Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Dave Rogers said:
FTFY.

Dave
Click to expand...

Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.


So you do believe in conspiracy, what you think about demartini etc, LOL
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
And you had a stupid answer:D But i will take it as a no.
Click to expand...

Could you explain how this:

Dave Rogers said:
DeMartini, Skilling and Robertson all referred in their statements to the results of an analysis done in 1964. They stated accurately their beliefs based on the results of that very brief and, in hindsight, inadequate analysis. To assign to that analysis a greater weight than the incomparably more thorough analysis done by NIST, as so many conspiracy theorists appear to do, is quite bizarre.

Dave
Click to expand...

is a stupid answer?
 
Dave Rogers said:
DeMartini, Skilling and Robertson all referred in their statements to the results of an analysis done in 1964. They stated accurately their beliefs based on the results of that very brief and, in hindsight, inadequate analysis. To assign to that analysis a greater weight than the incomparably more thorough analysis done by NIST, as so many conspiracy theorists appear to do, is quite bizarre.

Dave
Click to expand...

Is this the same ' brief' analysis that you are talking about Dave ?

'' THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS ''
 
Marokkaan said:
Ok i will apologize if you are going to tell me, what the evidence is for supporting the official theory.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you know what I believe? I have never talked about this. I have no understanding of fire science or engineering. I have never read any of these reports you talk about. So I don't know what you're talking about.

I have talked with hundreds, maybe even thousands of 'advocates for a 9/11 Truth'. I have published a research paper about this. I'm going to publish more on this I think. It's very clear to me that these 9/11 Truth advocates are seriously confused people. Some significant number of them have been diagnosed as mentally ill. Others have no idea what they believe. You can't get straight answers out of them about central ideas. With no disrespect intended, look at what you've done in this thread - post a Youtube video of a newspaper writing talking about cognitive bias as if it's something I should care about.

I am especially confounded by Truthers who are not Americans. They show a very particular kind of confusion.

9/11 Truth is a gaggle of the weirdest, craziest most confused people you will find anywhere. Just look at the nut cases posting on the JREF right now. You talk about questions? Truthers don't even know what they believe.

I have no intention of clarifying this for you. I have posted extensively about this on the JREF and written a research article which, for reasons not clear to me, you can find with a websearch. If you want to talk about anything I have posted here or published elsewhere, on 9/11 or other topics I have researched, I will be happy to do so. Talking to one more Truther about what they want to talk about is just stupid.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.


So you do believe in conspiracy, what you think about demartini etc, LOL
Click to expand...

If NIST is a non-regulatory body what gives them the right to refuse to release the data they used to construct the computer model of the collapse of WTC7 ?
 
Scott Sommers said:
Why do you think you know what I believe? I have never talked about this. I have no understanding of fire science or engineering. I have never read any of these reports you talk about. So I don't know what you're talking about.

I have talked with hundreds, maybe even thousands of 'advocates for a 9/11 Truth'. I have published a research paper about this. I'm going to publish more on this I think. It's very clear to me that these 9/11 Truth advocates are seriously confused people. Some significant number of them have been diagnosed as mentally ill. Others have no idea what they believe. You can't get straight answers out of them about central ideas. With no disrespect intended, look at what you've done in this thread - post a Youtube video of a newspaper writing talking about cognitive bias as if it's something I should care about.

I am especially confounded by Truthers who are not Americans. They show a very particular kind of confusion.

9/11 Truth is a gaggle of the weirdest, craziest most confused people you will find anywhere. Just look at the nut cases posting on the JREF right now. You talk about questions? Truthers don't even know what they believe.

I have no intention of clarifying this for you. I have posted extensively about this on the JREF and written a research article which, for reasons not clear to me, you can find with a websearch. If you want to talk about anything I have posted here or published elsewhere, on 9/11 or other topics I have researched, I will be happy to do so. Talking to one more Truther about what they want to talk about is just stupid.
Click to expand...

You did not read the NIST report.

That says everything.....

I think its stuped to not read the NIST report even when you are truther, everybody has to read the nist report.

I think its even more stupid, by saying the 9/11 truth organisation is stupid, especially you didnt even read the nist report.

But ok, now i know a discussion with you, is not possible.
 
Marokkaan said:
You did not read the NIST report.

That says everything.....

I think its stuped to not read the NIST report even when you are truther, everybody has to read the nist report.

I think its even more stupid, by saying the 9/11 truth organisation is stupid, especially you didnt even read the nist report.

But ok, now i know a discussion with you, is not possible.
Click to expand...

I seem to have presumed your English was much better than it is. I think I'm going to call it a night. Good luck with your life. And my offer about talking about psychology, etc. stands. It's a lifetime offer.
 
bill smith said:
If NIST is a non-regulatory body what gives them the right to refuse to release the data they used to construct the computer model of the collapse of WTC7 ?
Click to expand...

Thats the funny thing, also when you know america have the freedom of information act

And the reason why they dont show is the most funny thing.
 
Scott Sommers said:
I seem to have presumed your English was much better than it is. I think I'm going to call it a night. Good luck with your life. And my offer about talking about psychology, etc. stands. It's a lifetime offer.
Click to expand...

Good luck also, try to read the NIST report, it will amaze you.
 
bill smith said:
If NIST is a non-regulatory body what gives them the right to refuse to release the data they used to construct the computer model of the collapse of WTC7 ?
Click to expand...
Well, the Army, Navy, and Air Force are non-regulatory bodies also, and they can refuse to release data for security reasons.

What's non-regulatory got to do with anything?
 
Marokkaan said:
Great you admit it.

NOw only you have to make a link, with the answer of demartini and the answer of john skilling.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Click to expand...


no I don't, they were right on one matter and wrong on the other. the first is a (relatively simple matter of working out worst case mechanical damage from a impact of known magnitude. I could take a crack at that even with my college math. The fire however is a much harder thing to model.

They made a mistake....humans do....you are making one with every post.
 
DC said:
how would you know? you obviously never read those reports.
Click to expand...

And this is why what's happening here is clearly not cognitive dissonance or whatever thing people think they're talking about when they cite the Kruger & Dunning Effect. Someone who could cite a Youtube video of Barry Zwicker, whom they seemingly don't recognize, just because his conclusions agree with there's, has a problem that can not be reduced to a single cognitive bias. All of this makes you wonder what he takes as authoritative about the 9/11 attacks. Dustification? Thermite? Foam?

I really wise this fetish of the cognitive bias would disappear - although I doubt it will. The problems of logic you see among Truthers are so complex, I doubt they can be explained by these kinds of mechanism - although I have no doubt that Kruger & Dunning disagree with me. Many of the Truthers here are probably just outright liars talking about this 9/11 Truth garbage for their own ulterior reasons. Probably a much more useful concept is the idea of status anxiety (which is only loosely related to the recent book by Alain de Botton).

Anyway, rock on dude. I'm going to bed.
 
Marokkaan said:
Why you are talking about who did it?
Click to expand...

I'm not.

Marokkaan said:
I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.
Click to expand...

That's most likely a lie as you've done nothing but since you joined this forum.

Marokkaan said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...

You failed to answer my question.

Why do you believe whoever did 911 flew jet airliners into buildings that were impervious to jet airliners? Do you think whoever did 911 are insanely stupid and insanely clever at the same time?

ETA: Failure to adress this part of my post is going to be taken as an admission by you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Is this the same ' brief' analysis that you are talking about Dave ?

'' THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS ''
Click to expand...

Please link or give a reference number to this structural analysis. I can't find it. I don't doubt it's existence, but I doubt it's contents.
 
Marokkaan said:
Just an example, if an alien did it and there is proof or big signals of evidence, a person who has cognitive dissonance, will ignore it, because the person has the assumption aliens does not exist, and its crazy to believe in aliens because the majority does not believe in aliens.
Click to expand...

First show that this is actually the case.

Just the same with a lot of debunkers. They have the assumption, the government will never do that or its crazy they used planes for there targets
Click to expand...
.

I have no such assumption, Govs have and continue doing bad things.
My interest lies in what twoofers present as evidence and that I can see is not what they claim it to be.

So the new information, that contradicts their believe in the official story, they will ignore no matter there are signs of evidence or something else.
Click to expand...

I have a training in science and work full time in engineering. Weird things happen all the time. I don't just pretend they didn't happen, I find root cause and fix them.

If the US gov wanted to MIHOP 911 they would simply have sent a undercover CIA guy to suggest the idea to Osama. It was a simple idea, with the only normally tough part being finding people who wanted to die for their cause. Osama had those by the dozen so all he needed were 4 that were smart enough to be able to fly a plane.........he found them and the rest is history. the other hijackers wouldn't even have to know what was planned (though it appears they did) for it to work.......4 suicidal nuts and a little money and you have 911.
Click to expand...
 
sheeplesnshills said:
no I don't, they were right on one matter and wrong on the other. the first is a (relatively simple matter of working out worst case mechanical damage from a impact of known magnitude. I could take a crack at that even with my college math. The fire however is a much harder thing to model.

They made a mistake....humans do....you are making one with every post.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom