picture of one, I believe there was one there because the government and media have said there was one there, and plus they made a movie of it, and heck, they even put up a marble monument, so there MUST have been one.

Irrational and delusional thought processes Maus. See the difference?

Let's get back on NIST.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Reasoned thought is what I engaged in to reach this position.

For example, I reasoned that since all the pictures that day, and all the witnesses on the spot in Shanksville could not find a Boeing, and that I could not find a Boeing watching the live overhead videos from there, that Occam's Razor must have been validated: the reason nobody could see one or photograph one, was simple--there was no Boeing there.

That is reasoned analysis Maus.

Actually it's not a reasoned analysis. It's jumping to a conclusion without having all the evidence available to you. There is an obvious possibility which you clearly overlooked when you jumped to this irrational conclusion. A reasoned analysis would have asked several pertinent questions before entertaining such an erroneous hypothesis.

 

[ozeco41]

Actually it's not a reasoned analysis. It's jumping to a conclusion without having all the evidence available to you. There is an obvious possibility which you clearly overlooked when you jumped to this irrational conclusion. A reasoned analysis would have asked several pertinent questions before entertaining such an erroneous hypothesis.

Near enough. The pedantic side of me would say "It's jumping to a conclusion without utilising all the necessary evidence." Availability of evidence is not the criterion - necessity is. :roll:

Fun with pedantry aside HD's "claims" remind me of a parody training sketch I used to employ in my former career. "How to avoid phone calls from a difficult customer."

Given that I have answered a phone call from D Customer with whom staff member C Service did not wish to speak, the available options include:

1) (Looking away from C Service) "I'm sorry but I have not seen Mr Service for some time." (Like half a second )

2) (C Service sits on desk and takes feet off the floor.) "I'm sorry but Mr Service is not on the floor at present."

3) (C Service steps through door - out of office.) (You guessed it..) "I'm sorry but Mr Service is not in the office, I'm unsure when he will return."


And all those answers plus another 10 or 12 are perfectly truthful. "I promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth..." :mrgreen:

And the analogy including my last comment has some similarities of structure to the posts we are commenting on.

 

[Mark F]

Near enough. The pedantic side of me would say "It's jumping to a conclusion without utilising all the necessary evidence." Availability of evidence is not the criterion - necessity is. :roll:

Fun with pedantry aside HD's "claims" remind me of a parody training sketch I used to employ in my former career. "How to avoid phone calls from a difficult customer."

Given that I have answered a phone call from D Customer with whom staff member C Service did not wish to speak, the available options include:

1) (Looking away from C Service) "I'm sorry but I have not seen Mr Service for some time." (Like half a second )

2) (C Service sits on desk and takes feet off the floor.) "I'm sorry but Mr Service is not on the floor at present."

3) (C Service steps through door - out of office.) (You guessed it..) "I'm sorry but Mr Service is not in the office, I'm unsure when he will return."


And all those answers plus another 10 or 12 are perfectly truthful. "I promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth..." :mrgreen:

And the analogy including my last comment has some similarities of structure to the posts we are commenting on.

Sounds like a normal day at the office for me :mrgreen:

 

[Mark F]

For example, I reasoned that since all the pictures that day, and all the witnesses on the spot in Shanksville could not find a Boeing, and that I could not find a Boeing watching the live overhead videos from there, that Occam's Razor must have been validated: the reason nobody could see one or photograph one, was simple--there was no Boeing there.

Hey HD, can you find the Boeing here?



Do you have some sort of mental block that allows you to consider only one piece of evidence in isolation before reaching a conclusion when there are many facets of data that go together? I don't have that so I'm curious, what's that like?

 

[ozeco41]

Sounds like a normal day at the office for me :mrgreen:

In a way it is a pity that so few of our truthers and their Poeing apologists appreciate fun with analogies.

The analogies are all apt:
1) They rely on partial truth - so can withstand the challenge "it isn't true"; AND
2) They rely the implied untruth - core of the truthers favourite ploy - "lie by innuendo". Specifically in this case an implied global application of a partial truth. AKA false generalisation by innuendo.

Which matches many of HD's posts which are written do that they seem to support the posts by members such as Bob.

And succeeds in the deception when Bob "likes" that example which, in fact, is mocking him.

