NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

Dictator Cheney said:
i dont know, do you know?

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

If you don't know how long it should take, how can NIST possibly need an excuse? You just admitted you have absolutely no basis to judge the time it has taken them. Neither do I, which is why I accept "it's done when it's done".
 
e^n said:
If you don't know how long it should take, how can NIST possibly need an excuse? You just admitted you have absolutely no basis to judge the time it has taken them. Neither do I, which is why I accept "it's done when it's done".
Click to expand...

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

sounds like an excuse to me, and its from a "debunker"
 
You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?
Johnnyclueless
Click to expand...

oh did they? so we dont gonna have the FE sim with blast events?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
sounds like an excuse to me, and its from a "debunker"
Click to expand...
You have clearly established that there's no basis for NIST needing an excuse. All the line you have quoted (you should attribute it properly but I don't care) is saying is that NIST has other responsibilities, they are not throwing 100% of their research capability into the WTC7 report as it is not of vital importance to anyone but a tiny subset of an already quite small 911 truth movement.
 
RedIbis said:
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. "
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to start having open-flame BBQ lunches in my office during lunchtime. If the boss says something, I'll just say "Hey, it's just a 'normal office fire'! What's the harm?"
 
I think it's worth noting that NIST will likely issue a DRAFT of its report on WTC 7, and will make it available for public comments and criticisms for about a six-week period or so (as it did with the first WTC reports).

If Redibis or anyone else has issues with their conclusions, they would be free to submit their comments in writing and post copies of said comments here.
 
funk de fino said:
I was asking your opinion not NISTs

dodge noted DC, you are racking up some amount of avoiding the question posts

quite pathetic really
Click to expand...

ah you wanted my oppinion?
well i think it would be time to release the first Drafts. in a few months the final report should be released.
it was ok to use the same team on both reports, its ok that they first finished the other report on 1 and 2.
my point was actually, that the collapse is not so easy like the "debunkers" want ut to belive.
 
Who thinks it looks like a CD??

I certainly do not think so.

Put aside the massive damage from the fall of the towers and the fires within the structure, I'd suggest that anyone who thinks that it looks like CD should investigate the undisputed testimony regarding the fact that the FDNY put a transit on the structure and what that revealed, and also the fact that the mechanical penthouse on the roof fell into the structure many seconds before the remainder of the structure.

C'mon, Truthers, don't believe everything you see on You Tube.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because that's how sane people do things. They take nothing for granted. It doesn't take much time to pull something out of your anus (see Loose Change as a prime example). The real truth, however, takes time.
 
Stellafane said:
Because that's how sane people do things. They take nothing for granted. It doesn't take much time to pull something out of your anus (see Loose Change as a prime example). The real truth, however, takes time.
Click to expand...

are you saying that the "debunkers" that claim the collapse was only do to fire and onesided damage, are not sane?
i think i can agree on that :)
 
Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
are you saying that the "debunkers" that claim the collapse was only do to fire and onesided damage, are not sane?
i think i can agree on that :)
Click to expand...


No, and cut the crap now, OK? Stop putting words in my mouth -- I know you think it's clever, but it's incredibly irritating and frankly makes you look like a jerk.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.
Click to expand...

Lots of people think it looks like CD, but how many actually think it was CD? A couple? 5? How many structural engineering and demolition experts are there in the world? I would recommend you get a couple more, don't you think?

Regardless, I wouldn't recommend we have a contest as to how many experts each side can get to agree with him. That's a 'war of attrition' you don't want to get involved in.
 
Stellafane said:
No, and cut the crap now, OK? Stop putting words in my mouth -- I know you think it's clever, but it's incredibly irritating and frankly makes you look like a jerk.
Click to expand...

but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom