NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Griff
Seanm,

A 10,000 page NIST report does not cut it. Sorry, that is not evidence, that is a freekin REPORT. Got it now?

I got it in 2002.

You just admitted that no matter how much evidence is presented, nor how much NIST's methodologies and conclusions are supported by the evidence, it is nonetheless entirely inconvenient for you.

What more evidence do we need, Griff, that you have no interest in what the truth really is?

I did no such thing. What I did admit to is the lack of evidence that is forthcoming from NIST.

It's like me trying to investigate if man A shot man B. Man A has all the forensics and physical evidence but will not share it with the investigators. Man A has written a report stating how he could not have killed man B. Should we just accept man A's report as valid and just say "oh well, it happened, he has a report that says he didn't do it, that's good enough for me"?

Is that logical? Because that's the exact same scenario we are dealing with the NIST, FEMA, Silverstein reports.

GOT IT NOW??????????????

I got it a long time ago and you illustrate the nature of complete 9/11 Denial very well for us, Griff.

You have a wild and fertile imagination. As I have already completely demonstrated, the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of NIST are completely open and available to anyone in the world.

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them but have to whine endlessly that there is no evidence.

Once again, the 9/11 Truth Movement demonstrates for all to see why it will never get anywhere.

And once again, I have to repeat the obvious:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

- Michael Shermer
www.sciam.com...

Get back to us when you actually decide to bring irrefutable evidence to the table, Griff.

I won't hold my breath, however.

reply to post by seanm

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them...

This is disingenuous.

How can one refute NIST's findings when the raw evidence doesn't exist?

Originally posted by seanm
As I have already completely demonstrated, the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of NIST are completely open and available to anyone in the world.

Please show me where the evidence are completely open. That fact that the construction drawings are under lock and key makes your statement a lie.

Again mods. Why is this person allowed to lie continuously and get away with it?

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them but have to whine endlessly that there is no evidence.

I have brought plenty to the table to show how ignorant you are. That's enough for me.

Get back to us when you actually decide to bring irrefutable evidence to the table, Griff.

Get back to us when you bring ANY evidence to back up your claims.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them...

This is disingenuous.

How can one refute NIST's findings when the raw evidence doesn't exist?

Don't worry. Seanm knows he's lying through his teeth.

Originally posted by Griff
Again mods. Why is this person allowed to lie continuously and get away with it?

I agree, there has to be a cut-off point. We don't have structural documentation. That's a very simple proof that information is being withheld. Do we really have to be exposed to people posting back-to-back-to-back denying this simple fact?

Anyone trying calculate the minimum amount of energy it would take to fail each truss connection at its ultimate shear strength on any given floor, would not at all be able to without structural docs. That's a very critical figure because it represents the amount of energy it would literally take to sever each floor, from which forces can be calculated and a realistic, mathematical look at pancake-related theories can be established based on energies required for all of the failures in the steel from the given instantaneous dynamic loads.


It's not trivial stuff, there is a lack of information.

Originally posted by seanm

Get back to us when you actually decide to bring irrefutable evidence to the table, Griff.

I won't hold my breath, however.

Is it not be the responsibility of Federal agencies - directed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution under our right to a redress of grievances - to refute a citizen's petition with irrefutable evidence

I believe you are ultimately misplacing the burden of proof here, no?

I have to say it...seanm does seem to be posting the same thing back to back....and he has yet to post and show proof of all this information that supposedly is completely acsseible by everyone or to show us a link to it.

I gotta agree. My brain is numb from reading Seanm's posts. He continuously talks about the evidence but has not posted anything.

I can sum up a seanm post right here:

"Just look at the evidence. The NIST has already run the simulation and will release any of the structural documents at your request (insert link here?)."

On to the next post
"They don't need to simulate it. Just look at the evidence!"

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Sublime620]

I also agree, I keep seeing seanm attack other posters again and again, but without backing up the claims. It can be clearly seen here where structural documentation is missing as bsbray11 points out. How can it not be anymore clear?? Seems to me he is engaging in willful argumentation for only arguments sake.

Some of The people he is attacking have earned respect from certain skeptics and other professionals on this forum. Some of these same people have admitted in the past where skeptics had a good point and vice versa.



[edit on 23-10-2007 by talisman]

Obvious troll. And everyone (me included) has or will keep feeding him. A big bag of ignore or a petition to the mods wouldnt go astray.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them...

This is disingenuous.

How can one refute NIST's findings when the raw evidence doesn't exist?

Easy. You can go here and read them: wtc.nist.gov...

Don't come back here and ask us to prove their existence like you did with AA11.

reply to post by seanm

Easy. You can go here and read them: wtc.nist.gov...

No seanm. You have pointed me to NIST's findings, not the hard evidence upon which it is based.

Don't come back here and ask us to prove their existence like you did with AA11.

As I've explained in the other thread, you are both a proven liar and a hypocrite - a flaccid penis posing as a hard on.

I have NEVER asked you or anyone to prove Flight 11 existed. I asked you to back up your claim that Flight 11 did not have a pod. And not because I think it did, but because you categorically asserted it didn't.

You have both wasted my time and that of many others. You devalue this board. Unless you actually have something to contribute, we're done.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
As I have already completely demonstrated, the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of NIST are completely open and available to anyone in the world.

Please show me where the evidence are completely open.

I have already done that. AND I asked which part of these documents, evidence, methodologies, and conclusions are not available to anyone. You all refuse once again to answer that question.

That fact that the construction drawings are under lock and key makes your statement a lie.

You are unbelievable. Your "movement" has had those documents since March 2007: 911research.wtc7.net...

Why do you guys keep misrepresenting the facts?

Again mods. Why is this person allowed to lie continuously and get away with it?

You are unable to bring anything to the table to refute them but have to whine endlessly that there is no evidence.

I have brought plenty to the table to show how ignorant you are. That's enough for me.

Get back to us when you actually decide to bring irrefutable evidence to the table, Griff.

Get back to us when you bring ANY evidence to back up your claims.

It's time to stop with the evasions, Griff, and start to bring evidence to the table to support your assertions.

1st let me say that I live in nyc and I used to go to the wtc almost daily (for work).

2nd please explain this.




Look at the top. it is intact and falling to the side. Normal momentum should have made that section fall off to the side leaving the other 2/3's of the building standing. (If you don't already know the wtc was built into 3 sections with massive columns in the interior.) What made the top straighten out?




It seems simple things like this get missed by the "experts". Something UNNATURAL made the top part go back into line to wreck the rest of the building, I wonder what caused that...

Originally posted by SilentBob86
I have to say it...seanm does seem to be posting the same thing back to back....and he has yet to post and show proof of all this information that supposedly is completely acsseible by everyone or to show us a link to it.

How often do I have to post a link to that which you should already know? What part of the NIST documents I linked to here: wtc.nist.gov... does not represent the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of NIST that are not open to anyone in the world?

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

Easy. You can go here and read them: wtc.nist.gov...

No seanm. You have pointed me to NIST's findings, not the hard evidence upon which it is based.

Sorry, coughymachine, you're wrong again. You have yet to demonstrate that NIST had no hard evidence. Neither have you refuted its conclusions. You know I am right.

Don't come back here and ask us to prove their existence like you did with AA11.

As I've explained in the other thread, you are both a proven liar and a hypocrite - a flaccid penis posing as a hard on.

I've demonstrated that you are not serious about what happened on 9/11. The posts are all available here.

I have NEVER asked you or anyone to prove Flight 11 existed. I asked you to back up your claim that Flight 11 did not have a pod. And not because I think it did, but because you categorically asserted it didn't.

Your obfuscation of the facts does not work, coughymachine. You claimed that unless there are photographs of AA11 without pods, one could not prove there were no pods.

I said one does not need photographs to know that AA 11 did not have pods and you could demonstrate it to yourself.

You came back and said that you were too lazy to do it, that if I didn't prove the non-existence of pods to you, that I couldn't assert that they didn't exist. Having made that gross error you backed yourself into a corner from which I gave you the opportunity to get yourself out of. You refused.

So this leaves you in the position you put yourself in. You are in the position of entertaining that AA11 never existed as a regularly scheduled flight on 9/11 and if it did, that another plane with pods hit WTC 1.

I gave you many opportunities to back out of the implications of your posts. You refused.

Now you are in the position of having to address those implications. So let's start with the fundamental question:

Did AA11 exist as a regularly scheduled Boeing 757 flight on 9/11 or not?

If so, what happened to it? If not, what hit WTC 1?

Originally posted by sp00n1

I'm sure he can come up with an equally long winded and roundabout excuse, intimately focusing on the most mundane of irrelevant details to distract the reader from the fact that it contains nothing of substance.

Kind of like saying that that the FDNY chief said to pull the building???
Like saying that there were two small pockets of fire on a mechanical floor so thats proof that nothing else was burning above it???

So how did building number seven collapse, when it wasn't hit by a plane?

Originally posted by _Mr.X_
1st let me say that I live in nyc and I used to go to the wtc almost daily (for work).

2nd please explain this.




Look at the top. it is intact and falling to the side. Normal momentum should have made that section fall off to the side leaving the other 2/3's of the building standing. (If you don't already know the wtc was built into 3 sections with massive columns in the interior.) What made the top straighten out?




It seems simple things like this get missed by the "experts". Something UNNATURAL made the top part go back into line to wreck the rest of the building, I wonder what caused that...

Nothing "unnatural" happened.

The center of gravity of the top section would have had to gone over the edge of the structure for the top section to fall over into the street. This would have happened had the rest of the building not collapsed.

What actually happened is the the building started to collapse and it's acceleration due to gravity quickly exceeded the speed of the tipping of the top section AND the pivot point, the part of the two sections that broke apart last causing the tipping to begin with broke. At that point is when the full mass of 110,000 tons of the top section caused the collapse of the building.

This has been explained innumerable times and it is surprising that you don't know it.

Originally posted by jerseygeek
So how did building number seven collapse, when it wasn't hit by a plane?

Please demonstrate that WTC 7 needed to have a plane hit it for it to collapse.