|
JewFor911Truth (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Read this paper and you will know the 9/11 truth, compilation of every piece of 9/11 information which shows exactly what happened.listep. wordpress. com/9/11 was an inside job!
grnt25 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Words you and competence cannot be used in a single sentence.
JSSTyger (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
In all your posts you talk about conspiracy theorists and how they are all loonsI don't see anything "loony" I have posted in the last few days. Its all fact based with links. I never went out on a limb to try to explain what I don't know. YOU HAVE however done this. Your hunches have been consistently flawed because you refuse to check on them. Thats not my fault.
JSSTyger (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Unfortunately it matters not what you care about NIST or free falls. I hope that sinks inUnfortunately free fall over 2.5 seconds of any part of the building proves 100% this was not a gravity collapse.Unfortunately that leaves only one explanation. Whether you like it or not the building was demo'ed in one way or another. I refuse to speculate on the charges and methods used as this is not the point that I am attacking.This is my area of competence...deal with it.
SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
JSS, last time I say this. I hope it sinks in: I don't care about about freefalls. I don't care about the NIST as the end all be all of conspiracy debunkers (that wasn't even their goal). My goal in arguing with kooks is not to in anyway prove what happened on 9/11 (I have no background to do that). My only goal is to show how easy it is to refute conspiracy theories.I think your conclusion regarding your free fall analysis is flawed, but so what. In the end it means nothing.
SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
JSS, are you trying to support the idea of a conspiracy, or do you jut hate NIST. Because there are many other organizations, public an private, who dispute any idea that there was a possible conpiracy. I linked you to two last night, but you chose to ignore them.
JSSTyger (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Snoopy again I ask for an expert saying WTC7 did not enter free fall. I see you trying to slowly shift the argument by now only asking for POV from Structural engineers and not from Physicists. NIST tried to use Physics to explain the collapses so I can use physicists to refute their claims.Again I ask for sourcesHow am I supposed to review the credibility of your counter-claims otherwise?
JSSTyger (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
1) I didn't reference CTBUH because they made a single statement about how they did not support the conspiracy theory. We all know they coulda just been saving their asses2) I referenced them because of their critique of NIST. They criticized NIST for assuming failures of things that should not have failed. They criticized NIST (as many do) for not showing their data making it impossible or anyone to repeat their work.3) Duh of course they are requesting a revision because of this.
SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
cont.You claim have scientific merit, yet you don't see how requested revision for the NIST report does not neccesarily cast doubt on the whole report but rather to attempt to perfect it (if that is possible). The scientific community works together to come up with answers, not to point fingers and say 'GOT YA' as to completely disprove something so they can say, "INSIDE JOB". Conspiracy theorists, like yourself, are nuts...looking for anything to further push thier paranoid agenda.
SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
JSS, I want to make a point about the CTBUH comments to the NIST report. Conspiracy theorists don't get it. The CTBUH goal in contributing was '"identify, as specifically as possible, areas in thecurrent building and fire codes, standards and practices that warrant revision. They wanted to make sure that the NIST report was accurate so they could work to make safety upgrades. They did not want to in someway raise concern that 9/11 was an inside job.cont. |