 

[Bob0627]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 (emphasis mine)

I'm working on the next installment exposing NIST's OBVIOUS FRAUD* on America and the rest of the planet.

* Obvious to any intelligent person

 

[ozeco41]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report

One preliminary set of challenges "... is still and always has been" - on the allegation of "fraudulent":
1) In what statutory jurisdiction?
2) Under the terms of which statute?
3) Which specific charge of "fraud" under that statute?
4) Who has been "damaged" or "injured" by the alleged fraud?
5) what is the nature of the damage? (Set aside for now the quantification of the extent of damage)?
6) How do you intend to prove the element of "intent" required for proof - however "intent" is incorporated into the statute?
And a relatively secondary point at this stage but:
7) "What is the alleged technical falsehood which forms the basis of the deliberate misrepresentation or fraud.

Those will do for starters.

Remember that the test of every "element of proof" is "beyond reasonable doubt" to the notional "reasonable man" (Or "reasonable person" if the statutory regime has gender neutralised its terminology.)

So who is the relevant "reasonable man/person"?

Status so far is:
(Defendant) 'Your Honour - beg to submit "No case to answer"'
(Bench) "I find Find 'No Case to answer'"


opcorn2:

 

[NWO_Spook]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 (emphasis mine)

I'm working on the next installment exposing NIST's OBVIOUS FRAUD* on America and the rest of the planet.

* Obvious to any intelligent person

Jesus, please....the rhetoric is so infantile. The intent for this 'alleged' fraud needs to be demonstrated before you can make such a stupid claim. I know you can't do that, therefore, until you do, the intelligent people who lack your irrational prejudice will treat your unfounded extrapolations as bull****.

 

[Fledermaus]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 (emphasis mine)

I'm working on the next installment exposing NIST's OBVIOUS FRAUD* on America and the rest of the planet.

* Obvious to any intelligent person

Have you figured out how to contact FBI, the Attorney General and the MSM?

 

[Fledermaus]

Reasoned thought is what I engaged in to reach this position.

For example, I reasoned that since all the pictures that day, and all the witnesses on the spot in Shanksville could not find a Boeing, and that I could not find a Boeing watching the live overhead videos from there, that Occam's Razor must have been validated: the reason nobody could see one or photograph one, was simple--there was no Boeing there.

That is reasoned analysis Maus.

No, reasoned analysis would have included the entirety of the evidence.

The debris consistent with Flight 93 found in and around the crash site.
The radar tracking consistent with Flight 93.
The phone calls from Flight 93.
The Voice Data recorder from Flight 93.
The DNA recovered form the crash site.

Hmmmmmmmmmm......

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 (emphasis mine)

I'm working on the next installment exposing NIST's OBVIOUS FRAUD* on America and the rest of the planet.

* Obvious to any intelligent person

That's like...your opinion, man.

 

[Mark F]

You gentlemen running out of material so it's shoot the messenger time?

This topic is still and always has been:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 (emphasis mine)

I'm working on the next installment exposing NIST's OBVIOUS FRAUD* on America and the rest of the planet.

* Obvious to any intelligent person

If the fraud is so obvious, why do you have to work so hard to figure out how to expose it? And what do you plan to do once you have exposed this obvious fraud? Post it on an obscure internet forum where 12 people might see it?

What a brave fighter for truth and justice you are!

 

[Bob0627]

That's like...your opinion, man.

True and also these people:

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

That's what I meant about the FRAUD being OBVIOUS to most intelligent people.

 

[Bob0627]

If the fraud is so obvious, why do you have to work so hard to figure out how to expose it?

There's so much of it that the details require many pages to explain it all. And even then, a good deal of it is unknown I'm sure. Isn't that obvious? Oh wait, not for you.

What a brave fighter for truth and justice you are!

That's better than being a sniveling coward who spends hours on an obscure internet forum defending massive criminal fraud, never questioning anything the criminals did and ridiculing those who expose the criminals' dirty deeds.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

True and also these people:

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

That's what I meant about the FRAUD being OBVIOUS to most intelligent people.

And you have the gall to try to tell other people that they're just posting their conjecture and opinion?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

That's better than being a sniveling coward who spends hours on an obscure internet forum defending massive criminal fraud, never questioning anything the criminals did and ridiculing those who expose the criminals' dirty deeds.

Opinion borne from preconceived notions.

 

[Mark F]

duplicate

 

[Mark F]

True and also these people:

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

Attorney William Pepper to OIG: "The Pursuit of NIST's Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless"

That's what I meant about the FRAUD being OBVIOUS to most intelligent people.

Except:

William Pepper is a hired mouthpiece. What is expressed in the letter is not his opinion but that of his clients
Since when is the 'opinion' of a lawyer evidence of engineering fraud?
The Pepper letter is a rather sad joke - totally amateur - which got the response it deserved from DOC.

Here is one of my favorite silly bits from it:

Silence from your office or a rejection of this reasonable request may prompt my clients to seek legal recourse and to raise this issue with their colleagues in Europe where a number of government officials and professionals have long been critical of the official U.S. Government’s position and explanation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.

This must be the legal equivalent of 'share your toys with me or I'm going to tell my mommy on you.'

The folks at NIST must be crapping their pants at the thought of the crack Cambridge University engineering commando team smashing through their doors,... Wait, its been 6 months since the letter was sent. Where is the Cambridge engineering department brief on this matter? Did Gage/Pepper actually consult with them first before sending off the ridiculous threat? Maybe they should have.

And yes, we know what YOU think fraud means, but you're wrong.

The only fraud I see here is Richard Gage continuing to bilk money from gullible donors to fund his world travel plan.

 

[Bob0627]

And you have the gall to try to tell other people that they're just posting their conjecture and opinion?

You're not serious are you? You haven't yet figured out that everything everyone posts here (other than copy and paste items from others) is the poster's conjecture opinion? What on earth do you think a discussion forum is anyway?

 

[ozeco41]

...This must be the legal equivalent of 'share your toys with me or I'm going to tell my mommy on you.'...

Actually it's sillier than that. Staying within the language of the analogy Pepper is not going to tell mommy - he is going to tell the kids in the next town. HE knows full well that his own "mommy" will not support his childishness. And he knows that the mommys of the kids in the next town won't support him either.

And for those who are having fun processing the analogy:
Do you know why it is the "next town" and NOT "the next street"?
Do you know why it is not his mommy? AND
Do you know why it isn't one or more of the mommys in the next town?

Ain't analogies fun?

:mrgreen:

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You're not serious are you? You haven't yet figured out that everything everyone posts here (other than copy and paste items from others) is the poster's conjecture opinion? What on earth do you think a discussion forum is anyway?

This dog didn't hunt the last time you tried it. But I'll help you out: if that's the case, why do you often just tell people "that's just your opinion/conjecture" instead of refuting it? Or, conversely, why should someone not just respond to you in that way?

 

[Bob0627]

Except:

William Pepper is a hired mouthpiece. What is expressed in the letter is not his opinion but that of his clients

That's the title of the article posted on the AE911 site, so the article is presumably endorsed by AE911, which has over 20,000 signatories to their petition.

Since when is the 'opinion' of a lawyer evidence of engineering fraud?

Who said it is?

The Pepper letter is a rather sad joke - totally amateur

Last I checked Pepper is an attorney, a well known professional. The only rather sad joke and amateur here is you, who believes Pepper is an amateur.

which got the response it deserved from DOC.

It was an appropriate response. I can't think of another appropriate response it should have gotten. Can you?

The rest of your post is juvenile silliness (not that the above isn't as well), not worthy of a response.

 

[Bob0627]

if that's the case, why do you often just tell people "that's just your opinion/conjecture" instead of refuting it? Or, conversely, why should someone not just respond to you in that way?

I don't know about others and I can't speak for others but I do it at times to emphasize that point.

 

[Bob0627]

Actually it's sillier than that. Staying within the language of the analogy Pepper is not going to tell mommy - he is going to tell the kids in the next town. HE knows full well that his own "mommy" will not support his childishness. And he knows that the mommys of the kids in the next town won't support him either.

And for those who are having fun processing the analogy:
Do you know why it is the "next town" and NOT "the next street"?
Do you know why it is not his mommy? AND
Do you know why it isn't one or more of the mommys in the next town?

Ain't analogies fun?

:mrgreen:

Some are but yours are extremely childish, as evidenced by the above.