Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 11:50:01 GMT -5
Of course. Wally... And then those randomly smoldering office fires abruptly and completely demolished the entire 47 floor steel beam substructure in a sudden, uniform demolition, enabling a perfectly symmetrical, free fall collapse into the building's foundation... Happens all the time... as in... uh... NEVER... If you can show me examples of 110 story buildings that collapsed across the street from the subject structure, perhap we can compare the outcomes. I await your list. Walter,
Get some better eyeglasses.
Then, FINALLY, study the video footage (and audio) of the obvious serial explosions that brought down those 110 story structures-- blasting 1.8 million tons of pulverized concrete (and human bodies) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11.
To be honest, I don't believe that you, Harry, or Daleko EVER sat down and carefully studied that film (and auditory) footage.
If you had, you wouldn't have repeatedly denied the obvious evidence that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 were demolished by explosives.
I'm willing to bet that you never studied the excellent documentary, "Explosive Evidence" that you deleted from the History board a few years ago.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 20, 2019 12:23:20 GMT -5
If you can show me examples of 110 story buildings that collapsed across the street from the subject structure, perhap we can compare the outcomes. I await your list. Walter, Get some better eyeglasses. Then, FINALLY, study the video footage (and audio) of the obvious serial explosions that brought down those 110 story structures-- blasting 1.8 million tons of pulverized concrete (and human bodies) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11. To be honest, I don't believe that you, Harry, or Daleko EVER sat down and carefully studied that film (and auditory) footage. If you had, you wouldn't have repeatedly denied the obvious evidence that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 were demolished by explosives. I'm willing to bet that you never studied the excellent documentary, "Explosive Evidence" that you deleted from the History board a few years ago. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
...says the guy who never read the NIST Reports but has been to every crackpot clickbait mill on the planet. Oh, the irony. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 18:25:07 GMT -5
Walter, Get some better eyeglasses. Then, FINALLY, study the video footage (and audio) of the obvious serial explosions that brought down those 110 story structures-- blasting 1.8 million tons of pulverized concrete (and human bodies) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11. To be honest, I don't believe that you, Harry, or Daleko EVER sat down and carefully studied that film (and auditory) footage. If you had, you wouldn't have repeatedly denied the obvious evidence that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 were demolished by explosives. I'm willing to bet that you never studied the excellent documentary, "Explosive Evidence" that you deleted from the History board a few years ago. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
...says the guy who never read the NIST Reports but has been to every crackpot clickbait mill on the planet. Oh, the irony. Get a clue, Troy Boy. I can't debate about the 9/11 scientific evidence with a guy who has adamantly refused to even LOOK at the evidence for the past 18 years! For a guy who claims to be a fan of Descartes, you have a truly remarkable aversion to empiricism! It's a good thing you didn't pursue a career as a scientist. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 20, 2019 19:20:18 GMT -5
...says the guy who never read the NIST Reports but has been to every crackpot clickbait mill on the planet. Oh, the irony. Get a clue, Troy Boy. I can't debate about the 9/11 scientific evidence with a guy who has adamantly refused to even LOOK at the evidence for the past 18 years! For a guy who claims to be a fan of Descartes, you have a truly remarkable aversion to empiricism! It's a good thing you didn't pursue a career as a scientist. Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Sept 20, 2019 20:11:41 GMT -5
Get a clue, Troy Boy. I can't debate about the 9/11 scientific evidence with a guy who has adamantly refused to even LOOK at the evidence for the past 18 years! For a guy who claims to be a fan of Descartes, you have a truly remarkable aversion to empiricism! It's a good thing you didn't pursue a career as a scientist. Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? Well, there’s that. 😂😎 |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 21:05:21 GMT -5
Get a clue, Troy Boy. I can't debate about the 9/11 scientific evidence with a guy who has adamantly refused to even LOOK at the evidence for the past 18 years! For a guy who claims to be a fan of Descartes, you have a truly remarkable aversion to empiricism! It's a good thing you didn't pursue a career as a scientist. Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? Walter, I already posted the definitive empirical evidence (above) proving that the NIST fraudsters LIED about the free fall collapse of WTC7, right? Put on your glasses and listen to Chandler's physics lesson. Yet you STILL believe that Dick Cheney's NIST goon report is legitimate! If the NIST computer "simulation" is legitimate, WHY WON'T NIST PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED DATA?! ANSWER THE FXCKING QUESTION THIS TIME. (And tell your lying, hairy ass-kissing chicken to shove off.) |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 21:32:16 GMT -5
Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? Well, there’s that. 😂😎 Dead wrong, you two suckers. You've been played by Cheney-Rumsfeld propaganda "from authority"-- not empirical evidence.
