Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Options
  • 30-03-2017 7:17pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭


    This may be another significant moment in the uncovering of the 9/11 truth. Although about fifteen years too late. This is a former NIST employee that does an analysis of his colleagues' work.



    I'm not sure how it took him so long to come to the conclusions that he has come to, but I suppose late is better than nothing.

    I find it very disappointing that most people are unwilling to look at the truth in front of their eyes. There is enough evidence at this stage to question 9/11 but people just refuse to question.


«13456711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    There is enough evidence at this stage to question 9/11 but people just refuse to question.

    People have endlessly questioned 911 since it happened - to the nth degree (and far beyond I'd argue)

    The problem is that most of them don't seem interested in building a properly substantiated case, even 15 years on, there isn't one cohesive alternative theory

    Precisely who ordered it, who organised it, which participants were involved, how exactly was it done, names, dates, etc - none of the even most basic elements exist


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Are people afraid of speaking out because the regime there is so strict? A bit like China really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This guy is an app developer and worked with maths data visualization at NIST. He had nothing to do with the investigation and has no background in structural engineering

    By his own admittance he started watching 911 conspiracy videos online and became convinced of a theory


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This guy is an app developer and worked with maths data visualization at NIST. He had nothing to do with the investigation and has no background in structural engineering

    By his own admittance he started watching 911 conspiracy videos online and became convinced of a theory

    You don't have to be a Conspiracy theorist to see the NIST investigation was flawed and lacked the scientific criteria ...

    Heck ..They even had to change their original narrative when being pointed out to their flawed research by ordinary people



    Watch this .... Someone who knows what he is talking about


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    You don't have to be a Conspiracy theorist to see the NIST investigation was flawed and lacked the scientific criteria ...

    Heck ..They even had to change their original narrative when being pointed out to their flawed research by ordinary people



    Watch this ....

    I'll have a look at the video later

    I am unaware of any credible or recognised group of structural, chemical or other engineers or any body of experts significantly challenging the findings of the NIST report

    It's almost always an individal or CTers either

    a) picking holes (no report is absolutely infallible)
    b) not understanding that any investigation is subject to standard challenges/changes without affecting the final findings
    c) subjectively not understanding the science behind

    and never in any of those situations are we offered a substantiated counter-theory
    Someone who knows what he is talking about

    I am guessing this is yet another "scientician" or actual engineer that AE911 have found to yet again attack the NIST to keep their paid subscriptions going


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    20 seconds in and there's a very dubious claim (one of the) "top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

    I heard about this study before, it's sponsored by AE911 which are an unrecognised group of self professed "experts" who run a (now) subscription based site. When the study, it's main page stated to know the outcome (AKA proving NIST wrong) - they quickly changed that for obvious reasons

    It's an expert and two assistants in Alaska doing a study into WTC 7. It hasn't fully finished yet, so can't comment. But so far seems to mainly focus on one point (that is already being contended)

    If anyone here is not familiar with AE911, they contend that 911 was an inside job, but have never produced any substantiated theory on the matter (in 15 years). When a steel framed building collapsed earlier this year in Iran after an internal fire they strongly suggested it was an inside job


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    20 seconds in and there's a very dubious claim (one of the) "top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

    Yeah lets focus on that :rolleyes:

    Bio below
    http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I heard about this study before, it's sponsored by AE911 which are an unrecognised group of self professed "experts" who run a (now) subscription based site. When the study, it's main page stated to know the outcome (AKA proving NIST wrong) - they quickly changed that for obvious reasons

    I could sponsor it ...doesn't make it any less valid
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's an expert and two assistants in Alaska doing a study into WTC 7. It hasn't fully finished yet, so can't comment. But so far seems to mainly focus on one point (that is already being contended)

    By a guy on a forum ... Who is challenged himself in the comments section
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If anyone here is not familiar with AE911, they contend that 911 was an inside job, but have never produced any substantiated theory on the matter (in 15 years). When a steel framed building collapsed earlier this year in Iran after an internal fire they strongly suggested it was an inside job

    I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse






  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Yeah lets focus on that :rolleyes:

    Yes let's focus on that

    "One of the top forensic architectural engineers in the country"

    Is he?

    https://www.metabunk.org/what-is-hulseys-forensic-structural-engineering-experience.t9063/

    I could sponsor it ...doesn't make it any less valid

    He is being paid by a group that has no objectivity on the issue

    Anti-Vax groups also sponsor studies. Miraculously those studies always seem to support their false claims through diluted pseudo-science

    So yes, it is an issue.
    By a guy on a forum ... Who is challenged himself in the comments section

    Can't comment on final findings when they haven't been produced yet. Maybe at the end he'll step up at the end and say there is no issue with the NIST.

