• 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.

Truthers Take On NIST

doctorfungi said:
Thanks beachnut :)

I find it funny how Wizard thinks he is qualified to talk about this project before he's seen it. Much like he dismissed al Qaeda videos as fake without having seen them.
Click to expand...

Wizard has shown in over 420 posts in only 8 days that he has no qualifications in any relevant field whatsoever, and he has shown in over 420 posts in 8 days that he cannot comment meaningfully or intelligently on the vast majority of subjects upon which he purports to opine.

He does a good job at fallacies and BS, though, as he quotes nothing but tinhat conspiracy sites, and even then it seems as though he gets it wrong much of the time.

You really shouldn't waste your time on him. He isn't worth it. He's just bored at the loosewiththetruth forum because, well, it's pretty dead over there these days. Poor troofers.
 
Wizard said:
If a neutral structural engineer analysed 911 mysteries I would be delighted.

Fungi has an agenda and no expertise.

Gravy, you wont even give the time of day to an Architect's critique of NIST
Click to expand...

What's my agenda? Please enlighten me.

As for Gravy, he has a life. You Don't.

If Gravy spent 1 minute critiquing this paper he would still be spending more time then the creators of the paper did analysing the NIST report.

Gravy has read the NIST report. Have you? Maybe you could give the time of day to.

As for the peer reviewed papers?

About 40 here:
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

Some here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

NIST Report is also peer reviewed.
 
Wizard said:
If a neutral structural engineer analysed 911 mysteries I would be delighted.
Click to expand...

If a neutral structural engineer had created 911 mysteries, you might have a valid point. But as usual, you don't.
 
Here's a fun fact. A writter created 9/11 Mysteries. How are they qualified to comment on the collapse of the WTC's?

That is a serious question and I expect an answer.
 
Wizard said:
If a neutral structural engineer analysed 911 mysteries I would be delighted.

Fungi has an agenda and no expertise.

Gravy, you wont even give the time of day to an Architect's critique of NIST
Click to expand...

You have not read the paper you say you want other to read?

Give us your reasons why the paper you cite is a good one?

One reason?

One fact?

One idea?

Are u Pdoh, and are u just trying to bug gravy - ping
 
beachnut said:
You have not read the paper you say you want other to read?

Give us your reasons why the paper you cite is a good one?

One reason?

One fact?

One idea?

Are u Pdoh, and are u just trying to bug gravy - ping
Click to expand...

I am not Pdoh and it is gravy addressing me first not the other way around.

I have more respect for gravy than anyone else here, he does the work and you just put links to it in LC
 
Wizard said:
Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me.
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that only structural engineers can legitimately critique a video that was made by amateurs, none of whom were structural engineers, and which goes on ad nauseum about all sorts of tinhat conspiracy theories without any input from any structural engineers, and which includes all manner of tinhat conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with structural engineering.

That is, frankly, retarded.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
You seem to be suggesting that only structural engineers can legitimately critique a video that was made by amateurs, none of whom were structural engineers.

That is, frankly, retarded.
Click to expand...

Point taken.
 
I'll ask again:

A writter created 9/11 Mysteries. How are they qualified to comment on the collapse of the WTC's?

That is a serious question and I expect an answer.

Oh and I used Premiere Pro and Photoshop. Not Windows Movie Maker :)
 
doctorfungi said:
I'll ask again:

A writter created 9/11 Mysteries. How are they qualified to comment on the collapse of the WTC's?

That is a serious question and I expect an answer.

Oh and I used Premiere Pro and Photoshop. Not Windows Movie Maker :)
Click to expand...

I don't know who they asked for a start. I didn't know a writer made it.
 
uk_dave said:
ok, you're nobody

btw

american institue of architect has no listing for an 'eric douglas' and douglas architecture is actually.....

http://www.douglasarchitects.com/

Not that we should jump to any premature conclusions though...
Click to expand...

he must not have a degree or he would be a FM, he is a AM

Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org​
 
Wizard said:
I have more respect for gravy than anyone else here, he does the work and you just put links to it in LC
Click to expand...

What is this? -you just put links to it in LC? What are you talking about?

What research have you done to prove this? Links? in LC?

I never thought about it, but I respect gravy; just thought you were riding him on some junk issues. You started posting exactly like an old sock did; I thought you were slipping up and let it show... must of been the bipolar dark side of the force…

I was looking at the paper you said was great; I think on pages 24 and 25 he starts talking about explosions; yet there were no explosions. Now his paper has fallen into fiction as he tries to misrepresent what people said to imply there were explosives. Does he mean this or is he just building his overall lie.

Reviewing parts of NIST again (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf) renews my confidence that the wallboard core was destroy!

Reviewing Eric's work renews my confidence that the wallboard was destroy by the aircraft impact! Eric's paper is not very scientific; he complains about NIST and how they did the simulations but he offers no alternative simulations. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

Eric's 28 pages will be seen as just talk by engineers.

What do you think Wizard? Will this be the great new thing you are looking for?

Will you read these 28 pages?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom