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

[KokomoJojo]

OK then little Ozzie, it seems none of the other students know the answer so would you like to help out the rest of the class and tell them what step 1 in investigating for explosives at a crime scene like Ground Zero is?

I can answer that.

DENY EXPLOSIVES
DENY MOLTEN METAL
DESTROY THE EVIDENCE
CLAIM FIRE DESTROYED 3 HIRISES

I know, I just got a gold star LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

Members may not be aware that Anders Borkman posts as "Heiwa" and is the source of the nonsense "blocks model" of collapse which Koko relies on in his spamming of his own nonsense abut "toppling" at WTC2 - recently addressed by me resulting in Koko's aborted counter claims to my explanation.


And should I presume that everyone can read the Major_Tom quote correctly.

His claim is "...this book demonstrates that the current technical history of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings is provably incorrect." The "book" he refers to is that web site. And he does not in that quote link the assertion to Chandler or Borkman,

Is it as crazy as the long defunct pancake theory come to resurrect itself as ROOSD?

If he is another debunker with published theories attached to his name it would only end up in another pissing match of pages of dodging rather than accomplishing anything.

Face it debunkers CANT support their theories and run away from anyone who would threaten their little paradigm.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Mike - I'm not a coffee drinker but the thought of Koko in discussion with Major_Tom would have cost me a keyboard.

Does he dodge everything too? Then it would be my keyboard not yours.

 

[Mark F]

I can answer that.

DENY EXPLOSIVES
DENY MOLTEN METAL
DESTROY THE EVIDENCE
CLAIM FIRE DESTROYED 3 HIRISES

I know, I just got a gold star LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

View attachment 67176899

yep thats where debunkers and huggers always wind up, only thing wrong with that pic is that there arent enough corners in the room :lamo

 

[Mark F]

yep thats where debunkers and huggers always wind up, only thing wrong with that pic is that there arent enough corners in the room :lamo

With comebacks that lame, you should have just stayed quietly in your corner.

 

[KokomoJojo]

With comebacks that lame, you should have just stayed quietly in your corner.

Even I deserve a break.

 

[mike2810]

you posted it with a specific inference, NOT just fyi as you calimed, hence what you posted was a lie.

funny Oz dont jump on any of you for posting crap, in fact cheers the hugger crowd on!

and we await the evidence that what the author stated was a lie.

 

[ozeco41]

OK then little Ozzie, it seems none of the other students know the answer so would you like to help out the rest of the class and tell them what step 1 in investigating for explosives at a crime scene like Ground Zero is?

:no: :2no4:
Shan't! I'm sulking. I gave you a chance....

 

[ozeco41]

and we await the evidence that what the author stated was a lie.

Don't miss the irony of Koko self rebutting.

This is what he says is wrong:
"...the current technical history of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings is provably incorrect,"

If that is a "LIE" as Koko asserts it means that Koko is asserting that the current technical history is CORRECT.

...which should be news to a lot of us posting here.

 

[Mark F]

:no: :2no4:
Shan't! I'm sulking. I gave you a chance....

I'm still waiting for a serious answer. Koko is back in detention for disrupting the class with fart noises.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Don't miss the irony of Koko self rebutting.

This is what he says is wrong:
"...the current technical history of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings is provably incorrect,"

If that is a "LIE" as Koko asserts it means that Koko is asserting that the current technical history is CORRECT.

...which should be news to a lot of us posting here.

DUH!

That was stated targeting Chandler et al.

Nice disinfo play, didnt work.

 

[mike2810]

Since Koko believe the quote I posted is a lie.

Then the authors comments on NIST misrepresentation regarding WTC1,2,7 must also be a lie.
The author comments of Bazant misrepresentation of collapse progression must be a lie.

The authors conclusions are quite reasonalbe. Here is a few takes:
"In retrospect, the single biggest obstacle for many participants within such discussions, including mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer programmers and journalists, was their own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty. The evidence for this is everywhere one looks within years of recorded posting histories, published papers and articles written about the collapses. It became quite obvious that the less humility and caution one has when approaching these issues, the more certain that individual was to state blatantly untrue information and defend it to the point of absurdity."

"A second key Achilles heel is this; when observations and measurements are discussed, each observation is treated as a separate fragment. There is rarely any effort to put these separate fragments of knowledge together to gain a wholistic understand of what one is observing"

A World Trade Center Collapse Investigative Resource - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research


imo, the fire induced collapse is still the most probalbe cause to the WTC7 failure rather than controlled demolition.

 

[ozeco41]

Since Koko believe the quote I posted is a lie.
Then the authors comments on NIST misrepresentation regarding WTC1,2,7 must also be a lie.
His comment of Bazant misrepresentation of collapse progression must be a lie.

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Misrepresentations - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

We should post the full statement by Major Tom:

Both David Chandler and Anders Borkman are members of a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Considering that this book demonstrates that the current technical history of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings is provably incorrect, the author agrees that the general public should demand a sincere investigation into how and why each building collapsed based on non-falsified observations and measurements. However, such an investigation cannot be called for using equally false claims made with overly-simplified block mechanics and exaggerated claims. In fact, false counter-claims based on cartoon caricatures of building movement can only serve to trivialize such a demand. A basic list of claims on which AE911T bases the claims of demolition can be found on the AE911T home page, directly quoted below concerning WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Major_Tom AGREES with AE911's call for an investigation.
...which I don't agree with.

Then goes on to say "both sides got the physics wrong" - "let's do it right'

...which I do agree with

AND for devotees of Koko's style:

"...false counter-claims based on cartoon caricatures of building movement "

Let's see if Koko can handle that lot.

:mrgreen:

 

[mike2810]

We should post the full statement by Major Tom:

Major_Tom AGREES with AE911's call for an investigation.
...which I don't agree with.

Then goes on to say "both sides got the physics wrong" - "let's do it right'

...which I do agree with

AND for devotees of Koko's style:

"...false counter-claims based on cartoon caricatures of building movement "

Let's see if Koko can handle that lot.

:mrgreen:

Long ago in some thread post far away.. . I stated that the official report most likely did not get every little detail correct. The general conclusion of crash/damage/fire collapse for WTC1,2 and debris damage/fire/collapse for WTC7 was most likely correct. The fire induced collapse is more probalbe than the Controlled Demolition explanations which lack detail.
I have also stated it is known that a properly planned CD can take a building down. What has not been presented is a concise explanation of CD for WTC1,2,7.


Major Tom should be congradulated for the info he has put togeather.

 

[KokomoJojo]

We should post the full statement by Major Tom:

Major_Tom AGREES with AE911's call for an investigation.
...which I don't agree with.

Then goes on to say "both sides got the physics wrong" - "let's do it right'

...which I do agree with

AND for devotees of Koko's style:

"...false counter-claims based on cartoon caricatures of building movement "

Let's see if Koko can handle that lot.

:mrgreen:

You want to pretend that because he agrees with a new investigation it somehow white washes the fact that he targeted chandler by name, claiming he has the physics wrong, I have not seen Chandler with wrong physics yet.

The reason no one listens to you anymore is because you do not support your claims in any reasonable detail, and simply standing on your soapbox screaming false and bulleting pages of talking points doesnt make any of it correct. Polishing the pocket protector only works for dug in believers who no longer use their eyes and ears and dont give a **** if they are right or wrong.

If you want to claim koko is false or wrong you will need to get busy posting data and a little actual physics would help too instead of pages of Gish OPINIONS. Otherwise the problem you have is that so many people have pointed out the gaping holes in your ROOSD pancake theory that pretty much common knowledge.

 

[SanderO]

Long ago in some thread post far away.. . I stated that the official report most likely did not get every little detail correct. The general conclusion of crash/damage/fire collapse for WTC1,2 and debris damage/fire/collapse for WTC7 was most likely correct. The fire induced collapse is more probalbe than the Controlled Demolition explanations which lack detail.
I have also stated it is known that a properly planned CD can take a building down. What has not been presented is a concise explanation of CD for WTC1,2,7.


