• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

A while back, I was asked to provide examples of high rise steel frame buildings that burned for at least 7 hours and I provided 3 examples where those buildings did not collapse. The following video is a compilation of other steel frame buildings that experienced fires, some were massive infernos, but did not collapse. In one of these cases, a building partially collapsed. However, the collapse was localized and asymmetrical and there was no free fall acceleration.

 
Bob0627 said:
A while back, I was asked to provide examples of high rise steel frame buildings that burned for at least 7 hours and I provided 3 examples where those buildings did not collapse. The following video is a compilation of other steel frame buildings that experienced fires, some were massive infernos, but did not collapse. In one of these cases, a building partially collapsed. However, the collapse was localized and asymmetrical and there was no free fall acceleration.

Click to expand...


And how many of them had an airliner rammed through them? None.

And how many were of the rather unique design of WTC7? None.

And the BIG LIE... "47 story building can totally collapse in under seven seconds".

But, hey... What is one more BIG LIE for the truther movement?
 
Rather unique design? :confused:

4 walls, a roof and a floor with basement? :lol:
 
Henry David said:
Rather unique design? :confused:

4 walls, a roof and a floor with basement? :lol:
Click to expand...

If one actually investigated the claim instead of running one's mouth in total ignorance, one would find that the WTC was indeed of a unique design and any comparisons to other steel framed buildings are merely Red Herrings, as is comparing the WTC collapse to other fires owing to the lack of aircraft impacts of this magnitude.

But truthers are oblivious to facts because they tend to confuse them with fairy tales and rumour.
 
Last edited:
Henry David said:
Rather unique design? :confused:

4 walls, a roof and a floor with basement? :lol:
Click to expand...

Don't forget the curtain wall, that's what was unique. They usually don't design buildings like that with curtain walls.
 
Fledermaus said:
In two sentences you have proven you are ignorant about WTC7's structure....
Click to expand...

The real point of this thread is that some people at NIST ignored the fact that it is fraudulent to omit pertinent structural features which would preclude the claimed failure mechanism if they were included in the analysis.

I haven't seen you address this in any way. Why not?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The real point of this thread is that some people at NIST ignored the fact that it is fraudulent to omit pertinent structural features which would preclude the claimed failure mechanism if they were included in the analysis.

I haven't seen you address this in any way. Why not?
Click to expand...

Another who extrapolates beyond the evidence. What indicates fraud in your story? Are you replacing the possibility of 'negligence' with the unsupported claim of 'fraud' just for dramatic effect? What other than personal bias indicates that to defraud was the intent?
 
Is it fraud for someone to publish a book that it was mini neutron bombs that took out the towers and left out known details that would show the premise false?

It is interesting that in other threads no one is willing to go into the CD in detail.

When someone makes changes/updates their paper on CD, does it mean the earlier paper was a fraudulent in its content?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The real point of this thread is that some people at NIST ignored the fact that it is fraudulent to omit pertinent structural features which would preclude the claimed failure mechanism if they were included in the analysis.

I haven't seen you address this in any way. Why not?
Click to expand...

They (meaning all the defenders of the official story who post here) don't quite ignore it, at best they just concede it was a "mistake", not fraud, but it doesn't change anything anyway. In other words they trivialize/dismiss the matter because they believe (or they claim to believe) that NIST's conclusion is correct (with or without the column 79 initiation theory) but that it may or may not have happened as described by NIST. Mark F believes (or claims to believe) NIST's column 79 theory is "plausible" as described by NIST but he refuses to detail how it's still plausible given the correct data (i.e. with the missing structural components included).

(if I'm wrong about the above, please correct me but that's what I've gathered from all the posts on this subject)
 
Bob0627 said:
They (meaning all the defenders of the official story who post here) don't quite ignore it, at best they just concede it was a "mistake", not fraud, but it doesn't change anything anyway. In other words they trivialize/dismiss the matter because they believe (or they claim to believe) that NIST's conclusion is correct (with or without the column 79 initiation theory) but that it may or may not have happened as described by NIST. Mark F believes (or claims to believe) NIST's column 79 theory is "plausible" as described by NIST but he refuses to detail how it's still plausible given the correct data (i.e. with the missing structural components included).

(if I'm wrong about the above, please correct me but that's what I've gathered from all the posts on this subject)
Click to expand...

Yes, you are wrong. Nice backpedal on the fraud claim, though, but it was clear to all you had nothing to support such a claim.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

What part am I wrong about? Just saying I'm wrong is meaningless.

Nice backpedal on the fraud claim, though.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? I'm trying to describe your position (and those who share your lockstep mentality), not mine.
 
Bob0627 said:
What part am I wrong about? Just saying I'm wrong is meaningless.
Click to expand...

This bit:

"They (meaning all the defenders of the official story who post here) don't quite ignore it, at best they just concede it was a "mistake", not fraud, but it doesn't change anything anyway. In other words they trivialize/dismiss the matter because they believe (or they claim to believe) that NIST's conclusion is correct (with or without the column 79 initiation theory) but that it may or may not have happened as described by NIST. Mark F believes (or claims to believe) NIST's column 79 theory is "plausible" as described by NIST but he refuses to detail how it's still plausible given the correct data (i.e. with the missing structural components included)."


What does that mean? I'm trying to describe your position (and those who share your erudite mentality), not mine.
Click to expand...

ftfy

BTW, you have no idea regarding 'my position' on this topic as I've merely asked you to prove intent.

So, the vehemently defended fraud claim of yours (despite a complete lack of evidence to show intent) suddenly 'doesn't change anything anyway'? That is a 'backpedal'.
 
NWO_Spook said:
This bit:

"They (meaning all the defenders of the official story who post here) don't quite ignore it, at best they just concede it was a "mistake", not fraud, but it doesn't change anything anyway. In other words they trivialize/dismiss the matter because they believe (or they claim to believe) that NIST's conclusion is correct (with or without the column 79 initiation theory) but that it may or may not have happened as described by NIST. Mark F believes (or claims to believe) NIST's column 79 theory is "plausible" as described by NIST but he refuses to detail how it's still plausible given the correct data (i.e. with the missing structural components included)."
Click to expand...

So you claim the whole thing is wrong, fine, how is it wrong then? You don't give any details, why not?

BTW, you have no idea regarding 'my position' on this topic as I've merely asked you to prove intent.
Click to expand...

If your position is not as I described above, then you describe it. So far, you haven't described a position other than the one I described.

So, the vehemently defended fraud claim of yours (despite a complete lack of evidence to show intent) suddenly 'doesn't change anything anyway'? That is a 'backpedal'.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my claim, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Again, I posted what YOUR position is from my understanding, that NIST's omissions of components are a "mistake", not fraud and that NIST's omissions are irrelevant anyway as these "mistakes" don't change NIST's overall conclusion. I don't believe I can make it any clearer so that even you can understand it.
 
Bob0627 said:
So you claim the whole thing is wrong, fine, how is it wrong then? You don't give any details, why not?

If your position is not as I described above, then you describe it. So far, you haven't described a position other than the one I described.

That wasn't my claim, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Again, I posted what YOUR position is from my understanding, that NIST's omissions of components are a "mistake", not fraud and that NIST's omissions are irrelevant anyway as these "mistakes" don't change NIST's overall conclusion. I don't believe I can make it any clearer so that even you can understand it.
Click to expand...

Bob, ever get around to PROVING FRAUD? Remember, FRAUD is an INTENT crime. Have you proven INTENT to commit FRAUD?
 
Bob0627 said:
That wasn't my claim, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Again, I posted what YOUR position is from my understanding, that NIST's omissions of components are a "mistake", not fraud and that NIST's omissions are irrelevant anyway as these "mistakes" don't change NIST's overall conclusion. I don't believe I can make it any clearer so that even you can understand it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that as the original was somewhat 'garbled'.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Thanks for clarifying that as the original was somewhat 'garbled'.
Click to expand...

So does that mean you now agree with the description I posted as to what your position is? You still haven't clarified due to your confusion.
 
NWO_Spook said:
I'm not confused, I just want you to prove your libel. That is all. Simple, nothing more.
Click to expand...

But you haven't proven anything, much less my alleged libel. I'm still waiting for you to state how your position differs from what I described about what your position is. You have so far failed to do that. Unless you can show any difference(s), you have no case for libel. And even if you do show differences, I asked for correction if I'm wrong so it's still not libel. Now if you have a position different than the one I described, please describe it or at least point out the difference(s) rather than make an irrelevant blanket statement that I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom