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

[ozeco41]

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?

I commend your patience Mark.

 

[Bob0627]

I have tried many times and I have failed.

I think I already went over this with you on a number of occasions. If you believe for one second that anything you post in defense of the official narrative is convincing, you're completely delusional.

I can not seem to Fisher-Price this enough for you to grasp.

Or post anything genuine in plain English that makes sense ever.

Let's try one last method.

What for?

Congratulations Bob, you have completely and totally discredited NIST.

No I haven't, I won't take any credit for that, NIST discredited itself.

How does that prove CD/MHI at 7 World Trade Center?

How does what prove CD/MHI at WTC7? Perhaps the last 2 sentences I wrote that you pretend to ignore or fail to grasp might help you if you actually read them for comprehension:

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.

Apples and oranges. NIST's fraud and CD are totally unrelated.

 

[Mark F]

I think I already went over this with you on a number of occasions. If you believe for one second that anything you post in defense of the official narrative is convincing, you're completely delusional.

Why are you taking my statement completely out of context - something you do with frightening regularity BTW? That was a reference to my inability to get you to understand the fundamental and fatal flaw in your argument. It had nothing to do with defending the official story. JHC - no wonder you don't get anything!

If you prove NIST was wrong all you have done is proven NIST was wrong. So what? You have not proven anything else. So if your goal is to prove some other mechanism you really should get on about the job of proving some other mechanism. NIST is completely irrelevant to that task.

 

[Bob0627]

If you prove NIST was wrong all you have done is proven NIST was wrong.

Once again, NIST is not just wrong, NIST committed fraud and I didn't prove it, the evidence did.

So what?

So everything, not to you of course.

You have not proven anything else.

I didn't start this thread to prove anything. I started it to outline the details of NIST's fraud. Over 1,600 posts in this thread and you still don't know its purpose.

So if your goal is to prove some other mechanism you really should get on about the job of proving some other mechanism. NIST is completely irrelevant to that task.

See above, start by figuring out what the purpose of this thread is. Here's a clue:

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11

 

[Mark F]

Once again, NIST is not just wrong, NIST committed fraud and I didn't prove it, the evidence did.

It's Tony's evidence and it is faulty because it starts from a false presumption - wrong before he even gets out of the gate. This is why these claims have gained zero traction in the professional engineering community.

But so what? It matters not.

Earlier - long before you posted this nonsense thread - you started a thread claiming 9/11 was a CD/MHI. Discrediting NIST does nothing to get you closer to the ultimate goal of proving that. Heck, it isn't even necessary. Even proving that NIST committed fraud gets you not one step closer to that - or to anything else. All it proves is NIST committed fraud. The facts will still remain that 7 fell because of fire and flawed design and 9/11 was still done by terrorists who didn't even target the Salomon Bros. building, it being incidental collateral damage whose collapse is of no interest in determining who did what that day.

 

[Bob0627]

It's Tony's evidence

No, all the evidence of NIST's fraud comes from NIST itself, not Tony. Those who exposed the evidence of NIST's fraud are just messengers, frequent targets of your attacks.

Earlier - long before you posted this nonsense thread - you started a thread claiming 9/11 was a CD/MHI.

Once again, apples and oranges. 2 different and unrelated issues, stick to the purpose of this thread if you're capable. There's nothing nonsensical about FRAUD.

[continued irrelevant and unrelated claims ignored]

 

[Mark F]

No, all the evidence of NIST's fraud comes from NIST itself, not Tony. Those who exposed the evidence of NIST's fraud are just messengers, frequent targets of your attacks.



Once again, apples and oranges. 2 different and unrelated issues, stick to the purpose of this thread if you're capable. There's nothing nonsensical about FRAUD.

[continued irrelevant and unrelated claims ignored]

Except the evidence is based on false presumptions. It doesn't prove what you claim. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You and Tony have convinced me of fraud. Now what?

 

[Bob0627]

Except the evidence is based on false presumptions.

The evidence that NIST committed fraud is fully detailed and itemized with references included in the first 3 posts in this thread. For example, anyone can compare the actual Frankel drawings (provided by NIST via FOIA requests) to NIST's drawings in their report and verify that key structural components have been deliberately omitted from NIST's published drawings and that NIST's published claims that there were no shear studs are lies and contradict NIST's own published original claims that there were indeed shear studs, almost 200,000 of them. Just on that basis, what are the "false presumptions" since this is all KNOWN, PUBLISHED and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE? And that's just one slam dunk evidence based issue that comes from NIST itself.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You and Tony have convinced me of fraud. Now what?

And I wouldn't have thought that you'd be so easily fooled.

 

[NWO_Spook]

The evidence that NIST committed fraud is fully detailed and itemized with references included in the first 3 posts in this thread. For example, anyone can compare the actual Frankel drawings (provided by NIST via FOIA requests) to NIST's drawings in their report and verify that key structural components have been deliberately omitted from NIST's published drawings and that NIST's published claims that there were no shear studs are lies and contradict NIST's own published original claims that there were indeed shear studs, almost 200,000 of them. Just on that basis, what are the "false presumptions" since this is all KNOWN, PUBLISHED and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE? And that's just one slam dunk evidence based issue that comes from NIST itself.

Again, you keep stressing the false assumption that these details were deliberately omitted, and yet, you do not know that, nor can you prove it. Most people would refer to that stance colloquially as 'Utter Bull****'.

 

[Bob0627]

You and Tony have convinced me of fraud.

Congratulations, however it was never my objective to try to convince you of anything. I can't speak for Tony though. If you're convinced, it certainly wasn't me that convinced you, the evidence speaks for itself so only the evidence could have possibly convinced you.

Now what?

Now what in what sense?

 

[Bob0627]

Again, you keep stressing the false assumption that these details were deliberately omitted, and yet, you do not know that, nor can you prove it.

There are no false assumptions. The drawings that NIST published are not the same as the Frankel drawings that NIST had in its possession. Furthermore, NIST's report is based on their published drawings and not on the Frankel drawings. There is no possible reason or excuse that can justify the vast differences other than that these are deliberately different. One reason it's deliberate is that NIST's claim regarding the collapse initiation is highly detailed and the details only include the components in NIST's drawings and not the ones in the Frankel drawings. NIST knew full well about the shear studs that appear in the Frankel drawings because these appear in NIST's earlier report, yet are claimed by NIST to be absent in NIST's final report. Thus NIST contradicted itself.

[irrelevant nonsense ignored]

 

[Mark F]

The evidence that NIST committed fraud is fully detailed and itemized with references included in the first 3 posts in this thread. For example, anyone can compare the actual Frankel drawings (provided by NIST via FOIA requests) to NIST's drawings in their report and verify that key structural components have been deliberately omitted from NIST's published drawings and that NIST's published claims that there were no shear studs are lies and contradict NIST's own published original claims that there were indeed shear studs, almost 200,000 of them. Just on that basis, what are the "false presumptions" since this is all KNOWN, PUBLISHED and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE? And that's just one slam dunk evidence based issue that comes from NIST itself.

Tony's starting presumption is that everything in the building was in pristine condition - which is complete nonsense.

 

[Mark F]

Now what in what sense?

Said Bob, either completely missing the point (again) or (more likely) being deliberately obtuse and evasive because he knows damn well what the what next is, it having been the topic of discussion all day.

 

[Fledermaus]

The evidence that NIST committed fraud is fully detailed and itemized with references included in the first 3 posts in this thread. For example, anyone can compare the actual Frankel drawings (provided by NIST via FOIA requests) to NIST's drawings in their report and verify that key structural components have been deliberately omitted from NIST's published drawings and that NIST's published claims that there were no shear studs are lies and contradict NIST's own published original claims that there were indeed shear studs, almost 200,000 of them. Just on that basis, what are the "false presumptions" since this is all KNOWN, PUBLISHED and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE? And that's just one slam dunk evidence based issue that comes from NIST itself.

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.

 

[Thoreau72]

Oh boy, now we've reached large font AND red ink! Yikes. :roll:

 

[Bob0627]

Tony's starting presumption is that everything in the building was in pristine condition - which is complete nonsense.

I was posting, not Tony. Why are you quoting me and yet commenting on what Tony posted, which has nothing to do with what I posted? I only speak for myself, I don't speak for Tony or anyone else. How many times do I have to say that before it finally sinks in?

 

[ozeco41]

Oh boy, now we've reached large font AND red ink! Yikes. :roll:

Only one more step left...

...RAINBOW...

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh boy, now we've reached large font AND red ink! Yikes. :roll:

But what we STILL don't have is an intelligent counter-theory from the CT addled....

 

[NWO_Spook]

There are no false assumptions.

Indeed there are. You are incapable of proving your 'fraud' accusation, and if you knew anything about the law, you would know this.


[irrelevant nonsense ignored]

 

[Mark F]

I was posting, not Tony. Why are you quoting me and yet commenting on what Tony posted, which has nothing to do with what I posted? I only speak for myself, I don't speak for Tony or anyone else. How many times do I have to say that before it finally sinks in?

You have no original ideas of your own. You just copy and paste other peoples work and on this topic that original work comes almost entirely from Tony Szamboti.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Congratulations, however it was never my objective to try to convince you of anything. I can't speak for Tony though. If you're convinced, it certainly wasn't me that convinced you, the evidence speaks for itself so only the evidence could have possibly convinced you.

Okay great, whatever.

Now what in what sense?

Why should I care? What does it mean?

 

[ozeco41]

You have no original ideas of your own. You just copy and paste other peoples work and on this topic that original work comes almost entirely from Tony Szamboti.

And, in turn, T Szamboti's published works and internet forum claims are all false for the same generic reason. He makes false starting assumptions which seem to just happen to favour his predetermined outcome. Key examples are:
A) A paper "Engineering Reality" published 2007 attracted this comment from an engineer who was spot on the target of Szamboti's flawed logic "but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong."
B) The infamous "Missing Jolt" which is also based on a false premise - misapplication of Bazant and/or presumption of CD (probably both) - he clearly does not comprehend the cascade failure of collapse initiation for the twins;
C) Numerous Internet forum arguments where he claims that columns falling at the start of Twin Towers collapse would have seen the broken ends meet in axial alignment. Too late - they had already missed. That one he purports to back with reasoning which actually is as flawed as the starting point false assumptions. (Sadly a lot of debunkers also fell for those false premises. Engineers from both sides notoriously weak in visualising 3D mechanisms - actually anything outside of the scope of routine technical and text book calculations.)
AND
D) The WTC7 nonsense which has major flaws at several levels. Tony unwilling or unable to address the bigger context issues such as "Even if NIST is wrong on an irrelevant detail - what consequence does that have?" I have identified the main assumptions error which to be precise and pedantic is "unproven" - I don't claim "false" nor do I need to - it is his burden of proof. The detail of that one is that he assumes a pristine state of building in which the columns do not move due to heat effects whilst the beams connected to the columns do move. When both beams and columns have been exposed to the same fire. The idea that effects shift the beams but have zero effect on the columns is an extraordinary assumption which he makes and usually ignores or denies that he makes it. His argument relies on that premise so he has to show that it is valid - until he does his claim is not proven. Note that again - "not proven" NOT necessarily "false". I don't have to falsify his claim other than demonstrate that he has not proven it. His claim - his burden of proof.

There have been many more detailed rebuttals of his claims by other persons. I have no intention of moving into details whilst he refuses to address the unproven premise. And the "higher level context issues" at four levels are equally fatal - and he won't even address them. So the Szamboti/Pepper Letter WTC7 claims have a long way to go before they even get close to proof.

The overriding picture is one of terminal desperation driven into disputing trivialities and taking care to avoid the bigger issues. Then hoping that no one will spot the trickery.

He gets support from sycophants on forums BUT if ever the claims get before a formal inquiry they will be exposed at round one. In fact the NIST rejection of the nonsense is essentially rejection at round one.

 

[Mark F]

Nuthin' but net