• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

boloboffin said:
Someone from Denmark, I believe, found my email address on the public comments and sent me a letter informing me that there was no evidence of Muslim terrorists boarding the planes. I replied that indeed there was and sent him several links of evidence. Then I got the diatribe.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

That sounds like Elias Davidson, from Germany. He e-mailed me demanding evidence of hijackers, I sent him all the stuff from the commission report, but he said that he wouldn't accept anything from the government because they can't be trusted.

So I then asked him to prove that Germany invaded France in WWII, but that I wouldn't accept anything from historians, because they can't be trusted.

He stopped e-mailing me.
 
JamesB said:
That sounds like Elias Davidson, from Germany. He e-mailed me demanding evidence of hijackers, I sent him all the stuff from the commission report, but he said that he wouldn't accept anything from the government because they can't be trusted.

So I then asked him to prove that Germany invaded France in WWII, but that I wouldn't accept anything from historians, because they can't be trusted.

He stopped e-mailing me.
Click to expand...

Bingo! I just told him to never email me again. And to his credit, he hasn't.

ETA: Oh, duh, .de isn't Denmark, it's Deutschland.
 
Last edited:
He was rather polite. I just explained to him that it was a pointless exchange, since he would dismiss any evidence that he didn't like. There was no way to falsify his beliefs.
 
RedIbis said:
So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
What would you expect to find on col 79 which could establish, or refute, the findings of the computer analysis that the failure of col 79 led to global collapse?

Do attempt to be specific please.
Click to expand...


Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?
 
I'm soundly reserving judgment until Christopher7 gives his expert opinion.
 
jaydeehess said:
Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?
Click to expand...

If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
 
Red Ibis, could you at least give me a motive for destroying WTC 7 hours after the twin towers fell, and the building had been evacuated?

I want to understand why it makes any sense at all to you, despite the fact that there's no evidence to support it.
 
Btodd said:
Red Ibis, could you at least give me a motive for destroying WTC 7 hours after the twin towers fell, and the building had been evacuated?

I want to understand why it makes any sense at all to you, despite the fact that there's no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Truly a red herring. This thread is about NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory and whether or not you think it's necessary that they produce the key physical evidence.

Either you think physical evidence is necessary to support their theory or you don't.
 
RedIbis said:
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

The columns used in WTC7 were not marked in such a way that they could figure out which one is which. Therefore, they could not produce any column as any kind of physical evidence to the collapse.

Frankly, I consider the idea that it came down from any kind of controlled demolition ridiculous considering there is no evidence whatsoever. And especially because the FDNY recognized that it was in danger of coming down on its own and took appropriate measures. Why do you think they did this?

The only reason that you doubt that it came down from fires is because you want to believe 9/11 was an inside job and latch on to WTC7 as some kind indication. And it doesn't even really matter that the destruction of WTC7 in no way coherent with any sort of conspiracy theory. I've yet to see any semi-responsible explanation why they would go to all the lengths and risk to blow up some building that nobody had ever heard of.
 
Last edited:
wow, red. care to explain why a computer simulation can't be taken for a good model of a real world event?

Computer simulations have been used as scientific means and as evidence in many court cases.
 
Arus808 said:
wow, red. care to explain why a computer simulation can't be taken for a good model of a real world event?

Computer simulations have been used as scientific means and as evidence in many court cases.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously NIST is shilling for Bush and Silverstein who blew up the building for no reason. So they fudged the computer simulation otherwise they might have lost their jobs or something.
 
yeah and the thousands of other engineers out there, who do use computer modeling and simulation didn't detect the fraud? :)
 
i wonder if red flies much, considering most planes today are designed on computers (maybe he only flies in really old planes?)
 
Arus808 said:
wow, red. care to explain why a computer simulation can't be taken for a good model of a real world event?

Computer simulations have been used as scientific means and as evidence in many court cases.
Click to expand...
Every airplane you fly on; every vehicle you ride in; every STS mission--all analyzed for safety and success by...
Yes, Computer simulation.
It costs a bunch of bucks to build something and test it, break it, fix the problems, build another one, test it, break it somewhere else, build another one, etc, etc until it takes the load and lasts as long as you intended it to.

too bad. Amazingly enough, sims are damned accurate things, properly done.
 
rwguinn said:
Every airplane you fly on; every vehicle you ride in; every STS mission--all analyzed for safety and success by...
Yes, Computer simulation.
It costs a bunch of bucks to build something and test it, break it, fix the problems, build another one, test it, break it somewhere else, build another one, etc, etc until it takes the load and lasts as long as you intended it to.

too bad. Amazingly enough, sims are damned accurate things, properly done.
Click to expand...
Who was the truther here who would settle for nothing less than a replica WTC be built and a 767 flown into it to see if it would collapse?
 
RedIbis said:
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

And yet not a single reputable person in the worldwide scientific community has made similar observations regarding this glaringly fraudulent report.

I wonder why.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...


Uhh... Are you sure you're not confused, RedIbis? Because the "movement" that you implicitly side with has the problem you describe here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom