• 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]

ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Absolutely brilliant. Kudos to you Sir, that was quite succinct and informative.
 
Mark F said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle once again. All your ideas are regurgitated from the official narrative and "debunker" sites.
 
Bob0627 said:
Pot meet kettle once again. All your ideas are regurgitated from the official narrative and "debunker" sites.
Click to expand...

Really? Care to enumerate?

McLLyMEki.gif
 
Mark F said:
Really? Care to enumerate?
Click to expand...

Is that stupid lie this week's truther response? I seem to be reading this silliness on here quite often over the last few days. Obviously, cognitive dissonance and the moronic charge that we don't question anything wasn't convincing anyone, so they had to come up with a new dumbass accusation.
 
Bob0627 said:
Read your posts.

View attachment 67169121
Click to expand...

I knew you couldn't do it.

Say, since you can't manage that simple task of backing up a simple claim of yours without resorting to the usual reversal of burden-of-proof would you care to tell us why you think the evil 9/11 plotters felt it necessary to issue a press release about how they were about to secretly blow up an unknown and unimportant building for no reason. Don't think I don't remember how you ran away from that.
 
Mark F said:
... Don't think I don't remember how you ran away from that.
Click to expand...
I've explained their evasion tricks to a couple of members recently. Maybe it is time to re-examine Bobs style. Could categorise his evasive tricks to save repetitive identification and rebuttal - leading to bandwidth savings and efficiencies. Reduce the carbon footprint and protect the ozone later.

The overriding limitation is that it requires a second order abstract process....meta level analysis[SUP]2nd[/SUP] of a process[SUP]1st[/SUP] used to discuss topic content[SUP]0-base[/SUP].

I enjoy the mental gymnastics but it is not everyone's favourite playground. :doh :3oops:
 
Mark F said:
I knew you couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Actually no, I'm not interested at all in your garbage and I keep falling into the same trap. Good job on that, your agenda works at times, although it always ends up sputtering into dust. Goes to show how those with an agenda of disinformation/distraction can be successful at manipulating posters at times. But at the end of the day, all you end up doing is chasing your own tail because the tactic still doesn't work to convince anyone of anything.

This thread is not about you or me. Stick to the topic.

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11
 
Mark F said:
I knew you couldn't do it.

Say, since you can't manage that simple task of backing up a simple claim of yours without resorting to the usual reversal of burden-of-proof would you care to tell us why you think the evil 9/11 plotters felt it necessary to issue a press release about how they were about to secretly blow up an unknown and unimportant building for no reason. Don't think I don't remember how you ran away from that.
Click to expand...

That notion is a stupid as the belief that Rumsfeld admitted to the planes that destroyed WTC's 1 & 2 were carrying missiles. What infantile logic spawns that nonsense?
 
NWO_Spook said:
That notion is a stupid as the belief that Rumsfeld admitted to the planes that destroyed WTC's 1 & 2 were carrying missiles. What infantile logic spawns that nonsense?
Click to expand...
The logic of a person who has suffered a life long inability to reason through any multiple factor situation and has developed a defence mechanism of "blame the man" AKA Government or authorities. The limited reasoning and the habit developed as a consequence is long term. 9/11 is merely one further symptom of the underlying issue.

And that is also the main reason why discussing the 9/11 events will not achieve much if any benefit for the remnant few still active - allegedly on the truth side. In reality on the "against the Government" side. 9/11 is not their [problem even though they mosr probably don't realise it. Those so affected cannot afford to recognise the real problem.
 
Bob0627 said:
Actually no, I'm not interested at all in your garbage and I keep falling into the same trap. Good job on that, your agenda works at times, although it always ends up sputtering into dust. Goes to show how those with an agenda of disinformation/distraction can be successful at manipulating posters at times. But at the end of the day, all you end up doing is chasing your own tail because the tactic still doesn't work to convince anyone of anything.

This thread is not about you or me. Stick to the topic.

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11
Click to expand...

Short version: Once again you made a claim (2 in this case) that you (as usual) refuse to back up (because you lack original thinking) and are yet again looking for a way to dig yourself out .
 
Bob0627 said:
Actually no, I'm not interested at all in your garbage and I keep falling into the same trap. Good job on that, your agenda works at times, although it always ends up sputtering into dust. Goes to show how those with an agenda of disinformation/distraction can be successful at manipulating posters at times. But at the end of the day, all you end up doing is chasing your own tail because the tactic still doesn't work to convince anyone of anything.

This thread is not about you or me. Stick to the topic.

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11
Click to expand...

You mean the ignorant claim of fraud.

So, lets say you are right...

What are you going to do?

Ramble on a relatively obscure forum for years? That accomplishes nothing.

As I have asked again and again... Why not take your "proof" to someone that can do something?
 
NWO_Spook said:
Absolutely brilliant. Kudos to you Sir, that was quite succinct and informative.
Click to expand...

I would bet you can't put in your own words even half of Ozeco's post (#1674) that you are praising, because to do so would mean you understand meaningless drivel.

However, on the chance that you do understand it, maybe you could explain to us just why you think what he is saying is absolutely brilliant, succinct, and informative.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I would bet you can't put in your own words even half of Ozeco's post (#1674) that you are praising, because to do so would mean you understand meaningless drivel.

However, on the chance that you do understand it, maybe you could explain to us just why you think what he is saying is absolutely brilliant, succinct, and informative.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me why you're so critical of the NIST report- to the point of not believing that the damage of the crashes and the subsequent fires created the building collapses- but are not critical at all regarding the complete lack of evidence for a controlled demolition?

It seems odd you'd pick nits at one theory and then believe another, part and parcel, without turning your very discerning eye from the former to the latter.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Can you tell me why you're so critical of the NIST report- to the point of not believing that the damage of the crashes and the subsequent fires created the building collapses- but are not critical at all regarding the complete lack of evidence for a controlled demolition?

It seems odd you'd pick nits at one theory and then believe another, part and parcel, without turning your very discerning eye from the former to the latter.
Click to expand...

I think I can answer this for him,...

George W Bush is evil
 
Fledermaus said:
But what we STILL don't have is an intelligent counter-theory from the CT addled....
Click to expand...

But what we DO have is a repetitive demonstration of an inability to comprehend that a counter theory is not necessary to understand that one has been deceived... :doh
 
Yeppir, we sure do. :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom