NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

1337m4n said:
Is that what he's saying? That would be pretty stupid, considering that NIST is based on peer-review. Not that I would expect a Truther to understand what peer-review is.

It's not one guy writing the entire report.
Click to expand...

I think, If I am getting it correctly, the premise is that those at the top, or some at the top, move the rest of the investigators in such a way as to avoid data that does not agree with the preconceived outcome...

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I think, If I am getting it correctly, the premise is that those at the top, or some at the top, move the rest of the investigators in such a way as to avoid data that does not agree with the preconceived outcome...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

That'll go over real well.

Guy at Top: No, don't use that data.

Peon: Uh...why not? The entire calculation screws up without it. We'll get a completely different result.

Guy at Top: BECAUSE I SAID SO OKAY???




I really do tire of Truthers subtly accusing completely innocent men of being complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent Americans based on nothing more than complete speculation and personal incredulity, but not having the balls to admit that they are, in fact, making an accusation.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.
Click to expand...

This is absurd. Institutional positions on important questions are expressed all the time. Email where I work (a large, semi-public non-profit) is expected to bear a note saying that the views expressed are those of the individual, not the position of the institution.

More of Red I.'s silliness, trying to show that he isn't really saying that fire fighters are to blame; only mysterious higher-ups (perhaps in cahoots with Gen Myers, as we heard in an earlier thread) were.
 
Gotta love the phrase "higher-ups". It allows Truthers to make completely baseless accusations without naming any names or providing even a shred of evidence.

I should start a thread challenging Truthers to explain how their conspiracy is possible, WITHOUT using the phrase "higher-ups". It'd be interesting to see how far they get.
 
Par said:
So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question. I won’t be the only one who notices, you know.
Click to expand...

With the barrage of questions thrown at me after every post I make, I have to pick my spots. I try to stay away from the juvenile and pathetic, but also questions that I've answered and positions I've stated numerous times already.
 
As Max Photon so famously said: "NIST always tells the truth; but sometimes it is the ambiguated truth"

Here is a good example:

On March 6th 2002 the US House Committee on Science heard a presentation from Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., then Director of NIST, on NIST's plans to investigate the WTC collapse. In this presentation it was stated that NIST's invesigation would focus on WTC 1 & 2, but could also include WTC 7. Bement also stated that NIST expected to complete the investigation and issue a final report in 24 months.

P.S.

In 2003 NIST had 3000 employees and it's budget was $700 million. The final NIST Report cost $20 million. (Cheap at twice the price!)
 
RedIbis said:
With the barrage of questions thrown at me after every post I make, I have to pick my spots. I try to stay away from the juvenile and pathetic, but also questions that I've answered and positions I've stated numerous times already.
Click to expand...


I see. Well in that case there seems little to stop you from going over to the aforementioned thread and answering the following question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?

(Of course, if you’ve answered it before, then perhaps you could simply quote or link to that previous answer. It’s a perfectly straightforward and pertinent question, and this is, after all, around the seventh time that I’ve put it to you.)
 
Last edited:
Par said:
I see. Well in that case there seems little to stop you from going over to the aforementioned thread and answering the following question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?

(Of course, if you’ve answered it before, then perhaps you could simply quote or link to that previous answer. It’s a perfectly straightforward and pertinent question, and this is, after all, around the seventh time that I’ve put it to you.)
Click to expand...

At this point it's only principle and a bit of amusment that I get from seeing you repeatedly ask a question that I've previously answered. I feel absolutely no obligation to repond to your requests. Zero.
 
So, you can't respond, even if it is with a link. Is that a fair assessment, Red?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
sometimes investigators are looking for something and cannot find evidence. while exeryone knows, the accused is guilty.

When Al Capone and other Mafiosis are able to keep evedence hidden. im pretty sure that a corrupt group inside Gov Agencys are able to do the same.
Click to expand...
Al Capone and the Mafia were invented by the government so they could steal our freedom with the RICO Act and other legislation.

You hear me? Al Capone was a government agent!
 
Apollo20 said:
The Titanic hit an iceberg... looks like case closed there too.
Click to expand...
Did the BBoT investigate the possibility of bombs aboard the Titanic that went off after it hit the iceberg? What about U-Boats? Has the steel been tested for thermite residue?

OMG, it was an inadequate investigation!!!1!!!!!1!
 
RedIbis said:
At this point it's only principle and a bit of amusment that I get from seeing you repeatedly ask a question that I've previously answered. I feel absolutely no obligation to repond to your requests. Zero.
Click to expand...


So, you call someone a liar and when asked a simple question about your accusation you claim that it’s due the principle of the matter – the principle – that you repeatedly refuse to answer it. RedIbis, this is perverse. Please go over to the aforementioned thread and answer the question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?

If you really have already answered it then – hey! my bad! – all you need to do is provide a link or a quotation.
 
TheRedWorm said:
So, you can't respond, even if it is with a link. Is that a fair assessment, Red?
Click to expand...


Here’s something else that bears highlighting. He’s currently claiming (somewhat desperately) that now that I’ve asked the question eight times, he’s justified in refusing to answer on principle. But that raises another question: Why was he refusing to answer before that point?
 
Par said:
If you really have already answered it then – hey! my bad! – all you need to do is provide a link or a quotation.
Click to expand...
RedIbis didn't answer it, he's lying. It's the one thing he does. Well, 2 things - lying and avoiding answering direct questions. Wait, I mean 3 things - lying, avoiding answering direct questions, and making accusations without any evidence to back them up.
 
Last edited:
I was looking forward to opening this thread and getting a look-see at the final WTC7 Report.

Instead, it's just a pointless thread.
Great.

I'm sure the gag is really very witty, though.
I'm just getting old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom