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

Even peer-reviewed papers and science journals may have bogus information meant to take in the public.

Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Silent Epidemic; The Untold Story of Vaccines Movie dire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4
(1:36:40 time mark)


We can never be sure if a group of professionals has been bought so the idea that NIST is under somebody's control and is putting out bogus data and info shouldn't surprise anybody.

 

That's true in some cases but if a scientific paper is unavailable for peer review, it is worthless. When a paper contains bogus information but is available for peer review, there is at least the opportunity for anyone to expose such bogus information. When NIST invited experts to review its report prior to publication, it was exposed as failing to include the free fall of WTC7. On video one could see that both Sunder and Gross were caught with their pants down. They had no choice but to go to publication with the free fall issue included, albeit with no explanation as to how that was possible.

 

Just so you know, I did a bit of research into the many links you provided so I performed a cursory examination and immediately found problems with your generic claim that they all support NIST and that applies to every link I checked into. Some examples:

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

The above is a link to a Reddit post. It says "NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed" which in itself is false because as already explained, it isn't possible to accurately peer review a science paper when an unknown set of data used to create the paper is inaccessible. Anyway, the very first link in the post leads to a paper titled "Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse", published in the Journal of Structural Engineering. I don't know if you actually looked at the page or not but one of the authors listed is John Gross, one of the lead NIST engineers. Are you aware that peer review CANNOT include anyone who is responsible for the original paper? That would be a conflict of interest of couse. The next link leads to a formal appeal in the Silverstein case, not a science paper of any kind. The links to the individual affidavits don't work. However the claim is "it's experts simply confirmed what NIST had concluded re a fire-induced progressive collapse that initiated at column 79", which of course is impossible for several reasons. For one, NIST's column 79 theory is a theory, not fact. For two, there is no way for anyone to confirm such a theory, especially given that NIST's data (whatever data NIST made available) is full of key errors and omissions and that NIST did not make all of the data it had in its possession publicly available.

Then going on to other links, most of these contain a short abstract and a link to the actual paper in PDF form but they are not free of charge so unless I'm willing to shell out about $40 for each, something I doubt you did, there's no way to confirm your claim(s).

So skipping down to this one where you claim:

It actually says "The CTBUH Comments on the 'Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 August 2007' Prepared and Issued by NIST". And upon reading the PDF, I came across this: "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79". NIST's column 79 theory is the heart of its collapse initiation theory for WTC7 and if the Council disagrees with it, it is a bald faced lie to claim it "explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings".

There are many other links that simply don't work but there's more than enough that I just posted above to render your claims highly dubious at best. Note I did not go through all of them because I find it a waste of time given just some of the issues I found and more importantly, because they are irrelevant to me unless and until they can be shown to actually matter in terms of 9/11.

 

So you can't disprove any of the material? I already knew that.

Again, do you really believe that engineers can't figure out the data required in order to analyse the paper? Seriously?

You don't 'render anything dubious' what so ever. You just pointed out that some links were broken and that you had to pay to read some papers (that's life in the academic world sorry to say). Your misleading statement over CTBUH is just Gage's old parroting and it does not prove a damn thing. CTBUH did not challenge the findings of the NIST report, they just disagreed over the initiation mechanism (but I'm sure you already knew that). It is a bald faced lie to suggest otherwise.

Try again and please address the material in an honest fashion. I've posted a lot of material on here lately and not a single item has been addressed with any degree of competence.

 

Here we go again with the false reverse burden of proof argument. YOU made an unsupported claim, try again.

Seriously, no one "figures out the data required" when it isn't available. Data comes from factual EVIDENCE, it isn't arrived out or formulated from thin air. This is as silly as it gets.

Then if YOU paid for it, YOU post some samples that support you unsupported claims, I'm not interested enough to pay for it.

Is English your primary language? The above is a blatant contradiction. Gage has nothing to do with anything, I never brought up his name, yet another red herring. If CTBUH disagreed with the heart of NIST's collapse initiation theory, they did not "explicitly endorse" as you falsely claim, this is a clear oxymoron and such an incredibly simple concept.

No it is a fact that you posted a false claim.

I suggest you follow your own suggestion.

 

*SIGH* I'm not repeating myself for the uneducated. Your ignorance is becoming a liability to you. No unsupported claim there, you're just lazy.

So, just to confirm, you can't disprove any of the papers in the link...I knew that already.

*SIGH* You clearly have no idea of my point, and I don't think you'd get it if I went through it again. I know others have tried and failed with you when it was quite plain to everyone else.

I owe you nothing, and you're not interested enough to pay for it, but you'll hang around second rate message boards attacking people you don't know because of this subject. Weird. The evidence is there and it is up to you to disprove it. I'm not interested in your persiflage and noise. Back up your opinions with some actual research for a change instead of hanging around fruitcake sites and picking up their litter.

No, you just don't understand it.

Yeah, he does, and I brought up his name for a reason (it's not all about you Bob, and I don't dance to your tune so stop abusing terms you clearly don't understand), but you're just dodging with your usual garbage.

Please re-read my post for greater comprehension. They disagreed with the column 79 initiation modelling but not the overall findings of the report. Did you get that this time? You do know that the NIST report was a hypothetical I hope? Probably not owing to the standard of your responses.

No, it is a fact that your comprehension needs work. It is quite telling that you harp on about me making a false claim, but you do absolutely nothing to disprove it. Are you here to debate or sling mud?

I ALWAYS do, but I can't help it if you aren't up to my level of thinking. Your failure to comprehend is not my problem and it is becoming VERY tedious explaining everything to you repeatedly merely because you choose to be obtuse.

 

Oh, I missed this lengthy response.

It worked to the satisfaction of most qualified engineers. If you take issue with it, please illuminate us on the detail as to why the building could not behave as it did on 9/11 if this minor detail had been included?

Your burden here, as it has not been successfully demonstrated on a credible level that it could affect the outcome of the initial modelling projections.

Goal post shift noted and ignored.

Yes, and we all know there are many more accounts that conflict with the few cherry picked by 9/11 truth. Come on this is boring. Must try harder.

You are getting confused with 9/11 truth here. THEY are the ones who begin with a conclusion based upon an asinine assumption.

They should all be shot. Really? So what? Prove that the inclusion of said detail could alter the outcome of the report.

Your turn truther.

Yes, of course, I forgot how limited in scope you are. Apologies.

And? See above.

There's that dualism again. * SIGH* I'll come down to level two in future but forgive me if I lapse.

Yeah, it is. Look up what the NIST is for and what they do. Don't give me that flaccid crap.

So, you take issue with the reports. Disprove them for me if you don't mind. All you do is repeat the memes and that's dull. Lift the game a bit there.

So? The public wouldn't understand it on the whole, much like 9/11 truth.

There's the goal post shift I've been waiting for. Come on Bob, this is low hanging fruit.

Ah, Bob, you don't seem to be aware of the hypothetical nature of NIST's report. It's quite pertinent in this discussion. Now think about your line above in that context.

I never said such a thing, but I know you're quite dishonest Bob, and that is why I treat you with contempt. What is the lowest level you will stoop?

Of course, why do something when you can moan about it on message boards? Write your congressman; start petitions etc. but don't moan to me as I don't particularly care what you think of the NIST report as you are clearly unqualified to make such judgements.

LOLOL. Dumb answer.

Cool! Show me!

Indeed, now show me! Please!

Aww...so you can't show me? I knew that. Stop wasting my time. Oh, and then you'll be able to discredit the links I supplied? Your ball, truther.

Empty rhetoric.

I am. Lame response.

Oh, and there's the appeal to patriotism. Your responses are bilge.

Now this is a dumb answer. If the consensus and weight of evidence points to one conclusion despite the minor omission of a few insignificant details, why would congress fund another investigation? Especially in light of the lack of exploitation on a political level by the current administration. The political mileage would be awesome, especially in an election year, but what have we heard from them? Apparently, the Democrats think there is nothing in it.You can start making sense anytime you like here Bob.

And again, write to your congressman, start petitions etc. If you take issue do something, but don't whine to me as you are clearly missing the big picture and that is a common fault among the CTist.

The horse is long dead.

That is only because you are trying to limit the scope of my response in order to gain a cheap 'gotcha' shot. Let's get real here. All opposition to the NIST report originated from AE911T and you can't ignore that glaring fact, so cut the stupid rubbish, ok? It's like pulling teeth trying to have an adult debate with you as you will employ any cheap trick to look smart. Here's a tip: it ain't workin'

No, I will revisit it as you are clearly avoiding the empirical evidence. You cherry pick like all truthers.

Yes, something about they didn't want everyone to know how to take down a building of such a design. Something like that and it is a rational explanation.

Can you demonstrate how the NIST concocted these theories? Your ball, truther.

You can when the opposing beliefs are irrational. No-one has been capable of supplying an alternative narrative that is rational enough to require funding (you know, that old prima facie case thing you've ignored for years). But if they persist in their beliefs, and can build a case worthy of a new investigation, then I say 'power to them'. Just talking on the internet won't achieve the desired results, however, it does seem to be the methodology of those who oppose all the 9/11 reports. Perhaps it is time for a new strategy as it hasn't worked in 15 years? Congressman, Petitions, a decent PR agency to limit the impact of their own stupidity, etc.-these would have a larger impact and raise awareness at the same time.

Cool! Then you can demonstrate to me how the omissions invalidate the report. Your ball, Truther.

Well, they should do something about it. Write their congressman, start petitions, vote-all that kind of stuff.

I know, an irrational claim on your part.

Yeah, you are, and that response was just as illogical two years ago. Think about it....hard, and ponder what it means to be on a forum.

More low hanging fruit there Bob.

 

Another example of why I'm not interested in a discussion with this poster.

 

I understand, because I have the knowledge to expose your amateur BS you have Butthurt. I get that. I also understand that 9/11 truth don't 'do' questions, but come on, just once wouldn't hurt.

It is clear you can't answer my queries regarding supporting evidence for your claims and you took the evasive route instead, and added a veiled ad hom in order to appear as if you have the high moral ground.

It is obvious that you can't support your claims regarding NIST, and you are desperately trying to save what is left of your supposed cred. If you can't back up your claims, you are out of your depth (that has been clear from our first exchange), and are unable to provide a convincing case to anyone with genuine concerns. You failed my test.

More low hanging fruit from the ignorance tree, and lazy to boot, but then one must remember, 9/11 truth only whinge on 'da internetz' from their momma's basement.

 

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. My test is simpler, a poster who spends nearly every day defending the OCT, attacking those who haven't bought the official fairy tale, often with insults, name calling and other childish nonsense, and never questions any part of the OCT is not a genuine poster. You fit all those characteristics. Regardless, if and when you decide to display some reasonable level of maturity in your posts, I'll be glad to discuss topics such as NIST's scientific and criminal fraud with you. Until then, I'm still not interested, you and I have nothing to discuss. Have a good day, or not.

 

Look, I'm not even going to bother to read yet another empty diatribe from you. It's this simple Bob, you cannot provide evidence to support your claims what so ever, and then you have the temerity to attack the sources of those who supply material that conflicts with your unsupported claims. That's pretty infantile stuff there, Bob.

That speaks volumes for your capabilities and integrity. Moreover, you have failed at every opportunity I've given you to explain your position with clarity, and you've responded with every truther trick in the book to avoid your responsibility.

All the reams of noise, ad homs, diversions with stupid interpretations of logical fallacies you've posted are nothing more than a waste of bytes. You cannot support your position, and I've demonstrated thus to my satisfaction. I'm not interested in any more of your vacuous noise unless you can actually come up with something.

I get it. You just want to troll the 'OCT huggers', or whatever stupid name you're using this week, and you're not really interested in honest debate on the subject.

Fine, but I'm above such nonsense and have no time for empty headed persiflage without evidence. Any fool can post that sort of thing, and they often do so.

 

Yaaawwwwnnn. Ask me if I care what you have time for (or not) or what you think you believe about me or not. 9/11 is not about me, it's about 9/11 and I'm still not interested in any discussion with you about it unless and until you stick to the subject, which is still 9/11. And even then only if you ever actually attain the capacity to discuss it on a mature level. Until then, adios. Simple enough for you? No? Who cares?

 

Look, I'm not even going to bother to read yet another empty diatribe from you. It's this simple Bob, you cannot provide evidence to support your claims what so ever, and then you have the temerity to attack the sources of those who supply material that conflicts with your unsupported claims. That's pretty infantile stuff there, Bob.

That speaks volumes for your capabilities and integrity. Moreover, you have failed at every opportunity I've given you to explain your position with clarity, and you've responded with every truther trick in the book to avoid your responsibility.

All the reams of noise, ad homs, diversions with stupid interpretations of logical fallacies you've posted are nothing more than a waste of bytes. You cannot support your position, and I've demonstrated thus to my satisfaction. I'm not interested in any more of your vacuous noise unless you can actually come up with something.

I get it. You just want to troll the 'OCT huggers', or whatever stupid name you're using this week, and you're not really interested in honest debate on the subject.

Fine, but I'm above such nonsense and have no time for empty headed persiflage without evidence. Any fool can post that sort of thing, and they often do so.

 

anyone want to discuss the improbability of CD on any of the towers? ... just curious ...

 

Well that's a better post than one who's reduced to copying and pasting his own post. How about the probability of CD for all 3 towers? The OCT (NIST in particular) already has the market on the improbability. If you can avoid personal attacks, insults and the usual silly groupthink class labels such as "truther" or the even more silly "troofer", I would have no problem with that line of discussion.

 

cool ... please explain how 1 and 2 could have been brought down by CD in the way we all saw in video ... the collapses started at the impact zones ...

I know Bob ... you don't have these answers ... yet you cling to this truther faith which has no answers ... why? ...

 

I've been trying to, but I've just come up against the usual truther lies, evasions and inability to support their contentions. Nothing of any substance.

9/11 truth never discusses the improbability of the ludicrous controlled demolition scenario. We're up to nukes these days, and that is just moronic.

 

Only out of boredom from reading your BS Bob. I truly can't be bothered with empty headed drivel from an amateur who doesn't understand the event. That is all. Until you're capable of supporting your contentions, your posts are merely noise.

Now I await your explanation for Shinebox's question, as you lacked the integrity to answer my queries (yes I know, 9/11 truth don't answer questions, they just expect everyone to run around after them).

 

See this is where I already have a problem with you. I asked you if you could discuss this in a mature manner without invoking class labels and the very first post contains the bolded garbage and you want to make it about me. So thanks but no thanks. Why don't you discuss the issue with a like minded poster who does the exact same thing?

 

Now, to the point. Here is a gif just prior to the collapse of 2WTC. Where are the explosives 9/11 truth claim were deployed?



Clearly, they are not used to initiate the collapse. So, 9/11 truth, where were they used?

- - - Updated - - -

And there's the predicted dodge. Thanks Bob, you fulfil my expectations every time.

 

My pleasure bro.

 

I can always count on you NOT to provide any material in support of your outrageous claims. It is quite telling that you haven't provided any information despite numerous requests.

As stated earlier, that speaks volumes regarding intent.

 

Ah, when all else fails resort to the all purpose propaganda tool, dishonesty.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." - Joseph Goebbels

 

Yes, Bob, I know you do that, and I know you have no interest in real debate-that much is obvious. Please stop lying and support your claims...just for once FFS! All these attempts to evade your responsibility to the debate are fatuous. It doesn't bother me how long you stall, because I can wait, and wait, and wait, but I can say with all confidence that you won't be able to support the irrational claims you made earlier. Furthermore, you post a propaganda quote as if it supports your position. LOLOL If I was lying Bob, you would have supported your outrageous claims with evidence. You didn't, and you can't hide the fact you didn't. I have no time for such lowbrow tactics.

All this squirming and misdirection isn't camouflaging your lack of a case.

 

To recap, in post no 457 on page 46, I asked Bob to support the following claims:

Bob: "NIST's omissions/distortions are critical, far from "minor" and totally invalidate the results."

A simple enough statement, however my enquiry into supporting evidence for such a claim was met with the usual drivel.

In the same post:

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

Again, a statement replete with unfounded and unsupported absolutes and my enquiries into supporting evidence were met with the usual lowbrow evasions. Moreover, it contradicts the earlier statement (I wonder if Bob understands why).

Two pages later, still nothing but vacuous bullsh*t from 9/11 truth. Some things never change.