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

[mike2810]

It sounds like you are operating under the fallacy that I actually care if anyone believes what I post.

I am not out to win minds and hearts Mike, not at all.

I'm old enough to know that even with that attitude, I will win some minds and anger others. I have thick skin and do not take it personally. Some people will agree, and others will not. That can be said about any poster here.

Some are easy to see through, like the fireman who does not believe the statements of other firemen....:roll:

I am not out to win you over to agree with me.

Mearly pointing out that statements without collaborating evidence is pretty week.

Yes, some are easy to see what they are doing, like a a pilot who does not agree with the statements of other pilots.:mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

like a pilot that does not agree with other pilots

Post what you want. anyone can see your agenda.

"Agree" was not the word Mike.

"Believe" was the word. I'm sure you know the difference between the 2.

I tend to believe people, all other things being equal and honest and accurate.

I don't agree with them on political and other issues necessarily, but when they are telling their story to NTSB or anybody else, and it does not look like they are lying, and other evidence corroborates their statements, I believe them.

I believe cops and firemen too, when they are telling their story and it does not look like they are lying, and other evidence corroborates their statements.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Henry you believe the dumbest **** the world, please stop talking.

 

[mike2810]

"Agree" was not the word Mike.

"Believe" was the word. I'm sure you know the difference between the 2.

I tend to believe people, all other things being equal and honest and accurate.

I don't agree with them on political and other issues necessarily, but when they are telling their story to NTSB or anybody else, and it does not look like they are lying, and other evidence corroborates their statements, I believe them.

I believe cops and firemen too, when they are telling their story and it does not look like they are lying, and other evidence corroborates their statements.

wordsmith much.

I believe LE, FFTR's also. I understand that they believe what they stated is true. and yes, collabrating evidence must validate the statements. That is why statements alone is not enough in many cases.

Interesting that people can look at what they consider evidence and statements and draw different conclusions. Interesting that for many when asked to provide links to the collaborating evidence, the normal reply is do your own research or the evidence is all around you.

and some also put aside conflicting statements and evidence.

 

[ozeco41]

Henry you believe the dumbest **** the world, please stop talking.

I seriously doubt that he believes it.

Neither truth nor belief are needed for his game plan. In fact they would be disadvantageous.

 

[NWO_Spook]

No, there was no 757 there.

Funny this should come up. I had a conversation last week with a man I've known for years, but never had the conversation before with him.

From nearby in Pennsylvania, and a reserve fire fighter/first responder, he made it to Shanksville that night, about 10 PM. He observed, in the woods, not the open field, what appeared to be body parts hanging in the trees. Did not get to touch or personally examine what he saw, but was told and thought it looked like human body parts. No airplane parts to be seen, but body parts and human tissue hanging from the trees. I have no doubt he is telling a true story about what he saw.

Then I told him about the shenanigans conducted by the FBI that day, both with Miller and with McIlwain. Being a fairly open-minded man, he found that most interesting. Also told him about the most recent statements by Miller, 2011 or 2012, regarding being persuaded to be "a team player." Being an open-minded individual, he found that most interesting.

It appears that somebody sprayed or otherwise placed "human remains" in the trees away from the open field. With no airplane parts to be seen anywhere. Oh yeah, he did 20 years with US Airways back when male flight attendants were not all that common.

Brilliant! That was hilarious!

 

[Mark F]

I seriously doubt that he believes it.

Neither truth nor belief are needed for his game plan. In fact they would be disadvantageous.

I doubt very much the story is even true. HD's star witness, Wallace Miller, described most of the human remains recovered as fragments, yet this unnamed reserve firefighter describes body "parts" being strewn about the trees.

The whole account of HD's encounter with this person is completely implausible anyway.

 

[Quag]

I doubt very much the story is even true. HD's star witness, Wallace Miller, described most of the human remains recovered as fragments, yet this unnamed reserve firefighter describes body "parts" being strewn about the trees.

The whole account of HD's encounter with this person is completely implausible anyway.

Are you suggesting HD would lie?
Shocked I tell you, Shocked am I!

 

[Fledermaus]

Are you suggesting HD would lie?
Shocked I tell you, Shocked am I!

As I am often reminded technically it is not a lie if he really believes it...

On the other hand, my vote is LIE.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It is actually one of the most stupid false comparisons we have seen for a long time. Even sadder, if as a qualified engineer, he actually believes it is a valid comparison. It would be preferable in some ways if he was simply lying.

Not that the structure of his false comparison is novel.

Some years ago I heard an organist play a tune using the same music as I had copy in front of me. I commented on a note sequence "what he played there is not how the music is scored." I was accused "You cannot play the organ -- you cannot know whether he played wrong notes".

Just like fire-fighters who see signs of a distressed building must be in error because they could not program a computer to model the distress.

Even simpler - I look out the window and see rain. I must be wrong because I'm not a meteorologist.

Take that further in extending Tony's logic. If no-one could have programmed the computer model - the building could not have fallen down.

Ain't "reductio ad bleedingly ridiculous" a fun technique when people set themselves up for it. :roll: :doh

External observation of the symmetric free fall alone is enough to show the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and one has to be an idiot to honestly think otherwise and a blowhard to argue about it, especially in light of the fact that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to have needed to fraudulently omit pertinent structural features to even make a semi-plausible case that fire could have caused it.

It is obvious those here arguing it wasn't a controlled demolition are blowhards, but it is hard to believe you are all idiots, so there can only be one other reason you people are saying what you are here.

 

[Fledermaus]

External observation of the symmetric free fall alone is enough to show the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and one has to be an idiot to honestly think otherwise and a blowhard to argue about it, especially in light of the fact that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to have needed to fraudulently omit pertinent structural features to even make a semi-plausible case that fire could have caused it.

It is obvious those here arguing it wasn't a controlled demolition are blowhards, but it is hard to believe you are all idiots, so there can only be one other reason you people are saying what you are here.

1. Symmetric free fall- Truther Shibboleth...

2. There is ZERO evidence of explosives

3. You insults show your desperation

4. Fraud is an intent crime, please show intent to defraud

5. Blowhards = People who use EVIDENCE instead of CLAIMS to come to a conclusion.

Tony....

What "controlled demolition" shows signs of instability HOURS before final collapse?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the blast normally seen in REAL explosives?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the audible signature normally seen in REAL explosives?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the seismic signature normally seen in REAL explosives?

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks Fledermaus - and, for the record, Tony's silly comparison is still "one of the most stupid false comparisons we have seen for a long time. Even sadder, if as a qualified engineer, he actually believes it is a valid comparison. It would be preferable in some ways if he was simply lying".

He quoted me but lacked the courage to comment on my observations.

AND, to make it easier for him, I had given him a series of increasingly easier analogies to help him understand where his silly comparison was wrong.

He would have been better served simply repeating his false claims without the quote of my post rather than quoting my comments THEN running away from presenting counter claims.

 

[Mark F]

External observation of the symmetric free fall alone is enough to show the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and one has to be an idiot to honestly think otherwise and a blowhard to argue about it, especially in light of the fact that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to have needed to fraudulently omit pertinent structural features to even make a semi-plausible case that fire could have caused it.

NIST can be completely wrong (and they might be) about their probable collapse scenario and 7 WTC would still not have collapsed due to MHI/CD. Nor BTW was its collapse in any way symmetrical. That is pure fantasy.

It is obvious those here arguing it wasn't a controlled demolition are blowhards, but it is hard to believe you are all idiots, so there can only be one other reason you people are saying what you are here.

Again, while this sort of attitude may have served you well on the schoolyard playground, I doubt it will play well in the conference rooms of the new investigation committee when you get to contend with people who know how completely full of crap you are.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks Fledermaus - and, for the record, Tony's silly comparison is still "one of the most stupid false comparisons we have seen for a long time. Even sadder, if as a qualified engineer, he actually believes it is a valid comparison. It would be preferable in some ways if he was simply lying".

He quoted me but lacked the courage to comment on my observations.

AND, to make it easier for him, I had given him a series of increasingly easier analogies to help him understand where his silly comparison was wrong.

He would have been better served simply repeating his false claims without the quote of my post rather than quoting my comments THEN running away from presenting counter claims.

Using increasingly easier analogies to help others understand the drivel used to try to defend the phony official story for the collapse of WTC 7 (that it came down due to natural causes) doesn't change it into a viable explanation.

False explanations are still false no matter how you try to dress them up.

 

[Fledermaus]

increasingly easier analogies to help others understand the drivel you and those here are putting out trying to defend the false claim that WTC 7 came down due to natural causes still equals trying to understand drivel.

Tony....

What "controlled demolition" shows signs of instability HOURS before final collapse?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the blast normally seen in REAL explosives?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the audible signature normally seen in REAL explosives?

What "controlled demolition" lacks the seismic signature normally seen in REAL explosives?

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION is about as false as an explanation can get....

 

[Bob0627]

NIST can be completely wrong (and they might be) about their probable collapse scenario

That's what happens when they commit scientific and criminal FRAUD in order to concoct an EXACT, highly detailed collapse hypothesis that includes selected components, temperature, time and other data and EXACT cause. There was nothing "probable" about NIST's theory, NIST claimed "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". It's not just wrong, it's a FRAUD and a PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis. Attacking those who KNOW FULL WELL that NIST's report is blatant FRAUD will not change the REALITY that NIST committed blatant scientific and criminal FRAUD. Neither does defending NIST by pretending NIST created a "probable" collapse scenario when NIST actually published an EXACT and highly detailed collapse scenario.

 

[Fledermaus]

That's what happens when they commit scientific and criminal FRAUD in order to concoct an EXACT, highly detailed collapse hypothesis that includes selected components, temperature, time and other data and EXACT cause. There was nothing "probable" about NIST's theory, NIST claimed "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". It's not just wrong, it's a FRAUD and a PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis. Attacking those who KNOW FULL WELL that NIST's report is blatant FRAUD will not change the REALITY that NIST committed blatant scientific and criminal FRAUD. Neither does defending NIST by pretending NIST created a "probable" collapse scenario when NIST actually published an EXACT and highly detailed collapse scenario.

So, you claim this is FRAUD.

Take your "proof" to the proper authorities.

The FBI, the Attorney General, the media....

And when they get done LAUGHING at you please tell us how it went.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Everyone is in on it, remember! Don't be a sheep!

Tony, can you please express to me how it is you can be so critical of the evidence NIST produced but not at all critical of the lack of evidence for a controlled demolition. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

 

[Quag]

As I am often reminded technically it is not a lie if he really believes it...

On the other hand, my vote is LIE.

Technically true, but after being shown to be wrong and still insisting on the same point, there is no excuse.
I shall vote with you

 

[Mark F]

That's what happens when they commit scientific and criminal FRAUD in order to concoct an EXACT, highly detailed collapse hypothesis that includes selected components, temperature, time and other data and EXACT cause. There was nothing "probable" about NIST's theory, NIST claimed "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". It's not just wrong, it's a FRAUD and a PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis. Attacking those who KNOW FULL WELL that NIST's report is blatant FRAUD will not change the REALITY that NIST committed blatant scientific and criminal FRAUD. Neither does defending NIST by pretending NIST created a "probable" collapse scenario when NIST actually published an EXACT and highly detailed collapse scenario.

The above true only if one finds Tony Szamboti's claims credible,... and very few do. Certainly his claims have gained no hold whatsoever in the structural engineering community.

There is a reason for that.

Either way it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that NIST can be completely wrong about their probable collapse scenario (and probably are) but 7 World Trade Center still collapsed due damaged induced by prolonged exposure to fire in combination with the buildings unique (one could even say flawed) design.

As I have said from the beginning, discrediting NIST is irrelevant to proving MHI/CD. This is a not-to-subtle point neither you nor Tony seem to grasp.

 

[ozeco41]

Using increasingly easier analogies to help others understand the drivel used to try to defend the phony official story for the collapse of WTC 7 (that it came down due to natural causes) doesn't change it into a viable explanation.

False explanations are still false no matter how you try to dress them up.

Once again you quote my comment about your stupid comparison THEN comment about a different topic. The comparison was ridiculous. Your denial and your pretence of changing the topic is childish.

I did not "[Use] increasingly easier analogies to help others understand the drivel used to try to defend the phony official story..." I was explicit the examples were to assist understanding of why your comparison was false. There was no doubt about my meaning and I have confirmed it at least twice. Your descent to outright untruth does you zero credit.

Then - given that you want to evade by changing topic - your persistent call on reverse burden of proof puts your claims into the lowest class of truther evasion tricks. Neither we nor I have to explain WTC7 collapse. You are making claims. Your burden to support your claims. So far you have failed.

The claims you persist in repeating:
1) Have been many times here and elsewhere shown to be false or unsupported;
2) Are based on a focus on a single detail which you have never shown to be significant; PLUS
3) Claims for higher level effects which you never even attempt to justify in your parading of your trickery.

And - all that aside - you persist in quoting a comment of mine whilst failing totally to address that comment. The comparison that you made was and still is ridiculous. The claim that NIST could not analyse something years later IN NO WAY compares with the judgement of fire-fighters of physical reality on the day.

Now READ THIS SLOWLY and read it again till it sinks in:

Whether or not NIST was right with the analysis and/or whether the fire-fighters on the day were correct is absolutely irrelevant to the simple fact that your use of those two in comparison is silly.

AND the comparison remains silly no matter how many times you quote my comment and pretend that it relates to some other matters.

Now breathe a sigh of relief. I've told you those simple facts what - three times - in these recent exchanges. My normal limit when addressing entrenched denial is two responses. So I will not tell you again. The blatant evasions of your denials do not warrant me wasting time.

 

[Bob0627]

The above true only if one finds Tony Szamboti's claims credible,... and very few do. Certainly his claims have gained no hold whatsoever in the structural engineering community.

The NIST FRAUD is very real with or without Tony. He has nothing to do with NIST and neither does the "structural engineering community". Attacking the messenger changes NOTHING about NIST but does say a lot about your fakery.

Either way it doesn't matter.

It matters no matter what the reality of 9/11 is. That NIST committed FRAUD to deceive all Americans and the rest of the world is a dastardly crime, especially given the 9/11 massacre and NIST's responsibility. It only doesn't matter for the criminals involved and for those with an agenda to defend NIST and government crimes 24/7.

It doesn't change the fact that NIST can be completely wrong about their probable collapse scenario (and probably are)

NIST doesn't have a "probable" collapse scenario, they have an EXACT, detailed collapse scenario based on FRAUD. NIST is not just wrong, those responsible at NIST committed PROVEN scientific and criminal FRAUD.

As I have said from the beginning, discrediting NIST is irrelevant to proving MHI/CD. This is a not-to-subtle point neither you nor Tony seem to grasp.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter what you say, you have nothing genuine to post and haven't written one genuine post since I joined this forum. CD or no CD or proving or not proving CD has nothing to do with NIST's blatant criminal fraud. However, since it's a government agency and government has not scrutinized NIST, it is just one more piece of circumstantial evidence among a ton of circumstantial and direct evidence of government complicity in the 9/11 massacre.

 

[ozeco41]

As I am often reminded technically it is not a lie if he really believes it...

On the other hand, my vote is LIE.

Technically true, but after being shown to be wrong and still insisting on the same point, there is no excuse.
I shall vote with you

Agreed - delusional belief in the truth of something which is false would normally be accepted as defence against a charge of "lying".

Which is I why, when pressed on the issue, I prefer to discuss "Professional Dishonesty" which has a far stricter threshold test.

A professional who speaks as a professional and knowingly expresses a minority view is obliged to inform his audience that he is in the minority.

Does Gage do that? I suspect that it is implicit in Tony's presentations - he routinely tells us we are wrong so he is acknowledging our views which align with the bulk of the relevant professions. We, as the intended audience, are clearly aware that he is expressing a minority opinion.

Could be an interesting topic for discussion of ethics but not here as a derail.

On a parallel track I once addressed a peer group of law students on the topic of "Legal Ethics" which, in opening my presentation, I described as "an oxymoron". :3oops: :doh

It certainly got their attention. :roll:

 

[Fledermaus]

The NIST FRAUD is very real with or without Tony. He has nothing to do with NIST and neither does the "structural engineering community". Attacking the messenger changes NOTHING about NIST but does say a lot about your fakery.

It matters no matter what the reality of 9/11 is. That NIST committed FRAUD to deceive all Americans and the rest of the world is a dastardly crime, especially given the 9/11 massacre and NIST's responsibility. It only doesn't matter for the criminals involved and for those with an agenda to defend NIST and government crimes 24/7.

NIST doesn't have a "probable" collapse scenario, they have an EXACT, detailed collapse scenario based on FRAUD. NIST is not just wrong, those responsible at NIST committed PROVEN scientific and criminal FRAUD.

As I have said from the beginning, discrediting NIST is irrelevant to proving MHI/CD. This is a not-to-subtle point neither you nor Tony seem to grasp.

It doesn't matter what you say, you have nothing genuine to post and haven't written one genuine post since I joined this forum. CD or no CD or proving or not proving CD has nothing to do with NIST's blatant criminal fraud. However, since it's a government agency and government has not scrutinized NIST, it is just one more piece of circumstantial evidence among a ton of circumstantial and direct evidence of government complicity in the 9/11 massacre.

So, you claim this is FRAUD.

Take your "proof" to the proper authorities.

The FBI, the Attorney General, the media....

And when they get done LAUGHING at you please tell us how it went.

 

[Mark F]

The NIST FRAUD is very real with or without Tony. He has nothing to do with NIST and neither does the "structural engineering community". Attacking the messenger changes NOTHING about NIST but does say a lot about your fakery.

It matters no matter what the reality of 9/11 is. That NIST committed FRAUD to deceive all Americans and the rest of the world is a dastardly crime, especially given the 9/11 massacre and NIST's responsibility. It only doesn't matter for the criminals involved and for those with an agenda to defend NIST and government crimes 24/7.

NIST doesn't have a "probable" collapse scenario, they have an EXACT, detailed collapse scenario based on FRAUD. NIST is not just wrong, those responsible at NIST committed PROVEN scientific and criminal FRAUD.

It doesn't matter what you say, you have nothing genuine to post and haven't written one genuine post since I joined this forum. CD or no CD or proving or not proving CD has nothing to do with NIST's blatant criminal fraud. However, since it's a government agency and government has not scrutinized NIST, it is just one more piece of circumstantial evidence among a ton of circumstantial and direct evidence of government complicity in the 9/11 massacre.

I have tried many times and I have failed. I can not seem to Fisher-Price this enough for you to grasp. Let's try one last method.

Congratulations Bob, you have completely and totally discredited NIST. How does that prove CD/MHI at 7 World Trade Center?