• 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 Denies Access to WTC7 Data

cmatrix said:
I'm capable of eating dog &*%# but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
Click to expand...


In a purely metaphorical sense, I'd say you have been for quite some time.

I'm disappointed, though. You seem very... enthusiastic in your endeavor to convince everyone that they're wrong. I was expecting that you'd be overjoyed at the potential to rub my nose in any flaw in that post of mine. If it's too much effort to defend yourself, I can possibly understand. Thinking is hard.
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
No right. Only strange, eccentric, or crazy people (kooks) believe in theories a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) key containing statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

Space ships have never blown up after takeoff?
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

How many Space Shuttles have exploded after takeoff before 1986? None.

How many Space Shuttles have broke apart from a damaged wing upon rentry prior to 2003? None.

Now, I know this is going to be hard for you to understand, I mean, being a truther and all, but just because it was a first time in history event, doesn't mean ****.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
ftfy, and yes, by extension according to your first time in history claim the Columbia reentry break is impossible. Disagreeing with this interpretation requires that you completely abandon this silly first time in history routine.


Buddy, before you go on another issue of first in history you need to go study some material property tables... Engineering doesn't design under the premise that an unforeseen event is impossible, doing so would effectively be: A) incompetent B) Ignoring research into building materials C) Dangerous to both life and property D) A violation of building codes. Yes, that is something only crazy people would think to do in the profession or research category.

This may seem like a tangent but your complaint about the model data being disingenuous is based on your other claims.
Click to expand...

I did not say things that never happened before are impossible. They are however extraordinary and therefore require extraordinary proof not none at all. When you see an event that in the past always has been due to A but on one occasion people say B caused it without any evidence whatsoever only kooks will believe B actually caused it.
 
cmatrix said:
I did not say things that never happened before are impossible. They are however extraordinary and therefore require extraordinary proof not none at all. When you see an event that in the past always has been due to A but on one occasion people say B caused it without any evidence whatsoever only kooks will believe B actually caused it.
Click to expand...

What is example A?
 
cmatrix said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

You're asking me to prove a negative. The ball here, is logically in your court.

cmatrix said:
"So you believe NIST shares their experimental data with other scientists but yet NIST refuses to release it to independent researchers citing that it "might jeopardize public safety"? Contradiction. So you believe their experiments have been replicated by independent researchers despite the fact that NIST won't release their data to independent researchers so they can attempt to reproduce it? Contradiction. You believe the NIST report is supported by evidence but you cannot produce the evidence? Contradiction. So you don't unquestioningly accept the NIST report but yet you attack anyone who dares question it? Contradiction. You believe you are not gullible but yet believe in a theory that has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever? Contradiction. You are a walking contradiction. A bona fide physical manifestation of double-think."
Click to expand...

You did not study physics and engineering ins school, you have no grounds to make the above claim.
 
cmatrix said:
I did not say things that never happened before are impossible. They are however extraordinary and therefore require extraordinary proof not none at all.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of the trick redibis played almost two years ago when the same thing was brought up. What doomed the shuttle was a piece of insulation foam that compromised the protective exterior of the shuttle which prevents it from burning up in the atmosphere. He was perfectly content with pointing out that despite it being the first time a shuttle had ever broken up on re-entry the idea that the foam caused the initiating damage during liftoff was viable on the grounds that it did cause damage to other space craft.

On of the times I actually credit him for thinking rationally about the risks involved, even though no such incident had ever been led to something as severe as the Columbia breakup.

Then it all crashed when he reversed that thinking when he went back the references to steel framed buildings...

cmatrix said:
When you see an event that in the past always has been due to A but on one occasion people say B caused it without any evidence whatsoever only kooks will believe B actually caused it.
Click to expand...

Perfect time for me to expand the next point. Steel is fireproofed for a reason, and sprinklers are installed for a reason. Testing has unquestionably proven that fire has a negative impact on steel's structural integrity.

In several examples where high rises buildings did not collapse totally or at all we've seen steel sag significantly making the buildings dangerous to occupy. Are you denying that steel can be severely compromised by fire?

If you're answer to this is "no" then I would seriously like to know what you're finding so extraordinary about the idea that a sufficiently compromised building might actually collapse as a direct result of fire?
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.
Click to expand...

Oh indeed I know what a kook is.

And, I suspect, so do most of the sane posters in here.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Where'd you see this? The entire NCSTAR-1A, 1-9, and 1-9A set is devoted to 7 World Trade.

On top of that, those numbnuts have obviously not read the reports. WTC 7 is indeed how it's refered to. They're all available for download here, and it's trivial to see that the term is in fact used in the reports.

Now, if those idiots are referring to the original reports on the main towers, then I wouldn't be surprised if references are few and far between. The NSCTAR 1-1 through 1-8 series is supposed to only concentrate on the main towers.

Either way, it's a stupid, an abysmally idiotic claim to make. It's so easy to refute with a single download. Who said this? Were they serious, or joking? Or did they get their myths crossed (yeah, like that's never happened) and mean to refer to the 9/11 Commision's Report?
Click to expand...

And yet some of the conspiracy theorists do claim such!
And in spite of the numbers of times you try to show them that they are wrong they continue to produce the same conspiracy kook nonsense!
It's getting down to the inclusion (or not) of commas and semicolons meaning something to their cultish view of the events of 911...
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You're asking me to prove a negative. The ball here, is logically in your court.



You did not study physics and engineering ins school, you have no grounds to make the above claim.
Click to expand...

You said "I talked to U of C. They never heard of you. You lied." In response I said "Prove it" as in prove I lied. I am not asking you to prove a negative I'm asking you to prove a positive, the belief that I lied about something. If you can't prove your statement you are the one lying.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Perfect time for me to expand the next point. Steel is fireproofed for a reason, and sprinklers are installed for a reason. Testing has unquestionably proven that fire has a negative impact on steel's structural integrity.

In several examples where high rises buildings did not collapse totally or at all we've seen steel sag significantly making the buildings dangerous to occupy. Are you denying that steel can be severely compromised by fire?

If you're answer to this is "no" then I would seriously like to know what you're finding so extraordinary about the idea that a sufficiently compromised building might actually collapse as a direct result of fire?
Click to expand...

I am denying that office fires can magically remove eight stories of structure is a precisely timed manner to allow 2.25 seconds of free fall and an intricate roll to the south inside the footprint. There is absolutely no precedence for this amazing behavior. There is extensive precedence for explosives doing this. A non-crackpot kook therefore would choose CD as the superior theory.
 
cmatrix said:
You said "I talked to U of C. They never heard of you. You lied." In response I said "Prove it" as in prove I lied.
Click to expand...

You need to prove that you contacted U of C (given that you lied about that, the burden is also upon you to prove you contacted the other institutions as well).

Try giving us the names of the people you talked to. That way we can see for ourselves that you're lying.
 
Who said office fires removed eight stories of a building structure?
 
ROFL, you believe the columns were removed simultaneously and that WTC7 fell into its footprint.
 
cmatrix said:
ROFL. You believe it is impossible for explosives to simultaneously remove columns or roll buildings in their footprint?

Linear shaped charge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec5npXUR3KI

Some nice rolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
Click to expand...
You posted videos which debunk your moronic claims on 911. ROFLn+1 9 years of failure don't seem to stop you from making up more lies on 911; why? Why have you failed? Why can't you do simple physics?


No blast effects on 911. Oops
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
I am denying that office fires can magically remove eight stories of structure is a precisely timed manner to allow 2.25 seconds of free fall and an intricate roll to the south inside the footprint. There is absolutely no precedence for this amazing behavior.
Click to expand...
Except the failures which lead to this event were progressive, not instantaneous. You lot need to stop putting a mental block on the Penthouse collapse and the subsequent east-west progression. You guys can't seem to complete a simply case study task, which is proving quite dismaying.

cmatrix said:
There is extensive precedence for explosives doing this. A non-crackpot kook therefore would choose CD as the superior theory.
Click to expand...
Which of course is perfectly reasonable to bring up providing that you can show compelling evidence of their presence which includes but is not limited to:

------
physical remnants recovered

140 decibel sounds originating from the building, sequentially going off
------

which is simply non-existent at any point during the entire event. A non-crackpot would clearly be skeptical given your obviously incomplete grasp on research of course. Why you still question that is quite... curious...
 
cmatrix said:
ROFL. You believe it is impossible for explosives to simultaneously remove columns or roll buildings in their footprint?
Click to expand...

Thank you for lying. It just makes it easier for everyone to see that you have no interest in honest understanding of 9/11.

Now, let's ignore your strawman argument and get back to what I was actually saying you have no evidence for: an explosive demolition of a building that produces an extended period of freefall. Do you have anything better than YouTube videos? Like, for instance, any actual measurements of the acceleration of a falling building?

If it's too difficult for you, I can tell you how to do the calculations.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom