ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 16th December 2017, 03:49 AM   #2401
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Maybe they plan to fast-track it by submitting it to a journal with a peer-reviewing reputation such as this one: https://www.benthamopen.com/TOCIEJ/

Or to a non-peer-reviewed section of a peer-reviewed journal (like it happened with the discussions of Bazant's work in the JEM), or to a non-peer-reviewed journal with a serious look (like it happened with the Europhysics News article). They have already attempted to pass those as peer-reviewed.
They promised "major" p-r engineering journals. Hulsey's colleagues at UAF would know the difference.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2017, 06:36 AM   #2402
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I will not waste the time to read it. I am not an engineer.
Nor will I, probably, even though in a sense I am.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2018, 02:12 PM   #2403
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
For ten weeks, no one posted in this thread.

Of course we missed nothing at all. There is no news, no draft from the Hulsey team yet. As March is drawing close, "early 2018" will soon be a frame of time in the past.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2018, 07:09 PM   #2404
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
It is hard to get grad students to do research to support delusional CD claims for WTC 7.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2018, 07:53 PM   #2405
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
It is hard to get grad students to do research to support delusional CD claims for WTC 7.
So true.

I've sort of followed the history from the original statements of objectives which COULD have been professionally valid through the downgrading as Hulsey was pulled into line with the Szamboti goals he is now stuck with.

I never wrote up the history of that evolution. (Or was it "devolution"?? Or "evilution"?? )

But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th February 2018 at 07:56 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2018, 09:57 PM   #2406
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
It is hard to get grad students to do research to support delusional CD claims for WTC 7.
Particularly when they're threatened and ridiculed by provocateurs.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2018, 10:00 PM   #2407
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.

Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2018, 11:24 PM   #2408
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Hulsey proves he believes in nonsense.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Good, you can fund the report with your fellow conspiracy theorists. Innacurate? If you stick with that you will be less inaccurate... what is innacurate? Hulsey proves it is innacurate. That sums up Hulsey's work.

Hulsey has proved he is a failed conspiracy theorist.

Hulsey can't figure out fire cause the collapse of WTC 7.

We? Who is we? 9/11 was a terrorists attack, and there were many reports and investigations. Hulsey fools a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists with lies.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Particularly when they're threatened and ridiculed by provocateurs.
Oh, got proof for this claim? No, you make up lies like Hulsey? I agree they will be ridiculed by rational engineering students, but most likely (being an x grad student myself) the students working for Hulsey figured out Hulsey's thesis was bogus and based on delusional 9/11 truth claims. Most grad students are capable of being rational, unlike Hulsey's lie of fire can't do it. Big failure a grade school kid can figure out. Wonder if the Grad Students defected to another professor when they figured out Hulsey's ideas on 9/11 are delusional claptrap.


Oh, science? What does Hulsey say?
Quote:
Hulsey said. “And because of that, it collapsed. So I’ve been asked by ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, who’s a group of professionals that have put together their own money to get another opinion.”
Oh, Hulsey will give an opinion. Cool, everyone has one. Opinion, rich.

Poor Hulsey, what does almost perfectly straight down mean?
Quote:
”People have put straight lines on the video to see if it goes straight down, and it’s almost perfectly straight down,” Hulsey said. “Yet the building is not symmetric. One might say, ‘Well. Why did that happen?’ And you can begin to see why people have all these ideas about why that building came straight down like that. And, as a matter of fact, the Twin Towers came down pretty straight too.” says Hulsey
This makes no sense in respect to the 9/11 truth need for a new investigation.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ua...om-fire.t9056/
Hulsey study failed. Now what? It has been 16 years, all 9/11 truthers could have earned PhDs in engineering by now, but instead use google and fake claims from people like Hulsey to demand a new investigation because they are gullible.

Hulsey has stated...
Quote:
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.
But fire did bring down the building, and Hulsey is wrong. When will Hulsey team with a newspaper and break the biggest story, earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate, for the inside job conspiracy he has no evidence for? lol

Where does Hulsey and Richard Gage get the silent explosives in their fantasy CD? is there a silent explosive store in their delusional minds?

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 A school will study nonsense when they get 300,000 dollars. Academic integrity is for sale, it costs 300,000 dollars. UAF, unlike BYU, supports crazy CD claims with fake study. BYU fired Jones, UAF takes the money to "prove" woo.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 26th February 2018 at 12:14 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2018, 11:47 PM   #2409
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,812
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.

Last edited by MicahJava; 25th February 2018 at 11:53 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2018, 11:57 PM   #2410
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
99.9 percent of all engineers know it was fire, only Hulsey and Richard Gage fail to understand the truth. No wonder the Grad Students bailed out.

The best 9/11 truth conspiracy theorists can do is find less than 0.1 percent of all engineers to sign a petition of woo. 16 plus years of woo based on ignorance of science, paranoia, and anti-science opinions.

Who did the CD in your fantasy version of 9/11? Any evidence yet? No

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
has anyone told The Institute of Northern Engineering which provides research and engineering solutions for the world’s cold regions and beyond they are into woo, big dumbed down woo. Paranoid conspiracy theorists woo, from UAF - anyone warned the headmaster that Hulsey has gone nuts?

No? Why? Because Richard Gage has funded the school with $316,153 - money overcomes woo, and it appears UAF will do anything for money. Can you blame them for taking money, even if it was $316,153 to study Bigfoot.

Please study steel and fire to help fight the woo from 9/11 truth liars like Gage and Hulsey.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey supports conspiracy theorists.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 26th February 2018 at 12:55 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:27 AM   #2411
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
If you lack the honesty or courage to respond to what I said why quote my post?

Sure I could address your silly goalpost shifting claims BUT my post raises more serious issues than your childish response.

By all means let me know if you get serious and want to discuss what I said.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:32 AM   #2412
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...and it appears UAF will do anything for money. Can you blame them for taking money, even if it was $316,153 to study Bigfoot.
Spot on - Universities are traditionally open to supporting any research. It does NOT imply agreement with nonsense.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey supports conspiracy theorists.
That is a truism that needs no additional proof.

Why he "sold out" is probably a far more complex matter.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:42 AM   #2413
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Particularly when they're threatened and ridiculed by provocateurs.
I'm sure you can produce lots of evidence of that happening.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:48 AM   #2414
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released.
Impressive; in your mind, the report was proven inaccurate before it was even released. But there's definitely no agenda there, oh no.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?
And I thought truthers' genius for self-parody couldn't achieve anything more ridiculous than they came up with in the first decade of failure.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover.
Truthers, how does it feel knowing that all the information that you think proves this is freely available to all those average people, that you've been desperately begging them to believe you for over a decade and a half, and yet these inevitable demands for information never seem to materialise? It's almost as if you're totally irrelevant and nobody cares. Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Only for people who imagine their own textbook that says "Scientific fraud is anything I don't want to believe."

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:48 AM   #2415
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'm sure you can produce lots of evidence of that happening.

Dave
Not sure the 'ridicule' part of that will be too difficult.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 04:25 AM   #2416
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
We've been waiting for the UAF report to be peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal. It would make a lot of waves in the engineering community. Instead we have more hot air from sycophants. New approach to cults... junk science scamming the naive.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 07:55 AM   #2417
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not.
Wrong. False dilemma.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Hulsey has proved it innacurate,
Wrong. Hulsey has not understood it, and has misconstrued it.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
therefore if we want a true outcome, we needa new report or investigation.
Invalid opinion, as it is based on false premises.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 08:01 AM   #2418
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
We've been waiting for the UAF report to be peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal. ...
When AE911T solicted MONEY donations, they did so on the pretext that Hulsey would submit his study to a reputable peer-reviewed engineering journal.

How gullible the Twoofers were who fell for that transparent lie and threw away their money to feed con men!

Of course, AE911truth has long since announced that peer-review by a reputable journal is not, in fact going to happen at all.

AE911Lies - defrauding the gullible since 2006.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 09:41 AM   #2419
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 93
No truther has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why WTC 7 is more important than the 5 other WTC buildings plus others that were collateral damage (and nothing more) from the WTC 1 and 2 collapses.
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 10:23 AM   #2420
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by heymatto70 View Post
No truther has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why WTC 7 is more important than the 5 other WTC buildings plus others that were collateral damage (and nothing more) from the WTC 1 and 2 collapses.
To be fair, you couild have stopped before the tenth word of that.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 10:59 AM   #2421
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
To be fair, you couild have stopped before the tenth word of that.

Dave
Truth.
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 12:07 PM   #2422
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
I thought the Hulsey report was supposed to be that new report / investigation

Are you saying the Hulsey Report is just designed to get even more donations so AE911T can spend more time and resources requesting yet another new investigation

Where does it end?

On a side note, I am curious if there is anything, anything at all about the as yet not actually released Hulsey report that you find questionable, dubious, not up to snuff, incomplete, etc,...?

Anything at all?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 12:10 PM   #2423
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,041
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?
Surely you have a link ready for this remarkable claim?
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 01:00 PM   #2424
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,166
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released.
This is a lie.

Quote:
The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature.
Based on what criteria? You have no background in engineering, so you have to take the word of people who do, just like me, and at the end of the day the majority of those qualified agree the building failed from an unprosecuted fire. Where these same experts disagree is spread across failing beams, and physics I'm not educated enough to understand.

Quote:
Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?
Chills? Call your RN.

Quote:
Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations
How would you feel about an average person filling in the cavities in your mouth? How about fixing your transmission in your car? Maybe performing abdominal surgery on you or someone you love?

Sorry dude, average people don't always get a say in what happens, and rightly so.

Quote:
until there's no possible new information to uncover.
For a guy who throws the word "Science" around so often you should know that this statement is impossible.

Show me a historic event where we know everything. You can't, nobody can. Does this mean we have to withhold judgement? No. Does this mean that experts can't take the existing data and make an evaluation about what happened?No.

The question is simple: Was there enough physical evidence to reach an informed conclusion about the WTC complex disaster of 9/11/2001? The answer is yes. The entire event was filmed as it happened, and occurred in Manhattan in front of hundreds of thousands of people which included the majority of the FDNY (these would be the inner ring of qualified experts).


Quote:
It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Again, if you were in anyway qualified to assess the work of the NIST you could make this claim, but you aren't and you can't.

Why not turn your CT paranoia to people who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars since 9-11 claiming conspiracy, but in those 17 years have spent more money on steak dinners, and nice hotel rooms than actually investigating anything?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 26th February 2018 at 01:01 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 01:55 PM   #2425
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Average people - such as yourself - probably can't grasp most of the engineering gobblygook in the NIST report. It is curious that the professional engineering community and its various organizations who do understand what is in the report overwhelmingly support its conclusions.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario that is plausible. We can quibble over unknowable details of what beam did what and when until we are all blue in the face, but the proximate cause in the NIST report is the same as it was before the NIST report and the same as it is in the other engineering reports done by private entities for various civil suits.

The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is not now and has never been a mystery. Anything NIST said does not change that and no new investigation is going to move the needle on that one bit.

You might want to stop flogging this dead horse. It is guaranteed to fail. Just my humble opinion, valued at precisely $0.02.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:13 AM   #2426
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,812
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Surely you have a link ready for this remarkable claim?
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th February 2018 at 11:15 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:16 AM   #2427
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,812
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Average people - such as yourself - probably can't grasp most of the engineering gobblygook in the NIST report. It is curious that the professional engineering community and its various organizations who do understand what is in the report overwhelmingly support its conclusions.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario that is plausible. We can quibble over unknowable details of what beam did what and when until we are all blue in the face, but the proximate cause in the NIST report is the same as it was before the NIST report and the same as it is in the other engineering reports done by private entities for various civil suits.

The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is not now and has never been a mystery. Anything NIST said does not change that and no new investigation is going to move the needle on that one bit.

You might want to stop flogging this dead horse. It is guaranteed to fail. Just my humble opinion, valued at precisely $0.02.
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:24 AM   #2428
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
None of us share your fixation on the requirement that these specific words be in the report somewhere, or on the grave import of their absence; I daresay I could find many true statements that lack the words "consistent with physical principles," despite the fact that their contents are, in fact, consistent with physical principles. But, I suppose, you're so desperate for something to show for the time you've wasted on this that you'll clutch at any straw you can find.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:25 AM   #2429
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,396
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
And yet, for some reason, it's only people who have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to assess evidence who believe this. Meanwhile, the world doesn't care, because there's nothing to care about.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:27 AM   #2430
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,529
Yep. My pet peeve.

"I don't understand" =/= "It can mean whatever I want it to mean"
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:48 AM   #2431
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
If true, so what? Why does this matter?

Right now it's just a short phrase with no context and well,... we do know how much you love to twist the intentions of others by careful quote mining.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
I think you (deliberately) missed the point completely. If there was never a NIST report it was still fire. There is no other plausible hypothesis. Go ahead, disregard NIST entirely. I'm totally cool with that.

It was still fire.

However, if you are indeed so convinced of what you say that must mean you have a more plausible hypothesis that better explains the collapse of 7 WTC using all of the available evidence with fewer unproven assumptions than the NIST used. Something that will move the needle.

So by all means why are you holding out? Lets have it?

I won't wait up. Nor do I expect you to dwell too much on why you can't do it. Not in your nature I'm afraid.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 28th February 2018 at 11:51 AM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 12:32 PM   #2432
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 93
I'll pose this simple question to any one to answer (not signalling anyone out). Why is it so hard to believe that a building, regardless of its materials, that was hit by literal tons of burning debris from high above it and was allowed to burn for hours would collapse?
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:58 PM   #2433
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Hell, I spent last Wednesday surveying a building which turned out to be dangerous just because rain ahd been falling on it for 198 years. Don't even start me on what fires can do.....
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 02:02 PM   #2434
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,041
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
"consistent with physical principals"

No results.

Chills
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 02:37 PM   #2435
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by heymatto70 View Post
I'll pose this simple question to any one to answer (not signalling anyone out). Why is it so hard to believe that a building, regardless of its materials, that was hit by literal tons of burning debris from high above it and was allowed to burn for hours would collapse?
It needs to be blamed on da Joos.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 08:19 PM   #2436
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,402
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Says the non-scientist.

Read some Electric Universe, or time cube.

However, myself, with engineering and science degrees, say it's alright, because it was a thorough analysis using standard engineering tools and methods.

There are two mistakes though.

One was being off by an inch on a drawing. As if it even mattered.

The other was in official commentary acknowledging a certain amount of free fall experienced by the exterior shell of WTC7 as it came down. There is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion, due to measurement error.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 09:07 PM   #2437
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Projecting the best traits of 9/11 truth to NIST. Look up projection. Next life become an engineer, it pays better, and gives something to think about when flying jets all over the world.

The best part, you never read NIST, you never will. 9/11 truth has no clue what probable means.

16 years of failure, 9/11 truth, stillborn, 2001
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2018, 06:06 AM   #2438
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Did anyone else notice the fatal flaw in this so called Engineering report?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2018, 06:30 AM   #2439
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,480
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
Is the phrase "consistent with physical principles" in the final report? Not that it matters very much, but it would amuse me to find that you're getting all excited about a corrected typo
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2018, 10:47 AM   #2440
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Is the phrase "consistent with physical principles" in the final report? Not that it matters very much, but it would amuse me to find that you're getting all excited about a corrected typo
I've opened a thread on the subject to prevent this one from drifting too much off-topic.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.