9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

The evidence that it's a CD is right under your nose. They weren't fire/plane induced natural collapses so there is no other alternative but CD (or miracle if you believe in those). It's the only way we know for sure buildings can be globally destroyed in seconds, in similar manner as all 3 towers. There's no point to concocting theories, that's what the US government did when it was their mandate to investigate. Reality is that the government theory is based on criminal fraud, including a massive cover-up.

Why? So you can change the subject? There's more than enough evidence even if Lindauer didn't exist. You don't like what she had to say? I can understand that, you don't like what I have to say either or anyone for that matter who contradicts the OCT.

 

are you a CD expert? ... what's your expertise Bob? ... digging through the interwebz for confirmation bias? ... you have no proof of CD other than "it hasn't happened before" ...

the only thing under my nose is the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) the truthers are peddling ...

Please refer to my W&B thread ...

 

It's called common sense, among other things, some people have it, others not.

So the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) the US government is peddling escapes you entirely? That of course is the real issue.

What for? It has nothing to do with 9/11. That's just a typical distraction meant to divert from the real 9/11 issues, same as the above sentence.

 

Oh please ... you have a prejudiced and biased view of common sense ...

I know the government is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) but that is not evidence ... that's conjecture ...

What are the real 9/11 issues Bob? ... paranoid delusions notwithstanding ...

 

The common sense is very simple, as simple as it gets. And I do have a biased view, in favor of common sense. The US government has never been able to prove fire/plane induced natural collapse. Unless and until they do, the only known, verified, real world method of taking down a building globally and in seconds is CD. A fire/plane induced global collapse in seconds exists in theory only. No experiment, computer model, real world event or anything else that makes sense has ever shown such a collapse is possible. Common sense says one accepts what is real in favor of what is theoretical, that would be real world.

Common sense also dictates that when the US government hides a majority of the 9/11 evidence and investigates nothing (pretend investigations are not investigations), it is not just full of (*)(*)(*)(*), it is criminally negligent and criminally complicit in the crime. Common sense says that when you know the US government is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and you have the documents from the US government that prove it's full of (*)(*)(*)(*), it is. Did you know that about 25% of the footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report are based on "confessions" from those who were renditioned and/or mercilessly tortured? That at least one of these was a "confession" signed by a detainee who was not allowed to read his "confession"? That's just one tiny sample of EVIDENCE that reveals loud and clear that the US goverment is full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

For you, I'm assuming nothing other than to try to parrot/defend the OCT and peddle it as fact. I don't believe I've seen one post from you that elaborates on any of the alleged concerns you listed. For me the real issues are 9/11, what really happened, before, during and after (as related to 9/11) and the US government agenda pursued as a result of the OCT. There's a lot more there than you seem to want to face, if any that is. But really, I don't care about you I care about 9/11, what really happened, as is the title of this thread.

Back to insults are we?

 

Have you reached the end of the rope yet with this one?

 

Bob you cant argue with someone who has no functional knowledge of what they are looking at. All they do is argue for the sake of arguing and their arguments lack substantial foundation.

The only people I have seeen still arguing in favor of the gubbernazis are posers, the debunkers left a long time ago with their tails between their legs.

 

At the end of the day it's really not about him or me, it's about 9/11. He can defend the OCT 24/7 and I can use the arguments to expose the flaws in those arguments, even though many are self-explanatory, some however are not as obvious. I'm not here to try to convince him about anything, he's already convinced, I'm here to discuss 9/11, preferably in a civil manner. And by doing that, sometimes new information is shared.

 

Hey Koko, good to see another one who's been exiled. I kind of answered my position with the prior post.

 

Perhaps from those who actually share information or link to it, but from what I've seen, shinebox is not among them. Are you on Reddit?

 

You never know when a poster can lead you to something useful, even a rabid OCT defender.

No I'm not.

 

You completely missed the point in your zeal to grab a 'gotcha' moment. Now it is clear that other faculties support the scientific evidence as provided in the NIST report.

Therefore it transcends the idiotic notion of an 'official story'. >>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

Emphasis mine.

You're funny. Why? Because apparently there is no such thing as 'officials' or 'official sources' or the 'mainstream' or even such a thing as a 'mainstream narrative'. Nope. Everything is random.

Please spare us the dozens or hundreds of posts in which you reaffirm your true believer status. Those of us actually interested in this subject matter see you for what you are, it is not hard and it is prevalent enough to be easily identifiable.

 

What scientific evidence was provided in the NIST report that "other faculties" support? Which NIST report are you referring to (there were several)? What "other faculties" are you referring to?

 

The modelling process for a start.

LOLOL

Try Purdue for a start. If you think the narrative of 9/11 is confined to that supplied by the government you are mistaken.



Purdue for a start. Then Stanford, but I doubt you and your ilk are actually interested in the facts.

More supportive material can be found here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432
&#8226;http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal...es(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000028
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130(369)215
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)37
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(418)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2008)13:2(93)
&#8226;http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753(171)136
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016(314)69
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130(369)144
&#8226;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)208
&#8226;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944
&#8226;http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml
&#8226;http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2004)18:2(79)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(336)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:11(1717)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016(314)248
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016(314)247
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000172
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(309)
&#8226;http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130(369)142
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)124
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130(369)322
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:6(557)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016(314)234
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)310
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)181
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)138
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000279
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130(369)143
&#8226;http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)224
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142(396)53
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000248
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)254
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000256
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000446
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000443
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(307)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031(341)203
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801
&#8226;http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...n-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

&#8226;The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx


&#8226;The AIA not only explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/letter-aia-president-richard-gage-aia, it explicitly rejected Richard Gage's contrary claims: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_1.aspx


&#8226;The ICC has also accepted NIST's conclusions as valid and commenced debate on NIST's recommendations: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx


&#8226;Stanford's engineering department has also endorsed NIST's conclusions, https://blume.stanford.edu/content/...assessment-steel-framed-buildings-under-fires, and engineers there continue to research based on NIST's findings: https://engineering.stanford.edu/ne...-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats


&#8226;And many other prominent structural engineers and building code experts are on record explicitly endorsing NIST's conclusions: http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/080903.asp


In short, the support for NIST's WTC 7 conclusions is incredibly extensive, robust, and nearly universal among actual structural engineers. In contrast, there are ZERO peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis. (For example, there are less than 50 members of ae911truth who claim to be structural engineers, none of them claim to be high-rise experts, none of them have PhDs, and less than half of them even have masters degrees: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html.) The support for NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions is thus overwhelming among those qualified to truly evaluated it. If that isn't a scientific consensus, I don't know what one is.

Reprinted with permission.

 

Emphasis mine.

Purdue, the accredited college.

- - - Updated - - -

Emphasis mine.

Another accredited college.

 

You can't have it both ways. Purdue, Stanford or any other accredited college is obviously not independent from the U.S. Government. Saying there is more of a version than just the government's by citing institutions beholden to the U.S. Government is asinine.

Nope, I'm a human being. What are you?

 

Speaking of asinine. You have no evidence for gubernatorial influence on their findings, so your claim is just bilge with no substance.

I'm not a troll, troll.

 

I forgot. Everything we'll ever know in our lives has an in-depth NYTimes article associated with it. The people and institutions you're citing reaffirmed the government's position that office fires collapsed three skyscrapers because explosives were definitely not used. They didn't investigate for explosives, but they're sure. Yep. That's the bottom line here and you swallow it eagerly. As I said, asinine.

Do you not believe that I am a human being?

 

And?

Obviously as explosives were not used.

The NIST report investigated the possibility of explosives and found no evidence.

And there's the usual truther BS ad hom to round it off. Predictable.
More vapid nonsense and projection.

 

Says the shill.

 

That's not evidence, it's just concocted computer models based on selective/manipulated/erroneous data and other unknown data no one has access to since NIST refuses to release the data it used for its computer models. The selective/manipulated data has been discovered to be erroneous even by NIST's own admissions. There were multiple errors and NIST to date refuses to revisit its theories based on corrected data.

That's not an answer, obviously.

Why do I need to start with Purdue? NIST's collapse initiation THEORY cannot be peer reviewed by anyone because NIST refuses to provide the data they used. So no one can verify any of NIST's reports. In fact, what NIST did report has been found to be erroneous. But more significantly, no one can duplicate any of NIST's computer models, it's not possible. And more to the point, any scientific paper must follow basic scientific method protocol. Without peer review, that's impossible. We're left with accepting NIST's papers on faith.

Why is that? How do you know what I think? The US government (including its agencies & contractors) is mandated/responsible for investigating 9/11. It is not the responsibility of any other entity. The list of links you provided does not change the fact that no one and no entity can validate NIST's theories without NIST's data.

Who is my "ilk"? I am not an "ilk", I'm Bob and I speak only for myself. None of my posts come from my "ilk", whatever that's supposed to mean. You make silly claims based on nothing. You know nothing about me and you're judging me from one post that asks you some questions. I am quite interested in the facts and the facts are that, despite FOIA requests, NIST has never provided the complete set of data required for peer review. In fact, NIST summarily refused.

And many believe NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud. So we have a major controversy, it may be a settled issue for you but it's far from settled for many others.

See above, this is nonsense since NIST's conclusions can't be verified without NIST's data and what data was released that NIST used for its reports has been found to be faulty. But the problem is that NIST wasn't tasked with concocting theories, NIST's first objective as stated by NIST was to:

"Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

The rest of your claim is as irrelevant as it is made up nonsense. It has nothing to do with what I asked you.

 

The modelling process is intended to replicate the collapses. It's not evidence in itself as there is none. You see, modelling is all we have because we can't actually ascertain with 100% accuracy what really happened inside the buildings. The modelling process as used by NIST is held up as the standard by some universities atm. Phd students in Japan for instance use the same modelling process.

The 'selective/manipulated' data is just the opinion of AE911T and it's hardly scientific.

Obviously.

Purdue simulated the impacts on WTC's 1 & 2.

[video]https://youtu.be/4FfAYIaH-wE[/video]

It's an industry paper, it's not intended for peer review.

And no-one has disproved them.

Only on two minor points that do not affect the outcome. There is no such thing as 'the perfect report'.

Untrue, a Japanese university did it a few years back. I'll try to find it in my archive.

It's not a paper designed for peer review and I have provided many links to faculties and organisations that agree with the findings. It's not an academic paper, it's an industry paper designed to minimise the loss of life in any possible future scenario of a similar nature.

Do you really believe that engineers can't take the NIST findings and figure them out for themselves? Do you have such a distorted view of their abilities?

Because it was obvious.

Who cares? My point is that many other faculties and organisations don't seem to have a problem with the NIST report and actually come out in support of it.

Well, that's a convenient and lazy dismissal if I ever read one. Obviously they can and have. What papers can you provide in support of AE911T?
That's right. None.

"Ilk" means 'those who think like you in this context. If you find it offensive, I apologise and retract the epithet.

Despite the massive list of links I provided. What is this 'nothing' of which you speak?

I agree, that is unfortunate, but they did have justification for that. You seem to view the NIST as some 'monster'. It is simply a regulatory body.

Many believe in a virgin birth and the Jesus zombie. It doesn't mean a damn thing what people believe.

The minor omissions do not affect the outcome of the report.

And the NIST fulfilled the job admirably to the satisfaction of faculties and industry groups.

That's quite a claim when I consider the rhetoric I just responded to.

I don't care. I'm not here to jump through truther hoops.

 

Again, because it will disappear among the trolling and noise:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4102961300432X
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41029613004380
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41029611004007
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41029613002824
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43974X14001400
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43974X05001525
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43974X13003076
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43974X13000369
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-541X.0000432
&#8226;http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/...4cadf722).html
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67473099000272
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67473010000810
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-555X.0000028
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...30(369)215
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)37
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0:4(418)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...13:2(93)
&#8226;http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...ings-state-art
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...53(171)136
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016(314)69
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...30(369)144
&#8226;http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=165759
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0784412848.222
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)208
&#8226;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2245944
&#8226;http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/...9/html/102.xml
&#8226;http://multi-science.metapress.com/c...7k6271362654w/
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...18:2(79)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0:4(336)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3A11(1717)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...16(314)248
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...16(314)247
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-5509.0000172
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0:4(309)
&#8226;http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...30(369)142
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)124
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...30(369)322
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...1:6(557)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...16(314)234
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)310
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)181
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)138
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-5509.0000279
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...30(369)143
&#8226;http://link.springer.com/article/10....694-012-0286-5
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0784412367.022
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)224
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0784413357.079
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142(396)53
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-5509.0000248
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...71(401)254
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-541X.0000256
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-541X.0000446
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-541X.0000443
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...0:4(307)
&#8226;http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...31(341)203
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41029613000801
&#8226;http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...orey-buildings
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...41029606004974
&#8226;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43974X07001459

&#8226;The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/Te...S/Default.aspx


&#8226;The AIA not only explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-2...chard-gage-aia, it explicitly rejected Richard Gage's contrary claims: http://www.architectmagazine.com/arc...-theory_1.aspx


&#8226;The ICC has also accepted NIST's conclusions as valid and commenced debate on NIST's recommendations: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/...endations.aspx


&#8226;Stanford's engineering department has also endorsed NIST's conclusions, https://blume.stanford.edu/content/c...gs-under-fires, and engineers there continue to research based on NIST's findings: https://engineering.stanford.edu/new...hstand-threats


&#8226;And many other prominent structural engineers and building code experts are on record explicitly endorsing NIST's conclusions: http://enr.construction.com/news/bui...ves/080903.asp


In short, the support for NIST's WTC 7 conclusions is incredibly extensive, robust, and nearly universal among actual structural engineers. In contrast, there are ZERO peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis. (For example, there are less than 50 members of ae911truth who claim to be structural engineers, none of them claim to be high-rise experts, none of them have PhDs, and less than half of them even have masters degrees: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html.) The support for NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions is thus overwhelming among those qualified to truly evaluated it. If that isn't a scientific consensus, I don't know what one is.

Reprinted with permission.


And what do we have from AE911T?

Chandler, who couldn't even time the collapse of 7WTC correctly. Or Szamboti, the 'engineer' that gets mauled every time he sticks his head over the parapet?

No, AE911T have a loooong way to go to catch up to the real world.

 

Which it obviously did not do.

That's correct, it is not evidence. To say there is/(was) none is incorrect, there was quite a bit of evidence but NIST claimed there wasn't any.

Modelling is/(was) not all NIST had, NIST had quite a bit of evidence including eyewitness testimony. NIST chose to ignore the evidence and concocted a theory, rather than conduct a forensic investigation. NIST failed to follow NFPA protocol, a standard fire investigation protocol that NIST helped develop.

Irrelevant, that has nothing to do with investigating the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 or NIST's primary objective.

It is not an opinion, it is fact and partially admitted by NIST. NIST omitted construction materials such as sheer studs, stiffener plates and lateral support beams from its WTC7 final report. NIST also misrepresented temperatures, times and certain measurements. Some of these issues were admitted to by NIST. The evidence comes from NIST itself and construction data (including schematics) that NIST did publicly release via FOIA.

Irrelevant, Purdue is not NIST and Purdue did the same thing as NIST, concoct a computer simulation that contained a desired outcome.

Please stop making things up. It is NOT an industry paper, they are all papers that allegedly explain the destruction of the 3 towers. NIST was directed/funded by Congress to investigate and report for public consumption. All scientific papers are subject to peer review as an essential part of the scientific method. Without that, all these papers can only be accepted on faith, they are no better than fiction. But you're right about one thing, NIST did not want peer review and continues to do whatever it can in its power to avoid peer review.

The burden of proof lies with NIST. It is not up to anyone to disprove concocted theories. No one can prove or disprove any of NIST's conclusions without a legitimate peer review process. The only thing that can and has been proven via NIST's own data is that its conclusions are based on faulty data. Your point is a non sequitur.

NIST's omissions/distortions are critical, far from "minor" and totally invalidate the results. No one is asking for perfection but we are all entitled to accuracy (to the best extent possible) and especially legitimacy.

No one can duplicate any of NIST's findings/concoctions without NIST's complete and accurate data, it is absolutely impossible.

Many have figured it out. It doesn't take an expert to know NIST's findings are not valid.

That's really silly. Stick to reality ... if you can.

All those who demand a legitimate investigation into 9/11. Apparently you don't.

Irrelevant whether it's true or not.

No it isn't, it's dismissed because as already explained, no one and no entity can support what is unsupportable. Unsupportable because no one has access to NIST's full set of data.

Irrelevant, the discussion is about NIST, not AE911T.

Apology accepted.

See above, let's not revisit your claim that I'm not interested in the facts.

Such as? Are you referring to NIST's claim that releasing all their data would "jeopardize public safety"?

It doesn't matter what NIST's function is, in this case it was tasked/funded by Congress to investigate the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11. It failed to do that and instead concocted various theories.

That's correct but your original claim is based on what some believe (or are directed to believe) while omitting contrary/opposing beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

They are critical and invalidate the report (NIST's collapse initiation theory for WTC7 in this case).

That may or may not be true but certainly not true to many others.

You have no obligation to respond to anything, it is what it is.

You're responding to ME and you voluntarily chose to do that. I am not a "truther hoop", whatever that is supposed to mean.