    In the meanwhile his "interim" findings are currently being challenged
    I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse

    Argument from incredulity

    20170119-083723-aple1-jpg.24113


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Argument from incredulity

    20170119-083723-aple1-jpg.24113

    Yes both ended up in a pile of rubble

    Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

    If WTC 7 collapsed like the plasco building the discussion would have been different

    Plasco was a typical normal Asymmetrical collapse


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire.

    911 truthers (like the AE911 group) repeatedly claimed that steel framed buildings couldn't collapse due to fire. So when Plasco went down, they almost immediately implied it was an inside job and that it should be examined for explosive effects

    They haven't provided any further substantiated evidence, suspects, dates, etc to support that Plasco was an "inside job" demolition. Likewise that haven't provided a substantiated credible theory with evidence that WTC 7 was an "inside job" demolition.

    This is a group that relies on cash subscriptions. In order for the cash to come in the conspiracy needs to exist.

    So to use a similar argument from incredulity - anyone with a functioning brain can see what's going on here

    I'll be extremely interested when Dr Hulsey produces his final report


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire.

    Carefully avoiding my question ....

    Its a bit hypocritical to whinge about the lack of investigations and alternative theories ... These things require money/funding


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Carefully avoiding my question ....
    Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

    I pointed out that

    "Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire."

    Both are quite different buildings.
    Its a bit hypocritical to whinge about the lack of investigations and alternative theories

    a) there have been investigations
    b) there are no substantiated alternative theories

    It's very telling behavior that individuals who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire don't seem to have any interest whatsoever in attempting to discover how it fell. They don't have any consensus on a non-evidence based theory. Not only that, but they seem content to solely attack the official version of events.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I pointed out that

    "Both were steel framed buildings. Evidence is that both collapsed due to fire."

    Both are quite different buildings.

    Avoiding the question again

    I asked
    Any similarities in the collapse itself ?


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    a) there have been investigations
    b) there are no substantiated alternative theories

    It's very telling behavior that individuals who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire don't seem to have any interest whatsoever in attempting to discover how it fell. They don't have any consensus on a non-evidence based theory. Not only that, but they seem content to solely attack the official version of events.

    What is there to gain for Dr Hulsey other then finding out what happened ?

    What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach

    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach
    This is exactly the reasoning behind all of the conspiracy theories.
    "X is impossible, therefore it's a conspiracy"
    Fires couldn't take down WTC7 therefore it was a conspiracy.

    However in this case fires are the only viable option that makes any sense.

    Even if your points about the NIST report held (they don't) it's still the best option and there is no other explanation that could possibly hold water.
    It can't be explosives as some claim.
    It can't be mini-nukes as some claim.
    It can't be space lasers as some claim.

    So if it can't be a fire, what did it?

    Why can't these experts after 15 years produce one single viable alternative that matches the evidence and doesn't rely on silly assumptions like silent explosives.

    Further, without these alternative explanations, there is nothing at all to suggest a conspiracy, which your experts very much want to do.
    Even if the arguments against NIST held (again, they don't) then all it could possibly indicate is that the NIST is wrong. You cannot therefore conclude that the attacks or collapses were due to a government conspiracy.

    Do you think there are any viable alternative explanations for how WTC7 collapsed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Avoiding the question again

    I asked Any similarities in the collapse itself ?

    Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

    What is there to gain for Dr Hulsey other then finding out what happened ?

