NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

[RedIbis]

What are you implying with that statement then? That it is taking time to cover something up?

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

 

[funk de fino]

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up.

Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?

 

[RedIbis]

So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up.

Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?

I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Then that would explain why it is taking ae911truth.org to write a peer reviewed paper explaining their claims. 7 years now and nada.

 

[pomeroo]

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.

Your side has no interest whatever in "sincere debate." The baseless slanders of Larry Silverstein demonstrate the accuracy of that contention. You accuse the man of lying, but you can't begin to explain what he might conceivably be lying about.

 

[funk de fino]

I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.

So are you saying that office fires weakening steel and progressive collapse are illogical phenomena?

 

[Par]

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up. Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?

I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.

So are you saying that office fires weakening steel and progressive collapse are illogical phenomena?

RedIbis has recently learned that when he makes his accusations unequivocally, he can end up being confronted by them and, as a result, put into some extremely difficult positions. Consequently, he’s taken to passive aggressive behaviour.

In this case, he’s taken a prosaic sentence like “Conducting a thorough investigation that arrives at a valid conclusion is both complicated and time-consuming” and has reconstructed it using innuendo-laden terms such as “construct an explanation” and “blaming the collapse on” in order to imply that the report will be a fabrication of some kind without actually having to state as much clearly. Of course, if he did state as much clearly, then, given that he can’t have yet read the report, he would make plain that his position is based upon predetermined dogma as opposed to anything approaching reason.

In any event, he seems to have been so eager to express his bristling disdain for the report that he’s essentially made it plain anyway: Something that necessarily follows from his statements, if nothing else does, is that the report’s conclusion is predetermined.

 

[1337m4n]

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.

Please quote me where I made a "disingenuous ultimatum" or a "false dichotomy".

Then, please quote yourself where you answer my question.

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of hiding subtle accusations and insults in your words, and then running away from debate every time you get confronted about it.

 

[1337m4n]

ME: Hey, RedIbis, is it raining outside?

REDIBIS: FALSE DICHOTOMY!!11!!11oneone!!

ME: wtf there's no "false dichotomy", it's either raining or it isn't.

REDIBIS: LA LA LA LA LA LA FALSE DICHOTOMY LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

 

[1337m4n]

RedIbis has recently learned that when he makes his accusations unequivocally, he can end up being confronted by them and, as a result, put into some extremely difficult positions. Consequently, he’s taken to passive aggressive behaviour.

In this case, he’s taken a prosaic sentence like “Conducting a thorough investigation that arrives at a valid conclusion is both complicated and time-consuming” and has reconstructed it using innuendo-laden terms such as “construct an explanation” and “blaming the collapse on” in order to imply that the report will be a fabrication of some kind without actually having to state as much clearly. Of course, if he did state as much clearly, then, given that he can’t have yet read the report, he would make plain that his position is based upon predetermined dogma as opposed to anything approaching reason.

In any event, he seems to have been so eager to express his bristling disdain for the report that he’s essentially made it plain anyway: Something that necessarily follows from his statements, if nothing else does, is that the report’s conclusion is predetermined.

Some time ago on another forum, I heard the perfect description of the kind of lying behavior RedIbis is practicing (by which lies are told which aren't outright, but are subtle and manipulative). I'd like to repeat it here.

A man runs around town shouting "A meteor is coming! We're all going to die!". Now, technically speaking, the man isn't "lying". In fact, his words aren't even false. The Earth is constantly flying through dusty fields of space, and technically speaking even a small particle of space dust can be considered a "meteor". Furthermore, as there is no known means of achieving immortality, we all ARE going to die...eventually.

But is the man TRULY lying? Yes. Although technically true, his words are crafted with the deliberate intent to decieve and, in this case, cause mass panic.

RedIbis doesn't tell OVERT lies, but they're there. He doesn't spew OUTRIGHT insults (i.e. he doesn't say "you're stupid"), but every time you read one of his posts, it's obvious that he's insulting you.

 

[chillzero]

l33t, please stop it, and concentrate on the thread topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

All this baseless speculation about whether or not truthers will read the building 7 report or whether or not they will disagree with it if there is no reference to cd is intriguing (even if it does paint them all in the same category), but the fact remains that it has still not been released to the public and it has been over 6 and a half years since the event itself. It was originally slated to come out in mid 2005. I have read the interim report and it is far from decisive as to the cause of the collapse although it lists what is believed to be the most likely possibilities.

I don't think a little bit of speculation on the part of ctists or anyone else for that matter is unfounded in the absence of a clear and/or timely official explanation from the scientific community. I am a little sensitive to the fact that people are readily accepting the ct without the benefit of clear and convincing evidence. Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement. The Truther community would do much better to politely push for a new investigation as opposed to screaming accusations of treason.

 

[johnny karate]

All this baseless speculation about whether or not truthers will read the building 7 report or whether or not they will disagree with it if there is no reference to cd is intriguing (even if it does paint them all in the same category), but the fact remains that it has still not been released to the public and it has been over 6 and a half years since the event itself. It was originally slated to come out in mid 2005. I have read the interim report and it is far from decisive as to the cause of the collapse although it lists what is believed to be the most likely possibilities.

See here's the thing: NIST has other responsibilities besides appeasing delusional paranoids. For the most part, "the public" does not care about WTC7. It was not attacked and no one died as a result of its collapse. Pretty much the only people interested in the pending NIST report are industry professionals and CTers lying in wait to reject it.

Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement.

Except that no one in the FDNY says this happened. Their official position is that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Which either makes them liars and complicit in some kind of cover-up, or your little theory total crap. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

johnny karate,

See here's the thing: NIST has other responsibilities besides appeasing delusional paranoids.

This sounds like you are making excuses for their delays. I guess saying that they have other responsibilities is a fair enough assessment. It is much better than saying "my dog ate it."

For the most part, "the public" does not care about WTC7.

For the most part the public doesn't KNOW about WTC 7 because it was under reported by the mainstream media. Of those who do know about WTC 7 there are a lot of questions and speculation. I assume that you believe everyone who has not accepted the mainstream conclusions brought forth by the government, media and FDNY in an a priori manner is a conspiracy theorist. We should shut up and believe everything we are told by the authorities without scrutiny or critical thinking, right?

Pretty much the only people interested in the pending NIST report are industry professionals and CTers lying in wait to reject it.

In a few cases these people might fall into both categories.

Originally Posted by dommyboysinjapan View Post
Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement.
Except that no one in the FDNY says this happened. Their official position is that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Which either makes them liars and complicit in some kind of cover-up, or your little theory total crap. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.

So maybe only one or two members of the fire department did give some information that they knew was not totally accurate. Would this be so shocking? It has already been admitted on these boards by the mainstream defenders that members of NEADS, NORAD, and the DOD gave some timelines that were incorrect so as to cover for their own mistakes. Stranger things have happened and certainly bigger secrets have been kept by the American government historically. There is a whole lot of room between a few white lies that may or may not have been made by certain people to dissuade cts and my arguement being crap.

 

[thewholesoul]

hello all

You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?

i wonder did they speak with Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh?

You see those two guys experienced "explosions" INSIDE wtc 7 BEFORE any tower fell.

i wonder can you explain their testimony. obviously the explosions werent caused by "explosives" in your mind...so tell me what in your opinion was their cause?

And kind of funny comment considering that the truthers 7 years later don't even have a paper on WTC 1&2 let alone 7, where the only argument is "It looks like a CD".

no it was a controlled demolition that is why it looked like one.

even debunkers are smetimes honest enough to admit that it "looks" like a CD, and when they do i ask them how many natural collapses do they know that looked like a CD. they never respond to that one.

Yes, forgive us for not needing NIST to debunk "It looks to me like a CD". The laughter you hear when that claim is made can be considered NISTs response as well.

look NIST deny the existence of molten steel dispite all the testimony to the contrary. they obviously cannot be trusted.

 

[e^n]

i wonder did they speak with Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh?

Mike Hess, and yes we are aware, there are many threads discussing this issue.

even debunkers are smetimes honest enough to admit that it "looks" like a CD, and when they do i ask them how many natural collapses do they know that looked like a CD. they never respond to that one.

I do think WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, and I probably can't give you any examples of a 'natural collapse' which looked similar. There are good reasons for that though, building safety is carefully considered and well thought out in the western world. When it isn't, typically buildings are small, under 15 floors. There are no direct analogues to WTC1, 2 or 7 in either the 'natural collapse' world or the Controlled Demolition world.

look NIST deny the existence of molten steel dispite all the testimony to the contrary. they obviously cannot be trusted.

So because you feel molten steel existed you have rationalised dismissing everything NIST has to say? What about Arup, Edinburgh, Weidlinger, Quintire? Do you dismiss them with the same flimsy reason?

edit: We really shouldn't necro this topic, you should search for existing topics on each individual issue, there are always many.

 

[DC]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

 

[e^n]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

Because it's important they get it right. How long should it take in your eyes? Can you contrast the time it has taken with similar projects?

 

[funk de fino]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

Who said it was logical and who said it was normal?

 

[DC]

Because it's important they get it right. How long should it take in your eyes? Can you contrast the time it has taken with similar projects?

i dont know, do you know?

but i dont try to fing excuses etc fro NOST like the "debunkers" try to.....