Now you are committing so many fallacies yourself that I dont even know how to label em , if it is shifting goalspots, or if it is simulating false understanding or simply strawman. Again, I was not binding the fact of the ppl at NIST being or not honest to the outcome of the report. I was pointing TAM's biased comment, which is now clarified by him. QUE PASA CARLITOS?!?!
U kiddin? They built the model to explain how the fires destroyed the building. Or not?
Like any gulible person. I guess you can include your truthers if you will.
Well...sorry to read that then...
but the thing is, NIST started from a conclusion to draw a premise. They can do it, anyone can. They dont even need to be bribed or dishonest or part of some big NWO conspiracy. Of course one can build a model in which a fire and some debris from surrounding buildings seem to be enough to bring down the building like a perfect controlled demolition. They can, but they need to release the full info so people can really test it and verify that thats the most plausible explanation, or better yet, that this indeeed WAS what happened.
That's a moot argument. The masses are ready to accept anything without questioning much, they just need someone to tell them what to believe.
All good now.
Yes, well my faux pas in expressing something as an absolute. My medical training teaches me better....lol
TAM
fixed that for you. I'm sure this is what you intended to write.
Last edited:
What else were they going to do? Show how it had been destroyed by DEW from space?
Yes parky thunder, sheep are everywhere waiting for their shepards to conduct em. That`s not news. Be it at infowars, or JREF. I feel equally ashamed by some comments I read there and here. Wait... to be fair, more ashamed by the average wackos who comment at infowars.
What else were they going to do? Show how it had been destroyed by DEW from space?
...
No thermite, or explosives used to bring down WTC7. 911 truth has no evidence of explosives, or thermite being used. Not melted steel, nothing.
Fire did it. Instead of wasting 9 years supporting idiots who make up lies, take a course in fire science, engineering, physics, or something to cure your problem believing liars instead of using facts and evidence to draw logical conclusions.
You are gullible if you believe 911 truth. Your support lacks evidence, and conviction. With 9 years of solid failure, you may want to become skeptical of 911 truth.
You failed to read the NIST report. oops
Last edited:
There was no evidence of explosives...no det cord, no residue.
Thermite has never before been used for a demolition of a building, so why would they search for it?
The collapses, even prior to investigation, fit with what was seen....giant airliner hits tower, large multifloor fires occur, left untreated, and about an hour later the buildings begin to falter, at the site of the collapses, and then proceed to collapse DOWNWARD to the ground from those floors to the base.
Now given all of the above, WHY, WHY, would they investigate any further, Demolition, as a cause of the collapses????
TAM
Thermite has never before been used for a demolition of a building, so why would they search for it?
The collapses, even prior to investigation, fit with what was seen....giant airliner hits tower, large multifloor fires occur, left untreated, and about an hour later the buildings begin to falter, at the site of the collapses, and then proceed to collapse DOWNWARD to the ground from those floors to the base.
Now given all of the above, WHY, WHY, would they investigate any further, Demolition, as a cause of the collapses????
TAM
Wow, why do you make up idiotic lies?...
but the thing is, NIST started from a conclusion to draw a premise. ...
All good now.
NIST WTC Investigation Objectives
How did you fail so bad? Google failure? Why are you plagued by 9 year of complete failure?
Does your delusion on WTC 7 come with thermite? You understand office contents have more heat energy than thermite? Plastic has over 10 times the heat energy of thermite. Why use thermite when the computer cases and office junk have more heat energy; paper beats thermite for heat!
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
would laugh at them, because it would be so moronic, that would be the only response needed.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Well, maybe it's because (I am just guessing here) about, 100,000 engineers, architects, fire protection engineers, and other QUALIFIED people have read and studied the reports from NIST, and to date, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has published ANYTHING showing that they are wrong.
Care to be the first truthie?
Exactly, all that. Still they come from conclusion to premise.
What else were they going to do? Show how it had been destroyed by DEW from space?
QED, conclusion THEN premise.
fallout,
You start out with a hypothesis, yes, as does any scientist. That does not mean that they didn't explore, or look into other possibles. It doesn't mean they didn't look for det cord, or residue, just because it is not mentioned in the final report.
They went in, after seeing (like everyone else) the planes crash into the buildings, the subsequent fires, the top down collapses about an hour later, and this was the PRIMARY focus of their building safety and performance study...WHAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE.
As detailed and as complex as the final reports from NIST are, it does not mean that other things were not considered, or looked for, either by them, or FEMA, or the forensic FBI team.
That said, the focus of the NIST study was not forensic. It was an investigation for the purposes of building safety...go read their mission statement for the investigation.
TAM
You start out with a hypothesis, yes, as does any scientist. That does not mean that they didn't explore, or look into other possibles. It doesn't mean they didn't look for det cord, or residue, just because it is not mentioned in the final report.
They went in, after seeing (like everyone else) the planes crash into the buildings, the subsequent fires, the top down collapses about an hour later, and this was the PRIMARY focus of their building safety and performance study...WHAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE.
As detailed and as complex as the final reports from NIST are, it does not mean that other things were not considered, or looked for, either by them, or FEMA, or the forensic FBI team.
That said, the focus of the NIST study was not forensic. It was an investigation for the purposes of building safety...go read their mission statement for the investigation.
TAM
Because this time, ACCORDING TO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, they wanted to hide the demolition. It wasnt meant to be public once they had the plan of eliminating the criminal evidence contained inside the building in the archives and or the alleged insurance of silverstein. NOTICE AGAIN THAT THIS IS NOT MY CLAIM, I`M JUST TELLING WHY TERMINTE COUUUUULD BE USED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO HIDE OR MINIMIZE THE EXTERNAL VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE DEMOLITION. Caps intended.
I try not to argue about the twin towers. Those at least had real reasons to be brought down.
Now given all of the above, WHY, WHY, would they investigate any further, Demolition, as a cause of the collapses????
TAM
Honestly now I dont know if theres any reason to investigate it further, but at the beginning with all the rumors of explosions, bomb vans and etc, why not explosives being involved in such a barbaric crime? Why not? It's so cliche.... you know, terrorist attacks with bombs.... I just think they ignored it too much , beyond what is reasonable, AT THE BEGINNING, WHEN IT WAS POSSIBLE TO REALLY FIND OUT ABOUT IT.
.
You are being reasonable (I suspect because you are a doubter rather then a truther), so I will respond in kind.
1. Explosions were heard in a building that has been struck by a jet airliner, had upwards of 10 floors on fire, had its electrical failing, and likely had all sorts of material and metal shifting, falling. Speaking of falling, there were the elevators and people falling, and hitting ground. LOTS of reasons for sounds that would be described on reflection, as "explosions" or LIKE "bombs".
2. Thermite has never been used in building demolition.
3. The amount of thermite needed would be large...who brought it in, when, how many people?
4. There has never been presented, a plausible thermite applicator for the suggested nanothermite paint we here some talk of.
5. NIST did not investigate right away. The FBI did. They were the FORENSIC investigative team. Do we know if they looked for det cord or residue? Are we privvy to that info? NIST study was much much later, not right after...not right away.
TAM
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
The utter lack of controversy over their results should offer a clue.
The opposition from within the scientific and technical community to the NIST reports has been virtually nil.