Major Tom should be congradulated for the info he has put togeather.

The problem is... that when you DO present something such as NIST does and it's really nothing more than a theory... educated guess based on a bunch of assumptions it APPEARS to have the same sort of no reality base that the truther claims do... even though the truther claims are more extreme and many of them demonstrably false on the face.

To reduce the causes to mechanical damage and heat is to not EXPLAIN the mechanism and how this undid the structures and caused total collapse. THAT is what the mandate was and that is the legitimate interest of a genuine person seeking to understand... a *real* truth seeker. My take is that some excellent guess work... theories of the mechanisms based on observations has been done by Tom, Ozzie, Femr, OWE and others. I think NIST has been left behind by these critical thinkers. But as we all know... there is no consensus on the so called initiation... even if we better understand the collapse progression phase.

I find both of NIST's theories lacking. I find the collection of truther claims irrational, some blatantly false, misleading and unsupported... driven by unerstandable mistrust of authority.

 

[Thoreau72]

I find the NIST report to be demonstrably false on the face. And the direct result of political agenda.

 

[Mark F]

I find the NIST report to be demonstrably false on the face. And the direct result of political agenda.

And I find you to be demonstrably wrong in that opinion.

Now what?

 

[KokomoJojo]

The problem is... that when you DO present something such as NIST does and it's really nothing more than a theory... educated guess based on a bunch of assumptions it APPEARS to have the same sort of no reality base that the truther claims do... even though the truther claims are more extreme and many of them demonstrably false on the face.

To reduce the causes to mechanical damage and heat is to not EXPLAIN the mechanism and how this undid the structures and caused total collapse. THAT is what the mandate was and that is the legitimate interest of a genuine person seeking to understand... a *real* truth seeker. My take is that some excellent guess work... theories of the mechanisms based on observations has been done by Tom, Ozzie, Femr, OWE and others. I think NIST has been left behind by these critical thinkers. But as we all know... there is no consensus on the so called initiation... even if we better understand the collapse progression phase.

I find both of NIST's theories lacking. I find the collection of truther claims irrational, some blatantly false, misleading and unsupported... driven by unerstandable mistrust of authority.

but you buy into the ROOSD pancake theory that has been summarily disposed of by 'everyone' but your little group. Is that rational in your opinion?

 

[BmanMcfly]

but you buy into the ROOSD pancake theory that has been summarily disposed of by 'everyone' but your little group. Is that rational in your opinion?

Not sure if anyone else noticed this, but for all the distance they try to make from nist analysis, they seem to be using nist fire analysis data... something that I'm not sure they read through too deeply or they should have recognized the contradictions there...

 

[Mark F]

Not sure if anyone else noticed this, but for all the distance they try to make from nist analysis, they seem to be using nist fire analysis data... something that I'm not sure they read through too deeply or they should have recognized the contradictions there...

Which "they" and which FEA data is used where?

 

[ozeco41]

Not sure if anyone else noticed this, but for all the distance they try to make from nist analysis, they seem to be using nist fire analysis data... something that I'm not sure they read through too deeply or they should have recognized the contradictions there...

1) No one's analysis of progressive collapse stage for the Twin Towers uses or depends on fire analyses - and ROOSD is an explanation of "progression" for the Twin towers - not WTC7;
2) NIST's fire analyses are not needed to explain Twin Towers "initiation" stage which involved cascade failure. I'm not aware of anyone referenced by Sander OR included in the group Koko denigrates using fire analyses. The groups of colleagues including Major_Tom and femr2 specialise in observation of movements analyses.
3) NIST's fire analyses have been subject of contention in debate over WTC7. As far as I know none of the group identified and the persons named have been involved in fire analyses for WTC7. (OWE - Kat Dorman may be an exception. He is a member here and posts occasionally so may comment - he is very strong on scientific analyses - but even he not in context of the Twin Towers collapses - it is a WTC 7 area of contention.)
4) There has been very little serious discussion of the Twin Towers cascade failure and AFAICS little of that has made use of fire data.

I would echo Marks comment about identifying who the "they" is who allegedly use NIST's fire analysis data. Koko is commenting on the progression sage of "ROOSD" where I and all that group are aware that NIST did not do any analysis - so there is no way that we could use it - there nothing to use and most of those identified are opposed to relying on any reasoning based on "authority" - including NIST. We have all commented on NIST's apparent reliance on Bazant AND disagreed with Bazant in various ways.

There may be specific examples which BmanMcfly has in mind and which we could discuss - I would need more specific statements to be more precise.

My own analyses usually agree with femr and Major_Toms but often involve more factors. There re two simple reasons for that:
A) They work mostly from visual evidence in areas where others do not. If something has been seen to happen then the chance of it happening is high. (That is where Koko's claim "has been summarily disposed of by 'everyone' but your little group" is misleading. It hasn't even been considered by most - and few - certainly not most - have "dismissed" it. The academic schools are mostly committed for good or bad to Bazant. And the internet forum debunkers also tend to follow Bazant.

B) I can go further because I do not accept their usual limit that reasoning of engineering phtysics has to be restricted to what Major_Tom calls "observables". However - on the contrary - femr2, Major_Tom, and colleagues such as Achimspok and Enik have taken the analyses of "observables" much further than I ever needed to.

 

[BmanMcfly]

1) No one's analysis of progressive collapse stage for the Twin Towers uses or depends on fire analyses - and ROOSD is an explanation of "progression" for the Twin towers - not WTC7;
2) NIST's fire analyses are not needed to explain Twin Towers "initiation" stage which involved cascade failure. I'm not aware of anyone referenced by Sander OR included in the group Koko denigrates using fire analyses. The groups of colleagues including Major_Tom and femr2 specialise in observation of movements analyses.
3) NIST's fire analyses have been subject of contention in debate over WTC7. As far as I know none of the group identified and the persons named have been involved in fire analyses for WTC7. (OWE - Kat Dorman may be an exception. He is a member here and posts occasionally so may comment - he is very strong on scientific analyses - but even he not in context of the Twin Towers collapses - it is a WTC 7 area of contention.)
4) There has been very little serious discussion of the Twin Towers cascade failure and AFAICS little of that has made use of fire data.

I would echo Marks comment about identifying who the "they" is who allegedly use NIST's fire analysis data. Koko is commenting on the progression sage of "ROOSD" where I and all that group are aware that NIST did not do any analysis - so there is no way that we could use it. We have all commented on NIST's apparent reliance on Bazant AND disagreed with Bazant in various ways.

There may be specific examples which BmanMcfly has in mind and which we could discuss - I would need more specific statements to be more precise.

My own analyses usually agree with femr and Major_Toms but often involve more factors. There re two simple reasons for that:
A) They work mostly from visual evidence in areas where others do not. If something has been seen to happen then the chance of it happening is high. (That is where Koko's claim "has been summarily disposed of by 'everyone' but your little group" is misleading. It hasn't even been considered by most - and few - certainly not most - have "dismissed" it. The academic schools are mostly committed for good or bad to Bazant. And the internet forum debunkers also tend to follow Bazant.

B) I can go further because I do not accept their usual limit that reasoning of engineering phtysics has to be restricted to what Major_Tom calls "observables". However - on the contrary - femr2, Major_Tom, and colleagues such as Achimspok and Enik have taken the analyses of "observables" much further than I ever needed to.

You can go further than this Gish???

Bottom line; yes... it does depend on the fire analysis, because if the fire was not sufficient to cause the required damage, then all further analysis amounts to mental masturbation in that it satisfies yourself but doesn't mean much of anything.

 

[Mark F]

You can go further than this Gish???

Bottom line; yes... it does depend on the fire analysis, because if the fire was not sufficient to cause the required damage, then all further analysis amounts to mental masturbation in that it satisfies yourself but doesn't mean much of anything.

Too many words apparently = Gish. I suspect attention span deficit.

OR, can not rebut = Gish. Standard evasion tactic.

Or all of the above.