News Flash: There was no Controlled Demolition of any building on 9/11/2001

Mark F · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Fledermaus said:
Why lie Bob?

He's probably not lying in that he truly believes we never had an investigation into 9/11. And this is why Bob and what remains of the so-called 9/11 Truthers today can no longer be taken seriously.

No sane, rational person could make a statement like we never had an investigation into 9/11 when it is an indisputable fact that 9/11 is by an order-of-magnitude the most investigated criminal act in all of human history. One may have reasonable reservations and disagreements with the results of those investigations, but to say there was no investigation is the fall-back position of the non-thinker.

Ditto with the current trend of calling everyone who disagrees with him a paid shill. This is another rationalization for not thinking. Its confirmation bias at its purest. The government is covering things up, so obviously everyone who agrees with the government is part of the cover-up and thus can be ignored. They are all paid shills anyway. Once you've ignored all the evidence in favor of the official story, the only evidence that's left contradicts the official story. Therefore the official story must be wrong, thus proving that there's a cover-up. A finer example of non-thinking non-logic would be hard to find.

That is the kind of thinking that fools these folks into believing that the 9/11 Truth movement is growing and gaining momentum when exactly the opposite is true. Nearly all the big names have left, major organizations shut down, web sites and blogs folded and those proponents who can think at some level have figured out 9/11 Truth is a bunch of woo and moved on. Heck, last year the last man standing - Tricky Dick "Box Boy" Gage spent $350,000 on advertising to get 1 million people to march on Times Square on the anniversary. About 100 actually showed up to listen to a keynote speaker who is a convicted pedophile in a cartoon military uniform. This year they didn't even bother to try. That is how bad, how pathetic it has become. That leaves us with a tiny core of fringe fanatics who do not see reason and can not think. The kind of folks who think chucking a stick of dynomite above a ceiling tile in a burning building is a perfectly reasonable explanation for collapse. The kind of people who think nobody bothered to investigate 9/11 and everyone who can think is a paid shill.

There is no discussion left, nothing to discuss and no one on the 9/11 woo side left capable of discussing it if there were.

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Fledermaus said:
And yet there were NO EXPLOSIVES......

None.

Zero.

Nada.

Not one trace.

Nothing.

Given those FACTS one might look to another cause.

Nobody looked... Not a single swab was taken and analyzed, where actual printed results could be scrutinized.

Just a "visual" inspection on a small number of columns was done where the person could have said anything he wanted (no explosives).

Bob0627 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
He's probably not lying in that he truly believes we never had an investigation into 9/11

.... snip

That is the kind of thinking that fools these folks into believing that the 9/11 Truth movement is growing and gaining momentum when exactly the opposite is true.

The FACTS:

NIST was tasked with INVESTIGATING the collapse of WTC7. The result?:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ulent-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-a.html (see first 3 posts)

Over 100,000 petition signatories in NYC in just a few weeks this year. A petition to INVESTIGATE the collapse of WTC7.

2,291 verified architect and engineer signatories as of today and 19,893 other verified signatories. These numbers INCREASE regularly and nearly daily. A petition to INVESTIGATE 9/11.

How many people have you managed to turn around and convince the official narrative is true?

Mark F · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
Nobody looked... Not a single swab was taken and analyzed, where actual printed results could be scrutinized.

Just a "visual" inspection on a small number of columns was done where the person could have said anything he wanted (no explosives).

Swab of what? No blast damaged steel = nothing to swab for.

SanderO · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Bob0627 said:
The FACTS:

NIST was tasked with INVESTIGATING the collapse of WTC7. The result?:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ulent-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-a.html (see first 3 posts)

Over 100,000 petition signatories in NYC in just a few weeks this year. A petition to INVESTIGATE the collapse of WTC7.

2,291 verified architect and engineer signatories as of today and 19,893 other verified signatories. These numbers INCREASE regularly and nearly daily. A petition to INVESTIGATE 9/11.

How many people have you managed to turn around and convince the official narrative is true?

Most people don't know about 7wtc, can't understand it and are not that concerned with the details of the collapses on 9/11. To most people, massive plane striking an office tower, burning without any fire fighting would explain the collapse. Steel buildings have fire protection to... protect against fire.

For those who think some papers on desks in 7wtc were burning and could not have caused the collapse... the investigation by NIST seems incompetent. But the fires WERE more extensive and the towers had massive yet vulnerable load transfer structures supporting most of the building. There is no evidence of CD and disbelief is not the basis for thinking someone(s) placed explosives in the tower... for... get this... to get rid of SEC files.

What a fairy tale...

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
Swab of what? No blast damaged steel = nothing to swab for.

No swab and all we have is the WORD that the steel was not in anyway blast damaged.

A swab would have printed test results PROVING that there was no explosives.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
He's probably not lying in that he truly believes we never had an investigation into 9/11. And this is why Bob and what remains of the so-called 9/11 Truthers today can no longer be taken seriously.

The distinction between "lie" - meaning DELIBERATELY make untrue statements and "untruthful" is important. I prefer that when dealing with truthers the debunker side logic and presentation should be scrupulously correct.

There is no doubt that Bob's claims about "no investigation" are untruthful. There is little doubt that Bob cannot - and zero doubt that he does not - either comprehend most of what is posted OR construct his own reasoned arguments. But delusions and inability to think clearly do not make "lies". I even hesitate to use the term "lie" or "liar" to refer to R Gage or T Szamboti - BOTH of whom persist in making claims that are demonstrably false when BOTH have been shown that their claims are false. Such conduct is professional dishonesty BUT whilst ever they are genuinely deluded it does not prove "lie" or "liar". The threshold of proof for professional dishonesty is lower than for lie. Conversely stated the standard of behaviour required to avoid professional dishonesty is higher that for "lie". Which is as it should be.

Mark F said:
...No sane, rational and honest person could make a statement like we never had an investigation into 9/11...

(My addition) That is true if we include the honesty proviso.

Mark F said:
when it is an indisputable fact that 9/11 is by an order-of-magnitude the most investigated criminal act in all of human history.

..and that is the true situation which means that Bob's statement is untruthful and may be a lie. No doubt about the untruthful. "Lie" or deliberate untruth needs additional proof and Bob's practice of repeating untruths is evidence of deliberate persistence in being untruthful. Not conclusive proof of lie but I suspect it would be good enough for the jury provided the history of false claims and explicit corrections could be put before the jury in evidence. Admissibility of his record of untruthful claims would be the contentious point if the need was to prove lie to a jury.

Mark F said:
One may have reasonable reservations and disagreements with the results of those investigations,...

Where "reasonable" is the missing element in most of the truther side claims seen on these threads. AND the fact that some debunker side responses are no better in logic is irrelevant. The old "burden of proof" bugbear for truthers. They are the ones making the claims which initiate the discussions. Their burden of proof if they are to "prove" their claims. And it matters not if some - even many - debunker counter claims are wrong. Truthers are disagreeing with status quo and trying to change it - they fail when their "arguments" fail. Failure by debunkers doesn't affect status quo.

Bob0627 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

SanderO said:
What a fairy tale...

The official narrative is the biggest fairy tale of them all. That there was an investigation into 9/11 (as opposed to the pretenses designed to cover up the 9/11 crime) is yet another fairy tale within a fairy tale. And the belief that "the investigation by NIST seems incompetent" is delusional at best, especially given just the FACTS that have been exposed, never mind those that are still being covered up.

Mark F · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

ozeco41 said:
(My addition) That is true if we include the honesty proviso.

Thank you for that - not sure how I missed it.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
Swab of what? No blast damaged steel = nothing to swab for.

Bman's pretence of ignorance is boring.

In testing for explosives ONE test - actually one step in the test process - is to swab for chemical residue. What do you swab?

The criterion is obvious: "Swab every piece of steel which shows physical evidence which may be indicative of explosives."

It would be reasonable to also test some which show no evidence - to avoid false positives from materials present in the background.

BUT if there is no physical evidence of cutting WTF are you going to swab? Every piece of steel? When none of them show indication of explosive cutting?

