• 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.

AE911Truth Watch

Christopher7 said:
You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.
Click to expand...

If said contributors, for any reason, disagreed with the findings of the report, would it not be up to them to publicly state such?

And conversely, if they agreed with the findings of the report to which they contributed, would there be any need to affirm that by stating that they agreed with the report?
 
DGM said:
Why would the engineering community go out of their way to make statements when no one is asking for them?
Click to expand...
No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


The "truth" movement has no credibility to ask for anything and no one else finds any reason to.
Click to expand...
You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
 
Christopher7 said:
There are several anonymous persons who claim to be engineers, architects and physicists but none will post their real names and proof of their qualifications.
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
In Architect's case, he's provided the moderators / administrators with documentation of his credentials. I'm prepared to do the same if need be, but I certainly don't see any reason why any of us should be beholden to provide personal information to you.

On a skeptic's forum, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my posts in either case.
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
Talk is cheap.
Put up or .....................
Click to expand...

Are you actually accusing members of this forum of lying about their credentials, without any evidence of such, or merely insinuating it? I'm not really sure which is worse, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that seems to be the conspiracy theorist modus operandi.
 
Christopher7 said:
No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
Click to expand...
Can you give me current statements from these people? Where are they speaking out?

ETA Quintiere is not a supporter of your cause and you know it. Saying so is a lie on your part.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
Click to expand...
Correct, on 9/11 all you listed have zero evidence you can list to support any of your ideas on 9/11 or 9/11 truth ideas. A big zip on the evidence, like perfectly wrong on all aspects of 9/11; and you can not post a single pieced of evidence; just hearsay and rant.

If they had some evidence they would also have a Pulitzer Prize. That is what the guys got for evidence of Nixon covering up Watergate. Simple stuff, and usually done in two years or less not 6 years of lies and hearsay like you believe in.
 
Last edited:
C'mon Chris, stop being a wimp.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

So....when will it be?
 
Christopher7 said:
No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

No they are speaking out because they are kooks and it makes them feel important. Or because they are charlatans out to rip off gullible people who will buy their nonsense.

You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
Click to expand...

If they had any credibility, they would be able to back their assertions with well reasoned scientific papers, accurate mathematical analysis and logic. What they actually do is make wild unfounded assertions which they refuse to back up with any kind of evidence.
 
nicepants said:
If said contributors, for any reason, disagreed with the findings of the report, would it not be up to them to publicly state such?

And conversely, if they agreed with the findings of the report to which they contributed, would there be any need to affirm that by stating that they agreed with the report?
Click to expand...
Good points.
However:
The NIST report has been challenged and labeled a fraud by many qualified individuals, yet none of the contributing experts have come to the defense of the report or their contributions.
 
Christopher7 said:
Good points.
However:
The NIST report has been challenged and labeled a fraud by many qualified individuals, yet none of the contributing experts have come to the defense of the report or their contributions.
Click to expand...

Until these "many qualified individuals" actually publish something scientific which comes close to challenging the conclusions of the NIST report, the authors have nothing to respond to.

How can an engineer counter political rhetoric with equations? Why should they even try?
 
CHF said:
C'mon Chris, stop being a wimp.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

So....when will it be?
Click to expand...
It is not necessary to publish ones beliefs in a journal.
A clear written statement is sufficient for anyone not desperately looking for a reason to deny the opinion of qualified individuals.

Your adolescent name calling demonstrates your lack of intellect.
 
Confuseling said:
I'm not trying to talk past you guys or anything.

I would just like to extend a warm welcome to you all to

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108311

this thread, wherein I would like to discuss in a focused way this exact topic, and only this topic.

The only reason I've started a thread is because I've seen several go this way, and I think it sensible to give it its own space.
Click to expand...

Good luck.
Derails by troothers are nearly always unpunished.
 
Christopher7 said:
It is not necessary to publish ones beliefs in a journal.
Click to expand...
Yes - if someone doesn't care about being taken seriously then it isn't necessary to publish their work. Indeed, their friend's website will do just fine.

But I was under the impression that the TM does care about being taken seriously.

Was I wrong to think so, Chris?
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Until these "many qualified individuals" actually publish something scientific which comes close to challenging the conclusions of the NIST report, the authors have nothing to respond to.
Click to expand...
They have. Read what they have to say.

Furthermore:

[FONT=&quot]NIST only explained the collapse initiation of the Towers,
they did not explain the collapse.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.

PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
NIST did not offer an explanation of how the the north and south core column rows in WTC 7 collapsed,
nor can they confirm any part of their hypothesis.

Six and a half years later, NIST cannot explain the collapse of the Trade Towers or WTC 7.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]NIST only explained the collapse initiation of the Towers,
they did not explain the collapse.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well you're in luck, Chris!

Some experts have looked into the collapses themselves and have had their work published after peer-review.

None of them agree with you.
 
So the latest tactic of the TM is to claim that the NIST scientists don't agree with the conclusions in the report? :jaw-dropp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom