Belgian_Draft 0 #276 November 21, 2009 Quote Quote Energy has nothing to do with it. What's funny about that? He's right.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #277 November 21, 2009 QuoteTo answer your question in a shorter form I will reply; I disregard anyones opinion that refuses to see the nist report was compiled by using unusual, and non-standard protocol. The failure to question those that can make false conclusions is immoral. I see - so, WE'RE supposed to have open minds but you don't. You demand that we consider YOUR 'evidence' when you won't consider anyone elses. Sounds about par for the course.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #278 November 21, 2009 QuoteI see - so, WE'RE supposed to have open minds but you don't. You demand that we consider YOUR 'evidence' when you won't consider anyone elses. Sounds about par for the course. I have posted a comprehensive and well written, scientificly correct and non judgmental peice that explains how your hypothesis is not correct and infact far from it. You were supposed to aske me a couple of questions and I agreed to answer them. You are questioning me i am answering, richard gage is questioned, he answers, NIST is questioned, they don't answer, you are questioned, you answer with a question, ignore the point, bring up an irelevant point that has been proven incorrect many times, but continue along your failing and usless path of denial. Read the long post above, it questions your hypothesis, or should i say the one you syand behind, and points out CLEARLY heow you are supporting a false investigation. An investigation that is in violation of the very 'standards' put in place by the organisation that completeded it? Because they are the NIST you believe every word they say."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #279 November 21, 2009 Quote Quote I see - so, WE'RE supposed to have open minds but you don't. You demand that we consider YOUR 'evidence' when you won't consider anyone elses. Sounds about par for the course. I have posted a comprehensive and well written, scientificly correct and non judgmental peice that explains how your hypothesis is not correct and infact far from it. Yeah, ok. Quote You were supposed to aske me a couple of questions and I agreed to answer them. Post 267 - you must have missed it in your hurry to skip down the page and answer jakee, I'm sure. Quote You are questioning me i am answering, Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la they're right and you're wrong and you're a bunch of neocon cunts" isn't 'answering' anything.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #280 November 21, 2009 From your long post: QuoteIn the original Request, the Requesters challenged NIST’s computer model steel temperatures of 700°C and higher in light of the WTC Report’s statement that NIST’s physical tests on the recovered steel samples “show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time,” and “limited exposure if any above 250°C” (See NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli) (emphasis added). In the Response, NIST suggests that the steel samples saved were intended only for “determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.” There is a reason they did not show evidence of temps above 600 C for any significant time. Those samples were examined to determine the nature of the steel before 9/11. As steel approaches 700 C physical changes start to happen very rapidly. Steel was found and examined that had reached temps beyond 700 C. This is a very good example of how the "truthers" find something that looks incriminating but is actually in accordance with good scientific and laboratory practices and then spin it to look the way they want it to look. And, like every other claim they make, is very easy to debunk.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #281 November 25, 2009 QuoteThe fact that they want to review some calculations equates to what government conspiracy and cover-up again please? QuoteAn Open Letter to Inspector General Todd Zinser Investigate NIST Officials Shyam Sunder and John Gross Summary: I am writing to urge immediate investigation of Shyam Sunder and John Gross of NIST for the following possible violations in their investigations of the destruction of the 3 WTC towers in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: (1) waste, fraud and abuse, (2) making false and/or incompetent statements, (3) mismanagement, and (4) possible misprision of felonies. Trader Feedback 0 0 0 Total Rating 0% #282 November 25, 2009 The only thing that you have personally done is read and as we all know, everything on the internet and what people say is true and indisputable……………NOT. You have NEVER been able or responded to my challenge to you and it still stands! I was personally there as part of the USAR response. You were NOT. I am an engineer. You are NOT. By the way, I love it when you post dead links as evidence!!! ROTFLMAOI was part of a team that took hazardous material, air and metallurgy samples. You were NOT. I was there and saw the real time raw data coming from the EPA monitoring equipment. You were NOT. Our 72 person response team (one of 10 there) is comprised of structural engineers, hazardous materials specialist, doctors, technical search specialist, heavy rescue specialist, communications, logistics etc. You are NOT any of these! None of our specialist that was physically there saw anything to support what you have claimed. In conclusion, the ONLY word that consistently describes your participation, education, experience and knowledge to the WTC response is……………………… NOT!!! [B]THIS STILL STANDS IT IS CLEAR THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS REGURGITATE ONLY WHAT YOU READ ON THE WEB!!![/B] By the way, I love it when you post dead links as evidence!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #283 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteRhys:what kind of investigation does not look at all possibilities? Mike:Again this type statement shows what you don't know or have the education, experience or knowledge of Rescue response, recovery and post investigation as they are all separate disciplines in which it is very clear that you know nothing about. Rather than simply stating such, why not try substanciating your accusations. The fact that Nist has failed to meet the guidelines established by the National Fire Protection Association in its “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations” mandate official agencies to investigate the possibility of explosives in such a circumstance. They are dismissing evidence that does not align with thier story, they are not responding to the easily underrstood questions as to how thier hypothesis is in fact impossible and proves them to be incompetent, corrupt and criminal. The is no wonder they are not willing to participate in discussion, but that alone incriminates them as the are moraly obliged to consider any significant evidence that comes forward. What substance do you have to your accusation?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mike_forsythe 0 #284 November 25, 2009 QuoteWhat substance do you have to your accusation? No accusation, that is your area. I have only stated facts which you have not been able to dispute a single item. As for NIST, take that up with them, I was not part of that unit, have no reason to be involved with them nor would I comment recklessly as you have about them or any other agency without having first hand knowledge of the evidence that they have and or using. The facts that I have posted still stand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #285 November 25, 2009 QuoteI was personally there as part of the USAR response. You were NOT. I am an engineer. You are NOT. By the way, I love it when you post dead links as evidence!!! ROTFLMAOWink I was part of a team that took hazardous material, air and metallurgy samples. You were NOT. I was there and saw the real time raw data coming from the EPA monitoring equipment. You were NOT. Our 72 person response team (one of 10 there) is comprised of structural engineers, hazardous materials specialist, doctors, technical search specialist, heavy rescue specialist, communications, logistics etc. You are NOT any of these! . So you were there on the day, What hypothesis do you consider to be the most likely? NIST has changed theirs a number of times yet, you act like they had it right from the beginning. We have been debating this for years, you claim to be 'Right' yet the hypothesis you supported so whole heartedly was ammended only a year ago to a completely different outcome. So enlighten me ( a couple of short paragraphs) with your immense knowledge of what happened that day, to what the 'primary reason', why all three buildings collapsed at virtually free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, was? Was it the old hypothesis that you stood by in 2006 or is the new one that you stand by in 2009? Are both of them correct? You can't be right, then ammend your outcome to a 'more correct' (different) outcome and still have been right in the first place. You are not logical. You (nor NIST) have not even considered a different outcome = un-scientific. Also do you deny the existance of moulten steel days and weeks afetr the collapse like NIST does? or do you consider the many first had accounts and photographs and NASA Imagry. Did you have access to all areas of ground zero, or were you restricted to your own facility."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites timmyfitz 0 #286 November 25, 2009 I'm still waiting for this groundbreaking news you claimed would come out in September. Or was that not the truth and you are now revising your truth. They can't both be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #287 November 25, 2009 Quote This is a very good example of how the "truthers" find something that looks incriminating but is actually in accordance with good scientific and laboratory practices and then spin it to look the way they want it to look. And, like every other claim they make, is very easy to debunk. So why does the NIST refuse to even discuss the possibilities of they are so easy to debunk? You may have some Rupert Murdoch 'TV science for subdued americans', type debunking, but where is the scientific peer reviewed journals debunking such claims. You are foolish to continue to argue for your hypothesis, it weas compiled with false data and is not to the standardfs required to be considered complete. The methods are in place the paper work is done, it is just time and red tape in between the real truth and your faux reality and faux science. These 'debunkings' you speak of are not scientific, the popular belief is not scientific, in fact the final NIST report renders most of the arguments made by the right wing neo con follwers in here since 9/11 'wrong'. The argument you stood by only 18 months ago has been changed (by NIST) and a different outcome has now been presented. This outcome is not widly known and was not well presented in the media. It was put up for public opinion yet no public opinion has been considered. Pull your head in, you are fighting a losing battle and your integrety is in jeopardy. You know this is in an archive, how many more times will you change your belief before you decide to be honest with yourself? Do you know your (NIST) hypothesis changed only a year ago, to a considerably different outcome? This ammendment was prompted directly by the 9 11 truth movement. it was a weak attempt to ammend thier hyppothesis to fit thier desired outcome, rather than scientifically consider the most obvious reason for any building to fall so rapidly. the emmision of this consideration implies the NIST wishes to decieve the world. Physics cannot be re written no matter how much money you have, or stand to make!!