If you suspect that the murder victim was poisoned despite the multiple stab wounds and the knife protruding from the chest you do the analysis to DISTINGUISH the CAUSE of the APPARENT status of DEAD

If there is no dead body there is no need to check stomach contents. The tests are only needed when you have:
A) One or more dead bodies; AND
B) The need is to determine cause of death INCLUDING distinguishing between options even when one looks obviously the cause.

...and you ignore any number of clowns insisting on checking the contents of the corpses which do not exist.

And I know truthers cannot process analogies - it's a subset of the "cannot think" issue - so I'll leave it there for now.

Mark F · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
No swab and all we have is the WORD that the steel was not in anyway blast damaged.

A swab would have printed test results PROVING that there was no explosives.

Thousands of people working the pile, not one found evidence of blast damaged steel.

Case closed.

Collapses of the Twin Towers began at the impact points. Means no CD.

Case closed.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
Thank you for that - not sure how I missed it.

No problem - It was a bit of a hole in the logic.

Whilst I doubt that the claque would have picked it I thought I should play safe.

Fledermaus · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
Nobody looked... Not a single swab was taken and analyzed, where actual printed results could be scrutinized.

Just a "visual" inspection on a small number of columns was done where the person could have said anything he wanted (no explosives).

Why must you lie McFly?

The FBI investigated.

NO EXPLOSIVES FOUND.

Fledermaus · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

ozeco41 said:
Bman's pretence of ignorance is boring.

In testing for explosives ONE test - actually one step in the test process - is to swab for chemical residue. What do you swab?

The criterion is obvious: "Swab every piece of steel which shows physical evidence which may be indicative of explosives."

It would be reasonable to also test some which show no evidence - to avoid false positives from materials present in the background.

BUT if there is no physical evidence of cutting WTF are you going to swab? Every piece of steel? When none of them show indication of explosive cutting?

If you suspect that the murder victim was poisoned despite the multiple stab wounds and the knife protruding from the chest you do the analysis to DISTINGUISH the CAUSE of the APPARENT status of DEAD

If there is no dead body there is no need to check stomach contents. The tests are only needed when you have:
A) One or more dead bodies; AND
B) The need is to determine cause of death INCLUDING distinguishing between options even when one looks obviously the cause.

...and you ignore any number of clowns insisting on checking the contents of the corpses which do not exist.

And I know truthers cannot process analogies - it's a subset of the "cannot think" issue - so I'll leave it there for now.

Rasputin...............

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Fledermaus said:
Rasputin...............

Not disputin? :roll:

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

ozeco41 said:
Bman's pretence of ignorance is boring.

In testing for explosives ONE test - actually one step in the test process - is to swab for chemical residue. What do you swab?

The criterion is obvious: "Swab every piece of steel which shows physical evidence which may be indicative of explosives."

It would be reasonable to also test some which show no evidence - to avoid false positives from materials present in the background.

BUT if there is no physical evidence of cutting WTF are you going to swab? Every piece of steel? When none of them show indication of explosive cutting?

If you suspect that the murder victim was poisoned despite the multiple stab wounds and the knife protruding from the chest you do the analysis to DISTINGUISH the CAUSE of the APPARENT status of DEAD

If there is no dead body there is no need to check stomach contents. The tests are only needed when you have:
A) One or more dead bodies; AND
B) The need is to determine cause of death INCLUDING distinguishing between options even when one looks obviously the cause.

...and you ignore any number of clowns insisting on checking the contents of the corpses which do not exist.

And I know truthers cannot process analogies - it's a subset of the "cannot think" issue - so I'll leave it there for now.

First off f*** you for choosing to talk about me rather than address my points to me. This is an infantile approach to debate, it seems I initially gave you far too much credit as a professional.

Now, to your points... you would first visually examine ALL the steel, not 2% of the steel that nist had actually even bothered to look at (it's in the nist reports, look at just how much was excluded from even the visual examination). Then, you would perform tests on any parts that look like they were POTENTIALLY exposed to whatever, this way there is a paper trail to confirm the visual examination.

Not on every piece, that would be excessive and redundant. However, by not even taking a single test, we are stuck on the appeal to authority, trusting the word of nist that they were honest in the analysis... When it's clear that nist had started with the conclusion and sought out the evidence to confirm that conclusion.

To maintain your analogy, would be like seeing the knife sticking out and not even bothering to check if the wounds occurred pre or post mortem. Then deciding that an autopsy was not necessary on that basis.

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
Thousands of people working the pile, not one found evidence of blast damaged steel.

Case closed.

They looked at only 2% of the steel. Case not closed.

Collapses of the Twin Towers began at the impact points. Means no CD.

Case closed.

This is so pitifully wrong an analysis that it's laughable.

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Fledermaus said:
Why must you lie McFly?

The FBI investigated.

NO EXPLOSIVES FOUND.

Again... the FBI was investigating to determine the identities of hijackers NOT FOR EXPLOSIVES.

Your own links have confirmed that. This has been pointed out to you, so, quit lying.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
Collapses of the Twin Towers began at the impact points. Means no CD.

True!!

....especially if we start to fill in the explanatory argument like this:

A) The initiation was a relatively slow build up "cascade failure" with movements long before the ultimate failure;
B) "Early motion is incompatible with any 'event immediate fail' scenario" (quoting femr2 from memory). Put in simple words there could not have been any single bang use of explosives within that scenario;
C) So, if explosives were used it was:
(i) distributed - placed and initiated during the fire driven cascade; AND
(ii) unnecessary.
(There's more but even that much is more than our "cannot think" truthers could handle.)

AND
D) Whether or not it is claimed that there was CD during the progression is irrelevant BECAUSE:
(iii) If there was ANY CD it must have been in the initiation stage
(iv) Therefore CD in progression stage was redundant.

(And I'll bet the bleedingly obvious logic of that simple fact is also beyond some folks reasoning skills.)

Mark F said:
...Case closed.

To be tediously pedantic the case cannot be "closed". No case has been "made out". There is "no case to answer". So we cannot "close" it. :roll:

But I agree with your sentiment.

Fledermaus · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
Again... the FBI was investigating to determine the identities of hijackers NOT FOR EXPLOSIVES.

Your own links have confirmed that. This has been pointed out to you, so, quit lying.

The FBI INVESTIGATED THE DEBRIS AND CRASH SITES.

Why do you remain intentionally ignorant?

Why?

Fledermaus · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
They looked at only 2% of the steel. Case not closed.

This is so pitifully wrong an analysis that it's laughable.

Thousands of people working the pile, not one found evidence of blast damaged steel. They looked AT ALL THE STEEL since these thousands were CLEARING ALL THE STEEL.

These Thousands of people included plenty of PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION folks that woulld know what they were looking at.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
First off f*** you for choosing to talk about me rather than address my points to me.

As you well know I have repeatedly offered to discuss with you PROVIDED you are prepared to join in reasoned rational debate and in accordance with proper debate protocols. That offer still stands.

The rest of your nonsense does not qualify and by this stage you should be well aware of the range of evasions and debate tricks you continue to deploy. Many other members are prepared to let you get away with logical nonsense. No need for me to join them. BUT if you ask without the nonsense - name one of your posts - and I will parse out and identify the specific bits of trickery.

BmanMcfly said:
This is an infantile approach to debate, it seems I initially gave you far too much credit as a professional.

Personal insults rarely move me. Ask psikey - he tried it for 2 years plus (2007-8) on a different forum where I continued to present him with correct and reasoned argument. I no longer indulge those who are not interested in serious discussion.

BmanMcfly said:
Now, to your points... you would first visually examine ALL the steel,...

That is not the first step. And that is probably the main reason your "argument" is faulty. You do not start at the beginning with the known facts. your argument is arse about or at least starts in the middle. Try starting from the firm foundation of known true facts. Starting with anomalous issues out of context is one of the commonest false argument tactics of truthers. Ranking alongside "reversed burden of proof". Try asking - without predetermined expectations - (1) Why there should be examination for explosives in those WTC 9/11 events THEN specify (2) how such examination should be conducted.

