A question for 911 deniers, what about the NIST report was so conclusive and convincing for you to d

dismiss eye(ear)whitness accounts and the testimony of people who were there as the distorted memories or people under shock (despite videos to go with it) and anything people outside the NIST umbrella have to say as funny? What is so convincing about the NIST report and the OS to dismiss the firefighters who were there as crazy truthers, pilots for 911 truth AE911Truth in other words indipendent and unbiased sources.

I feel truthers have taken over the board somewhat, explaining why they doint think the OS holds water.

Id like to hear from the 911 deniers. So far most of what you said, was a reaction to something somebody else said. Now, here is the opportunity, tell us why you think the OS and NIST report is so convincing to you. You dont need to go into detail, but at least sketch out, what in your opinion led to the collapse of the 3 buildings.

911 deniers

I don't think anyone denies that 9/11 happened

reply to post by Cassius666


"well shuckee darn... our good old govt said so. and cnn said so too. THEY ARE THE EXPERTS!! " claims the gullible rube sheeple..

there is no other way..

THERE MUST SOMETHING IN THE WATER-------FOR REAL

The basic question in in this thread is a legitimate question to ask which is a call to those who beleive the offiical story to put forward their facts, logic and premises for public scrunity

cheers

reply to post by bussoboy


Except I dont think there should be public scrutiny. This should be just a thread where the believers of the official story can piece toegether their case without too much interruption from us truthers, so we have an coherent sketch of the version they believe is true.

reply to post by Cassius666


One thing I will say Cassius666 , I admire your enthusiasm .

tell us why you think the OS and NIST report is so convincing to you. You dont need to go into detail, but at least sketch out, what in your opinion led to the collapse of the 3 buildings.

It's not that the "OS" is so convincing to me , as I've never read the "OS" , nor has it ever been explained satisfactorily from the TM . So , no , the "OS" is not what "convinced" me that the myriad of theories found in the TM are ludicrous and show a retardation in critical thinking skills . The TM has shown me that , all by itself , without help from outside sources .

Have not read the NIST report either so , my take on 9/11 has not been biased by direct knowledge of anything therein .

As for what led to the collapse of the three buildings : Radical Islamic Terrorists .

Don't get your hopes up. The deniers usually avoid these threads like crazy; they can't stand having to prove what they believe, because it almost forces them to realize that they can't.


First denier/truster you have posting here, admits he hasn't even read the official reports. He just doesn't think anything else is credible because he's automatically assumed what he believes is more credible. A real scientist is he.


I would love to debate the "science" in the NIST report but no one is ever up to the challenge.

reply to post by okbmd


Okay at least tell us then, why you think what Architects and Engineers for 911 truth puts forward along with pilots for 911 truth firefighters for 911 truth the professionals who were whitnesses that day and the findings about nanothermite that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific magazine is ludicrous. And please dont say laserbeams from out of space, I did not hear any of these sources mention that.

Also I do not blame him for not having read the NIST report. I attempted reading it and realized to get anything out of it I would have to turn to somebody with expertise in the related fields and I did. If anything he is big enough to admit that he lacks the education to fully grasp and rate the NIST report like most people who are not engineers or architects.

Everybody else is still invited to piece toegether his sketch on why the towers fell.

reply to post by bsbray11

First denier/truster you have posting here, admits he hasn't even read the official reports. He just doesn't think anything else is credible because he's automatically assumed what he believes is more credible. A real scientist is he.

Oh stop it with the silly little truther game that you are plying to those who are unaware of my posting history and where I have stood , and stand , on issues of 9/11 . You have interacted with me on these threads enough to know that I started out as a truther , so stop implying that I haven't looked at it from your side also .

Here you are , making a feeble attempt to criticize someone who hasn't read the very reports that you yourself hold in contempt . Talk about hypocrisy .

I don't think anything else is credible ? I was a truther for over eight years . Believe me when I say that I am privy to everything that has been offered ny the TM .

And yes , I do indeed feel that my stance is credible . It doesn't take a scientist to see that you have brought forth nothing that would prove otherwise .

reply to post by Cassius666

If anything he is big enough to admit that he lacks the education to fully grasp and rate the NIST report like most people who are not engineers or architects.

To the contrary , I do not lack the education .

The simple fact of the matter is , that I eventually started looking at 9/11 from an unbisaed perspective and was able to recognize all the fallacies and absurdities being put forth by the TM .

For every 9/11 A&E , there are hundreds , even thousands , of A&E's who do not advocate any type of 9/11 conspiracy theory . Why is it that you guys never talk about those ?

Originally posted by okbmd
Here you are , making a feeble attempt to criticize someone who hasn't read the very reports that you yourself hold in contempt . Talk about hypocrisy .

What's hypocritical about it? You have to read it before you can criticize it. You don't even know what it says. Do you think it proves something anyway? You must think someone has proven something somewhere, to have the opinions you do, eh? So what is it?


You don't come to a conclusion by saying, "Ohhh that theory over there can't possibly be right so therefore this one over here must automatically have tons of proof." If someone taught you that that's "reasoning" then they lied to you, flat out. There are literally hundreds of theories about what happened on 9/11, and none of them have been proven, including what's in any of the government reports. Their reports are among the most easily refutable theories of them all. All the rhetoric and emotional opinions aside, what evidence do you have to support your beliefs? It's too easy to criticize others. Why don't you stand up for yourself once and put your money where your mouth is? I want to see what proof you have.

reply to post by Cassius666


This post is pretty detailed and links directly to NIST report.

This was a follow up post

You can follow the subsequent pages of that thread to learn more.

Here is the short version:

The NIST report stated on several occasions that the highest temperatures briefly reached were 1000 degrees. The steel was tempered in excess of 1800 degrees. Fire codes and fire testing of construction materials in similar buildings had a minimum rating of 12 hours at intense chemical fire temperatures (> 1800 deg), yet the towers fell in just a few hours at half that temperature.

The taller and more populated the building, the stricter the building code. The more "density" or populated the area, the stricter the building code. Therefore, we can ascertain that the tallest building in the country (twin towers) in the most populated area in the country (manhatten) would have by far the strictest building codes in the country. Yet, they want us to believe that other buildings, less solidly built, withstood much hotter fires, for much longer periods of time without collapse.

The report also found no indication of metal fatigue, and the only holes junctions that had ripped apart were the junctions designed to do exactly that. They found no evidence of joint failures, improper loading, or compromised construction techniques.

I have read the report in its entirety, and I believe everything in the report is correct....except the summation. I believe the report proves that they did not fall from fire and heat, but I believe they were either instructed on what the summation should say, or they were afraid to put the truth into the summation.

As I have said a million times. I don't know what brought the towers down, but it certainly was not a Kerosene (Jet Fuel-A) fire. No way, no how. It was not the impact, and it was not the fire.

reply to post by bsbray11

You have to read it before you can criticize it. You don't even know what it says.

I wasn't friggin criticizing it . Love the way you put a spin on my words there . It's times like this that I know to take a break , otherwise I will attract the attention of the mods and get penalized . And you are not worth it , so goodnight . Cast not your pearls before swine ...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I have read the report in its entirety, and I believe everything in the report is correct....except the summation. I believe the report proves that they did not fall from fire and heat, but I believe they were either instructed on what the summation should say, or they were afraid to put the truth into the summation.

Exactly.

Their tests show one thing, and their conclusions say another. Their own tests contradict their own findings. They even assembled trusses and perimeter column connections and put fire under them with megawatt burners, and when their hypothesized failure mechanism utterly failed to manifest after the steel had been heated to 700 C and above, they just claimed their test was a computer simulation calibration and then went on to keep elevating computer simulation parameters until they only proved that the temperatures required for their failure were unrealistic. They never once physically validated any one of their hypotheses, especially their critical one of truss failure via sagging and pulling perimeter columns inward.

They also neglected to show what data they used in their simulations, making it impossible for anyone to do the simulations for themselves to check their work. And they failed to prove enough structural information for any other kind of full analysis.

This is why no one is going to actually show up to defend this report, or any other government report. Because NIST did the best job of any of them, which was still piss-poor.

reply to post by getreadyalready


This is for 911 deniers to make their case, not for truthers. From your post I assume you lean torwards the truther camp. Maybe I got confused though. Id like a thread where the 911 deniers can sketch the OS on why the towers fell and argue why the OS or NIST or both are accurate. Maybe they will feel less overwhelmed then and resort less to namecalling.

Originally posted by okbmd

You have to read it before you can criticize it. You don't even know what it says.

I wasn't friggin criticizing it . Love the way you put a spin on my words there . It's times like this that I know to take a break , otherwise I will attract the attention of the mods and get penalized . And you are not worth it , so goodnight . Cast not your pearls before swine ...

You do have to read it before you can criticize it, and I've read it, so I can criticize it. You can't state anything about it because you haven't read it.


Now whether or not you're going to respond again tonight, I'm sure you know you didn't even attempt to give any kind of proof of anything in your post. You'll be back again demanding proof of everything from everyone else, but for one night, when we ask you to justify your own opinions, all you can do is get mad.

You're smart enough to know when you're trying to post proof and when you're not. Is this your sheepish way of admitting you don't have any proof for what you believe, and you're being hypocritical every time you even ask anyone else to prove something? Come on, "okbmd," I've asked you at least twice now to show me something. You must know you're avoiding the question completely.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

This is for 911 deniers to make their case, not for truthers. From your post I assume you lean torwards the truther camp. Maybe I got confused though. Id like a thread where the 911 deniers can sketch the OS on why the towers fell and argue why the OS or NIST or both are accurate. Maybe they will feel less overwhelmed then and resort less to namecalling.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Sorry. I thought you meant OS deniers i.e. Truthers, instead of Truth Deniers i.e. OS supporters...

Ok, I agree with you, I am eager to see anyone grab pieces out of the NIST report and use them to support the idea that fire brought down the towers.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

This is for 911 deniers to make their case, not for truthers. From your post I assume you lean torwards the truther camp. Maybe I got confused though. Id like a thread where the 911 deniers can sketch the OS on why the towers fell and argue why the OS or NIST or both are accurate. Maybe they will feel less overwhelmed then and resort less to namecalling.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Sorry. I thought you meant OS deniers i.e. Truthers, instead of Truth Deniers i.e. OS supporters...

Ok, I agree with you, I am eager to see anyone grab pieces out of the NIST report and use them to support the idea that fire brought down the towers.

This is a good point. What exactly is a 9/11 denier? What are they denying? Are they like holocaust deniers who deny the event happened at all? Who came up with that label? It's ambiguous and stupid. If you want an honest response from people who believe the NIST report--you might not want to assign them a negative label in your inquiry. Also keep in mind--a skeptic is not equal to one convinced by the "OS".

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
What exactly is a 9/11 denier? What are they denying?

In this case, the obvious. Ie that there is no evidence that the towers came down due to fire and plane damage alone.

All labels are stupid, including "truther," as most of us have argued at one point or another to no avail. But oh well, I work with what I have, and that's what people seem to respond to here.

Also keep in mind--a skeptic is not equal to one convinced by the "OS".

It's awfully easy to be skeptical of anything, but then what can we say we actually know about what happened that day in NY, besides the obvious, that two planes hit two skyscrapers and then three skyscrapers were completely destroyed to the ground?

reply to post by Cassius666


I'd like to see an OS believer start a thread...
Show some facts and let them be debated..