Here's some legitimate scientific "authority" for you clowns.
2,300 academic and professional engineers and architects in the world now agree that the NIST computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions on 9/11 is a complete pseudo-scientific fraud.
It is NOT based on the empirical evidence at all.
The Bush-Cheney NIST Goon Squad did NOT evaluate or discuss the obvious empirical evidence of serial explosions that brought down the demolished buildings-- WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7-- nor did they conduct a forensic arson examination of the debris.
They didn't even publish the numbers they used in their bogus computer "simulation" !!
How can their fantasy "simulation" even be VERIFIED without seeing their fabricated "data?"
NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud
November 8, 2014
Editor's Note: This extensive technical piece on NIST’s manipulation of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a series of five articles that follow the introduction below.
Introduction
Part 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7's "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories
Part 2: Fictitious Gouge Launches Design Flaw Myth and Collapse Initiation Fantasy
Part 3: Trusses & Tanks — Popular Mechanics Helps NIST Create More Myths
Part 4: Independent Analysis Disproves NIST’s New Thermal Expansion Hypothesis
Part 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded
The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"
NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator's credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.
wtc7 demolition comparison Figure 1. NIST's final report states that random office fires alone brought down Building 7. However, the collapse of WTC 7 compared, side by side, with an acknowledged professional controlled demolition reveals an entirely different story. Only a handful of companies have the ability to neatly implode a steel-framed skyscraper into its own footprint like this. Click on this video to see WTC 7 fall next to three acknowledged professional CDs.
Indeed, the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 is the third of the three only known "global collapses" of high-rise, steel-framed buildings ever recorded, and all three incredibly took place in one day: September 11, 2001.
NIST contends that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact damage and consequent fires from the large airliner jets that hit them. But no jet struck WTC 7, and NIST claims that office fires alone demolished that building. The agency does admit that, if true, this would be the first and only time that an office fire brought down a steel skyscraper.
Ultimately, we are asked to accept on faith NIST's ever-changing, remarkable, and, frankly, suspect explanations for WTC 7's destruction.
Why "suspect"? Because NIST ignored the National Fire Protection Association protocol — specifically, the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations — and refused to perform a forensic investigation. As a consequence, NIST has no physical proof to back up its unusual explanation for WTC 7's destruction.
Even more concerning, NIST bases its finding on computer models whose input data it refuses to release to either the scientific community or the general public. Thus, it is impossible to independently verify NIST's work and its startling conclusion. AE911Truth contends that NIST's methodology is contrary to every tenet of legitimate scientific inquiry. In this article, we seek to show how the supporting "evidence" put forward by NIST in the 13 years since that fateful day has been consistently and deliberately misleading.
We will review NIST's progression from its 2004 preliminary report to its 2008 final report — a progression that will reveal a pattern of omissions and distortions that appear designed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.
We will show, step by step, that NIST's final hypothesis of scattered office fires producing the gravitational collapse of a 47-story steel structure is a classic case of "cover-up" — designed to obscure the fact that the implosion of Building 7 was the result of controlled demolition.
NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions:
In its 2004 preliminary report, NIST fabricated the myth that debris from World Trade Center Building 1 (the North Tower) created a 10-story hole at a specific location at the base of WTC 7's south face. The following year it propagated that myth in Popular Mechanics, which defended NIST's work.
It turns out that NIST "needed" the 10-story hole to exist at this specific location to back up its explanation for the collapse of Building 7. This is an example of reverse engineering, where supposed evidence is constructed to fit a prearranged conclusion. NIST also used its Popular Mechanics (PM) platform to launch a second myth — namely, that Building 7 had a peculiar design, which purportedly made it vulnerable to collapse.
The PM article also helped NIST generate two more myths — namely, that diesel fuel tanks stored inside WTC 7 supposedly fueled an imaginary fire on the fifth floor, ostensibly helping to weaken the building at a strategic location, and that certain trusses helped to facilitate the collapse of the entire building by transferring stresses from supposedly damaged columns on the south side of the building.
NIST's final 2008 report discarded these self-constructed myths and introduced a new collapse initiation hypothesis that blames WTC 7's destruction on normal office fires. The final report is premised on the same shoddy investigative practices that the agency displayed in its 2004 report and in the 2005 PM article. Indeed, NIST's omissions and distortions are gross enough to discredit both its entire WTC 7 investigation and the agency itself as a viable 9/11 investigator.
NIST has consistently ignored evidence that would refute its preconceived conclusion. All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition.
We trust that a thorough perusal of this article will convince most readers that NIST's methodology and conclusions are not scientific and thus not credible. We also trust it will cause readers to declare "Enough is enough!" and demand a proper investigation.
In the first installment of this series, Part 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7’s "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories, the authors explore the unsubstantiated claim of massive damage from WTC 1 debris to the south face of WTC 7.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 20, 2019 22:05:31 GMT -5
Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? Walter, I already posted the definitive empirical evidence (above) proving that the NIST fraudsters LIED about the free fall collapse of WTC7, right? Put on your glasses and listen to Chandler's physics lesson. Yet you STILL believe that Dick Cheney's NIST goon report is legitimate! If the NIST computer "simulation" is legitimate, WHY WON'T NIST PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED DATA?! ANSWER THE FXCKING QUESTION THIS TIME. (And tell your lying, hairy ass-kissing chicken to shove off.) "definitive empirical" data? BWAHAHAHA! Please. You posted a you tube video by a high school teacher with no engineering background. No. Not "definitive" anything, other than first class clickbait for the ignorant to devour. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Sept 20, 2019 22:06:51 GMT -5
Get a clue, Troy Boy. I can't debate about the 9/11 scientific evidence with a guy who has adamantly refused to even LOOK at the evidence for the past 18 years! For a guy who claims to be a fan of Descartes, you have a truly remarkable aversion to empiricism! It's a good thing you didn't pursue a career as a scientist. Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 20, 2019 23:59:26 GMT -5
Let us review. I base my conclusions about what happened on a report by a team of engineers who had the building's engineering drawings, fed the design into a computer, queried the computer about a variety of occurrences and then measured those results against known empirical data. You base your conclusions about what happened on a you-tube video posted by a high school teacher who has, as far as we can tell, never seen the drawings and isn't an engineer. Does that have it about right, Rene? LOL.. I always liked the song, but we used to joke that this was the first hit featuring mumbling. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 8:16:32 GMT -5
LOL.. I always liked the song, but we used to joke that this was the first hit featuring mumbling.
Our dirty little minds always thought the guy was singing "along with the lovers, f**kers and thieves."
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 21, 2019 9:29:08 GMT -5
LOL.. I always liked the song, but we used to joke that this was the first hit featuring mumbling.
Our dirty little minds always thought the guy was singing "along with the lovers, f**kers and thieves."
Well, if you wanna get technical, I will have to check whether Louie, Louie came out before both. But both DW and LL were produced as a garage/bar band sound, while WAR was pure pop studio production. No excuse for sloppy vocals. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 11:07:47 GMT -5
Walter, I already posted the definitive empirical evidence (above) proving that the NIST fraudsters LIED about the free fall collapse of WTC7, right? Put on your glasses and listen to Chandler's physics lesson. Yet you STILL believe that Dick Cheney's NIST goon report is legitimate! If the NIST computer "simulation" is legitimate, WHY WON'T NIST PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED DATA?! ANSWER THE FXCKING QUESTION THIS TIME. (And tell your lying, hairy ass-kissing chicken to shove off.) "definitive empirical" data? BWAHAHAHA! Please. You posted a you tube video by a high school teacher with no engineering background. No. Not "definitive" anything, other than first class clickbait for the ignorant to devour.
This is another good example of your flawed logic in discussing the debunked, fraudulent, un-scientific NIST Report, Wally.
Notice that your pseudo- "rebuttal" is based on denying Chandler's clearly demonstrated, scientific PROOF of free fall collapse.
Instead, your rebuttal is solely based on an erroneous, ad hominem argument-- "Hey, look! He's only a high school physics teacher on You Tube!" etc. etc.
THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, WALLY... SCIENCE IS BASED ON AN ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA-- PRECISELY WHAT CHANDLER DEMONSTRATES !!
The fraudulent Bush-Cheney Commerce Department' NIST Report IS NOT EMPIRICAL, and it IS NOT SCIENCE.
WHY? BECAUSE IT SUPPRESSES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS, AND RESORTS TO USING A FAKE COMPUTER MODEL DEVOID OF CONFIRMED DATA!!
THE NIST REFUSED TO PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED "DATA"...
2,300 academic and professional engineers and architects have debunked the fraudulent Bush-Cheney NIST cover up...
What is Walter's excuse for continuing to be such an uneducated sucker?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 21, 2019 11:23:36 GMT -5
"definitive empirical" data? BWAHAHAHA! Please. You posted a you tube video by a high school teacher with no engineering background. No. Not "definitive" anything, other than first class clickbait for the ignorant to devour. This is another good example of your flawed logic in discussing the debunked, fraudulent, un-scientific NIST Report, Wally.
Notice that your pseudo- "rebuttal" is based on denying Chandler's clearly demonstrated, scientific PROOF of free fall collapse.
Instead, your rebuttal is solely based on an erroneous, ad hominem argument-- "Hey, look! He's only a high school physics teacher on You Tube!" etc. etc.
THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, WALLY... SCIENCE IS BASED ON AN ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA-- PRECISELY WHAT CHANDLER DEMONSTRATES !!
The fraudulent Bush-Cheney Commerce Department' NIST Report IS NOT EMPIRICAL, and it IS NOT SCIENCE.
WHY? BECAUSE IT SUPPRESSES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS, AND RESORTS TO USING A FAKE COMPUTER MODEL DEVOID OF CONFIRMED DATA!!
THE NIST REFUSED TO PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED "DATA"... 2,300 academic and professional engineers and architects have debunked the fraudulent Bush-Cheney NIST cover up...
What is Walter's excuse for continuing to be such an uneducated sucker?
I have already addressed the problem with Chandler. It is not his presentation. Rather it is his decision to completely ignore the most salient aspects of the collapse before rendering his conclusion. Chandler is like the 14th century doctor who "empirically observes" that his patient lost a lot of blood yesterday but feels better today, and starts pondering what that might mean. And BTW, how does Chandler know if the video he is analyzing was shot with a camera that rolls at 30 frames/second or an earlier generation camera running at 24 frames/sec.? That alone could account for a 20% error in his calculation. Does he know? Would not a scientist want to know that before proceeding? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 12:06:31 GMT -5
This is another good example of your flawed logic in discussing the debunked, fraudulent, un-scientific NIST Report, Wally.
Notice that your pseudo- "rebuttal" is based on denying Chandler's clearly demonstrated, scientific PROOF of free fall collapse.
Instead, your rebuttal is solely based on an erroneous, ad hominem argument-- "Hey, look! He's only a high school physics teacher on You Tube!" etc. etc.
THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, WALLY... SCIENCE IS BASED ON AN ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA-- PRECISELY WHAT CHANDLER DEMONSTRATES !!
The fraudulent Bush-Cheney Commerce Department' NIST Report IS NOT EMPIRICAL, and it IS NOT SCIENCE.
WHY? BECAUSE IT SUPPRESSES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS, AND RESORTS TO USING A FAKE COMPUTER MODEL DEVOID OF CONFIRMED DATA!!
THE NIST REFUSED TO PUBLISH THEIR ALLEGED "DATA"... 2,300 academic and professional engineers and architects have debunked the fraudulent Bush-Cheney NIST cover up...
What is Walter's excuse for continuing to be such an uneducated sucker?
I have already addressed the problem with Chandler. It is not his presentation. Rather it is his decision to completely ignore the most salient aspects of the collapse before rendering his conclusion. Chandler is like the 14th century doctor who "empirically observes" that his patient lost a lot of blood yesterday but feels better today, and starts pondering what that might mean. And BTW, how does Chandler know if the video he is analyzing was shot with a camera that rolls at 30 frames/second or an earlier generation camera running at 24 frames/sec.? That alone could account for a 20% error in his calculation. Does he know? Would not a scientist want to know that before proceeding? Total bunk. Chandler's physics analysis is completely accurate. I should know. I taught physics to undergrads at Brown, and scored a perfect 15 on the Physics section of my MCATS. Meanwhile, 2,300 academic engineers and architects have debunked your pseudo-scientific Bush-Cheney NIST computer model that has no published data verifying it. The only guys who agree with your bullshit are delusional, dishonest trolls like Harry, Mutt, and Fred... |
|
