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

[KokomoJojo]

The EVIDENCE is in NIST's contradictory reports, contradictory and unsubstantiated claims, deliberate omissions and distortions, failure to investigate, failure to carry out their primary objective or even attempt it and just about every aspect of NIST's involvement. The first 3 posts in this forum as well as many others including the most recent ones in the AE911T series elaborate in detail.

worse they simply turned their nose up and publicly lied!

They should all stand trial and rot in jail for this level of fraud.

 

[Bob0627]

Do NOT try put words in my mouth Bob ... it fails, your "spin" at what I actually said fails.

When you have to do such dishonest tactics it shows you have NOTHING better.

I NEVER said any such thing.

NIST are the relevant experts and your silly wee misrepresentitive image link does NOT refute that ... for since, in the real world, the collapse WAS initiated by fire weakening the structure your attempt at point scoring is moot and fails utterly






No, Bob you just dishonestly cherry-picked the bits you think help prove your case ... they DON'T.

NIST did NOT break any part of their remit whatsoever.

So then you haven't made a case that NIST were the experts required to investigate the collapse of the 3 towers since NIST's expertise specifically excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire. You also haven't made a case that denies that NIST was chosen specifically because their expertise excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

So then you haven't made a case that NIST were the experts required to investigate the collapse of the 3 towers since NIST's expertise specifically excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire. You also haven't made a case that denies that NIST was chosen specifically because their expertise excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire.

I don't have to Bob ... for since the collapses WERE initiated by fires which weakened the structure to the point of failure then I am right on the button.

Since YOU Bob are the one claiming they were not the correct agency then the burden and responsiblity of proof falls to YOU to show YOUR claims right.

YOU claim they were not right to do so since YOU claim they stepped out their remit due to your IMPLICATION the collapses were somehow not initiated by the fires ... so YOUR job to prove it was not the fires that triggered collapse then.

Please now do so ... thank you ????

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Oh! and your silly wee picture link is NOT proof that NIST could not look into collapses by fire either ...

 

[KokomoJojo]

I don't have to Bob ... for since the collapses WERE initiated by fires which weakened the structure to the point of failure then I am right on the button.

thats a media determination that nist adopted. LOL

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

worse they simply turned their nose up and publicly lied!

They should all stand trial and rot in jail for this level of fraud.

So WHAT EXACTLY is stopping you from trying to go to court then and prove your case !!!

Or do you just prefer to whine endlessly on the internet instead !!!

 

[Fledermaus]

So then you haven't made a case that NIST were the experts required to investigate the collapse of the 3 towers since NIST's expertise specifically excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire. You also haven't made a case that denies that NIST was chosen specifically because their expertise excludes progressive collapse not initiated by fire.

What other factors are there?

No explosives, nukes, thermite etc were found.

 

[Bob0627]

I don't have to Bob ... for since the collapses WERE initiated by fires which weakened the structure to the point of failure then I am right on the button.

You asked:

Who else had the expertise to do so then ???

as a response to the fact that NIST's expertise excludes collapses not initiated by fire. Your opinion that the collapses were initiated by fire is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with NIST's area of expertise or lack thereof. If NIST's area of expertise excludes anything that might compromise its investigation due to its limitations, then NIST is not the correct body to investigate the collapses. That there is or isn't anyone else whose area of expertise encompasses all possibilities for building collapses doesn't change the FACT that NIST does not have such expertise by its own stated limitations. You don't have to do anything to support your opinions, it's obvious you don't want to because you can't. All you seem to be able to do is throw out any red herring you believe lends support to your opinions. Unfortunately red herrings support nothing and only serve as deliberate diversions.

Since YOU Bob are the one claiming they were not the correct agency then the burden and responsiblity of proof falls to YOU to show YOUR claims right.

And that's exactly what I did by showing that NIST itself shows it isn't the correct body due to its own limitations.

YOU claim they were not right to do so since YOU claim they stepped out their remit due to your IMPLICATION the collapses were somehow not initiated by the fires

That's incorrect. I claimed that NIST was not the proper investigatory body because NIST's area of expertise is LIMITED to collapses initiated by fire. An investigatory body investigating the collapse of one or more buildings should have no limitations that would compromise its investigation with respect to building collapses. As an analogy, you do understand that a neurosurgeon is not the proper physician to diagnose heart disease, right?

... so YOUR job to prove it was not the fires that triggered collapse then.

Please now do so ... thank you ????

Nonsense, it's just another one of your red herring claims that has nothing to do with NIST's limited area of expertise.

 

[Bob0627]

Oh! and your silly wee picture link is NOT proof that NIST could not look into collapses by fire either ...

It's not MY "silly wee picture", it belongs to NIST. Yet more red herrings. And it is absolute proof that NIST was not the proper body to investigate building collapses due to its limitations.

 

[Fledermaus]

You asked:



as a response to the fact that NIST's expertise excludes collapses not initiated by fire. Your opinion that the collapses were initiated by fire is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with NIST's area of expertise or lack thereof. If NIST's area of expertise excludes anything that might compromise its investigation due to its limitations, then NIST is not the correct body to investigate the collapses. That there is or isn't anyone else whose area of expertise encompasses all possibilities for building collapses doesn't change the FACT that NIST does not have such expertise by its own stated limitations. You don't have to do anything to support your opinions, it's obvious you don't want to because you can't. All you seem to be able to do is throw out any red herring you believe lends support to your opinions. Unfortunately red herrings support nothing and only serve as deliberate diversions.



And that's exactly what I did by showing that NIST itself shows it isn't the correct body due to its own limitations.



That's incorrect. I claimed that NIST was not the proper investigatory body because NIST's area of expertise is LIMITED to collapses initiated by fire. An investigatory body investigating the collapse of one or more buildings should have no limitations that would compromise its investigation with respect to building collapses. As an analogy, you do understand that a neurosurgeon is not the proper physician to diagnose heart disease, right?



Nonsense, it's just another one of your red herring claims that has nothing to do with NIST's limited area of expertise.

You keep ignoring the FACT that the FBI investigated and would have found any EVIDENCE for explosives.

Why do you continue to ignore tbat FACT?

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

as a response to the fact that NIST's expertise excludes collapses not initiated by fire. Your opinion that the collapses were initiated by fire is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with NIST's area of expertise or lack thereof. If NIST's area of expertise excludes anything that might compromise its investigation due to its limitations, then NIST is not the correct body to investigate the collapses. That there is or isn't anyone else whose area of expertise encompasses all possibilities for building collapses doesn't change the FACT that NIST does not have such expertise by its own stated limitations. You don't have to do anything to support your opinions, it's obvious you don't want to because you can't. All you seem to be able to do is throw out any red herring you believe lends support to your opinions. Unfortunately red herrings support nothing and only serve as deliberate diversions.

Wee hint ... it is NOT just my "opinion" that NIST are initiated by fire ... but instead DOCUMENTED fact ... told by (unlike you) an EXPERT body whose understanding is AGREED with by the wider engineering community ... so much so that international building codes were changed to REFLECT NIST's findings.

These bodies KNOW more about this than you ever could and so I count THEIR "opinion" far, far, far in excess of yours or any other truthers.hey

Unlike your truther "experts" they ARE the right kind of experts to comment.

The rest was just all petulant empty noise.

And that's exactly what I did by showing that NIST itself shows it isn't the correct body due to its own limitations.

Except you DIDN'T Bob ... you showed a SELECTIVE image from a Powerpoint ... that is NOT hard factual documentation NIST were out their remit.

That's incorrect. I claimed that NIST was not the proper investigatory body because NIST's area of expertise is LIMITED to collapses initiated by fire. An investigatory body investigating the collapse of one or more buildings should have no limitations that would compromise its investigation with respect to building collapses. As an analogy, you do understand that a neurosurgeon is not the proper physician to diagnose heart disease, right?

Yet the collapses WERE initiated by fire ... as acknowledged by INTERNATIONAL building codes and agencies whom are expert in structures ... and NOTHING you say or bring will EVER change that simple harsh fact.

You should hold true to your analogy too ... for you "listen" to your truther gods whom are most certainly NOT speaking within their field of expertise.

Gage ... the lowly crappy ARCHITECT whom has NEVER built anything higher than a school gym ... yet you lot listen to HIS "diagnosis" of structural failure.

Griffin ... the THEOLOGIAN ... yet you lot listen to HIS "diagnosis" of structural failure.

Avery ... TEENAGE DROP-OUT ... yet you lot listen to HIS "diagnosis" of structural failure.

The utter irony of your analogy will pass you by !!!

Nonsense, it's just another one of your red herring claims that has nothing to do with NIST's limited area of expertise.

Nope ... for burden of proof in all this DOES fall to YOU as the claimant of the opposing side ... YOU are the one going AGAINST the accepted narrative so it IS YOUR job to prove YOUR claims.

 

[Bob0627]

Wee hint ... it is NOT just my "opinion" that NIST are initiated by fire

It is in this forum. The discussion is with you. That others share your opinion is irrelevant.

... but instead DOCUMENTED fact ... told by (unlike you) an EXPERT body whose understanding is AGREED with by the wider engineering community ... so much so that international building codes were changed to REFLECT NIST's findings.

That it is documented is true. That it is fact is untrue because not only does NIST admit it's only a theory, is it a theory based on scientific fraud but it is in dispute by thousands of experts and others. That it is agreed with by the wider engineering community is unsupported.

That building codes were changed to reflect NIST's findings is only barely true and untrue for the most critical aspects.

NIST had to admit that ICC did not adopt the recommendations that called for building professionals to “address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse.”[12]

In a January, 2011 letter to NIST, the ICC confirmed that this was still the case.[13] The only code changes that ICC adopted were:

“1) Luminous egress path marking required; 2) exit stairway enclosures required to be separated by no less than 30 feet; 3) enhanced inspection requirements for Sprayed-on Fire-Resistant Material (SFRM).”

And for buildings higher than 420 feet,

“1)Increased bond strength for SFRM; 2) a second, additional exit stairway, with a minimum separation between stairwells; 3) a requirement to increase structural integrity of exit enclosures and elevator hoist enclosures; 4) redundant sprinkler system risers with alternate floor requirements.”

Of these changes, only the two related to SFRM can be seen as linked to the official account of the collapse of the buildings. But even these changes were not planned for addition to the IBC code until release of the 2012 edition. Apparently the concerns about the SFRM and its bond strength were not that great.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? | Dig Within

These bodies KNOW more about this than you ever could and so I count THEIR "opinion" far, far, far in excess of yours or any other truthers.hey

Unlike your truther "experts" they ARE the right kind of experts to comment.

The rest was just all petulant empty noise.

That works the same way for you. I don't own any "truther experts", it's just another strawman. I could say the same about the noise coming from you.

Except you DIDN'T Bob ... you showed a SELECTIVE image from a Powerpoint ... that is NOT hard factual documentation NIST were out their remit.

The "selective image" belongs to NIST, I didn't manufacture it and it is very specific. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that NIST admits it has no jurisdiction to investigate building collapses initiated by anything other than fire.

Yet the collapses WERE initiated by fire ... as acknowledged by INTERNATIONAL building codes and agencies whom are expert in structures ... and NOTHING you say or bring will EVER change that simple harsh fact.

You are creating a strawman link based on your opinion and a fallacy. That the collapses were initiated by fire has never been proven. In fact, even NIST states that it's a theory, not fact. That the building code changes acknowledge that the collapses were initiated by fire is an unsupported/false correlation, it's just your opinion.

The rest of your post is garbage not worthy of a response.

 

[Fledermaus]

It is in this forum. The discussion is with you. That others share your opinion is irrelevant.

That it is documented is true. That it is fact is untrue because not only does NIST admit it's only a theory, is it a theory based on scientific fraud but it is in dispute by thousands of experts and others. That it is agreed with by the wider engineering community is unsupported.

That building codes were changed to reflect NIST's findings is only barely true and untrue for the most critical aspects.

NIST had to admit that ICC did not adopt the recommendations that called for building professionals to “address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse.”[12]

In a January, 2011 letter to NIST, the ICC confirmed that this was still the case.[13] The only code changes that ICC adopted were:

“1) Luminous egress path marking required; 2) exit stairway enclosures required to be separated by no less than 30 feet; 3) enhanced inspection requirements for Sprayed-on Fire-Resistant Material (SFRM).”

And for buildings higher than 420 feet,

“1)Increased bond strength for SFRM; 2) a second, additional exit stairway, with a minimum separation between stairwells; 3) a requirement to increase structural integrity of exit enclosures and elevator hoist enclosures; 4) redundant sprinkler system risers with alternate floor requirements.”

