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

[KokomoJojo]

If you dont read the posts where your question is already answered, it aint my fault or anyone elses. It just makes your display of adhoms rather... laughable. If youre going to bothe poe'ing the thread and members you might as well emphasize quality, 'cause your posts fail to even do that.

I read the posts and Oz did not anwer the question, if you think the question was answered fine, quote it.

it appears you did not read the posts or do not understand them.

 

[Kanzaki]

That's because your questions have been addressed by more than one person. Every response to bman for example that I make, has provided a feature thats being considered for each part of the response. Maybe you dont agree with those factors or like them being talked about, but your questions have been addressed in one manner or another already.

 

[ozeco41]

That's because your questions have been addressed by more than one person. Every response to bman for example that I make, has provided a feature thats being considered for each part of the response. Maybe you dont agree with those factors or like them being talked about, but your questions have been addressed in one manner or another already.

On the specific issue his "reasoning" is so convoluted that he is actually proving the point I initially made and he is pretending to not understand. A trap he routinely puts himself into in his ongoing taunts directed at me. Self rebuttal.

 

[ozeco41]

Oops - duplicated :3oops:

 

[Mark F]

Perhaps Bob could answer (getting the thread back to the OP) if Pepper has filed his lawsuit yet, or carried out his threat to sick the European's on us.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Perhaps Bob could answer (getting the thread back to the OP) if Pepper has filed his lawsuit yet, or carried out his threat to sick the European's on us.

Thanks for conceding that I was right, and that you cannot address the issue.

Let's go back to the op...

NIST's investigation was a clear case of fraud.

That is they knew they were criminally deceptive intending to result in financial or personal gain. (In this case the gain of getting the American people to sign on to the wars and all of the post 911 reaction.)

 

[Mark F]

Thanks for conceding that I was right, and that you cannot address the issue.

What are you talking about? Post #2830 has absolutely nothing to do with you, was not addressed to you and does not involve any discussions I have had with you.

Please just stop making :censored up.

Now, if you would like to address the question of why Pepper ran away screaming from his threats to file suit and bring the mighty wrath of the dreaded European's down on us feel free.

 

[Jango]

What changes if NIST was wrong?

The so-called absolute irrefutability of their report and investigation, for starters. Secondly, depending on what they were wrong about, say, like saying (paraphrasing) "There were no witnesses to hearing explosions and there were no explosives found during our rigorous examination of all of the steel which was common to do when disaster struck something man had built and depended on and there was no molten steel, either." If they're wrong about that...there is a reason why the government has invested so much time, effort and resources into contingency operations and continuity operations. It's a unforgivable crossing of many, many legitimate red lines in our society of which people should not be expected to tolerate. What'd a person have to wait for then? What, to watch some so-and-so get blown to smithereens by a drone as he walked through a parking lot in some Small USA Town kind of place? They already got the authority to do that. They can indefinitely detain us whenever they want and do so without ever laying out any sort of charges against our person. They're into every communication medium they're aware of. Why are they doing this, what is their ultimate goal? I don't know, don't ask Unknown Unknown kind of questions. All I know is that they're doin' somethin', their legislature and decisions and orders and actions confirms it. It is not good for the average person who is going to get blindsided like a m'efer when the other shoe finally drops and the U.S. goes the way of Tsar Russia after they had taken too many terrorist attacks and collided with strong underground social movements.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wrong... Mark F and fled both are arguing that there is no sound delay.

You and the other 2 who have commented, did so in such a way that belies your claim of understanding the concept.

And then there's oz, who addressed the logic of the phrasing of what I described, claimed it was irrelevant and can't or won't substantiate.

So, claim 1 is false.

Where have I stated "there is no sound delay"?

A simple post number will suffice.

 

[Kanzaki]

Wrong... Mark F and fled both are arguing that there is no sound delay.

There are two components to your claim that are at issue:

1. 1). You were the first person to bring it up. You were the ONLY person who even cared about the topic. And for just about everybody else responding, this issue is subordinate to other, more telling features that are lacking thereby rendering the hair splitting inconsequential regardless of whether your assertion was correct, or was not. Nobody and I mean NOBODY has ever disputed the time it takes for sound to travel a fixed difference. What you're guilty of is taking a matter of fact that nobody contended.... EVER and then twisting it with your distorted capacity to analyze details.
2. 2). The sound literally didn't occur in the fashion you described, and it's a true comment. This point however, is subordinate to the first issue in that A) your argument is built on a strawman argument from its foundation and B) that because that strawman is built upon an issue subordinate to missing features explained at length, it has no consequence at all whether your assertion was correct or not

You tried incessantly to bog things down by detail, apparently thinking you could shift the burden of proof if you kept going, and when the problems with your argument became irreduble, and your falaws became irreducible, you took up bob's tactic of disregarding your critics and have begun completely ignoring any counterargument.

And then there's oz, who addressed the logic of the phrasing of what I described, claimed it was irrelevant and can't or won't substantiate.

No, everything was a addressed, down to hair splitting detail, just as you wanted and I allowed this to happen on purpose as we progressed our exchange, and others participated on their own schedule. It has shown your arguments have a fatally deficient capacity to be able to look at details objectively and logically. It's a classic demonstration of irreducible delusion.

Here's a simplified breakdown of what you did:

1. Your original argument that started this process was the "dismissal of witness testimony" [your claim]
2. I said OK, in that case let's use an example where I can't dismiss the testimony off hand by putting it into direct context. I did this eventually with BOTH WTC towers, and can do it with WTC 7 (the threads' primary topic)
3. I carefully identified what features of the witness testimony were characteristic with what can reasonably be expected, and not necessarily translate to a literal explosion.
4. I pointed out in the limiting case what litral features were missing
5. You then moved away from the witness testimony and arguing whether it was being dismissed to claiming that bombs were going off at the time of the collapse and that you could "hear it at close range
6. I and several others identified that there was no such noise of explosives

Then you moved to the micro details to bog it down further:

1. You tried to argue that the noise of explosives could be dampened by drywall/pillows, <insert favorite item here>, etc.
2. I explained to you that design materials used in construction do NOT have the capacity to dampen the sound intensity to the degree required to match what was recorded.

Continued

 

[Kanzaki]

Continued
THEN your argument went into strawman mode:

1. You then argued that the sound travels at a specific speed. <<-- Agreed, but irrelevant and inconsequential
2. You then argued that the sound started several seconds before moving of the building was visible, and repeated the claim that the sounds were dampened. <-- I stated this was still not consequential because the noise levels still didn't support explosive charges detonating. I explained numerous other missing features you lacked.
3. I looked further to see how one could come to your conlclusion, and found that you viewed the video and skimmed over very obvious circumstances and your observation was deficient

Once your visual analysis of the video was pointed out to be deficient, you attempted to derail the prognosis with a personal attack on mine, and other people's character. And then went into repetition of you claims, issues with witness testimony and the issue of your interpretation of them long be damned

And finally the last stage of the exchange, you have adopted Bob's stance on every peer that responds to your argument in what you perceive to be a negative way. You've decided to no longer consider any rebuttal whatsoever.

It appears that what I was looking into these last couple of weeks has no ambiguity anymore.

Lmao... you guys will grasp at anything, say absolutely anything to not actually demonstrating that I'm wrong in any way.
Watch the video again, there is nothing assumed.

From your angle I'm sure you legitimately believe this. But from an outsider's perspective your argument is irreducibly flawed.

Go back to the video... When the camera pans up to the top of the building, there's a fraction of a second before it drops.... as in you see it when there's still no movement and then it starts to drop.

And this claim is the fatal deficiency. It's been sufficiently described, and you've demonstrated that you plan to stick with it anyway. That's what it means for the delusion to be irreducible. Because from here the debate will do nothing but go in circles, and the original starting claim that the exchange was derived from - illustrating the deficiencies in your interpretation of witness testimony has been completely and utterly lost.

The second collapse, by the time the camera pans over, the building had already started moving, so that one would be more difficult to get precise timing.

Inconsequential. The speed of sound does not determine the cause of the sound. The latter which conspicuously lacks a sound element that is irrevocably a charactistic of explosives discharging. Period. Again this demonstrates your inability to focus of the content of the rebuttals you've been responding to.

I wish you guys could actually address things in a real and honest way... somehow I knew that one glimmer of honesty in the past 10 or more pages was all I would get

I'm looking for just one debunker to honestly address the issue... seriously, how hard is it to show I'm wrong, that's show not just claim. You started on the path, sure, but then you preferred to attack my description rather than demonstrating that I was wrong.

And then finally this is the kicker....

Thanks for conceding that I was right, and that you cannot address the issue.

Let's go back to the op...

NIST's investigation was a clear case of fraud.

That is they knew they were criminally deceptive intending to result in financial or personal gain. (In this case the gain of getting the American people to sign on to the wars and all of the post 911 reaction.)

A verdict of guilty in a kangeroo court mentality that would make North Korea proud.

 

[Fledermaus]

Kanzaki best laid out the case for why your claim of a sound delay is fatally flawed. I notice you ignored him and instead went after Fledermaus and myself. Why is that? So you'd get a thumbs-up from Bob who wouldn't notice?

I am wondering where I was "arguing that there is no sound delay".

Could this be another....

 

[Fledermaus]

That is they knew they were criminally deceptive intending to result in financial or personal gain. (In this case the gain of getting the American people to sign on to the wars and all of the post 911 reaction.)

Interesting ACCUSATION...

Any FACTS to back that up?

 

[Mark F]

The so-called absolute irrefutability of their report and investigation, for starters.

What so-called absolute irrefutability of their report and investigation? Who is making such a claim? NIST isn't. They refer to their conclusions on Building 7 for example as a "probable collapse scenario".

Secondly, depending on what they were wrong about, say, like saying (paraphrasing) "There were no witnesses to hearing explosions and there were no explosives found during our rigorous examination of all of the steel which was common to do when disaster struck something man had built and depended on and there was no molten steel, either." If they're wrong about that...there is a reason why the government has invested so much time, effort and resources into contingency operations and continuity operations. It's a unforgivable crossing of many, many legitimate red lines in our society of which people should not be expected to tolerate. What'd a person have to wait for then? What, to watch some so-and-so get blown to smithereens by a drone as he walked through a parking lot in some Small USA Town kind of place? They already got the authority to do that. They can indefinitely detain us whenever they want and do so without ever laying out any sort of charges against our person. They're into every communication medium they're aware of. Why are they doing this, what is their ultimate goal? I don't know, don't ask Unknown Unknown kind of questions. All I know is that they're doin' somethin', their legislature and decisions and orders and actions confirms it. It is not good for the average person who is going to get blindsided like a m'efer when the other shoe finally drops and the U.S. goes the way of Tsar Russia after they had taken too many terrorist attacks and collided with strong underground social movements.

Now I think we've wandered a bit off the reservation.

So if NIST was wrong, does that mean fire did not destroy 7 World Trade Center? Does NIST being wrong about a detail retroactively change things that have already happened?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Gish Gallop much.. I'll see what I can address..

There are two components to your claim that are at issue:

1. 1). You were the first person to bring it up. You were the ONLY person who even cared about the topic. And for just ...ded.... EVER and then twisting it with your distorted capacity to analyze details.

1. 
   
   1- others have brought up sound delay issues, maybe not in this forum.
   
   It's one of those where it can be forgotten because most people don't consider the scales of the building and the distances of the cameras.
   
   However, once it's noticed, it's like someone pointing out the glare on the TV screen... Once you see it, you can't ignore it.
   
   

   [*]2). The sound literally didn't occur in ...as correct or not

Ok... then correct the sequence.

Until then your opinions have been noted and discarded.

You tried incessantly to bog t....ument.

So far, all I've seen are naked claims and opinions presented as fact.

The funny part is that you show that video of proof that there was no explosions... so, instead of a video where you expect to hear the building start to collapse, look up and the building is already in motion...

It's sound, look up to see the movement start.

For someone that accused me of not understanding cause and effect, you sure are taking some liberties.

No, everything was a addressed, ....stration of irreducible delusion.

Yes, I know... you are of the opinion that it had to be louder, because explosions from a building with no walls in a controlled demolition was louder.

Here's a simplified breakdown of what you did:

1. Your original argument that started this ...
2. I and several others identified that there was no such noise of explosives

It's funny to hear / read the debunker thought process.

I'll repeat one more time : naked assertions and opinions are not facts that hold weight... on every issue, the dismissals are just that, even for the numerous claims that were posited that were shown to not even be plausible explanations.

Then you moved to the micro details to bog it down further:
...ecorded.
[/LIST]

Continued

So, do you plan these strawman arguments, or do they just come out without realizing it?

Continued
...viewed the video and skimmed over very obvious circumstances and your observation was deficient
[/LIST]

More naked claims and opinions...

Once your visual analysis of the video ...onsider any rebuttal whatsoever.

That's funny because you guys have each made claims that you do not understand the concepts, simple as they are... so far, only one actually expressed that he understood the time it takes for sound to travel...

It appears that what I was looking into these last couple of weeks .... content of the rebuttals you've been responding to.

More of the same. ..

And then finally this is the kicker....


A verdict of guilty in a kangeroo court mentality that would make North Korea proud.

Go back to the op, that gives a solid and detailed explanation of why it is fraud and not simple incompetence.

And again, NIST are experts among experts... so, for them to have put things as flawed as you pretend the report is not, can only be a matter of intention. Making it fraud by definition, and you were effectively claiming that the definition of fraud is not the definition of fraud.

 

[Mark F]

Go back to the op, that gives a solid and detailed explanation of why it is fraud and not simple incompetence.

Why? The OP (just a recitation of standard Szamboti/Pepper claims) is not only fundamentally wrong but could not identify any victims of said fraud.

And again, NIST are experts among experts... so, for them to have put things as flawed as you pretend the report is not, can only be a matter of intention. Making it fraud by definition, and you were effectively claiming that the definition of fraud is not the definition of fraud.

Indeed, NIST are experts among experts. Yet the only people accusing them of fraud are decidedly non-experts. So, is the problem NIST or their accusers?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Why? The OP (just a recitation of standard Szamboti/Pepper claims) is not only fundamentally wrong but could not identify any victims of said fraud.



Indeed, NIST are experts among experts. Yet the only people accusing them of fraud are decidedly non-experts. So, is the problem NIST or their accusers?

It just speaks to how flagrantly flawed the report is, that it just takes reading the report with a semblance of critical thought of what you are reading to see the flaws.

 

[Kanzaki]

1- others have brought up sound delay issues, maybe not in this forum.

Don't care. I don't, and never have contested with you how long it takes for sound to reach a destination, and therefore you had no reason to pretend it was an issue in this thread. End of story. You'v been trying to make it stick to me and I',m making it perfectly clear, that it's NOT...MY...CRITERIA. And you will not get around that.

...so, instead of a video where you expect to hear the building start to collapse, look up and the building is already in motion... It's sound, look up to see the movement start.

You were musing on how I "make naked claims and opinions"... Forgive me if I do find it rather ironic that you would be acting in the manner in which you accuse me of writing. It's not just this segment but the previous one quoted immediately above.

Yes, I know... you are of the opinion that it had to be louder, because explosions from a building with no walls in a controlled demolition was louder.

No, louder because wall assemblies have an STC rating assigned by manufactures that architects and engineers use when sound attenuation is an issue in a building's construction. Typical drywall assemblies average an STC of ~40, which is far from enough to dampen sound in the manner you're essentially arguing it did, let alone from something that produces sound at the magnitude of 120 decibels from a quarter mile away.

Moreover, adding any level of accoustical dampening to significantly reduce that requires special construction assemblies that A) increase the thickness of the walls rather substantially and B)were never used in any of the WTC.

Moreover again the above accounts for an intact assembly, not one that's been severely breached. I'm going to be blunt; you really have no fllipping idea what you're talking about in the slightest. You're trying to debate in territory that requires a degree of proficiency in the profession, which you don't have.

I'll repeat one more time : naked assertions and opinions are not facts that hold weight... on every issue, the dismissals are just that, even for the numerous claims that were posited that were shown to not even be plausible explanations.

Sir, I'm about 99.9% sure that you had no idea before my mentioning in this post what an STC rating is or how acoustical attenuation in buildings is applied [look it up yourself, I'm not bothered to get into it for this thread]. So if you're going to continue labeling my posts as naked opinions you better be damn well prepared to deal with details which you almost certainly have no experience discussing. You can begin by listing a few examples of technical details I've discussed that you consider "naked"

So, do you plan these strawman arguments...

You have yet to demonstrate which arguments I've made that you consider strawmen.

That's funny because you guys have each made claims that you do not understand the concepts

I get these comments a lot from subjects such as yourself who know less than they think. I don't care for your personal feelings about me or other posters, but if you're going to throw this accusation around, start getting specific. The kid gloves are off, start being specific.

simple as they are... so far, only one actually expressed that he understood the time it takes for sound to travel...

Everybody knows it takes ~1.2 seconds give or take for the sound to travel 1/4 mile. So you have nothing to latch onto here. Readers of your posts on the other hand have seen a demonstration of your knowledge deficiency in design, engineering, construction methods, explosives, general critical thinking, not to mention your personal insults in the process of a debate. And I can name specific examples of your deficiencies in these topics such as your inability to make reasoned connections (I.E. explosives cause loud noise, trauma, they eject high speed shrapnel that can seriously maim or kill onlookers, etc.) and yet you can't do the same?

 

[ozeco41]

Why? The OP (just a recitation of standard Szamboti/Pepper claims) is not only fundamentally wrong but could not identify any victims of said fraud.

"Fraud" is a legal claim. 284x posts after the OP and still the elements of the offence have not been made out.

The OP claim is based on a technical claim originating with T Szamboti.
1) That technical claim has been shown by others to be technically false in multiple aspects at detailed engineering level;
2) I and a couple of other members of forums have shown Mr Szamboti where his technical claim fails because he relies on an unproven assumption. (Personally I have not wasted effort showing him where his errors of detail are - I left that to others. Since it is his claim - his burden of proof - his claim is not made out until he proves his assumptions.)

There are several higher level faults with the technical claim including that the central issue Mr Szamboti relies on has not been shown to be significant. It also fails until Mr Szamboti bears the burden of proof and shows that the issue is both a true claim AND significant.

Indeed, NIST are experts among experts. Yet the only people accusing them of fraud are decidedly non-experts. So, is the problem NIST or their accusers?

The issue is actually a full grade more fundamental. Irrespective of who is right or wrong or any appeals to authority the test is "Are the claims correct?" AKA are they proven. They aren't.

Neither "fraud" not the underlying technical claim of error have been made out.

The OP fails - as it did before post #21

 

[KokomoJojo]

"Fraud" is a legal claim. 284x posts after the OP and still the elements of the offence have not been made out.

The OP claim is based on a technical claim originating with T Szamboti.
1) That technical claim has been shown by others to be technically false in multiple aspects at detailed engineering level;
2) I and a couple of other members of forums have shown Mr Szamboti where his technical claim fails because he relies on an unproven assumption. (Personally I have not wasted effort showing him where his errors of detail are - I left that to others. Since it is his claim - his burden of proof - his claim is not made out until he proves his assumptions.)

There are several higher level faults with the technical claim including that the central issue Mr Szamboti relies on has not been shown to be significant. It also fails until Mr Szamboti bears the burden of proof and shows that the issue is both a true claim AND significant.

The issue is actually a full grade more fundamental. Irrespective of who is right or wrong or any appeals to authority the test is "Are the claims correct?" AKA are they proven. They aren't.

Neither "fraud" not the underlying technical claim of error have been made out.

The OP fails - as it did before post #21

but you have done what? replaced it with YOUR UNPROVEN SET OF ASSUMPTIONS.

The pancake theory including your modified ROOSD pancake theory was thrown out and dismissed long time ago.

Otherwise while I can see fraud, its much harder to prosecute than willful or criminal negligence which is the term I would have used.

in FACT you cant even prove any columns collapsed by fire much less which ones. One gigantic ASSumption.

 

[Bob0627]

Otherwise while I can see fraud, its much harder to prosecute than willful or criminal negligence which is the term I would have used.

But since this is not a court of law and since any fool should be able to recognize FRAUD, the term fully describes what it is. However, another legal term that could be used regarding NIST is "complicity" (to cover up a massive crime).

 

[Mark F]

It just speaks to how flagrantly flawed the report is, that it just takes reading the report with a semblance of critical thought of what you are reading to see the flaws.

OK. So what?

NIST could be wrong in every single detail but that does nothing to change the fact 7 World Trade Center collapsed due to prolonged exposure to fire in excess of design limits. Even before the building actually fell that was already known. City engineers and firefighters at the scene could see what was happening to the building and knew what was likely coming. Nothing NIST says can change what actually happened. Thus, NISTpicking is a collosal waste of time if you want to try and prove anything else. If you want to prove anything else (and I know you do) NISTpicking will get you the same place as it has everyone else over the last 6-7 years,... absolutely nowhere. To prove anything else you need to ignore NIST and get about proving anything else.

 

[ozeco41]

OK. So what?

NIST could be wrong in every single detail but that does nothing to change the fact 7 World Trade Center collapsed due to prolonged exposure to fire in excess of design limits. Even before the building actually fell that was already known. City engineers and firefighters at the scene could see what was happening to the building and knew what was likely coming. Nothing NIST says can change what actually happened. Thus, NISTpicking is a collosal waste of time if you want to try and prove anything else. If you want to prove anything else (and I know you do) NISTpicking will get you the same place as it has everyone else over the last 6-7 years,... absolutely nowhere. To prove anything else you need to ignore NIST and get about proving anything else.

So true. My usual reference to Santa's Custard should follow.

The facts of WTC collapses were written in the pages of history on 9/11. No report written years later can change history. The stupidity of such claims - or implied claims - is easily seen by "reductio ad bleeding ridiculous". If a years later report COULD change history all we need do is get NIST to report that the WTC Towers did not collapse. And PRESTO. The Towers are still there. Would cause a bit of confusion now given that there is a new tower in the same location. But that's me not thinking like a truther. :roll:

 

[KokomoJojo]

So true. My usual reference to Santa's Custard should follow.

The facts of WTC collapses were written in the pages of history on 9/11. No report written years later can change history. The stupidity of such claims - or implied claims - is easily seen by "reductio ad bleeding ridiculous". If a years later report COULD change history all we need do is get NIST to report that the WTC Towers did not collapse. And PRESTO. The Towers are still there. Would cause a bit of confusion now given that there is a new tower in the same location. But that's me not thinking like a truther. :roll:

its great to see you are back to posting more of that complex analysis your team did, "it faw down" which exactly your explanation and whole argument in a nutshell. LOL

 

[505]

Go back to the video... When the camera pans up to the top of the building, there's a fraction of a second before it drops, as in you see it when there's still no movement and then it starts to drop.

Ok then prove it. Otherwise my last post still stands and you haven't countered it with anything whatsoever.