We need an independent investigation!

[Bobert]

professor smartpants,
Are you aware that your peers in the truther community have a history of demanding peoples personal info and in fact some like the CIT CULT will even spend hours upon hours trying to track down your personal info.

 

[Drudgewire]

Provide evidence that one scientist or engineer who worked on the NIST WTC reports agrees with your statements above, and I'll quit my debunking and apologize to all truthers.

They won't hear you since you'll have already been banned from the Internet, you meanie.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Yawwwn. *smack, smack.* Sorry. Must have dozed off again.

What did I miss. Ye Gods, another expert with inside information? I'm beginning to think that the importance of these experts we keep getting is inversely proportional to their spelling ability. Meaning this guy must be right at the heart of the conspiracy.

Hey professor...It's not anyone at the JREF you have to worry about. If things happened as you say then they're covering up complicity in mass murder and will continue to suppress and silence you. Meaning you picked a rather low-attendance venue to show off your smoking gun.

I would not be surprised if some pretty real-looking "credentials" are about to be posted.

 

[Travis]

So the NIST report was a sham because................................?

NIST wiretaps employees because..........................?

I'm an America hating psychopath because.....................?

Answers would be appreciated.

 

[R.Mackey]

Dear "Professor:"

To Mr. professor smartpants, I've read the NIST report thoroughly, and even though I myself have written about 50 pages of criticism of it, I don't agree with the above at all. It very clearly defines the true cause of collapse in both structures, it is completely consistent with the testing provided in the report itself (including raw data), and it clearly defines a number of corrective actions which have since been incorporated into building codes worldwide.

Your comments above suggest that you haven't even read the Report you claim to have worked on. If you wish to correct this perception, I invite you to elaborate.

Your move.

 

[R.Mackey]

Prove that you are worthy of a discussion of higher intellect, give us some proof that you aren;t a kid just home from high school for the day, Prove that you have a decent education, practical and real life experiences of some fashion


This might normally be considered checkmate, stay tuned folks, lamo!@

See my largest work on the subject here. Included is my bio, which is all easily verifiable, and includes education as well as practical and real-life relevant experience.

I might suggest that you should also verify that you meet the above standard? Otherwise, this does indeed appear to be check and mate, for me.

 

[Pardalis]

So anyway, would you like to start a thread about what you think is wrong about the NIST report?

I imagine there are legions of Truthers who would love to talk to you.

 

[twinstead]

professor smartpants has donned the Cloak of Undebunkability^tm I see. All you have to do is claim victory, and POOF! you're victorious, no matter what your opponent brings to the table.

Well, well. Game, set, and match; smartpants declares victory over the evil debunkers. Forget the media, law enforcement, and scientific journals--that'll get the "New Investigation" rolling, won't it?

 

[twinstead]

So anyway, would you like to start a thread about what you think is wrong about the NIST report?

I imagine there are legions of Truthers who would love to talk to you.

Not to mention respected scientific organizations, law enforcement, and media from all over the world.

 

[Pardalis]

Not to mention respected scientific organizations, law enforcement, and media from all over the world.

Yeah but you got to admit, Truthers especially are going to be all over him. He is what they were looking for for the last eight years, a real insider!

 

[bob the analyst]

professor smartpants has donned the Cloak of Undebunkability^tm I see. All you have to do is claim victory, and POOF! you're victorious, no matter what your opponent brings to the table.

Well, well. Game, set, and match; smartpants declares victory over the evil debunkers. Forget the media, law enforcement, and scientific journals--that'll get the "New Investigation" rolling, won't it?

It was rather easy, i was hoping that people here would be a better conditioned thinker, to be able to go back and forth, to have a background and education suitable for a decent debate, should the have the unfortunate pre-dispostion to take the various positions that have been deemed as impossible by the government, engineering, scientific and technical world regarding the events and catastrophe of 9/11.

I guess that there are still some educated folks that have not been able to see what and what doesn;t the NIST report say, but I'll be damned if I can find any, anywhere.

It's why all the various engineers, technicians, employees at the different Nat'l Inst. S&T as well as our analytical and testing facilities all agreed on one answer, that we could not prove, could not reproduce, we could not repeat a falling and crash of the wtc 1, 2 and wtc 7

That's is why the official report is nothing more than a perhaps, a mere suggestion, nothing was definable, only papragraphs in open lopp dialogue, we could not prove anything, especially at a concensus lelevel amongst our peers in the industries.


The vast majority of NIST employees and all other government and independent agencies, both direct or under contract, fulkly know for a fact that the only way that these buildings were broght down was exclusively on purpose.

We all took everything into consideration, read and cocemented and tested, from all angles and no one could ever prove that there was enough heat and temperature for a sustainable period of time and impact destruction, to cause that sort of massive failure.

 

[R.Mackey]

It's why all the various engineers, technicians, employees at the different Nat'l Inst. S&T as well as our analytical and testing facilities all agreed on one answer, that we could not prove, could not reproduce, we could not repeat a falling and crash of the wtc 1, 2 and wtc 7

That's is why the official report is nothing more than a perhaps, a mere suggestion, nothing was definable, only papragraphs in open lopp dialogue, we could not prove anything, especially at a concensus lelevel amongst our peers in the industries.

The vast majority of NIST employees and all other government and independent agencies, both direct or under contract, fulkly know for a fact that the only way that these buildings were broght down was exclusively on purpose.

We all took everything into consideration, read and cocemented and tested, from all angles and no one could ever prove that there was enough heat and temperature for a sustainable period of time and impact destruction, to cause that sort of massive failure.

These statements are complete lies.

I have already provided you my own 300 page analysis of the NIST Report, and comprehensive refutation of arguments put against it. I use this as evidence to state, without fear of contradiction, that my understanding of the NIST Report is vastly superior to your own. Indeed, I reiterate, you appear to have no idea what it contains at all.

 

[Pardalis]

The vast majority of NIST employees and all other government and independent agencies, both direct or under contract, fulkly [?] know for a fact that the only way that these buildings were broght down was exclusively on purpose.

We all took everything into consideration, read and cocemented and tested, from all angles and no one could ever prove that there was enough heat and temperature for a sustainable period of time and impact destruction, to cause that sort of massive failure.

You do understand that we won't take your word for it and need for you to back this up?

 

[Pardalis]

Smartpants, I'm wondering, have you been contacted by the Truth Movement to help with the new investigation, or have you contacted them, or A&E for Truth?

 

[T.A.M.]

please place the troll/sock on ignore.

1. If he was who he said he was, he would speak with better grammar, spelling, and overall content level, then this person has.

2. He obviously has nothing to add, has decided not to prove he is who he says he is, even though we have told him a valid way to do so.

3. He is going to continue to bait you all, and add to our suspension count this week.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Smartpants, I'm wondering, have you been contacted by the Truth Movement to help with the new investigation, or have you contacted them, or A&E for Truth?

I suggested he go to prisonplanet.com, as they will eat up his story, and put it on the front page.

So far, he has chosen to not do so.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Agreed. People, this is a clear and obvious troll. Until he either steps up and provides some real argument - not merely assertions, but actual logic and reason - then there's no reason to interact further with him.

Professor: RMackey has provided his own information in a previous post. I suggest that one way to be taken seriously is to address it.

 

[RedIbis]

It was rather easy, i was hoping that people here would be a better conditioned thinker, to be able to go back and forth, to have a background and education suitable for a decent debate, should the have the unfortunate pre-dispostion to take the various positions that have been deemed as impossible by the government, engineering, scientific and technical world regarding the events and catastrophe of 9/11.

I guess that there are still some educated folks that have not been able to see what and what doesn;t the NIST report say, but I'll be damned if I can find any, anywhere.

It's why all the various engineers, technicians, employees at the different Nat'l Inst. S&T as well as our analytical and testing facilities all agreed on one answer, that we could not prove, could not reproduce, we could not repeat a falling and crash of the wtc 1, 2 and wtc 7

That's is why the official report is nothing more than a perhaps, a mere suggestion, nothing was definable, only papragraphs in open lopp dialogue, we could not prove anything, especially at a concensus lelevel amongst our peers in the industries.


The vast majority of NIST employees and all other government and independent agencies, both direct or under contract, fulkly know for a fact that the only way that these buildings were broght down was exclusively on purpose.

We all took everything into consideration, read and cocemented and tested, from all angles and no one could ever prove that there was enough heat and temperature for a sustainable period of time and impact destruction, to cause that sort of massive failure.

You're simply talking in far too many generalities for any of this to sound authentic. You made an extraordinary claim. It would not be hard to verify your association with NIST without having to disclose any personal details.

 

[T.A.M.]

You're simply talking in far too many generalities for any of this to sound authentic. You made an extraordinary claim. It would not be hard to verify your association with NIST without having to disclose any personal details.

It is a testament to your quest for real truth that we find ourselves on the same side on this one Red.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Crap. I hate when Red makes sense.