Why There Were No Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s On 9-11

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The difference here is that the NIST engineers had access to structural documentation that the engineers in your article did not.

So you only agree with engineers that go along with what you believe, and ignore engineers that state something that does not agree with what you believe.


FEMA had access to the same information (and more) then NIST and they disagreed with NIST, so i guess you just ignore them too.


[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you only agree with engineers that go along with what you believe, and ignore engineers that state something that does not agree with what you believe.

Wrong.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I listen to what other engineers have to say.

But if they don't have full access to critical info, then their reports lose credibility.

Note that you have criticized NIST for not having steel from 7. This means that you are downgrading the NIST report on 7 because they lack "some" evidence/info. I'm applying the same standard here to your guys.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Now the fun part about your comment is that you admit to lying

Just like you have admittind to lying when you agree with my statement.

And you just admitted to lying again by agreeing with yourself that you are lying. Why would anyone take you at face value when you make claims like you're an NSA agent, or have extensive knowledge of planes, etc...

Originally posted by jfj123
Why would anyone take you at face value when you make claims like you're an NSA agent, or have extensive knowledge of planes, etc...

Becasue i have proven to several memebrs on here who i work for and my military experience.

Oh and thanks for admitting you and the believers lie.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why would anyone take you at face value when you make claims like you're an NSA agent, or have extensive knowledge of planes, etc...

Becasue i have proven to several memebrs on here who i work for and my military experience.

If you say so. I have also proven to several members that I am king of the Galaxy

Oh and thanks for admitting you and the believers lie.

Where did you get that from?
First, I've never said I lied about anything. I don't recall pretending I work for the government as a mysterious NSA agent who posts on a conspiracy website and specifically on anti-government threads all the time. Gee you'd think your bosses would be a bit miffed about using their servers to try and collect information against them. Even a bit more mundane, you'd think that they would be angry because you're never actually working but posting using their servers.

Second, please define what a "believer" is.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
If you say so. I have also proven to several members that I am king of the Galaxy

So PM me the verifiable documents that state this, since i have posted verifiable documents of my background.

Where did you get that from?

You agreed with my statment that believers use known false information to prove the official story.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
[Note that you have criticized NIST for not having steel from 7. This means that you are downgrading the NIST report on 7 because they lack "some" evidence/info. I'm applying the same standard here to your guys.

NIST failed to do a proper investigation of building 7.

FEMA and other agencies did a proper investigations and disagree with NIST.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
If you say so. I have also proven to several members that I am king of the Galaxy

So PM me the verifiable documents that state this, since i have posted verifiable documents of my background.

Really? Where? Because I've never seen them. And sure if you want, I can post some official looking document that says I'm King of the galaxy.

Where did you get that from?

You agreed with my statment that believers use known false information to prove the official story.

No, I said you do. Using your argument, you must be posting false information. I never claimed that the information was actually false, only you did

Originally posted by jfj123 I can post some official looking document that says I'm King of the galaxy.

Thats why i stated VERIFIABLE documents.

I never claimed that the information was actually false.

Then why did you agree with my statement?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123 I can post some official looking document that says I'm King of the galaxy.

Thats why i stated VERIFIABLE documents.

Yep. Never seen any evidence of these "documents".

I never claimed that the information was actually false.

Then why did you agree with my statement?

I didn't. You claimed that you lied when posting information to try and use it against "believers". Whomever they are.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yep. Never seen any evidence of these "documents".

Maybe becasue i did not PM them to you. But knowing you even if i dod you would ignore them or try to state they were false even though others have verified them.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NIST failed to do a proper investigation of building 7.

Then you agree that if you disparage NIST for not having some evidence, following your own line of reasoning, that if your guys have even LESS info, specifically structural docs, then their reports are less rigorous.

Thank you for opening this line of reasoning. Your efforts have proven that CT theories are not to be believed over a guv report that has better access to evidence.

Ultima has proven that all alternate theories, given that they have less access to structural docs, are all based on politics, and are not to be believed.

Thank you again.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
that if your guys have even LESS info, specifically structural docs, then their reports are less rigorous.

Not if they had the same evidnece as NIST, then theres would be just as rigorous.


[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Not if they had the same evidnece as NIST, then theres would be just as rigorous.

Are you implying that they DID have access to structural docs?

If so, Griff would like to see them.

But somehow, I think everyone knows that they don't, and as such your statement is moot.

Conclusion - your guys' article is less rigorous than NIST's.

Thank you again for pointing out that ANY alternative article will NEVER be as rigorous a report as NIST's.

You are doing a fine job of proving that the NIST report is the best out there, and as such, cannot be seriously challenged, except when some fool puts his/her political beliefs before logic and critical thinking.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Are you implying that they DID have access to structural docs?

I am sure they have acces to similar structural documents that they could have done models as good as the NIST models.

You are doing a fine job of proving that the NIST report is the best out there,

If they NIST report is the best out there then we are deep s**t.

Specially since they could not even recover any steel from buidling 7.


[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I am sure they have acces to similar structural documents that they could have done models as good as the NIST models.

This is unclear.

Are you saying: "I am sure "that if" they have access......

To this I would agree.

But there is zero evidence that this is true.

Conclusion : once again, Ultima has given concrete,irrefutable proof that the NIST report is the most rigorous available, and the most rigorous likely to become available unless the structural docs become available to the general population, an unlikely event.

Thanks again Ultima, for your continued efforts proving that the NIST report is the best anyone can expect.

You're doing a great job!!!!

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Conclusion : once again, Ultima has given concrete,irrefutable proof that the NIST report is the most rigorous available,

Yes, the most rigorous available on how not to do a proper investigation

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Conclusion : once again, Ultima has given concrete,irrefutable proof that the NIST report is the most rigorous available,

Yes

Thanks for agreeing with Seymour!

See, looks like others can quote mine responses just as you do.

Originally posted by gavron
See, looks like others can quote mine responses just as you do.

Why are you and beleivers so afraid of facts and evidnece that do not agree with the official story?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Actually we welcome all information, since it keeps proving the official story correct.

What we find funny is that typical conspiracy theorists like yourself have to "quote mine" data to make their story seem plausible. You only take maybe the first sentence in a paragraph....and completely ignore the second sentence because it goes against your beliefs.

It's actually quite funny