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #288 November 25, 2009 Someone please find a new conspiracy. This one is baked.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #289 November 25, 2009 QuoteNo accusation, that is your area. I have only stated facts which you have not been able to dispute a single item. You accused me of not knowing 'anything' about investigating an explosion. You accused me of only considering the information that has been presented by the Pro-Independant Scientific investigation followers and not considering the consiracy theory presented by the authorities. The correspondence i have posted in the thread, CLEARLY, shows that the official hypothesis has not only been considered, but that it has been proven to have failed to use the expected protocol of such an investigation. You keep evading this harsh reality, there are standards for such an nvestigstion and considering the recources that went into it, it would only be faier to assume that the standard protocol for such and endeavour would be met, and in fact pursued with dilligence and enthusiasm. The nonchalant attitude of NIST and the deniers is so inconsiderate and disgraceful, many thousands of dead and injured people, lives destroyed. What do you care? you want more death, more danger, you support corruption, you don't question half truths. I am not here to try to change your mind, I just want oyu to know how disrespectful and inconsiderate you must be to not consider some relevant, and factual evidence. As for NIST, take that up with them, I was not part of that unit, have no reason to be involved with them nor would I comment recklessly as you have about them or any other agency without having first hand knowledge of the evidence that they have and or using. Thats been done, not by me, but by much more qualified people with more enthusiasm. A few minutes on a forum talking to a brick wall ( you people) does not achieve anything other than informing you lemmings that this has not been, can not and will never be, swept under the carpet. The internet is what was overlooked in the planning of all this, nobody imagined how powerful the net would be, by now and it is the internet that has given the people to communicate and study the truth. You can dismiss all you want based on your biased and staunch, closedminded opinion."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mike_forsythe 0 #290 November 25, 2009 QuoteSo you were there on the dayNo, arrived on the morning of the 12th.QuoteWhat hypothesis do you consider to be the most likely?For what? The source of the initial impact, first collapse, compromised structural integrity, air quality data, etc. You need to be a little more vague.QuoteNIST has changed theirs a number of times yet, you act like they had it right from the beginning.What part of "I had nothing to do with NIST" don't you understand?QuoteSo enlighten me ( a couple of short paragraphs) with your immense knowledge of what happened that day, to what the 'primary reason', why all three buildings collapsed at virtually free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, was?All three? You need to learn how to count. Tell me you have not spewed all this crap and don't even know how many building were involved. The primary reason for all building damage was collapse secondary to compromised structural integrity. Also NONE of the buildings fell "through the path of greatest resistance". Do you know anything about engineering or what happened? At all?QuoteWas it the old hypothesis that you stood by in 2006 or is the new one that you stand by in 2009?I have no idea what you are referring to as our report was filled in 2001 and to my knowledge has never been edited. How about the report you filed? Oh, that's right, YOU WEREN’T THERE!QuoteYou can't be right, then ammend your outcome to a 'more correct' (different) outcome and still have been right in the first place. Are you under a doctors care?QuoteYou (nor NIST) have not even considered a different outcome = un-scientific.According to whom? You? ROTFLMA Excuse us for not consulting your wisdom...........NOTQuote Also do you deny the existance of moulten steel days and weeks afetr the collapseI have never made any such claim and have addressed the issue in a prior post. Again, do you know what you are talking about and it was not weeks, it was months. It was the longest burning structure in history. Have you done ANY credible research? By the way, attached is one of many poster NASA pictures that you speak of that is on the wall of my office that we used for daily briefings. Now show me yours!!!QuoteDid you have access to all areas of ground zero, or were you restricted to your own facilityTotal unrestricted access for 11 days. 24 hours a day. How much time did you spend there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mike_forsythe 0 #291 November 25, 2009 QuoteWhat do you care? you want more death, more danger, you support corruption, you don't question half truths. I am not here to try to change your mind, I just want oyu to know how disrespectful and inconsiderate you must be to not consider some relevant, and factual evidence. Keep showing how out there your views are and how little you know. You don't know me or anyone else that was there to make such insane untrue statements. YOU are clueless as to what caring is about. Did you spend one fucking minute there trying to find survivors.....I DID. Did you have to face a single grieving spouse, son, daughter friend in total frustration that you could not bring home their loved one? Did you spend so many days cutting out body parts with a battery saw that you had to change batteries 3-4 times a shift? Did you have to form two lines and stand at attention out of respect several times a night as the bodies of fellow firefighters and police officers were escorted out with their families as we found them and identified them? You say that I “dismiss all you want based on your biased and staunch, closedminded opinion” and I say till you have been there and been through what I have and have to live the rest of your life with what I do YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #292 November 25, 2009 Is there any part of the truther's claims that you don't accept? Have they retracted any of their assertions? It is not wise to only be skeptical of one side. Again, again, again...how fast should the buildings have fallen? To just say they fell too close to freefall acceleration isn't an analysis, it is nothing but armchair engineering that is less than worthless.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mike_forsythe 0 #293 November 25, 2009 Quote Is there any part of the truther's claims that you don't accept? Your asking this of someone that does not even know how many buildings were involved? ROTFLMAO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #294 November 25, 2009 QuoteI'm still waiting for this groundbreaking news you claimed would come out in September. Or was that not the truth and you are now revising your truth. They can't both be true. As I have always stated, i initially informed you that congress was going to be presented the evidence on 9/11 this year, that dat waschanged to october... Now it is november and there have been severeal applications to various institutes and I have posted a couple of them here for your viewing. There will be a huge amount of red tape to slice through and it will take time. These movements, actions, peer reviewed journals, freedom of information act applictions, and the announcment of a civilian open trial are of huge significance to the truth movement. Richard gage is currently finishing his asian and australasian tour. He just had very successful presentations in New Zealand and Australia. Next is japan visiting 7 cities. If you are truly interested, [url"http://www.rense.com/general80/testi.htm"]here[/url] is a transcript of the Japanese government openly discussing the origin and authenticity of the war on terror, the 9/11 attacks and whether or not to refuel US equipment in support of the war, or provide water to the civilains of afghanistan instead. as far as they are concerned this is about Afganistan civilians, not americans, and keeping them safe. They will have thier own investigation also..."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #295 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote This is a very good example of how the "truthers" find something that looks incriminating but is actually in accordance with good scientific and laboratory practices and then spin it to look the way they want it to look. And, like every other claim they make, is very easy to debunk. So why does the NIST refuse to even discuss the possibilities of they are so easy to debunk? Because they focus one what is possible according to the evidence gathered. Truthers focus on what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. You may have some Rupert Murdoch 'TV science for subdued americans', type debunking, but where is the scientific peer reviewed journals debunking such claims. They are all around you. Many have been posted here on this forum. All you have to do is take your blinders off and look. You are foolish to continue to argue for your hypothesis, it weas compiled with false data and is not to the standardfs required to be considered complete. Only if you believe the BS being spewed out by the truthers. Some of it is misunderstanding, some ignorance, most of it lies, but it is all BS just the same. The methods are in place the paper work is done, it is just time and red tape in between the real truth and your faux reality and faux science. You and the other truthers have been saying that for years but not a single spec of anything resembling real evidence has been shown, only allegations and insinuations. These 'debunkings' you speak of are not scientific, the popular belief is not scientific, in fact the final NIST report renders most of the arguments made by the right wing neo con follwers in here since 9/11 'wrong'. Really? Does that include the data gathered by the investigation teams onsight? Does that include the FEA study done at Purdue? You and the other truthers would rather believe some high school dropout who has issues with society as a whole than believe even the most educated engineers and scientists. The argument you stood by only 18 months ago has been changed (by NIST) and a different outcome has now been presented. What changed? Did the towers not come down? Were there not two aircraft? Tell us, what changed in the outcome according to NIST? This outcome is not widly known and was not well presented in the media. Again, tell us. Stop keeping it a secret. It was put up for public opinion yet no public opinion has been considered. You mean the opinion of the truthers? I wouldn't consider it either. Pull your head in, you are fighting a losing battle and your integrety is in jeopardy. Uh, no, it's not. You know this is in an archive, how many more times will you change your belief before you decide to be honest with yourself? I have never changed my belief once. Do you know your (NIST) hypothesis changed only a year ago, to a considerably different outcome? Again, how did it change? This ammendment was prompted directly by the 9 11 truth movement. Ok....time to replace the foil around your head. it was a weak attempt to ammend thier hyppothesis to fit thier desired outcome, rather than scientifically consider the most obvious reason for any building to fall so rapidly. The most obvious reason for the building to have come down was due to the interaction of gravity and mass that was no lnger supported due to structural failure brought about by a large airliner crashing into the building and susequent fires that raised the temperature of the remaining steel structure to a point they could no longer support the mass against the force of gravity. Please note that this does not require melting of the steel or even getting close to melting temperatures. the emmision of this consideration implies the NIST wishes to decieve the world. Do you believe the truthers outright lies aren't? Physics cannot be re written no matter how much money you have, or stand to make!! Exactly. We agree on something. Too bad you and the other truthers don't understand the physics behind the collapse.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 806 #296 November 25, 2009 WTF do the foreign countries have to do with WTC? Richard Gage is a charlatan making a living off of scare tactics and paranoia. You and his other 200 followers are simply enablers. I'm still waiting for someone to verify the credentials of those he proclaims to be experts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #297 November 25, 2009 Quote Many problems of corrupted analysis and pseudo science other than these were found in NIST work, but due to limited space, just the above can be noted here. We urge everyone to study the NIST and FEMA reports and form their own judgments. This was the most entertaining paragraph. 'We're running low on toner, so this time we're not going to list every complaint, and just put out a vague notion that you guys were sloppy' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #298 November 25, 2009 Poo will hit the fan now. Can you imagine all the conspricies the truthers will find in half a million messages? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34149853/ns/us_news-security/HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 806 #299 November 25, 2009 OMG! It WAS caused by aircraft hitting the building???? They seem to hint at skydivers as well ... hmmm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #300 November 25, 2009 I found this particular text very suspicious... 1: Noel, I cannot find my journal with the vegetables cover on front. I believe it may be in your car, or I left it in the house. It has Karen's phone number, along with personal I think it might be code...Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 41 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rhys 0 #283 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteRhys:what kind of investigation does not look at all possibilities? Mike:Again this type statement shows what you don't know or have the education, experience or knowledge of Rescue response, recovery and post investigation as they are all separate disciplines in which it is very clear that you know nothing about. Rather than simply stating such, why not try substanciating your accusations. The fact that Nist has failed to meet the guidelines established by the National Fire Protection Association in its “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations” mandate official agencies to investigate the possibility of explosives in such a circumstance. They are dismissing evidence that does not align with thier story, they are not responding to the easily underrstood questions as to how thier hypothesis is in fact impossible and proves them to be incompetent, corrupt and criminal. The is no wonder they are not willing to participate in discussion, but that alone incriminates them as the are moraly obliged to consider any significant evidence that comes forward. What substance do you have to your accusation?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mike_forsythe 0 #284 November 25, 2009 QuoteWhat substance do you have to your accusation? No accusation, that is your area. I have only stated facts which you have not been able to dispute a single item. As for NIST, take that up with them, I was not part of that unit, have no reason to be involved with them nor would I comment recklessly as you have about them or any other agency without having first hand knowledge of the evidence that they have and or using. The facts that I have posted still stand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #285 November 25, 2009 QuoteI was personally there as part of the USAR response. You were NOT. I am an engineer. You are NOT. By the way, I love it when you post dead links as evidence!!! ROTFLMAOWink I was part of a team that took hazardous material, air and metallurgy samples. You were NOT. I was there and saw the real time raw data coming from the EPA monitoring equipment. You were NOT. Our 72 person response team (one of 10 there) is comprised of structural engineers, hazardous materials specialist, doctors, technical search specialist, heavy rescue specialist, communications, logistics etc. You are NOT any of these! . So you were there on the day, What hypothesis do you consider to be the most likely? NIST has changed theirs a number of times yet, you act like they had it right from the beginning. We have been debating this for years, you claim to be 'Right' yet the hypothesis you supported so whole heartedly was ammended only a year ago to a completely different outcome. So enlighten me ( a couple of short paragraphs) with your immense knowledge of what happened that day, to what the 'primary reason', why all three buildings collapsed at virtually free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, was? Was it the old hypothesis that you stood by in 2006 or is the new one that you stand by in 2009? Are both of them correct? You can't be right, then ammend your outcome to a 'more correct' (different) outcome and still have been right in the first place. You are not logical. You (nor NIST) have not even considered a different outcome = un-scientific. Also do you deny the existance of moulten steel days and weeks afetr the collapse like NIST does? or do you consider the many first had accounts and photographs and NASA Imagry. Did you have access to all areas of ground zero, or were you restricted to your own facility."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #286 November 25, 2009 I'm still waiting for this groundbreaking news you claimed would come out in September. Or was that not the truth and you are now revising your truth. They can't both be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #287 November 25, 2009 Quote This is a very good example of how the "truthers" find something that looks incriminating but is actually in accordance with good scientific and laboratory practices and then spin it to look the way they want it to look. And, like every other claim they make, is very easy to debunk. So why does the NIST refuse to even discuss the possibilities of they are so easy to debunk? You may have some Rupert Murdoch 'TV science for subdued americans', type debunking, but where is the scientific peer reviewed journals debunking such claims. You are foolish to continue to argue for your hypothesis, it weas compiled with false data and is not to the standardfs required to be considered complete. The methods are in place the paper work is done, it is just time and red tape in between the real truth and your faux reality and faux science. These 'debunkings' you speak of are not scientific, the popular belief is not scientific, in fact the final NIST report renders most of the arguments made by the right wing neo con follwers in here since 9/11 'wrong'. The argument you stood by only 18 months ago has been changed (by NIST) and a different outcome has now been presented. This outcome is not widly known and was not well presented in the media. It was put up for public opinion yet no public opinion has been considered. Pull your head in, you are fighting a losing battle and your integrety is in jeopardy. You know this is in an archive, how many more times will you change your belief before you decide to be honest with yourself? Do you know your (NIST) hypothesis changed only a year ago, to a considerably different outcome? This ammendment was prompted directly by the 9 11 truth movement. it was a weak attempt to ammend thier hyppothesis to fit thier desired outcome, rather than scientifically consider the most obvious reason for any building to fall so rapidly. the emmision of this consideration implies the NIST wishes to decieve the world. Physics cannot be re written no matter how much money you have, or stand to make!!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #288 November 25, 2009 Someone please find a new conspiracy. This one is baked.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #289 November 25, 2009 QuoteNo accusation, that is your area. I have only stated facts which you have not been able to dispute a single item. You accused me of not knowing 'anything' about investigating an explosion. You accused me of only considering the information that has been presented by the Pro-Independant Scientific investigation followers and not considering the consiracy theory presented by the authorities. The correspondence i have posted in the thread, CLEARLY, shows that the official hypothesis has not only been considered, but that it has been proven to have failed to use the expected protocol of such an investigation. You keep evading this harsh reality, there are standards for such an nvestigstion and considering the recources that went into it, it would only be faier to assume that the standard protocol for such and endeavour would be met, and in fact pursued with dilligence and enthusiasm. The nonchalant attitude of NIST and the deniers is so inconsiderate and disgraceful, many thousands of dead and injured people, lives destroyed. What do you care? you want more death, more danger, you support corruption, you don't question half truths. I am not here to try to change your mind, I just want oyu to know how disrespectful and inconsiderate you must be to not consider some relevant, and factual evidence. As for NIST, take that up with them, I was not part of that unit, have no reason to be involved with them nor would I comment recklessly as you have about them or any other agency without having first hand knowledge of the evidence that they have and or using. Thats been done, not by me, but by much more qualified people with more enthusiasm. A few minutes on a forum talking to a brick wall ( you people) does not achieve anything other than informing you lemmings that this has not been, can not and will never be, swept under the carpet. The internet is what was overlooked in the planning of all this, nobody imagined how powerful the net would be, by now and it is the internet that has given the people to communicate and study the truth. You can dismiss all you want based on your biased and staunch, closedminded opinion."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mike_forsythe 0 #290 November 25, 2009 QuoteSo you were there on the dayNo, arrived on the morning of the 12th.QuoteWhat hypothesis do you consider to be the most likely?For what? The source of the initial impact, first collapse, compromised structural integrity, air quality data, etc. You need to be a little more vague.QuoteNIST has changed theirs a number of times yet, you act like they had it right from the beginning.What part of "I had nothing to do with NIST" don't you understand?QuoteSo enlighten me ( a couple of short paragraphs) with your immense knowledge of what happened that day, to what the 'primary reason', why all three buildings collapsed at virtually free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, was?All three? You need to learn how to count. Tell me you have not spewed all this crap and don't even know how many building were involved. The primary reason for all building damage was collapse secondary to compromised structural integrity. Also NONE of the buildings fell "through the path of greatest resistance". Do you know anything about engineering or what happened? At all?QuoteWas it the old hypothesis that you stood by in 2006 or is the new one that you stand by in 2009?I have no idea what you are referring to as our report was filled in 2001 and to my knowledge has never been edited. How about the report you filed? Oh, that's right, YOU WEREN’T THERE!QuoteYou can't be right, then ammend your outcome to a 'more correct' (different) outcome and still have been right in the first place. Are you under a doctors care?QuoteYou (nor NIST) have not even considered a different outcome = un-scientific.According to whom? You? ROTFLMA Excuse us for not consulting your wisdom...........NOTQuote Also do you deny the existance of moulten steel days and weeks afetr the collapseI have never made any such claim and have addressed the issue in a prior post. Again, do you know what you are talking about and it was not weeks, it was months. It was the longest burning structure in history. Have you done ANY credible research? By the way, attached is one of many poster NASA pictures that you speak of that is on the wall of my office that we used for daily briefings. Now show me yours!!!QuoteDid you have access to all areas of ground zero, or were you restricted to your own facilityTotal unrestricted access for 11 days. 24 hours a day. How much time did you spend there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mike_forsythe 0 #291 November 25, 2009 QuoteWhat do you care? you want more death, more danger, you support corruption, you don't question half truths. I am not here to try to change your mind, I just want oyu to know how disrespectful and inconsiderate you must be to not consider some relevant, and factual evidence. Keep showing how out there your views are and how little you know. You don't know me or anyone else that was there to make such insane untrue statements. YOU are clueless as to what caring is about. Did you spend one fucking minute there trying to find survivors.....I DID. Did you have to face a single grieving spouse, son, daughter friend in total frustration that you could not bring home their loved one? Did you spend so many days cutting out body parts with a battery saw that you had to change batteries 3-4 times a shift? Did you have to form two lines and stand at attention out of respect several times a night as the bodies of fellow firefighters and police officers were escorted out with their families as we found them and identified them? You say that I “dismiss all you want based on your biased and staunch, closedminded opinion” and I say till you have been there and been through what I have and have to live the rest of your life with what I do YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #292 November 25, 2009 Is there any part of the truther's claims that you don't accept? Have they retracted any of their assertions? It is not wise to only be skeptical of one side. Again, again, again...how fast should the buildings have fallen? To just say they fell too close to freefall acceleration isn't an analysis, it is nothing but armchair engineering that is less than worthless.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mike_forsythe 0 #293 November 25, 2009 Quote Is there any part of the truther's claims that you don't accept? Your asking this of someone that does not even know how many buildings were involved? ROTFLMAO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #294 November 25, 2009 QuoteI'm still waiting for this groundbreaking news you claimed would come out in September. Or was that not the truth and you are now revising your truth. They can't both be true. As I have always stated, i initially informed you that congress was going to be presented the evidence on 9/11 this year, that dat waschanged to october... Now it is november and there have been severeal applications to various institutes and I have posted a couple of them here for your viewing. There will be a huge amount of red tape to slice through and it will take time. These movements, actions, peer reviewed journals, freedom of information act applictions, and the announcment of a civilian open trial are of huge significance to the truth movement. Richard gage is currently finishing his asian and australasian tour. He just had very successful presentations in New Zealand and Australia. Next is japan visiting 7 cities. If you are truly interested, [url"http://www.rense.com/general80/testi.htm"]here[/url] is a transcript of the Japanese government openly discussing the origin and authenticity of the war on terror, the 9/11 attacks and whether or not to refuel US equipment in support of the war, or provide water to the civilains of afghanistan instead. as far as they are concerned this is about Afganistan civilians, not americans, and keeping them safe. They will have thier own investigation also..."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #295 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote This is a very good example of how the "truthers" find something that looks incriminating but is actually in accordance with good scientific and laboratory practices and then spin it to look the way they want it to look. And, like every other claim they make, is very easy to debunk. So why does the NIST refuse to even discuss the possibilities of they are so easy to debunk? Because they focus one what is possible according to the evidence gathered. Truthers focus on what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. You may have some Rupert Murdoch 'TV science for subdued americans', type debunking, but where is the scientific peer reviewed journals debunking such claims. They are all around you. Many have been posted here on this forum. All you have to do is take your blinders off and look. You are foolish to continue to argue for your hypothesis, it weas compiled with false data and is not to the standardfs required to be considered complete. Only if you believe the BS being spewed out by the truthers. Some of it is misunderstanding, some ignorance, most of it lies, but it is all BS just the same. The methods are in place the paper work is done, it is just time and red tape in between the real truth and your faux reality and faux science. You and the other truthers have been saying that for years but not a single spec of anything resembling real evidence has been shown, only allegations and insinuations. These 'debunkings' you speak of are not scientific, the popular belief is not scientific, in fact the final NIST report renders most of the arguments made by the right wing neo con follwers in here since 9/11 'wrong'. Really? Does that include the data gathered by the investigation teams onsight? Does that include the FEA study done at Purdue? You and the other truthers would rather believe some high school dropout who has issues with society as a whole than believe even the most educated engineers and scientists. The argument you stood by only 18 months ago has been changed (by NIST) and a different outcome has now been presented. What changed? Did the towers not come down? Were there not two aircraft? Tell us, what changed in the outcome according to NIST? This outcome is not widly known and was not well presented in the media. Again, tell us. Stop keeping it a secret. It was put up for public opinion yet no public opinion has been considered. You mean the opinion of the truthers? I wouldn't consider it either. Pull your head in, you are fighting a losing battle and your integrety is in jeopardy. Uh, no, it's not. You know this is in an archive, how many more times will you change your belief before you decide to be honest with yourself? I have never changed my belief once. Do you know your (NIST) hypothesis changed only a year ago, to a considerably different outcome? Again, how did it change? This ammendment was prompted directly by the 9 11 truth movement. Ok....time to replace the foil around your head. it was a weak attempt to ammend thier hyppothesis to fit thier desired outcome, rather than scientifically consider the most obvious reason for any building to fall so rapidly. The most obvious reason for the building to have come down was due to the interaction of gravity and mass that was no lnger supported due to structural failure brought about by a large airliner crashing into the building and susequent fires that raised the temperature of the remaining steel structure to a point they could no longer support the mass against the force of gravity. Please note that this does not require melting of the steel or even getting close to melting temperatures. the emmision of this consideration implies the NIST wishes to decieve the world. Do you believe the truthers outright lies aren't? Physics cannot be re written no matter how much money you have, or stand to make!! Exactly. We agree on something. Too bad you and the other truthers don't understand the physics behind the collapse.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #296 November 25, 2009 WTF do the foreign countries have to do with WTC? Richard Gage is a charlatan making a living off of scare tactics and paranoia. You and his other 200 followers are simply enablers. I'm still waiting for someone to verify the credentials of those he proclaims to be experts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #297 November 25, 2009 Quote Many problems of corrupted analysis and pseudo science other than these were found in NIST work, but due to limited space, just the above can be noted here. We urge everyone to study the NIST and FEMA reports and form their own judgments. This was the most entertaining paragraph. 'We're running low on toner, so this time we're not going to list every complaint, and just put out a vague notion that you guys were sloppy' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #298 November 25, 2009 Poo will hit the fan now. Can you imagine all the conspricies the truthers will find in half a million messages? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34149853/ns/us_news-security/HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #299 November 25, 2009 OMG! It WAS caused by aircraft hitting the building???? They seem to hint at skydivers as well ... hmmm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #300 November 25, 2009 I found this particular text very suspicious... 1: Noel, I cannot find my journal with the vegetables cover on front. I believe it may be in your car, or I left it in the house. It has Karen's phone number, along with personal I think it might be code...Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