BmanMcfly said:
not 2% of the steel that nist had actually even bothered to look at (it's in the nist reports, look at just how much was excluded from even the visual examination).

The facts do not depend on what NIST said.

BmanMcfly said:
Then, you would perform tests on any parts that look like they were POTENTIALLY exposed to whatever,

partially true and what I have posted many times. So you get one step of logic right.

BmanMcfly said:
this way there is a paper trail to confirm the visual examination.

True - but as necessary evidence NOT to satisfy conspiracy theorists.

BmanMcfly said:
Not on every piece, that would be excessive and redundant.

As I have said all along and another step you get right. So how do you choose which pieces? Think that through.

BmanMcfly said:
However, by not even taking a single test,

You are limiting the definition of "test" to suit your predetermined conclusion. Try using "test process" to broaden your thinking out of your self created trap.

BmanMcfly said:
we are stuck on the appeal to authority,

Who is "we". Those who can process all the evidence are not dead ended. Only those who, like you, want to predetermine the outcome and need to limit the evidence to chemical testing to suit your untruthful purpose.

BmanMcfly said:
trusting the word of nist that they were honest in the analysis...

Nonsense. Those who like me reason from weight of evidence do not trust NIST. The concept is a derailing strawman.

BmanMcfly said:
When it's clear that nist had started with the conclusion and sought out the evidence to confirm that conclusion.

That projection of nonsense is not even worthy as a "pot v kettle" false claim - because you are doing it and it is irrelevant and not proven whether NIST was. Stop projecting.

BmanMcfly said:
To maintain your analogy, would be like seeing the knife sticking out and not even bothering to check if the wounds occurred pre or post mortem. Then deciding that an autopsy was not necessary on that basis.

I predicted that some members would not process the analogy accurately.

In the real event and in the analogy you are starting "in the middle" and not properly in context.

Get your head around this aspect of the analogy:

"In your argument there is no corpse on which to conduct the PM."

...and you will be a long way down the path to understanding the real issue with your claim.

And don't fall for the trap of seeing "prove the analogy wrong" as the objective. :lol:

Mark F · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

BmanMcfly said:
They looked at only 2% of the steel. Case not closed.

This is so pitifully wrong an analysis that it's laughable.

No, the thousands of guys working the pile by definition looked at 100% of the steel. They found NOTHING that would indicate blast type scenarios on any of it.

ozeco41 · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Mark F said:
No, the thousands of guys working the pile by definition looked at 100% of the steel. They found NOTHING that would indicate blast type scenarios on any of it.

He has acknowledged what:
a) It is not necessary to swab and chemically test every piece of steel - "Not on every piece, that would be excessive and redundant"; AND
b) That "you would perform tests on any parts that look like they were POTENTIALLY exposed" - note the "look like";
BUT
b) Is reluctant to admit that a selection process is necessary to define which bits "look like" OR that the viewing by hundreds of persons - multiple persons "looking" at each piece of steel - meets his own criterion of "looks like".

Go figure......
...is there any wonder why I don't regard his comments as serious discussion"?

Not simply because of the inconsistencies and incompatibilities...

...but because of the refusal to acknowledge them which serious discussion must address. Facing up to when you get something wrong is part of being serious.

BmanMcfly · Oct 10, 2014

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Oh man... what passes for rationality and logic from some.

I know, as soon as I pointed out the errors in your analysis, or stated differently, where your analysis departs from reality, you started attacking me and then claiming I was the one on attack simultaneously. This is is a form of gas lighting... and its not going to work, if anything it shows your character.

ozeco41 said:
As you well know I have repeatedly offered to discuss with you PROVIDED you are prepared to join in reasoned rational debate and in accordance with proper debate protocols. That offer still stands.

So, show that you are up to it, I didn't jump in the conversation like a whiny child.

The rest of your nonsense does not qualify

But your games just now, that does qualify?

and by this stage you should be well aware of the range of evasions and debate tricks you continue to deploy.

What evasions? What tricks? You are projecting. You had the opportunity to address my post logically and rationally, but instead engaged in a strawman by insulting me, building a strawman, tagged on a false equivalence, topped it off with a flawed analogy, and, because you covered more than 2 points in a single post, that fits your definition of a Gish Gallop.

Many other members are prepared to let you get away with logical nonsense. No need for me to join them.

Under the circumstance this must be a joke.

BUT if you ask without the nonsense - name one of your posts - and I will parse out and identify the specific bits of trickery.

I've done that before, and you showed that you did not read more than the first maybe second paragraph.

Personal insults rarely move me. Ask psikey - he tried it for 2 years plus (2007-8) on a different forum where I continued to present him with correct and reasoned argument. I no longer indulge those who are not interested in serious discussion.

That wasn't an insult, that's an observation of your behavior, stop the behavior and you won't have these things pointed out to you.

That is not the first step. And that is probably the main reason your "argument" is faulty.

Then what's the first step? this is just the start of you putting lots of words that say nothing...

You do not start at the beginning with the known facts. your argument is arse about or at least starts in the middle. Try starting from the firm foundation of known true facts.

The facts are, the buildings collapsed, and nist was tasked with determining the cause of that collapse.

They were not set out to prove how the plane and fires could cause the buildings to collapse, as they did.

...Try asking - without predetermined expectations - (1) Why there should be examination for explosives in those WTC 9/11 events THEN specify (2) how such examination should be conducted.

Why? Because hundreds of witnesses are on record talking about explosions in a variety of locations and times before the towers collapsed, either witnessing, impacted by, etc... corroborated with explosions captured on video and audio. Also, because of the molten metal, that meets the standard for testing for "exotic incendiaries".

Further, because of HOW the building collapsed.

How? There are investigative standards already in place to determine how such an investigation should be performed... and that the swab part of that test was ignored alone defies that standard.

The facts do not depend on what NIST said. partially true and what I have posted many times.

No, but as investigators, gathering facts is the first step in investigation.

Oh, and if you aren't turning to nist for facts, where are you pulling your facts from?

So you get one step of logic right. True - but as necessary evidence NOT to satisfy conspiracy theorists.

No, so that there is a record of test results, not just the reliance on the appeal to authority that they are being honest in their analysis.

Now, with no records to be checked, we must take the "fact" on faith.

As I have said all along and another step you get right. So how do you choose which pieces? Think that through. You are limiting the definition of "test" to suit your predetermined conclusion. Try using "test process" to broaden your thinking out of your self created trap.

There are standards to that effect that determine the specific process. It's not on me, a non expert, to determine that process.

Who is "we". Those who can process all the evidence are not dead ended. Only those who, like you, want to predetermine the outcome and need to limit the evidence to chemical testing to suit your untruthful purpose.

We, everyone.

Orwell would be proud of you, calling for proper investigative testing is now desiring to predetermine the outcome... rather than the reality, that by not performing hard tests providing the opportunity to come to a predetermined conclusion.

Nonsense. Those who like me reason from weight of evidence do not trust NIST.

Yet your analysis depends on nist findings... I've seen your collapse analysis, it did not include a fire analysis, so, did you hide that one somewhere else, or were you depending on nist there?

The concept is a derailing strawman. That projection of nonsense is not even worthy as a "pot v kettle" false claim - because you are doing it and it is irrelevant and not proven whether NIST was. Stop projecting.

I just did a laughing spit take on that one. Take the most obvious, wtc7... nist analysis leads to a model that in no way resembles reality of collapse, and pass it off as the best they could do... and you are telling me they were not seeking to prove a conclusion???

I predicted that some members would not process the analogy accurately.

In the real event and in the analogy you are starting "in the middle" and not properly in context.

Get your head around this aspect of the analogy:

"In your argument there is no corpse on which to conduct the PM."

...and you will be a long way down the path to understanding the real issue with your claim.

And don't fall for the trap of seeing "prove the analogy wrong" as the objective. :lol:

That's why it's a flawed analogy.