Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

This little beauty covers several aspects of the NIST lies that are used primarily for the "official" BS story. NIST lies, omissions, and distortions are right here in black and white for the non shills to partake in (even though we know they will anyway). You want proof of lies? It contains information about the infamous column 79 in WTC7, stiffener plates that NIST lied about. They're right here. Enjoy:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...ical-errors-and-omissions-in-nist-report.html

 

Let's take a couple of quotes from that:

(LoL @ Tony)

So there we have it. AE911Truth is basically saying, "If you let us make (*)(*)(*)(*) up, then obviously it's the way we said it is."

That article is a lie, Tony Szamboti is a moron, and you continue to present information the debunks your own theory. Good work.

 

Asked and answered: http://shop.ae911truth.org/

 

The truth about Richard Gage....http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

 

Interesting what they say about the stiffener plates. Do you agree with Cole's position? Why do you suppose NIST did what they did about the plates?

 

Whats this? Picking holes in the official investigation instead of providing actual proof of controlled demolition? Ae911 still dodging the bullets I see..

 

you lost your credibility right there and lose already,thats all b.s that the thing that says bizarre conspiracys debunked.

the only bizzare conspiracy THEORY thing thats been debunked is the lies of NIST and the 9/11 coverup commission,miserable fail as always.

It lists a bunch od DEBWUNKER links and posts all lies and drivel that many independent experts have debunked.miserable fail.hahahahahaaa


that pathetic link ignores how there were credible firefighters experienced in explosives that heard explosives in the basements and how many witnesses died after giving versions of events different than the governments.
time to update my ignore list.

 

for the non shills

that would be me.wonder when more will join me on this thread?

 

Name them and provide sources for your claims.

 

The NIST report is immaterial because it doesn't follow the scientific method, insofar as publishing it for peer review. The problem is there would be a conflict of interest. Now let's say, if in the event they found their data didn't support their conclusion, or they found evidence of explosives etc. why would you expect them, in that case, to not alter things, switch a few formulas in their computer etc.? You wouldn't. Conflict of interest. It's the same problem as the GMO being summarily deemed safe, based on a corporation doing their own secret experiments with secret data on the seeds they want to sell! As though that's not conflict of interest.

It's not even fudging a conclusion necessarily, although they would if their results were different, they are after all the government. It can also influence the experiments via confirmation bias, observation bias etc.

Also, I don't believe a computer model can prove anything because there's too many variables to account for (positioning of all objects, winds etc.) Quantity and location of combustable materials for example would be largely guess work, and if so, bias produces a more favorable "guess".

The government never do real science. Not now, not ever. Not the FDA nor anyone else. That's how we wound up with "safe" cigarrettes, leaded gasoline, leaded paint, asbestos, agent orange etc. They make "reports" not studies.

That said, I doubt there were controlled demolitions. Had the scientific method been followed, I imagine it would lead to the same conclusion. As a remote possibility however, I could suggest the assistance of car bombs in the LL of the buildings, which would account for the explosions down there. Like the Jenga tower and you give the table a bit of a shake to help things along. That's speculation of course. They did do this in '93, but minus the planes.

At any rate, the controlled demo people are barking up the wrong skyscraper. It's a dead end and it ruins credibility.

Focus on redaction or destruction of evidence plus lies and coverup, and WHY? Especially the money trail. And why Bush and Rumsfeld had a bit of dereliction of duty the morning of, while their underlings were running around like headless chickens. IRT Bush I'm not referring to the pet goat but the writing and delivering of a speech for 9:30 a.m.

 

Wrong. There are a lot of things that explode in office fires. Ever heard an electrical transformer explode? Gagae has been discredited, Jones has been discredited, Harrit has been proven wrong. The only ones still clinging to the belief that 9/11 was commited by the government against its own people are the willfully ignorant or the mentally ill. Which are you? Indeed, keep ignoring facts and you will remain forever in the dark.

 

Past experience has shown that responding to him is about as useful as attempting a conversation with a potted plant. Take that for what it's worth.

 

Oh, I know. He has yet to say anything in response to the number of peer reviewed paprs that completely support the findings of NIST. Or one that was written by Brent Blanchard who was there during the clean-up and is one of the world's foremost experts in controlled demolition where he disusses the fact that there is ZERO physical evidence to support the stupid theory that it was a CD. Its funny to watch them hop from theory to theory as they keep getting falling by the wayside into a conspiracy theory wasteland.....I have heard everything from holographic planes and CD to underground nuclear missles to magical space weaponry that turned the towers to dust!

 

Once again, the shills tell us that everything counter to the "official" BS story is wrong, they cast insults, and do their "team" attacks, but EVERYTHING counter to actual truth, that they support 100%, is correct. Everything we question, is attacked. Everything they say, is completely flawless and credible.

I think that it's interesting the time and effort spent by certain individuals to keep 'convincing' everybody that we're all nut cases. They go on and on, year are year, focusing on discrediting the "crazies". When asked why, they claim it's a "hobby", that they have no agenda at all, and that they are just random voices speaking against the whackos, again, with absolutely no agenda. Well, I find that difficult to believe. The average person wouldn't care to rail against "whackos", unless they had some motivation. I question that motivation. Same continuous cast of characters, 24/7, and always in the same groups of attackers. Interesting. Now, undoubtedly, the ringleader will accuse me of the same so, the debate is effectively stifled, and a job is well done. Darn kooks must be continually beaten back at all costs, or so it seems.

Nobody cares about 9/11 (they claim), EXCEPT (apparently) the team. We're all whack jobs...they're all genuine defenders of righteousness, and they need to bash and attack defending a "story' that supposedly everybody believes and accepts. Quite the agenda for people that have no agenda, I'd say.

 

As I've said before, the best debunking tool that exists is to let Truthers post to their heart's content. Hilarity is soon to follow.

 

Maybe if you didn't post known lies, and dumb (*)(*)(*)(*) like "no planes or victims" when it's blatantly obvious that there were both, people wouldn't call you a whacko. If you didn't make (*)(*)(*)(*) up, you wouldn't be called a liar.

So why is that not valid? Why is it totally ok for you to come here year after year, day after day, spreading the same old debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? However, when a "debunker" does it, then they're obviously a shill that works for the government? Maybe the reason why you don't understand that, is directly tied to the reason you're a "truther" in the first place. You can't logically examine things. To you, YOU'RE the righteous one, coming on the boards "educating" all the onlookers with your absolute "truth". Perhaps you should take a step back and look in the mirror?

And what's your agenda? Furthermore, why isn't defending the 3,000 killed by honoring their memories an agenda you don't accept? I've researched 9/11 because it was a subject that interested me. I now come here to laugh at truthers and spread the information that I know is correct, in order to combat the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you claim is correct.

You're no better than anyone else Fraud.

 

Far worse, in fact.

 

My, my, what a whiny, childish post. Everyone is attacking the poor boy.

Hey 'Fraud questioning your claims and asking for evidence is not 'attacking'. Grow a pair and support your claims if you are able.

Now: Interesting what they say about the stiffener plates. Do you agree with Cole's position? Why do you suppose NIST did what they did about the plates?

 

How many? Do you have any examples please?

 

I think mean "officially" approved. Debating these individuals in their collective effort, is quite impossible to do, as you must have realized by now. Pick any ONE specific point, and it'll either get dodged, ridiculed to death (or both), or you'll get some other dodge like "cite our source", and then when you cite it, the whole thing starts all over again. SPECIFIC, HONEST discussion is to be avoided at all cost. You have to admit dude, they do a great job doing what they do. It's futile to argue with an agenda.

 

More pithy whining. You started the thread and YOU continue to dodge the specific points raised.

Now: Interesting what they say about the stiffener plates. Do you agree with Cole's position? Why do you suppose NIST did what they did about the plates?

Answer, or dodge again in a cowardly fashion. Your choice.

 

A more prinicipal question (or more than one) from an outsider:

The case of murdering more than 3.000 innocent people should lead to an investigation disclosing every little detail about everything. From financing to all of the supporters to the grandmother of those who made the coffee during the meetings when the plans were made.
Instead in a country with hundreds of law enforcment agencies, secret services, private investigators the National Institute for Standards and Technology is ordered to conduct such a more than sophisticated criminal investigation. Is that standard operation procedure? Does NIST have any experience in forensic investigations?
When NIST in his final report completely ignored the collapse of WTC7 and only after repeatedly being criticized first replied to have deliberately omitted the investigation based on "lack of manpower" but then finally announced to conduct one, the report of that investigation, although on their homepage being announced to be available, never in reality was, because a dead link was presented.
One of the most important tasks of NIST then would be to produce new norms and standards which avoid similar buildings to collapse during office fires. According to the film from "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" NIST on being questioned about that topic, answered that those findings "are to be kept disclosed for reasons of national security".

