Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[R.Mackey]

Bump...

... Sorry, but I'm hoping someone knows the answer to my question posed above.

I don't know the answer. I haven't looked for FBI reports or evidence collections specific to the WTC, but I have looked for them regarding United 93, and haven't found them anywhere.

I speculate these are not and may never be public simply because of the rules of evidence. The best collection that is public is thus the exhibits from the Moussaoi trial, and if other trials were to take place, we'd probably get to see more. But this could take decades.

As far as NIST is concerned, any additional evidence the FBI may have is superfluous. It might help quiet those who insist on chemical testing for explosives, as it has been rumored (and no, I cannot confirm this) that the FBI actually did carry out such tests anyway, despite the near impossibility of finding a positive result. But other than that, additional evidence is simply not needed. NIST's result is definitive.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't know the answer. I haven't looked for FBI reports or evidence collections specific to the WTC, but I have looked for them regarding United 93, and haven't found them anywhere.

I speculate these are not and may never be public simply because of the rules of evidence. The best collection that is public is thus the exhibits from the Moussaoi trial, and if other trials were to take place, we'd probably get to see more. But this could take decades.

Yeah, that's my guess too.

As far as NIST is concerned, any additional evidence the FBI may have is superfluous. It might help quiet those who insist on chemical testing for explosives, as it has been rumored (and no, I cannot confirm this) that the FBI actually did carry out such tests anyway, despite the near impossibility of finding a positive result. But other than that, additional evidence is simply not needed. NIST's result is definitive.

[/quote]

Of course you're right that the FBI findings do not affect the NIST report one iota. But as both you and I said, if such documentation exists, there's a possibility it could have quelled some arguments.

 

[Mr X]

Ok big Mac, sorry for late repy…… got deadlines to meet.



You debunkers never fail to make me laugh. You state ‘The closest direct comparison to NIST is the work at Purdue’….. That wouldn’t be the very ‘simulation’ that’s been shown to be utter claptrap…. Ironic that to show NIST isn’t a fraud, you mention the very thing that proves it is a fraud. (and you can find plenty of references to it on the internet which I’m pretty sure you’ve read). If you think the work done by Prude has got merit… then good for you.


Re. ‘Again, I spend a lot of time describing, referencing, contrasting, and synthesizing these results in my whitepaper. I did so because there are many like you who are unaware of these other, independent, multi-national efforts, and who would possibly enjoy learning about them.’

Thanks for your condescending comments.


In any case your beloved ‘whitepaper’ has been mocked plenty on the internet. Jim Hoffman has done a fantastic job which few could match.

Either way, you are deluding yourself. NIST has never made the claim that they looked for explosives……….. maybe you should read the NIST report.

 

[R.Mackey]

You debunkers never fail to make me laugh. You state ‘The closest direct comparison to NIST is the work at Purdue’….. That wouldn’t be the very ‘simulation’ that’s been shown to be utter claptrap…. Ironic that to show NIST isn’t a fraud, you mention the very thing that proves it is a fraud. (and you can find plenty of references to it on the internet which I’m pretty sure you’ve read). If you think the work done by Prude has got merit… then good for you.

No, it wouldn't be that "very simulation." The work at Purdue does not show NIST to be "utter claptrap," or vice versa. The two confirm each other, within reason, though there is a critical difference between Purdue's and NIST's results that is worth study. I discuss this in my whitepaper, in the section Updates from the Scientific Community.

Re. ‘Again, I spend a lot of time describing, referencing, contrasting, and synthesizing these results in my whitepaper. I did so because there are many like you who are unaware of these other, independent, multi-national efforts, and who would possibly enjoy learning about them.’

Thanks for your condescending comments.

There is no condescension here -- which is ironic, since in your opening paragraph, you disparage NIST, Purdue, and my own work, without providing even the barest summary of justification.

In any case your beloved ‘whitepaper’ has been mocked plenty on the internet. Jim Hoffman has done a fantastic job which few could match.

Yes, I'm aware my whitepaper has been mocked, but not competently. I expose the glaring, comprehensive mistakes of the three highest-profile responses in the v.2.1 update, including Mr. Hoffman.

Either way, you are deluding yourself. NIST has never made the claim that they looked for explosives……….. maybe you should read the NIST report.

Read more carefully. I stated that NIST looked for unusual failure modes, and that includes those that would have been caused by explosives. This is fact. See NCSTAR1-3.

Regarding reading it, I am apparently one of the few who has actually read the Report, unlike Dr. Griffin and Mr. Hoffman. The latter's critique, for instance, makes the following astonishing claim:

The NIST Report has only one snapshot of fires in the South Tower, compared to two of those in the North Tower, apparently to conceal the fact that fires in the South Tower were subsiding over time.

Source

This is off by about a factor of 40... this mistake is really quite startling, given that one needs no actual comprehension of the Report in order to look at the pictures. A child could verify that the claim above is wildly incorrect. I have no idea what Mr. Hoffman hopes to gain through such a clumsy lie, unless he actually believes this to be true, which would require him to have barely cracked the cover on NIST.

In any event, your baseless accusations are off-topic, and further departures will be reported. I once again invite you to describe what questions you have, which if answered, would cause you to accept the "official theory." You have asked no questions at all. If you cannot, then I don't see how anyone can help you.

 

[beachnut]

In any case your beloved ‘whitepaper’ has been mocked plenty on the internet. Jim Hoffman has done a fantastic job which few could match.

Hoffman's dust analysis is flawed. You support a person's work, flawed and proven wrong by events for over 6 years. You need to gain some knowledge in the appropriate fields to see the errors in Hoffman's work.

Or why not do your own paper on the highlights of the work of Hoffman and defend it point by point.

What, you have no evidence to support Hoffman's work do you? Go ahead present the best of Hoffman and learn of his faulty assumptions. I see he has not corrected his dustification work yet. Please present a few of Hoffman's "fantasy job" stuff in context of this thread so you can learn.

 

[Mr X]

No I havent come to you for help, you know..... although you may like to think so.

Your original statement was 'I describe quite thoroughly how NIST did in fact look for explosives'. Which has now been changed to ' I stated that NIST looked for unusual failure modes, and that includes those that would have been caused by explosives'.

In anycase just which parapgraph in NCSTAR1-3 are you refering to?


Regarding Hoffman, I think you'll find given all the 'astonishing claims' he points out in your paper made by you, the above that you mention is actually quite trivial... and lets face it, the least of your worries.

 

[applecorped]

No I havent come to you for help, you know..... although you may like to think so.

Your original statement was 'I describe quite thoroughly how NIST did in fact look for explosives'. Which has now been changed to ' I stated that NIST looked for unusual failure modes, and that includes those that would have been caused by explosives'.

In anycase just which parapgraph in NCSTAR1-3 are you refering to?


Regarding Hoffman, I think you'll find given all the 'astonishing claims' he points out in your paper made by you, the above that you mention is actually quite trivial... and lets face it, the least of your worries.

What worries?

 

[Finnegan]

Regarding Hoffman, I think you'll find given all the 'astonishing claims' he points out in your paper made by you, the above that you mention is actually quite trivial... and lets face it, the least of your worries.

Ryan replies to Hoffman's critique in his paper (which you quite obviously haven't read).

 

[Mr X]

Hoffman's dust analysis is flawed. You support a person's work, flawed and proven wrong by events for over 6 years. You need to gain some knowledge in the appropriate fields to see the errors in Hoffman's work.

Or why not do your own paper on the highlights of the work of Hoffman and defend it point by point.

What, you have no evidence to support Hoffman's work do you? Go ahead present the best of Hoffman and learn of his faulty assumptions. I see he has not corrected his dustification work yet. Please present a few of Hoffman's "fantasy job" stuff in context of this thread so you can learn.

Hoffman can defend his own work just as Mackey can defend his own work.

 

[R.Mackey]

No I havent come to you for help, you know..... although you may like to think so.

It isn't, as you say, that I "like to think so." It's the purpose of this thread. You thus admit that you're off topic.

Your original statement was 'I describe quite thoroughly how NIST did in fact look for explosives'. Which has now been changed to ' I stated that NIST looked for unusual failure modes, and that includes those that would have been caused by explosives'.

In anycase just which parapgraph in NCSTAR1-3 are you refering to?

See Chapter 2 NCSTAR1-3B for the most concise summary, but you really should read the whole thing.

Regarding Hoffman, I think you'll find given all the 'astonishing claims' he points out in your paper made by you, the above that you mention is actually quite trivial... and lets face it, the least of your worries.

Yes, Mr. Hoffman makes many far more grievous errors. I've already written about 50 pages explaining them. He doesn't "worry" me at all -- I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[Mr X]

It isn't, as you say, that I "like to think so." It's the purpose of this thread. You thus admit that you're off topic.



See Chapter 2 NCSTAR1-3B for the most concise summary, but you really should read the whole thing.



Yes, Mr. Hoffman makes many far more grievous errors. I've already written about 50 pages explaining them. He doesn't "worry" me at all -- I have no idea what you're referring to.

Well here's another one of your 'astonishing claims' exposed. There is absolutely nothing in Chapter 2 NCSTAR1 - 3B that relates to explosives. I suppose you were hoping I couldn't read.


Regarding 'He doesn't "worry" me at all -- I have no idea what you're referring to'

Which is why you've had to amend your beloved paper four times?

 

[theprestige]

Well here's another one of your 'astonishing claims' exposed. There is absolutely nothing in Chapter 2 NCSTAR1 - 3B that relates to explosives. I suppose you were hoping I couldn't read.


Regarding 'He doesn't "worry" me at all -- I have no idea what you're referring to'

Which is why you've had to amend your beloved paper four times?

Mr X, I'm curious: Do you have any questions which, if answered to your satisfaction, would convince you that the events of 9/11 happened substantially as claimed by NIST, the FBI, and others?

If so, what are they?

If not, why are you even participating in this thread? Is it because Mackey worries you?

 

[applecorped]

Well here's another one of your 'astonishing claims' exposed. There is absolutely nothing in Chapter 2 NCSTAR1 - 3B that relates to explosives. I suppose you were hoping I couldn't read.


Regarding 'He doesn't "worry" me at all -- I have no idea what you're referring to'

Which is why you've had to amend your beloved paper four times?

People amend papers to clarify, amend and correct, something your beloved Mr. Hoffman, and you, fail to understand.

 

[beachnut]

Hoffman can defend his own work just as Mackey can defend his own work.

So you can not back up Hoffman's work? Good at least you agree it is flawed by not even trying. Real truthy, to mention work you personally have no ability to defend. Would it be wise to stop citing work you can't defend?

 

[Mr X]

Dear theprestige

I refer you to my original question in this thread which has lead to other exchanges. We've all been invited to participate in this thread.... Regardin 'worries'... no.


Dear Beachnut

Re 'Would it be wise to stop citing work you can't defend?'......... It hasn't stopped you making seven and half thousand comments on an incident you can't defend.

 

[funk de fino]

Hoffman can defend his own work just as Mackey can defend his own work.

Hoffman is a clown

Post # 685 please?

 

[Mr X]

Post # 685 please?

Blanchard?...... the same guy thats spent a lifetime rigging buildings with explosives to bring them down has taken the liberty write a paper telling us all that we dont need explosives to them down.

Need I say more.

 

[boloboffin]

Blanchard?...... the same guy thats spent a lifetime rigging buildings with explosives to bring them down has taken the liberty write a paper telling us all that we dont need explosives to them down.

Need I say more.

Not exactly. He said that explosives weren't used to take down the WTC buildings. He did that on the basis of the seismographs that detected the WTC collapses. These instruments were sensitive enough to capture distinctive vibration patterns of any cutter charges used to cut support columns. They captured no such vibration patterns. They are positive evidence that no explosive devices were used to bring down the towers.

A person who has spent a lifetime rigging buildings with explosives and then evaluating the seismographs recorded during the event is the perfect person to know.

 

[Myriad]

Blanchard?...... the same guy thats spent a lifetime rigging buildings with explosives to bring them down has taken the liberty write a paper telling us all that we dont need explosives to them down.

Need I say more.

What a peculiar comment.

Any doctor, who has spent a lifetime treating diseases and injuries, would admit that sometimes people get better on their own.

Any lumberjack, who has spent a lifetime cutting down trees with axes or chainsaws, would admit that trees sometimes fall because of wind.

Any fireman, who has spent a lifetime putting out fires, would admit that under some conditions fires will eventually burn out on their own.

None of these observations, including Blanchard's, is in any way strange, surprising, or contradictory. So, if you wish to make a coherent point, you would indeed need to say more.

But not in this thread, please. As has been pointed out repeatedly, your arguments are off-topic here.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[funk de fino]

Blanchard?...... the same guy thats spent a lifetime rigging buildings with explosives to bring them down has taken the liberty write a paper telling us all that we dont need explosives to them down.

Incorrect claim, I will assume you are mistaken rather than lying

Need I say more.

Yes, answer the questions contained in the post and refute his claims