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

[Bob0627]

Blah, blah, blah.....

Speaking of lying... Why do you CONSTANTLY lie about what Mike, or I or others post?

I have 20+ years explosives handling and I say the "explosives in WTC7" is bunk.

Tell ME I don't have any credentials or standing to contradict any SO CALLED expert of yours.

So far, all you are is a handle called Fledermaus, an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. Your posts are not your credentials and most of those are intellectually dishonest. But even if your background is for real and you would have the proper standing to contradict colleagues who disagree, it only means that the point is controversial. Having said that, the fact that you question nothing about the official narrative already makes you suspect. I'm much more inclined to accept those who agree with the official narrative for the most part, as long as they also have at least some reasonable reservations than those who rabidly defend it and question nothing. IMO, those people either have a severe case of cognitive dissonance or are fakes with some sort of agenda.

 

[Mark F]

Who is "you people"? I asked you, no one else that I know of. I speak for no one but me.

Why do you need to lie? I noticed you omitted from my quote the FACT that I said it's not about you asking questions and that I believe you should be asking questions. But that's the nature of your consistently disingenuous posts, so it's always expected that you would lie. Bottom line is you don't have any credentials or standing to contradict any expert, which is the only point I made, and of course when the question is asked, you evade and lie and believe lying is an answer.

Bob, your position seems to be that I can ask questions (which I did) but I can not disagree with people who have more credentials than I do (which in this current line I have not even done). I disagree with this second point. I do not abide by arguments from authority. If I did we could disregard this entire thread as your OP would be invalid from the start - playing by your rules - since you lack the credentials or standing to contradict the experts at NIST. Again, playing by your rules. If life were that simple this whole 9/11 debate, such as it is, would be over since the overwhelming consensus of professional, expert opinion is that this was an attack by foreign terrorists.

Credentials do not make someone automatically correct and lack of credentials do not automatically make someone wrong.

 

[Bob0627]

Credentials do not make someone automatically correct and lack of credentials do not automatically make someone wrong.

I wanted to know what your credentials are because there was a point where you disagreed with Tony Szamboti and you did not state your credentials, instead evading the question as you still are. However, having said that, I will agree with you on the above. So this could be a record breaker. I lost count but I believe there are now 3 things we have agreed with just in the last couple of days. Again, like I said, I was just curious and your evasiveness answered my question anyway, but this thread is not about you so back to the subject at hand. I asked you 3 questions, will you address them?

 

[Fledermaus]

So far, all you are is a handle called Fledermaus, an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. Your posts are not your credentials and most of those are intellectually dishonest. But even if your background is for real and you would have the proper standing to contradict colleagues who disagree, it only means that the point is controversial. Having said that, the fact that you question nothing about the official narrative already makes you suspect. I'm much more inclined to accept those who agree with the official narrative for the most part, as long as they also have at least some reasonable reservations than those who rabidly defend it and question nothing. IMO, those people either have a severe case of cognitive dissonance or are fakes with some sort of agenda.

As I have said... I HAD questions. Then I did RESEARCH. You keep ignoring that point.

As far as an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum Bob0627, pot meet kettle.

The difference between you and I is that I know semtex from shinola and you obviously don't. It is obvious from both your posts and mine. Mine are based on evidence, facts and explosives training. Yours are based on internet babble, truther talking points and your serious lack of understanding in all things explosive.

BTW - GySgt, USMC, 20+ years, honorable, 6531, 6541, 6521 MOS, experience in both fixed wing and rotary wing explosives and pyrotechnics. QA/SO in munitions (Quality Assurance/Safety Observer) Also a Quality Assurance Rep for A-4, TA-4 and OA-4 aircraft. Collateral Duty Inspector for a wide range of aircraft systems. Explosives TRAINER for pyrotechnics.

And you?

 

[mike2810]

So far, all you are is a handle called Fledermaus, an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. Your posts are not your credentials and most of those are intellectually dishonest. But even if your background is for real and you would have the proper standing to contradict colleagues who disagree, it only means that the point is controversial. Having said that, the fact that you question nothing about the official narrative already makes you suspect. I'm much more inclined to accept those who agree with the official narrative for the most part, as long as they also have at least some reasonable reservations than those who rabidly defend it and question nothing. IMO, those people either have a severe case of cognitive dissonance or are fakes with some sort of agenda.

and I for one is suspect of posters who do not question alternative explanations and don't care about those in the private sector who could be scamming the public.

Yes, most posters are anomymous on this site. One reason I ask for sources to validate statements made. You seem to take anything that supports your view of CD without validation. I was wondering when you would throw out the phrase "severe case of cognitive dissonance ".

It has been shown that some photos used by known authors other than the govt are faked. Every wonder why many of the alternative explanations are mostly based on "what if".?

 

[Mark F]

1. Can you reasonably show sequentially what mechanism can cause a massive column such as 79 to "fail"?

There are several. NIST and our own SanderO have both suggested options. It could have even been done by MHI.

2. If you can show #1, can you reasonable show how the "collapse" of column 79 would result in a progressive failure of the remainder of the structure?

The last NIST model studied that very issue. It was, as I have stated before, probably the most surprising and also useful bit of information to come out of the various NIST reports.

3. If you can show #2, can you reasonably show how a progressive failure of the remainder of the structure is compatible with a symmetrical free fall descent of the first 8 stories (or 100 ft. give or take)?

Don't have to since there was no symmetrical free-fall descent of the first 8 stories/100 ft. (give or take).

But none of that is really at the heart of the current issue. My post in reply to Ozeco41 was merely pointing out that the current batch of participants here representing the 9/11 Truth side so far as I am aware all reject progressive collapse after the failure of Column 79 (by whatever mechanism). Therefore it makes sense regarding my suggestion to Fledermaus that he OP a thread on the practical issues involving explosive CD that he use Tony Szamboti's 24 columns blown over 8 stores simultaneously claim since , however incomplete, it is the closest thing we currently have here to a collapse initiation hypothesis that does not involve fire as the proximate cause.

If you would prefer that Fledermaus also or instead do an analysis of the practical problems of blowing just Column 79 with that as the initiating event for the collapse of the remaining structure that's fine too. But it does mean you have to accept progressive collapse.

 

[Bob0627]

As I have said... I HAD questions. Then I did RESEARCH. You keep ignoring that point.

As far as an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum Bob0627, pot meet kettle.

The difference between you and I is that I know semtex from shinola and you obviously don't. It is obvious from both your posts and mine. Mine are based on evidence, facts and explosives training. Yours are based on internet babble, truther talking points and your serious lack of understanding in all things explosive.

BTW - GySgt, USMC, 20+ years, honorable, 6531, 6541, 6521 MOS, experience in both fixed wing and rotary wing explosives and pyrotechnics. QA/SO in munitions (Quality Assurance/Safety Observer) Also a Quality Assurance Rep for A-4, TA-4 and OA-4 aircraft. Collateral Duty Inspector for a wide range of aircraft systems. Explosives TRAINER for pyrotechnics.

And you?

Thanks for all that, it means zero though in terms of verifying your credentials and your credibility (which is always suspect anyway), not that I really care anyway.

As for me, I have no intentions of posting any verifiable credentials. I'll only state that my educational background is as a math major and have taken engineering and physics courses way back in the day. My career however includes over 40 years in commercial software applications consulting (systems design, analysis, programming, often in lead roles) for various large domestic and international corporations and I authored the most popular software solution on the market for a specific corporate department (currently being used by over 50 corporations). So the difference between you and I is that I know bits from bytes and fully understand the concept of GIGO and you don't. Take it or leave it.

 

[Fledermaus]

Thanks for all that, it means zero though in terms of verifying your credentials and your credibility (which is always suspect anyway), not that I really care anyway.

Prepare to handwave.
Handwave aye aye sir.
HANDWAVE....
Thank you for participating in our daily TRUTHER HANDWAVE exercise.

As for me, I have no intentions of posting any verifiable credentials. I'll only state that my educational background is as a math major and have taken engineering and physics courses way back in the day. My career however includes over 40 years in commercial software applications consulting (systems design, analysis, programming, often in lead roles) for various large domestic and international corporations and I authored the most popular software solution on the market for a specific corporate department (currently being used by over 50 corporations). So the difference between you and I is that I know bits from bytes and fully understand the concept of GIGO and you don't. Take it or leave it.

So, no practical nor theoretical training in explosives or pyrotechnics.

It shows. Really.

It shows every time you post anything related to explosives and the towers and/or WTC7. It shows in how you think "molten metal" indicates explosives at work.

And, in regards to GIGO, you might want to choose your sources a little more carefully. Gage, et al are NOT reliable sources.

In other words GAGE in GARBAGE out.

 

[Thoreau72]

Perhaps it is YOU that does not understand "what the official story" (AKA Reality)

I understand full well what the official story is.

I defended it online and elsewhere for the better part of 4 years before I realized it was a hoax.

 

[Fledermaus]

I understand full well what the official story is.

I defended it online and elsewhere for the better part of 4 years before I realized it was a hoax.

And yet you seems clueless as to the content.

BTW - Is EVERYONE "in on it"?

 

[Bob0627]

There are several. NIST and our own SanderO have both suggested options. It could have even been done by MHI.

The NIST column 79 collapse theory has been proven to be impossible so it's not reasonable. I asked you for a reasonable explanation if you knew of one. The SanderO suggestion is unknown to me so that means nothing.

The last NIST model studied that very issue.

Since #1 is not reasonable, #2 is a non sequtur and so is #3.

Don't have to since there was no symmetrical free-fall descent of the first 8 stories/100 ft. (give or take).

You're right, you didn't have to answer #1 or #2 either and since you deny #3 (something NIST already agreed with and published), that makes 3 strikes, but thanks anyway for the pretentious attempt.

so far as I am aware all reject progressive collapse after the failure of Column 79 (by whatever mechanism).

Of course. It's illogical since progressive collapse and free fall are mutually exclusive (remember GIGO?).

Therefore it makes sense regarding my suggestion to Fledermaus that he OP a thread on the practical issues involving explosive CD using Tony Szamboti's 24 columns blown over 8 stores simultaneously claim since , however incomplete, it is the closest thing we currently have here to a collapse initiation hypothesis that does not involve fire as the proximate cause.

If you would prefer that Fledermaus also or instead do an analysis of the practical problems of blowing just Column 79 with that as the initiating event for the collapse of the remaining structure that's fine too. But it does mean you have to accept progressive collapse.

Sure, do as you please, with or without Maus. It's still my prerogative as to whether anything posted is worth my participation. BTW, I'm sure you know I only accept what makes sense to me, period.

 

[Thoreau72]

And yet you seems clueless as to the content.

BTW - Is EVERYONE "in on it"?

Oh no. I'm pretty familiar with the content, though I do admit to not paying much attention to esoteric trivia regarding the building collapses. After all these years of wondering how it happened, it is now pretty obvious that the towers at least were brought down with the assistance of nuclear devices.

The political machinations between Bush, Evans and Bement are just about all a commoner needs to understand the hoax that is the NIST report. :roll:

 

[Bob0627]

So, no practical nor theoretical training in explosives or pyrotechnics.

I did once blow something up in my kitchen when I was a child. Luckily, no major damage. Does that help?

And, in regards to GIGO, you might want to choose your sources a little more carefully. Gage, et al are NOT reliable sources.

In other words GAGE in GARBAGE out.

So no practical nor theoretical training in logic then. It's more than obvious.

 

[Thoreau72]

As penned in Charge of the Light Brigade, the military man has but one mission, and thinking is not part of it: "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do, and die."

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh no. I'm pretty familiar with the content, though I do admit to not paying much attention to esoteric trivia regarding the building collapses. After all these years of wondering how it happened, it is now pretty obvious that the towers at least were brought down with the assistance of nuclear devices.

The political machinations between Bush, Evans and Bement are just about all a commoner needs to understand the hoax that is the NIST report. :roll:

What you call "esoteric trivia" is what others call evidence and research.

And your "nuke" theory is perhaps second to space beams on the ignorance scale.

 

[Fledermaus]

I did once blow something up in my kitchen when I was a child. Luckily, no major damage. Does that help?

So no practical nor theoretical training in logic then. It's more than obvious.

Holy Non-sequitur Batman.

And GAGE in GARBAGE out has been demonstrated. But then again you have no issues with fellow "truthers" lying. You have stated that, haven't you?

 

[Fledermaus]

As penned in Charge of the Light Brigade, the military man has but one mission, and thinking is not part of it: "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do, and die."

Can't get ANYTHING right.

And a nice insult for the military.

Way to go. A Truther Twofer.

 

[Bob0627]

you have no issues with fellow "truthers" lying. You have stated that, haven't you?

No I never stated any such thing. Unlike you I don't lump people into all purpose labels. I don't care for liars, no matter who they are.

 

[Thoreau72]

Liars in uniform are particularly reprehensible, similar to the scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag, eh?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

The sad part is you guys think this has anything to do with patriotism or government.

 

[Bob0627]

The sad part is you guys think this has anything to do with patriotism or government.

The NIST report has nothing to do with government?

 

[Fledermaus]

No I never stated any such thing. Unlike you I don't lump people into all purpose labels. I don't care for liars, no matter who they are.

I could be wrong, are these your words?

The only one that counts that is scamming the public are the author(s) of the official one, because basically, it's the only one that counts.

Hmmmmmmm.

 

[Fledermaus]

Liars in uniform are particularly reprehensible, similar to the scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag, eh?

And who are you accusing now?

 

[Thoreau72]

Nadie.

If the shoe fits, it will be worn. eace

 

[Fledermaus]

Nadie.

If the shoe fits, it will be worn. eace

More nebulous accusations... Do you ever tire off libeling people far better than you?