    He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

    It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

    I'm not going to judge Hulsey (except for AE911's idiotic claims) until the final report is out and we see the engineering community's response to it. Perhaps he has indeed found an error in that part of the NIST report (appears that he is focusing on one point).. or perhaps he is mistaken - we should find out soon enough
    What is the issue with not being able to provide another theory other then "fires brought it down" ? .....so it must be fires :rolleyes: That's a ridiculous approach

    Wow

    Causes for collapse

    1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
    2) Public demolition (no evidence)
    3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
    4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

    Investigators start from the beginning and examine every option, every angle

    Conspiracy theorists do the opposite. They retroactively attack the established version of events in order to hint at some (often subjective) unspecified theory. Literally working backwards.

    No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

    That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

    But I see you still want to avoid the simple question
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

    It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

    A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

    Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow

    Causes for collapse

    1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
    2) Public demolition (no evidence)
    3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
    4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

    wow indeed

    3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

    And number 4 is questionable to say the least
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events

    The NIST report is apparently ... sealed because of dangers to national security .....

    If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Both collapsed due to fire. As for the actual collapse, we know a lot about WTC 7 (around a 20 second collapse). Don't know much about Plasco.

    That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

    But I see you still want to avoid the simple question
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's getting paid for it. There's always prestige for an expert who can find issues/errors in a widely supported paper or report.

    It's worth mentioning there are often individual experts who may have different views from the consensus, e.g. there are individual qualified doctors/historians/scientists who believe ridiculous stuff

    A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

    Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow

    Causes for collapse

    1) Old age/deterioration (no evidence)
    2) Public demolition (no evidence)
    3) "Secret" demolition (no evidence)
    4) Collapse due to unchecked fires (overwhelming evidence)

    wow indeed

    3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

    And number 4 is questionable to say the least
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No report or study or investigation is above critical analysis. But there's a definite line between genuine critical analysis and "flinging mud" at something in order to discredit it because it does not fit that individuals world view, their personal understanding or their personal narrative of events

    The NIST report is apparently ... sealed because of dangers to national security .....

    If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on because it lacks all the parameters proper science is based on


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    That's why I added 2 video's showing both collapses from different angles

    But I see you still want to avoid the simple question

    I answered. They are different buildings, they collapsed differently.

    The question itself is transparent - it's trying to infer that because there's a difference "something else" must have happened to one of them

    To repeat my question, which I am going to keep asking throughout these threads, if WTC 7 didn't collapse due to fire, how did it collapse?
    A good thing then that this study will be peer reviewed

    Was the NIST conclusion peer reviewed ?

    There's no peer review of either? It's an investigation not a science theory. It is published and can be examined by anyone. Including the entire engineering/architectural/etc community.
    wow indeed

    3 out of 4 were never investigated ..Bit difficult to get evidence for that

    And number 4 is questionable to say the least

    All options were investigated. Which is why they ruled out demolition.

    Number 4 is questionable to you personally. It's not questioned by any recognised or accredited groups representing engineers/architects/demolition etc
    If you are really interested in the scientific approach you have to agree the NIST report is not worth the paper its written on because it lacks all the parameters proper science is based on

    It was an investigation. It fulfilled it's goals. You personally don't accept it for personal reasons.

    You don't accept it, fine. There are people who don't accept man landed on the moon and subjectively reject any/all evidence presented to them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I answered. They are different buildings, they collapsed differently.


    Then my comment stating
    I dont think anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will say this look similar to the building 7 collapse

    Is correct
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The question itself is transparent - it's trying to infer that because there's a difference "something else" must have happened to one of them

    The collapse sequence itself can hold many clues as to what happened ..so yes you can suggest different scenarios
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To repeat my question, which I am going to keep asking throughout these threads, if WTC 7 didn't collapse due to fire, how did it collapse?

    And my answer is going to be the same. Fire bringing wtc7 down the way it did is Impossible, The fact no answer is yet provided doesn't mean you have to fall back to the most unlikely scenario


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There's no peer review of either? It's an investigation not a science theory. It is published and can be examined by anyone. Including the entire engineering/architectural/etc community.

    The study/report that is completed by Hulsey is going to be peer reviewed ... Like proper scientific research should be ... Unlike the NIST report


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    All options were investigated. Which is why they ruled out demolition.
    Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

    Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Number 4 is questionable to you personally. It's not questioned by any recognised or accredited groups representing engineers/architects/demolition etc

    They cannot recognize it as the basic scientific requirement is lacking ..... peer review so they should question it


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It was an investigation. It fulfilled it's goals. You personally don't accept it for personal reasons.

    You don't accept it, fine. There are people who don't accept man landed on the moon and subjectively reject any/all evidence presented to them.

    Its not about me or others stop playing the man and look at it with fresh eyes

    I see you ranting on about CT this and that

    And to date only investigation done into wtc7 lacks all the scientific parameters ...and yet you choose to belief it

    An investigation that had to be revised over and over when pointed out to its flaws by joe public

    here another one
    “A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when
    its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The
    bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the
    girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5
    in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.”
    NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008

    NIST changed the 5.5 to 6.25 inches when it was
    shown that the seat was actually 12 inches wide. ]

    Hilarious ...

    Full report here .... If you are really interested

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:
    What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

    Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

    Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

    Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

    Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?

    I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

    Perfectly explained here

    https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s

    And another clip about why its a rubbish report

    I think it was you who pointed out over and over that CT's lacked the scientific validation and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt

    What do you think about the NIST report and its scientific value ?

    https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=27m28s


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

    Perfectly explained here

    https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s
    I take that as a no to all of them in that case.

    So then do you believe that thermite is an impossible explanation like you do with fire?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I take that as a no to all of them in that case.

    So then do you believe that thermite is an impossible explanation like you do with fire?

    You can take it anyway you like and in the process put words in my mouth

    Its up to NIST to use a proper scientific approach regarding thermite ... all they said was ... we looked at the fires and the collapse and therefore ruled out thermite

    I don't know what was used, but to believe a complete asymmetrical event can lead to an almost perfect symmetry collapse requires to much mental gymnastics from my part Thats probably why NIST didn't let their study/model be peer reviewed.

    I would have expect that you ..Being someone who is a skeptic and believes in the scientific principals would be dismissing the NIST findings purely on the lack of validation of said science alone


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You can take it anyway you like and in the process put words in my mouth

    Its up to NIST to use a proper scientific approach regarding thermite ... all they said was ... we looked at the fires and the collapse and therefore ruled out thermite
    But there's no evidence that there was Thermite or Thermate.
    There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.
    Thermite or Thermate has never been used to used to demolish a building.

    And on top of that, the visual evidence is not consistent with those being used.

    Now you are using all these reasons (though erroneously) to conclude that the fire explanation is impossible.

    Therefore you must conclude that the Thermite explanation is impossible too.

    If this is not the case, then you are doing what you accuse others of and you are holding a double standard.
    weisses wrote: »
    I don't know what was used, but to believe a complete asymmetrical event can lead to an almost perfect symmetry collapse requires to much mental gymnastics from my part
    Well for one, it's not an almost perfect symmetrical collapse...

    I think that the NIST's report is scientifically sound. You have not shown any reason that it is not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But there's no evidence that there was Thermite or Thermate.
    There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.
    Thermite or Thermate has never been used to used to demolish a building.

    And on top of that, the visual evidence is not consistent with those being used.

    Now you are using all these reasons (though erroneously) to conclude that the fire explanation is impossible.

    No I do not .. where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Therefore you must conclude that the Thermite explanation is impossible too.

    How can you say that ..when you are also stating There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.

    there is no model no proper research done and yet you want to conclude its impossible ... thats not very scientific now is it ?`
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well for one, it's not an almost perfect symmetrical collapse...

    I think it is... all the events leading up to the collapse( including the penthouse collapse) are asymmetrical... even the building is but seconds later the building falls in a nice symmetrical collapse
    King Mob wrote: »
    I think that the NIST's report is scientifically sound. You have not shown any reason that it is not.

    Ahh come on ... It lacks all the scientific validation needed to be sound ... Its about basic scientific standards not being adhered to and not about me giving reasons why its not ... although I posted a PDF report which will be peer reviewed ... will you accept their conclusions ?

    Giving your very flexible standards regarding science I don't think you should lecture others about having double standards


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No I do not .. where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ?

    How can you say that ..when you are also stating There's no viable model for how Thermite or Thermate could possible be used to demolish a building.

    there is no model no proper research done and yet you want to conclude its impossible ... thats not very scientific now is it ?`
    So again.
    Is there any evidence to suggest that there was Thermite present?
    Is there any models for how the building could be taken down with it?
    Is there any examples of Thermite ever being used to take down a building?

    If so, present these.
    If not, then why do you believe the thermite explanation is possible?
    Is the space laser explanation proposed by some conspiracy theorists also possible in the same way?
    weisses wrote: »
    I think it is... all the events leading up to the collapse( including the penthouse collapse) are asymmetrical... even the building is but seconds later the building falls in a nice symmetrical collapse
    But again, the collapse is not symmetrical.
    The building visibly kinks and tips backwards.
    weisses wrote: »
    Ahh come on ... It lacks all the scientific validation needed to be sound ... Its about basic scientific standards not being adhered to and not about me giving reasons why its not
    I simply don't think that you are applying the terms and ideas of scientific standards correctly or honestly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So again.
    Is there any evidence to suggest that there was Thermite present?
    Is there any models for how the building could be taken down with it?
    Is there any examples of Thermite ever being used to take down a building?

    If so, present these.
    If not, then why do you believe the thermite explanation is possible?
    Is the space laser explanation proposed by some conspiracy theorists also possible in the same way?

    How can I present something that was not included in any investigation ? ( It should have been)

    Again ... where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ? show it so I can respond accordingly
    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, the collapse is not symmetrical.
    The building visibly kinks and tips backwards.

    The whole visible exterior fell symmetrically downwards .. plenty of videos showing that its the reason free fall acceleration could be reached

    So are you suggesting that the Asymmetrical failure of the pent house, somehow translated symmetrically to the exact base of each and every column in the precise pattern required to initiate the perfect collapse ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    I simply don't think that you are applying the terms and ideas of scientific standards correctly or honestly.

    Then you will accept the peer reviewed findings of the Huxley study yes ? You being a man of science


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    How can I present something that was not included in any investigation ? ( It should have been)
    Then the answer to all of those questions is No.
    There is no evidence of thermite.
    There is no viable model for how it could work.
    There is no example of it ever being used.

    So why is the thermite idea possible?
    Do you believe it is possible?

    Do you believe that the space laser idea is possible?
    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... where did I use thermite to disproof the fire explanation ? show it so I can respond accordingly
    I honestly have no idea what you are trying to ask here.

    Let's try again:
    Why do you think the fire explanation is impossible.
    weisses wrote: »
    The whole visible exterior fell symmetrically downwards .. plenty of videos showing that its the reason free fall acceleration could be reached
    But it didn't fall symmetrically. There was a kink and it tilted backwards.
    Are you claiming that it did not have a kink and that it did not fall backwards?
    weisses wrote: »
    Then you will accept the peer reviewed findings of the Huxley study yes ? You being a man of science
    No, because I do not believe that they will be actually applying any type of scientific standards and I think that they are inherently biased and are aiming for a preferred conclusion that supports conspiracy theories.

    I also think they are being deliberately disingenuous about how peer review works and is applied to mislead folks like yourself.

    Do you think it is possible that they might conclude that the official explanation is valid?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, because I do not believe that they will be actually applying any type of scientific standards and I think that they are inherently biased and are aiming for a preferred conclusion that supports conspiracy theories.

    Based on what ? did you read the report ?

    If Yes what is the reason for your distrust based on what you read

    If no .. Your conclusion is not really scientific now is it ?

    Who would have thought I would be the skeptic and you the believer

    If anything falls outside the realm of scientific validation then it is the NIST report
    King Mob wrote: »
    I also think they are being deliberately disingenuous about how peer review works and is applied to mislead folks like yourself.

    Where in the PDF I posted did they displayed that behavior , if that is true I will look at it differently of course ..But please show me where they are being deliberately disingenuous
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you think it is possible that they might conclude that the official explanation is valid?

    They concluded its not possible

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Based on what ? did you read the report ?
    Basic skepticism and a long history of following types like them in the creationism movement.

    I don't understand why you trust them.

    Now again, do you believe that the thermite explanation is possible?
    Yes or no, please.


Advertisement