What kind of strange answers. If the collapse of a large building, one of three is more than nothing, has to be ignored for "lack of manpower", why not hire some volunteers or outsource parts of the investigation to other organisation familiar with forensic procedures or give the complete task to someone having enough manpower for an investigation which is in the interest of national security? And what is more important for national security, which means the security of the people living in a country, as to prevent future terrorists from bringing down large buildings with a box of matches or a lighter?

From the view of the outsider all authorities participating in the investigation including the President himself behave like defendants. Instead of all criminal details being published so that the complete population can benefit from findings everything is behind some strange kind of secrecy, secrecy normally only is found in someone trying to avoid prosecution. Why is that so?

 

Have you read the multiple reports on 9/11? I'll get to this more

This is a fallacy, NIST didn't care where the terrorists came from, how they got financed, or anything to that effect, at all. NIST wasn't in charge of the criminal investigation. That wasn't their job, their job was to decide how the buildings fell, and from what. You're confusing what their job was, probably due to lack of research. There is more than one report out on how 9/11 came to be, where the financing came from, and how it all unfolded. You can find these by doing very basic research on the timelines and the investigations that were designed to cover that aspect of 9/11. Here's a hint, it's not FEMA, NIST, or the EPA. A bit more of a hint, try googling "9/11 criminal investigation", sift through the bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and you'll find all the information we have gathered.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am finding nothing to support this. Can you provide any evidence, any at all, to confirm what you're saying? You'll have to excuse me, I'm a bit of a skeptic, and when people just blurt out random (*)(*)(*)(*) I have a tendency to see it for what it is. Just for both of our knowledge, moving forward, cite what you say. If you don't, it's pretty much bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

LoL well there you go, you're listening to AE, who have no clue what they're talking about. In fact, I am going to use a link on A&E that links to this article which states:

It would appear, if you are standing by what you saw in the video, that A&E are dumb enough to contradict themselves....on their own site! Good work, I love Truthers!

Except those aren't the answers, you're wrong.

What? Oh, that thing you can't prove NIST said, ok, back on track. I don't know why I'm feeding into your strawman, but what the hell. Can you name any other organizations? Can you pick out a group that would be able to handle something like the NIST report? I've already told you that they weren't in charge of the criminal investigation, they did the collapses of the towers.

Did this happen? This is a combination of a red herring and a strawman. Implying the towers were brought down by fire alone, and that it was done with something as small as a box of matches and a lighter (Why they would need two ignition sources is beyond me, but whatever, it's your strawman.)

First off, you're not an outsider. You've admitted to doing research on 9/11, albeit poorly, and you've referenced AE911T. You can't claim to be an outsider if you're of the opinion that the government is behind it. To attack your most recent strawman, there was a lot of ass covering in regards to 9/11. A lot of people dropped the ball in a bunch of different locations. There was also a lot of top secret information that was exposed during the testimonies. I prefer to protect our country and our defenses, so I am happy our confidential information wasn't given to the public just to please a collection of morons that wouldn't understand what to do with the information in the first place.

Any other questions that you can round up? Maybe something about stock options or "the missing 2 trillion"?

 

Sure.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165

You can start with these.

http://www.jod911.com/

Here's more.

Happy reading.

 

I suppose you are referencing our previous conversation as I can tell by the backhanded remarks. No need to be backhanded chief. My ID says grown ass man, you can speak directly to me. What I choose to do as a hobby or in my free time is completely up to me. there doesn't have to be an agenda, but if there was one, I guess it would be the fact that it doesn't sit well with me that people who can not get facts right and have no understanding of the physics and keep perpetrating the same lies they have for the last 12 years contrary to what irrefutable evidence has shown time and time again are dishonest, nut jobs who (*)(*)(*)(*) on the graves of 3000 people who were murdered on 9/11 and spit in the face of the survivors and families of those victims.

So when I hear someone claim that no planes were used at the WTC complex, in light of the fact of all the evidence that supports that there obviously was, yes I will speak up.

When someone like Richard Gage who continuously regurgitates theories that have been shown time and time again to be incorrect, yes, I will speak up.

When I read about Dmitri Khazolev claim he was a russian nuclear officer claim that the WTC complex was destroyed by 150 kiloton nuclear warheads that were built into the design of the towers, I will speak up.


When I hear a supporterof the Judy Wood theory that some magical directed energy weapon made the basic molecular structure of the steel disassociate and turn to dust contrary to the piles of steel that are well documented, I will speak up.

So, now that we have seen some of the inane thoeries put forth by the truth movement over the last 12 years, why shouldn't there be an opposing voice?