Of these changes, only the two related to SFRM can be seen as linked to the official account of the collapse of the buildings. But even these changes were not planned for addition to the IBC code until release of the 2012 edition. Apparently the concerns about the SFRM and its bond strength were not that great.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? | Dig Within



That works the same way for you. I don't own any "truther experts", it's just another strawman. I could say the same about the noise coming from you.

The "selective image" belongs to NIST, I didn't manufacture it and it is very specific. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that NIST admits it has no jurisdiction to investigate building collapses initiated by anything other than fire.


You are creating a strawman link based on your opinion and a fallacy. That the collapses were initiated by fire has never been proven. In fact, even NIST states that it's a theory, not fact. That the building code changes acknowledge that the collapses were initiated by fire is an unsupported/false correlation, it's just your opinion.

The rest of your post is garbage not worthy of a response.

Dig Within.... The blog of Kevin Ryan

The liar Kevin Ryan? The person who clearly lied about what UL did or did not certify? The Kevin Ryan?

Screw Loose Change: Loose Screw #3--Kevin Ryan of Underwriter's Laboratories

 

[NWO_Spook]

... for burden of proof in all this DOES fall to YOU as the claimant of the opposing side ... YOU are the one going AGAINST the accepted narrative so it IS YOUR job to prove YOUR claims.

You are wasting your time explain 'burden of proof' to those who support 9/11 truth, as they have no understanding of the concept.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

It is in this forum. The discussion is with you. That others share your opinion is irrelevant.

Yet the FACT remains that NIST were within their remit as the collapses WERE initiated by fire.

That it is documented is true. That it is fact is untrue because not only does NIST admit it's only a theory, is it a theory based on scientific fraud but it is in dispute by thousands of experts and others. That it is agreed with by the wider engineering community is unsupported.

You seem to be applying the LAY understanding of the word "theory" here ...



And wrong too for what NIST says is NOT in "dispute" by thousands of experts whatsover.

And no, people whom have signed that stupid eternal PETITION of Gages do not count ... it is a petition for a NEW investigation and NOT calling out NIST ...

Wrong also on claiming it is not supported by the wider engineering community ... it is ... as seen by the many PROPER science papers, conference proceedings and other such professional discussions which all have NOT called doubt upon the official narrative.

That building codes were changed to reflect NIST's findings is only barely true and untrue for the most critical aspects.

Yet the FACT remains, codes HAVE been changed, and your opinion on them counts not and does NOT change any of that there HAVE been changes, specifically citing NIST's recommendations.

That works the same way for you. I don't own any "truther experts", it's just another strawman. I could say the same about the noise coming from you.

Yet everything you believe in here has COME from what they have told you ... difference between us is that my understanding DOES come from those properly qualified and credible whilst your sides comes from NON-EXPERTS all speaking outwith their areas of actual expertise ... as shown by you linking the BLOG of Kevin Ryan ... aka Waterboy and a known proven LIAR.

Someone NOT QUALIFIED in any way to speak about building codes and so whose WORTHLESS OPINION means sod all really.

The fact remains codes HAVE been changed and no truther words will change that simple factual reality ... especially that cretin Kevin Ryans.

The "selective image" belongs to NIST, I didn't manufacture it and it is very specific. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that NIST admits it has no jurisdiction to investigate building collapses initiated by anything other than fire.

So what ... it is still NOT hard factual documented proof that NIST were out their remit ... show the REST of the slides to see context, for ONE out-of-context slide does NOT count as hard documented proof here.

You are creating a strawman link based on your opinion and a fallacy. That the collapses were initiated by fire has never been proven. In fact, even NIST states that it's a theory, not fact. That the building code changes acknowledge that the collapses were initiated by fire is an unsupported/false correlation, it's just your opinion.

Nope, for UNLIKE your camps "opinions" at least mine are FROM credible sources and genuine relevent experts.

Learn too the science understanding and NOT the lay persons of the word "theory".

The rest of your post is garbage not worthy of a response.

Reality ... you have NOTHING to refute the truth of it.

 

[Bob0627]

Yet the FACT remains ... denial, denial, denial from the professional denier

I've already commented on all your unsupported, denial OPINIONS, the facts speak for themselves. Some highlights:

1. That NIST has no jurisdiction to investigate building collapses not initiated by fire is supported by NIST's own declaration.

2. That the NIST reports are strictly collapse initiation theories is described by NIST itself. Your like minded buddies have often reminded me that's what it was in many of their posts. In the case of the twins, a one-liner claiming the "global collapse was inevitable" is not even science within our understanding of what science is. In fact, I went over this in other posts. NIST published a report and stated it was a collapse initiation theory and the intent was to get the gullible to believe it was fact. Thanks for proving my point.

3. That thousands of experts dispute NIST and its collapse initiation theory is a fact supported by many websites, papers, videos, etc. Rejection/denial of these people's expertise and professional opinions supported by other facts via your anonymous opinion and silly quips (e.g. "waterboy") is just that, it doesn't change the facts.

These are just some highlights. I won't go down this road again because I would just be repeating the many points I've already posted that you just deny ad nauseum. In fact, I'm going to categorize you in the same class as all the other professional deniers in this forum who spend nearly every single day defending the OCT and the storytellers and never question anything significant about it. I'll respond selectively. This kind of mindset is not realistic so I'm not dealing with someone who is genuine, that's obvious.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I've already commented on all your unsupported, denial OPINIONS, the facts speak for themselves. Some highlights:

1. That NIST has no jurisdiction to investigate building collapses not initiated by fire is supported by NIST's own declaration.

2. That the NIST reports are strictly collapse initiation theories is described by NIST itself. Your like minded buddies have often reminded me that's what it was in many of their posts. In the case of the twins, a one-liner claiming the "global collapse was inevitable" is not even science within our understanding of what science is. In fact, I went over this in other posts. NIST published a report and stated it was a collapse initiation theory and the intent was to get the gullible to believe it was fact. Thanks for proving my point.

3. That thousands of experts dispute NIST and its collapse initiation theory is a fact supported by many websites, papers, videos, etc. Rejection/denial of these people's expertise and professional opinions supported by other facts via your anonymous opinion and silly quips (e.g. "waterboy") is just that, it doesn't change the facts.

These are just some highlights. I won't go down this road again because I would just be repeating the many points I've already posted that you just deny ad nauseum. In fact, I'm going to categorize you in the same class as all the other professional deniers in this forum who spend nearly every single day defending the OCT and the storytellers and never question anything significant about it. I'll respond selectively. This kind of mindset is not realistic so I'm not dealing with someone who is genuine, that's obvious.

Nope ... YOUR unqualified, un-expert that NIST were not the correct body is NOTHING but your valueless opinion.

And no, you do NOT have thousands of experts or real science papers or anything that disputes that.

Wee hint ... posting anything from the J.O.N.E.S does NOT count ... nor that crappy pay-to=publish vanity rag Bentham.

You do NOT have one actual relevAnt expert whom has done anything like a proper professional level of work in all this ... sorry, but you DON'T.

The rest is just a whine BECAUSE you cannot factually show me wrong.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

2. That the NIST reports are strictly collapse initiation theories is described by NIST itself. .

Wee hint ... NIST use the word theory in scientific terms ... you apply LAY ones to it.

 

[Bob0627]

The continuing saga of NIST's massive fraud in reference to its WTC7 "investigation" and contradictory reports. This article series shows how Popular Mechanics perpetuated various myths originally proposed by NIST, some later abandoned/retracted and/or drastically changed from NIST's 2004 report. Please refer to Post #2960 for the previous episode:

#4 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

NIST's fairy tales about these two contributing factors to the collapse — the trusses and a diesel fire — were clearly as ill-founded as the story about the non-existent 10-story gouge.

PART 3: Trusses & Tanks — Popular Mechanics Helps NIST Create More Myths

(excerpt)

The 2005 Popular Mechanics article referred to in PART 1 and PART 2 propped up NIST's myths about WTC 7 in yet other ways. It said, for instance, that NIST was continuing to investigate two possible contributing factors that may have helped the (non-existent) 10-story gouge destroy the building.

The first of these two alleged contributing factors, according to PM, was the supposed ability of the trusses on Floor 5 and Floor 7 to transfer stress from the damaged south face to the rest of the building.

PM wrote: "First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities."

The trusses did in fact transfer loads between core columns, but they had nothing to do with the perimeter frame. The PM magazine editors, however, gave that false impression when they paired together two unrelated statements about the trusses and the damage to the south face.

The magazine authors seem to have wanted readers to believe that localized failure of columns on the south face of the building would naturally lead, by way of the trusses, to failure of columns on other faces of the building, and thus the collapse of the entire building. But PM supplied few details, and with good reason: The claim conflicted with NIST's 2004 progress report, which had made the point that "[a]nalysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas." Even more tellingly, the 2004 report had contended that the perimeter frame itself would redistribute loads due to damaged columns on the south face, and that this load distribution would prevent progressive failure and maintain the integrity of the "global structure." PM's alleged team of "professional fact checkers" missed this one too.

The second of these two contributing factors, according to the PM article, was a hypothetical seven-hour, diesel-fueled fire on the fifth floor.

Sunder told Popular Mechanics that this fifth-floor fire lasted up to seven hours, but the whole story was wishful thinking on his part.

Here's how Sunder apparently arrived at this fanciful conclusion: WTC 7's fifth floor had four emergency generators in a room on the northeast corner, in the vicinity of column 79. These generators were fueled by two large diesel tanks in the basement. Sunder speculated, unjustifiably, that the pressurized fuel line linking the tanks to the generators broke and that this break fed a long-lasting fire that somehow started in the generator room (as reviewed in PART 2). It would seem that Sunder was propagating this myth even though it contradicted the data in his own 2004 report. In fact, a previous AE911Truth article has demonstrated that certain information in NIST's 2004 report had ruled out the possibility that a diesel-fuel fire could have been a factor in WTC 7's demise. Moreover, at no time were there any eyewitness reports or photographs of fire on the fifth floor, so there never was any reason to think there may have been a fire there.

NIST finally publicly conceded this fact in a December 2007 summary statement: "The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks." [Emphasis added.]

This point cannot be made strongly enough: The 2005 article in Popular Mechanics helped NIST propagate obvious falsities that contradicted the data in NIST's own 2004 preliminary report.

In short, NIST's fairy tales about these two contributing factors to the collapse — the trusses and a diesel fire — were clearly as ill-founded as the story about the non-existent 10-story gouge.

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - #4 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

 

[Fledermaus]

<Snipped the usual accusations>

AE911TRUTH accusing others of "Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud" is the height of hypocrisy....

 

[Bob0627]

AE911TRUTH accusing others of "Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud" is the height of hypocrisy....

Says the guy who deliberately changed an eyewitness quote.

 

[Fledermaus]

Says the guy who deliberately changed an eyewitness quote.

Why not?

I was having a TRUTHER moment.

 

[Bob0627]

Why not?

I was having a TRUTHER moment.

You mean a lying moment. Truth is not within the scope of your poster personality. Instead of making blanket accusations, why don't you show what is inaccurate about the article if you can? The article clearly shows NIST's fantasy, fiction and fraud, so show how the article is based on fantasy, fiction and fraud since you made the claim that it's "hypocritical".

 

[Fledermaus]

You mean a lying moment. Truth is not within the scope of your poster personality. Instead of making blanket accusations, why don't you show what is inaccurate about the article if you can? The article clearly shows NIST's fantasy, fiction and fraud, so show how the article is based on fantasy, fiction and fraud since you made the claim that it's "hypocritical".

You got me.

mea culpa.

I injected the word "fuel" into the testimony of a FUEL FIREBALL...

Which was caused by the FUEL.

And attested to by so many eyewitnesses of the FUEL FIREBALL....

And attested to by the eyewitnesses who saw the damage the FUEL FIREBALL did.

And the folks who were very clear they smelled the FUEL in the vicinity of the elevator the FUEL FIREBALL occurred...

So, yeah, you caught me.

I was acting like a TRUTHER....

ETA _ I should take back the "acting like a TRUTHER" thing. Acting like a TRUTHER is more like injecting meaning into out-of-context quotes that are diametrically opposed to the facts.... In this case I injected the word FUEL where it would logically be.

 

[Fledermaus]

Congratulations Bob,

AE911TRUTH finally removed the lie "Pyroclastic cloud"

They DO continue the nonsense "Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,"

But, hey, lying for the greater good, eh?