Engineers what is your take on NIST report on WTC7?

This thread is for engineers who have questions about NIST report on WTC7.
I would like to hear what real building engineers have to say about NIST final report.
Question I have dose the NIST report really stand up to science.
I am not an engineer as you all know.

a reply to: cashlink

Yes the NIST report is credible.

a reply to: cashlink

I would think if there was corrections to be made, AE 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and other conspiracists that have money donated to them could fight a legal battle to have what they claim are pseudoscience and lies retracted? I guess conspiracists are too busy making YouTube videos and asking for more money to pursue a legal battle or freedom of information requests?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cashlink

Yes the NIST report is credible.

Wonder why their engineering friend did not reply.

Wink

I wonder if engineers just tell conspiracists what they want to hear so they can get out of an irrational conversation.

a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting, it took you and your above freind 9 years to dig up this very old thread and ridicule it.

Perhaps the reason there was never any response to my old thread here was because at the time, there was no structural engineers on ATS, to answer my questions.

Fact the NIST Report was proven a fraud. My advice, ATS readers, please do your own research before accepting anything about 911 as facts.

The goal I see here, are a few who want to control the OS narratives, ridiculing is the only weapon they have.

a reply to: Informer1958

Fact the NIST Report was proven a fraud.

Proof please,.

ATS readers, please do your own research before accepting anything about 911 as facts.

Agreed, question what you hear.

originally posted by: D8Tee
...your word is not credible here due to your track record of not providing substantiation for your 'facts'.

Eh, I find Informer to be credible...or as credible as anyone else on ATS. Speak for yourself. You don't speak for all of ATS.


ETA: And, yes, I am aware Informer was the OP of this thread and that dredging it up is some kind of attempt at a smear job.

a reply to: D8Tee

Proof please, your word is not credible here due to your track record of not providing substantiation for your 'facts'.

Again, this thread is not about me.

This thread is not about what you think of me.

Thanks, for derailing a 9 year old thread off Topic, on the first page.

If you have nothing to add about the OP move on.

a reply to: Informer1958

Fact the NIST Report was proven a fraud.

What is your major malfunction?

I asked for proof of your claim, where is it?

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes the NIST report is credible.

What is your major malfunction?

I asked for proof of your claim, where is it?

Funny, where is your proof?

Are you special? Are you allowed to make statements without backing them up? You just did in your above post?

a reply to: D8Tee

Since you want proof I will give it to you. However I cannot make you read it.


#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

www1.ae911truth.org...



25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

A White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud

www1.ae911truth.org...

a reply to: Informer1958

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Discredited Sources

Richard Gage freely admits to borrowing from others, but never to the extent you would imagine.

David Ray Griffin, the most consistently respected member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is a professor of theology and philosophy of religion. He possesses the credentials not of a scientist, but a prophet. And his several books on 9/11 demonstrate this.

a reply to: D8Tee

Where is your source?

Without a "credibal source" you have no proof.

a reply to: Informer1958

Architect Magazine is not a credible source?

It's the Journal of the American Institute of Architects Gage is so proud of belonging to!

There never will be an AIA endorsement of these foolish and anti-rational theories of Richard Gage and AE911Truth.

H

Architects Shy From Trutherism
THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
www.architectmagazine.com...
Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.
By JEREMY STAHL
The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition.

Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

a reply to: Informer1958
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

What's Box Boy Richard Gage Up to These Days? March 2017
If you check his events page, it looks like "not much" is the answer. The most recent event shown is the 15th anniversary, where Gage shared the stage with Munchkin Barbara Honegger.

But it turns out that the founder of AE911Truth participated in the recent Nation of Islam conference. It's not like Gage to avoid publicizing such events; when he appeared there in 2012 he was certainly crowing about the opportunity to expose Louis Farrakhan's followers to 9-11 Troof.

Back then we bashed him a bit based on inside information we had stating that Boy Wonder Kevin Barrett would be appearing with him. As it turned out, our insider was wrong. Waterboy Kevin Ryan appeared instead.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

a reply to: D8Tee

Where is your source?

Without a "credibal source" you have no proof.

Apparently you are being deceptive. Why are you hiding your sources?

The information that you are spamming is yellow journalism with plenty of name calling.

I am assuming this smut is coming from one of the most biased ill informed, OS supporting website, on the internet, 911 Myths.

You have the nerve to call me out as intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.

a reply to: Informer1958

I posted the articles in their entirety.

Ones from Architectural Magazine, other ones some random blog.

I love Gage and his great kindergarten like physics demonstrations!

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Informer1958

I posted the articles in their entirety.

You should post a link and I don't think you are supposed to copy entire articles either (according to T&C)...especially without providing a direct link to the original source.

Maybe a mod should weigh in on this.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Informer1958

I posted the articles in their entirety.

You should post a link and I don't think you are supposed to copy entire articles either (according to T&C)...especially without providing a direct link to the original source.

Maybe a mod should weigh in on this.

If you have questions about my posting, use the ALERT function, don't derail the thread.

a reply to: D8Tee

Being decepted doesn't make you credible. You did not post any sources to your articles. Cherry picked yellow journalism.

We on ATS get it, what you are demonstrating is "everyone" outside the government who has an "opinion" about 911, is a big fat fraud, we get it.

My thread is about what engineer think? Not what "biased websites" on the internet think about engineers who have called out our government, and the NIST report.

Are you an engineer?