Recommend me a great 9/11 online documentary. What is the very best 9/11 documentary?

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

That data is older then the website of the university

Its released for public review .... Whats wrong with that ? You have great faith in that truther forum, Im sure they will try to discredit its report

And Mick West is gas ... he needs to be corrected all the time and when people keep disagreeing he bannes them from his forum ....Nice chap

Kingmob is posting false information. He posted some random poster message off metabunk.

Dr Hulsey only said a couple of weeks during a radio interview 2018 his work will be peer-reviewed by respected journals.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Deflection

Avoiding the points that you can't or won't address for obvious reasons

If you genuinely discovered issues with the report, then you would be able to address the above

I refer to people like Alex Jones as a loon. He supports 911 conspiracy theories, which you are alluding to. But you use that term as a crux to skip away from the difficult questions which highlight your bizarre and nonsensical approach to this subject

A building fell down. You can't care what caused it to fall, you just personally assert it can't have fallen down according to the findings multiple investigations and the consensus of hundreds of experts on the issue

And it appears that you aren't an expert on it, and that you don't want to approach or seek answers from them on your queries

It's an extraordinary level of delusion

No deflection at all

Straight forward .... In order for a report to be flawed you dont need to provide an alternative ...

If you want to be taken serious then first try to distinguish between the various people who are having issues with the official story ...or parts of it

All you do is deflect by asking for alternative theories that somehow need to be present in order to disagree with the official version ...and childish generalizing

Cheerful Spring

Not a lie the paper can be downloaded on the ASCE website. Read what NIST said about what things they withheld.

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ASCE published a NIST technical paper belonging to them. They are just reviewing the paper submitted and this paper does not contain structural calculations and results. We know this because NIST stated they will not release their findings to the public.

For example just one of many. If you can't see the data NIST used to measure calculate the walk-off distance of the girder at column 79 how can you verify this actually occurred independently? You cant, end of story.

Okay I understand you're belief now. And yes you are right, if you can't see the data then you can't verify
If we follow the peer review process of the journal it would not have published the reportdue to the nist not making the results available to them

Is it possible that the statement nist released about not making the result public was meant to mean they won't make it available to the general public but they did submit a full report to the journal?

That's what I think it means.
The reason I think this is that the journal wouldn't publish the report if they weren't able to peer review the report with all the results.

If you believe the journal published this report without the results being available to them in order to have it peer reviewed it's safe to say they were in on it too.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't understand peer review either...

If they release it for "public review" then what's to stop them for making mistakes or outright fabricating stuff?

You will always have people doing that

On both sides of the debate

And I have no doubt it will be reviewed by people who know how to do it properly

I wouldn't be surprised it will go for peer review and open review ... I mean the whole idea of this project was to be transparent

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

2 authors dealing with an apparently peer reviewed study are working for NIST and you have no issue with that .... :rolleyes:

Again, why is this an issue?

If you are insinuating that they falsified data, first EVIDENCE PLEASE!
Second, then entire point of peer review is to weed stuff like that out. The Journal does not work for the NIST. The people who peer reviewed the paper do not work for the NIST.

I do think you also don't understand what peer review is and means...

weisses wrote: »

I asked to show me where ... Now you are saying You didnt read it and that Im no expert so I shouldn't bother .... Ohh it keeps getting better by every post

It's in the paper as that's what the abstract says....

What are you trying to claim here exactly...?

weisses wrote: »

Uhh no ... I only said I didn't have 85 dollar I also didn't bring up an report I could not be arsed to read ... I think that was you

Now who is lazy

Again, you're the one who thinks they are investigating a massive conspiracy.
I'm just pointing out when people are wrong on the internet. I don't think I need to spend $85.

weisses wrote: »

Uhh actually not ... Can you point out in that post the reference to this paper not existing ? ..... specially because today is the first time I saw it

weisses wrote: »

Even NIST who had all the access is relying on flawed science and made models using data no one can verify due national security to reach a conclusion ... That alone says enough about the complexity anyone else is facing to conduct an investigation

This paper is people reviewing the NISTs findings and finding them scientific.
You said no one can verify this.

There's numerous other instances of you saying that the report was not peer reviewed.
Not super arsed to dig them all up because you are playing dumb.

Answer my question please:
Do you believe that the paper I presented was not properly peer reviewed? If so, why?

weisses

seannash wrote: »

Okay I understand you're belief now. And yes you are right, if you can't see the data then you can't verify
If we follow the peer review process of the journal it would not have published the reportdue to the nist not making the results available to them

Is it possible that the statement nist released about not making the result public was meant to mean they won't make it available to the general public but they did submit a full report to the journal?

That's what I think it means.
The reason I think this is that the journal wouldn't publish the report if they weren't able to peer review the report with all the results.

If you believe the journal published this report without the results being available to them in order to have it peer reviewed it's safe to say they were in on it too.

NIST did not release its meta data because of national security reasons ... I dont think paying 85 dollar changes that

Cheerful Spring

seannash wrote: »

Okay I understand you're belief now.
If we follow the peer review process of the journal it would not have published the reportdue to the nist not making the results available to them

Is it possible that the statement nist released about not making the result public was meant to mean they won't make it available to the general public but they did submit a full report to the journal?

That's what I think it means.
The reason I think this is that the journal wouldn't publish the report if they weren't able to peer review the report with all the results.

If you believe the journal published this report without the results being available to them in order to have it peer reviewed it's safe to say they were in on it too.

Well, there no evidence for that they gave ASCE their results and calculations. The technical paper NIST submitted is not a complete study of WTC7 collapse. Its a paper about failures resulting from a fire in WTC7.

The calculations and measurements and results were not provided to be independently verified. The paper can be downloaded by the public. The results NIST has kept secret and will not release.

But fair play you understood the complaint i had

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

This paper is people reviewing the NISTs findings and finding them scientific.
You said no one can verify this.

Can you verify this ? is it verified and where ? Hint its not in the abstract

King Mob wrote: »

There's numerous other instances of you saying that the report was not peer reviewed.
Not super arsed to dig them all up because you are playing dumb.

2 of its authors are working for NIST

I am still saying the relevant parts (mostly the computer models) of the report are not peer reviewed ... unless you can prove otherwise

King Mob wrote: »

Answer my question please:
Do you believe that the paper I presented was not properly peer reviewed? If so, why?

See above

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Can you verify this ? is it verified and where ? Hint its not in the abstract

It's verified by the fact that it's published in a journal.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then post it, and maybe past it on to the journal and relevant bodies.

If you don't have evidence (and let's be real here, you don't) then your accusation is entirely fiction and it is dismissed as such.

weisses wrote: »

2 of its authors are working for NIST

Again, and...?

weisses wrote: »

I am still saying the relevant parts (mostly the computer models) of the report are not peer reviewed ... unless you can prove otherwise

But they were. The abstract specifically says as much:

This paper presents the structural analysis approach used and results obtained during the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to model the sequence of fire-induced damage and failures leading to the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7).

You are being silly and a bit childish now.

The model has been verified by peer review. The conclusions of the NIST are backed up by the paper and it's peer review, amoung a long list of things that Dohnjoe has repeatedly posted.

Now again, for the 3rd and final time:
Answer my question please:
Do you believe that the paper I presented was not properly peer reviewed? If so, why?

If you ignore the question, I will assume the answer is that you have no good reason to believe the paper isn't valid.

weisses

seannash wrote: »

Okay I understand you're belief now. And yes you are right, if you can't see the data then you can't verify
If we follow the peer review process of the journal it would not have published the reportdue to the nist not making the results available to them

Is it possible that the statement nist released about not making the result public was meant to mean they won't make it available to the general public but they did submit a full report to the journal?

That's what I think it means.
The reason I think this is that the journal wouldn't publish the report if they weren't able to peer review the report with all the results.

If you believe the journal published this report without the results being available to them in order to have it peer reviewed it's safe to say they were in on it too.

Lets see if this sticks

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

And

https://www.quora.com/Has-NIST-ever-released-its-computer-model-of-the-WTC-7-collapse-If-not-then-why


I have seen no evidence NIST its position changed from the information provided above

If so I welcome anybody to come forward with this change in policy (proper sources would be nice)

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

If you ignore the question, I will assume the answer is that you have no good reason to believe the paper isn't valid.

You can believe what ever you want ... I do have a good reason the paper did not answer the simple questions raised

You don't know either ...mainly because you could not be arsed to read it ... You Only base your conclusion on an abstract :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

Lets see if this sticks

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

And

https://www.quora.com/Has-NIST-ever-released-its-computer-model-of-the-WTC-7-collapse-If-not-then-why


I have seen no evidence NIST its position changed from the information provided above

If so I welcome anybody to come forward with this change in policy (proper sources would be nice)

Excellent review in that Quora link you just posted.


What the guy said below is why the results should be independently verified.

3. NIST CLAIMED TO HAVE DISCOVERED A BRAND-NEW PHENOMENON: “FIRE-DRIVEN, PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE”; YET NO NEW STANDARDS TO PREVENT THIS WERE DEVELOPED: The very fact that SUPPOSEDLY steel-framed sky-scrapers could suffer “progressive collapse” a never-before-recorded phenomenon made it more urgent than ever that NIST share its results so that the whole architectural & engineering fields could grasp this “new danger”; and develop COLLECTIVELY new standards. This was not done; which is just absurd - the world is full of steel-framed high-rises now at the threat to “progressive collapse”; yet no new set of safety codes were developed.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You can believe what ever you want ... I do have a good reason the paper did not answer the simple questions raised

No, you have no reason. Otherwise, present it.

You are dreaming up false accusations based on nothing but your imagination because you don't want to upset your conspiracy theory belief.

weisses wrote: »

You don't know either ...mainly because you could not be arsed to read it ... You Only base your conclusion on an abstract :rolleyes:

But again, I do know. It's published in a well known, well respected journal. Therefore it went through peer review.
The abstract talks about the computer model as well as the NIST conclusions which rely on the computer model. If you are suggesting that this information is not actually in the body of the paper, then you are adding a layer to the conspiracy which you have zero evidence for. this is because that would mean the journal is lying about what's in the paper. (which again, begs the question of why you aren't jumping at the chance to prove that for a measely $85 dollars. Answer: it's cause you know your objection is bull**** too.)

So yea, people are going to believe the paper in a peer reviewed journal rather than you baseless, imaginary accusations and your usual "wah, I'm not listening tactic".
I've got no good reason to doubt this paper.

Yet, you think this one is suspect, while the one that isn't even going to be peer reviewed is completely above board and above suspicion?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob ignores that was this just this paper that got reviewed. A paper that does not contain calculations, measurements and results. He ignores what Weiss and I have posted.

NIST publically stated their results will not be made available to the public. He ignores this technical paper on ASCE site can be download by the public.

How does one peer review results that are given over allegedly and are not shown? How can anyone peer review a paper if you can not verify what they did?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A paper that does not contain calculations, measurements and results.

Yes, I'm ignoring your silly point that has been explained to you.

Again, if you think that the paper is wrong, download it. Show us where it's wrong.
Send an email to the journal and point out the problem.
Send emails around to your conspiracy theorist friends and dig deeper. Crack the conspiracy further.

Or continue to rant in a forum whre literally no one takes you at all seriously...

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, there no evidence for that they gave ASCE their results and calculations. The technical paper NIST submitted is not a complete study of WTC7 collapse. Its a paper about failures resulting from a fire in WTC7.

The calculations and measurements and results were not provided to be independently verified. The paper can be downloaded by the public. The results NIST has kept secret and will not release.

But fair play you understood the complaint i had

Okay, ill agree that if they did not provide them with all the necessary data then there's no way they could have agreed with the findings.
The evidence you provide however is a statement that the NIST made saying they wouldn't release the details to the public.
This does not mean they did not provide the complete report to ASCE.
Can you agree that there is a possibility that they submitted the full report to them?
Just to mention that statement was dated in September 2009 and the ASCE recieved the submission in April 2009(or some month prior to that statement)
I don't think that fact will convince you but I thought it was worth mentioning.
The point still remains that you claim the ASCE published a report without following their own peer review process which would mean they are in on it too.

On my phone so it's hard to reply fully but in reference to the quote about the findings of
Fire driven progressive collapse. I built an extension with steel, my building did not have to be built to the specifications a skyscraper is built to. Can a plane crash into my house? Yes, absolutely but it's very unlikely so regulations don't need you to cover every hyptotethical situation.
I'm not sure that progressive collapse is a new finding either but ill Refrain from commenting until I've looked into it.

Cheerful Spring

seannash wrote: »

Okay, ill agree that if they did not provide them with all the necessary data then there's no way they could have agreed with the findings.
The evidence you provide however is a statement that the NIST made saying they wouldn't release the details to the public.
This does not mean they did not provide the complete report to ASCE.
Can you agree that there is a possibility that they submitted the full report to them?
Just to mention that statement was dated in September 2009 and the ASCE recieved the submission in April 2009(or some month prior to that statement)
I don't think that fact will convince you but I thought it was worth mentioning.
The point still remains that you claim the ASCE published a report without following their own peer review process which would mean they are in on it too.

On my phone so it's hard to reply fully but in reference to the quote about the findings of
Fire driven progressive collapse. I built an extension with steel, my building did not have to be built to the specifications a skyscraper is built to. Can a plane crash into my house? Yes, absolutely but it's very unlikely so regulations don't need you to cover every hyptotethical situation.
I'm not sure that progressive collapse is a new finding either but ill Refrain from commenting until I've looked into it.

ASCE only released the information contained in this technical paper by NIST. There nothing printed or referred to extra content was provided to ASCE by NIST? And how does that work anyhow that only ASCE has access?

Independent peers have to able to identify your information through public sourcing. A peer review is subject to people having access to that body of work. That can not happen if the information is held back for private reading only.

No Steel high rising building had fully collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11. Three collapsed on one day on 9/11

Progressive collapse is a new theory it was created out of thin air by NIST.

Cheerful Spring

seannash What do you see is wrong here? Do you see the errors in the NIST computer model of the collapse of WTC7?

Cheerful Spring

seannash This will help you to come to a better understanding of the complaints.

ding too.

This is not a conspiracy image it's a NIST graphic.

Source.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (November 2008) Structural Analysis of the Response and of World Trade Center Building 7 to fires and Debris Impact Damage (NCSTAR 1-9A), p. 111 Retrieved on 4 May 2009.

The damage and collapse image NIST shows here on the north side. Well this is the side captured on real-time video before it collapsed? Do you notice the difference?

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Progressive collapse is a new theory it was created out of thin air by NIST.

Apologies again I'm on my phone so can't fully respond but when looking up progressive collapse a paper cites an early identified example and gives earlier references than 9/11 to progressive collapse

"Perhaps, the most dramatic example of progressive collapse occurred in 1968 when an
internal gas explosion seriously damaged the Ronan Point residential apartment
building in London, UK [1]."

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac82/9e2e1a14849833fada2feb68952e03e10ef1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjigOaUk83dAhWpAMAKHQhtDwAQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0np8wuZWFgZDeI5x1xZVbI

Cheerful Spring

seannash wrote: »

Apologies again I'm on my phone so can't fully respond but when looking up progressive collapse a paper cites an early identified example and gives earlier references than 9/11 to progressive collapse

"Perhaps, the most dramatic example of progressive collapse occurred in 1968 when an
internal gas explosion seriously damaged the Ronan Point residential apartment
building in London, UK [1]."

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac82/9e2e1a14849833fada2feb68952e03e10ef1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjigOaUk83dAhWpAMAKHQhtDwAQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0np8wuZWFgZDeI5x1xZVbI

A progressive collapse in a steel framed high rise building and was due to fire has never happened pre 9/11

The Cardington Fire Tests were a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in real structures (wood, steel-concrete composite and concrete) at the BRE Cardington facility near Cardington, Bedfordshire, England. during the mid-1990s. After the tests, extensive computational and analytical studies of the behaviour of steel-framed composite structures in fire conditions were carried out by, among others, The University of Edinburgh, Sheffield University and Imperial College London.

The results were presented in the form of the main report, which identified the main findings, together with numerous supplementary reports exploring various phenomena in detail.[1][2]

The steel beams with connections in these tests were heated up to 1000c + there was no collapse of the building. Cardington fires tests proved that NIST theory is junk science.

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A progressive collapse in a steel framed high rise building and was due to fire has never happened pre 9/11

The Cardington Fire Tests were a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in real structures (wood, steel-concrete composite and concrete) at the BRE Cardington facility near Cardington, Bedfordshire, England. during the mid-1990s. After the tests, extensive computational and analytical studies of the behaviour of steel-framed composite structures in fire conditions were carried out by, among others, The University of Edinburgh, Sheffield University and Imperial College London.

The results were presented in the form of the main report, which identified the main findings, together with numerous supplementary reports exploring various phenomena in detail.[1][2]

The steel beams with connections in these tests were heated up to 1000c + there was no collapse of the building. Cardington fires tests proved that NIST theory is junk science.

Whilst I appreciate what your saying in the above you did say that NIST created the term progressive collapse out of thin air.

I showed you that it existed before September 11th.
Can you acknowledge you were wrong to claim that.
If we keep jumping around from topic to topic it's very difficult to have a decent and honest discussion.
Admitting to one mistake does not mean your theory crumbles

Cheerful Spring

seannash wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate what your saying in the above you did say that NIST created the term progressive collapse out of thin air.

I showed you that it existed before September 11th.
Can you acknowledge you were wrong to claim that.
If we keep jumping around from topic to topic it's very difficult to have a decent and honest discussion.
Admitting to one mistake does not mean your theory crumbles

I will agree with you the definition or at least what is involved in the progressive collapse, is not a something NIST made up.

Still, we have to analyse this differently when it about WTC7

There no historical precedent a progressive collapse will occur in a steel framed high rise building. Only on 9/11 did this happen and it was primarily caused by fire. So NIST theory is new.

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I will agree with you the definition or at least what is involved in the progressive collapse, is not a something NIST made up.

Still, we have to analyse this differently when it about WTC7

There no historical precedent a progressive collapse will occur in a steel framed high rise building. Only on 9/11 did this happen and it was primarily caused by fire. So NIST theory is new.

Hey there's always gotta be a first right. No man ran a mile in under 4 minutes before Roger Bannister. Probably would have been inconcievable back then.

That's a little it of a tongue and cheek answer but you get my point, something always has to be the first to do it. Does that mean it's impossible?
I used to debate this alot about 4 years ago so I've seen all the evidence for and against this theory and it's led me to the conclusion that I believe the official findings.
I started as someone convinced it was an inside job but slowly when evidence presented itself to me I came around to my current belief.

I appreciate that you conceed you got the NIST making progressive collapse up wrong.
Much like this admission does not completely falsify your entire claim either does one random piece of data undermine the wealth of evidence that supports the official story.
But there has been a lot of questions asked of you that you have avoided which isn't how these subjects should be discussed. If truth is the end goal people must answer the questions put to them

Cheerful Spring

seannash

I not saying progressive collapse can't happen by some miracle strange things do happen. The problem with the NIST WTC7 study they got the girder at column 79 on floor 13 ( where the collapse began) to come off its seat. The never shown how they measured and calculated the thermal expansion required for this to happen? As I already pointed out they refuse to release this data. More evidence has emerged since they ended and released the study in 2008, that girder at column 79 had shear studs ( 30 in total) and had web plate stiffener ( this would stop the girder moving to the east and sliding off) and fasteners. We know NIST did not include these fittings on the girder. Truthers were able to get their hands on WTC7 construction drawings by freedom of information request. So there no debate those fittings were on the girder that fell which leads to progressive collapse. You have to redo the progressive collapse with these fittings on the girder.

Then NIST releases a computer simulation that does not match the actual collapse. I provided you graphics showing the issues there. NIST model of WTC7 shows the building deshaping and you see deformation of the sides walls if you were looking at the building from the north. When the building falls you don't see that at all in the actual collapse. Then there time slots are all wrong. They gave 20+ seconds for all the floors to start collapsing inside the building when the east penthouse fell in. The actual video of the collapse is real is not a conspiracy video its footage captured on 9/11

The event NIST has allowed 20+ seconds for. On the actual video of the collapse, it took 6 to 7 seconds.

This is important because we know freefall occurred for least 8 stories and another 8 stories were near enough to freefall. That 16 stories that came down in same speed of gravity with no resistance. That can only occur in a building that was taken down by demolition

Cheerful Spring

seannash Trust your own eyes on this.

This is actual collapse video looking at the building from the north.

Now, look at NIST graphic I posted of the building viewed from the north!!!

Here.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

seannash

I not saying progressive collapse can't happen by some miracle strange things do happen. The problem with the NIST WTC7 study they got the girder at column 79 on floor 13 ( where the collapse began) to come off its seat. The never shown how they measured and calculated the thermal expansion required for this to happen? As I already pointed out they refuse to release this data. More evidence has emerged since they ended and released the study in 2008, that girder at column 79 had shear studs ( 30 in total) and had web plate stiffener ( this would stop the girder moving to the east and sliding off) and fasteners. We know NIST did not include these fittings on the girder. Truthers were able to get their hands on WTC7 construction drawings by freedom of information request. So there no debate those fittings were on the girder that fell which leads to progressive collapse. You have to redo the progressive collapse with these fittings on the girder.

Then NIST releases a computer simulation that does not match the actual collapse. I provided you graphics showing the issues there. NIST model of WTC7 shows the building deshaping and you see deformation of the sides walls if you were looking at the building from the north. When the building falls you don't see that at all in the actual collapse. Then there time slots are all wrong. They gave 20+ seconds for all the floors to start collapsing inside the building when the east penthouse fell in. The actual video of the collapse is real is not a conspiracy video its footage captured on 9/11

The event NIST has allowed 20+ seconds for. On the actual video of the collapse, it took 6 to 7 seconds.

This is important because we know freefall occurred for least 8 stories and another 8 stories were near enough to freefall. That 16 stories that came down in same speed of gravity with no resistance. That can only occur in a building that was taken down by demolition

So you have all this information without access to the computer data you guys like to bleat about. So presumably, the Journal also had this information as part of the paper that was submitted.
And if such flaws are obvious to you, a layperson who does not understand engineering or terms like free fall and is unable to do simple physics problems, then it would be obvious to actual engineers, no?

And if it was obvious to engineers, then they would have spotted it in the peer review process, thus the only possible explanation is that the Journal and the people behind the peer review were also in on the conspiracy.
And also every engineer who can access the journal, as no one has pointed out that the paper is obviously fraudulent.

How come your experts at the various conspiracy crank organisations never talk about this paper and the fact it's an obvious smoking gun?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So you have all this information without access to the computer data you guys like to bleat about. So presumably, the Journal also had this information as part of the paper that was submitted.
And if such flaws are obvious to you, a layperson who does not understand engineering or terms like free fall and is unable to do simple physics problems, then it would be obvious to actual engineers, no?

And if it was obvious to engineers, then they would have spotted it in the peer review process, thus the only possible explanation is that the Journal and the people behind the peer review were also in on the conspiracy.
And also every engineer who can access the journal, as no one has pointed out that the paper is obviously fraudulent.

How come your experts at the various conspiracy crank organisations never talk about this paper and the fact it's an obvious smoking gun?

Dr Hulsey Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department gave a speech to ASCE Fairbanks Engineers in 2016. It was about WTC7.

Dohnjoe will ignore this but 3,000 engineers and architects disagree with NIST findings of WTC7. He tells you they are conspiracy people but his wrong its a movement of professional people who disagree with NIST findings.

Members of ASCE are part of AE911Truth. You dealing with politics here and a lot of people are afraid to come out publically and speak out against NIST.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Members of ASCE are part of AE911Truth. You dealing with politics here and a lot of people are afraid to come out publically and speak out against NIST.

So why haven't they produced the evidence that the organisation tye work for is publishing fraudulent papers?
Why can't they point to the problems with the paper?
Why did they never even tell you the paper existed?

How come none of your experts have gotten their hands on this freely available paper and shown how it is fraudulent and taken the journal to task for this?

Just lazy?