There certainly doesn’t seem to have been any competence to the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.

You know something, this bit of nonsense has been refuted so many times over the past twelve years, I don’t know why people continue to trot this and the rest of the nonsense you just spewed out.

Articles have appeared both in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer which dealt with these issues and answered these questions. Repeating the tired old mantra which has been constantly and consistantly doesn’t make it so.

Never imagining in their hubristic Texican hearts that them “towel heads” were capable of surprising the hell out of everyone… even themselves.

Hate to break this to you, but the sort of arrogance you speak to was no respecter of party lines. (Although Clinton and Crew did warn the incoming mis-administration about it.)

When you get down to it, the common refrain of the conspiracy theorists is that “Them thar ragheads couldn’t pull off nuthin like that ‘gainst us Um-mericans” even though it was witnessed and filmed as “Them thar ragheads…” did exactly that. Nobody wants to admit that the Bad Guys are just as good at working things out as we are, and in fact are often better at it, and they do it on a shoestring budget.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 21 February 2013 06:33 PM

It also assumes that somebody forty years ago…about when the Towers were built…would have a certain level of precience which would allow them to plant bombs in anticipation of a course of world events and geopolitical reality which didn’t exist at the time and which wouldn’t exist until the 1990’s.

Huh? So you mean if 911 never happened, and for whatever reason the city of New York decided to demolish the towers, they couldn’t because somebody 40 years ago forgot to plant explosives on the off chance that someone might legitimately want to demolish the buildings? Are you saying the Demolition business doesn’t exist because explosives have to be installed only when buildings are being built?

And as for ignoring warning signs out of plain ignorance. I don’t buy it. Richard Clarke for one gave them way more than the usual run of the mill warnings.

Huh? So you mean if 911 never happened, and for whatever reason the city of New York decided to demolish the towers, they couldn’t because somebody 40 years ago forgot to plant explosives on the off chance that someone might legitimately want to demolish the buildings? Are you saying the Demolition business doesn’t exist because explosives have to be installed only when buildings are being built?

Irrelevant strawman. Please be so kind as to respond to what I actually addressed.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 February 2013 10:24 AM

There certainly doesn’t seem to have been any competence to the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.

You know something, this bit of nonsense has been refuted so many times over the past twelve years, I don’t know why people continue to trot this and the rest of the nonsense you just spewed out.

Articles have appeared both in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer which dealt with these issues and answered these questions. Repeating the tired old mantra which has been constantly and consistantly doesn’t make it so.

An interesting remark in view of the fact that the NIST report was only published four years ago. I can only note that you didn’t address my points either directly or in summary of the articles you refer to; neither did you link to them.

My main point in that post was this: NIST did not test for explosive residue. My evidence for this is here at, question 22 http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm. NIST states here that it simply did not need to look for explosive residue because it had found no other evidence for explosives. Let me ask you: do you consider this an acceptable scientific response in view of the video evidence of WTC 7 collapsing and the reasonable impression it gives?

I initially addressed this thread to ask what kind of public safety argument could reasonably justify NIST’s use of the NCST Act to deny the US public access to the WTC 7 computer modelling data it paid for.

An interesting remark in view of the fact that the NIST report was only published four years ago. I can only note that you didn’t address my points either directly or in summary of the articles you refer to; neither did you link to them.

That’s because there was no need and you didn’t make a point to address. (IOW, your point is irrelevant.)

The cause of WTC centre’s collapse has been known and understoof for a long time now. Longer then the four years you mention. If you take a look at ALL of the photos instead of just cherry picking the few which shows one side which is only lightly damaged, you’ll see the side which was so heavily damaged that you would marvel that it survived as long as it did.

There was absolutely nothing about the destruction of the towers which is even remotely consistant with a controlled demolition.

Dedicated to nakedness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdG9pBtP9D4

psik

{edited] -cut….

never mind ... CuthbertJ you got me all confused…

I need to erase what I wrote and start all over again
and try to figure out what you’re trying to say -
sorry could well be me,
but first impressions hit me one way,
then thinking on it,
heck, we’re almost saying the same thing. . . 

It’s late . . .      I’ll sleep on it.

...

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 February 2013 05:53 PM

An interesting remark in view of the fact that the NIST report was only published four years ago. I can only note that you didn’t address my points either directly or in summary of the articles you refer to; neither did you link to them.

My main point in that post was this: NIST did not test for explosive residue. My evidence for this is here at, question 22 http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm. NIST states here that it simply did not need to look for explosive residue because it had found no other evidence for explosives. Let me ask you: do you consider this an acceptable scientific response in view of the video evidence of WTC 7 collapsing and the reasonable impression it gives?

I initially addressed this thread to ask what kind of public safety argument could reasonably justify NIST’s use of the NCST Act to deny the US public access to the WTC 7 computer modelling data it paid for.

That’s because there was no need and you didn’t make a point to address. (IOW, your point is irrelevant.)

The cause of WTC centre’s collapse has been known and understoof for a long time now. Longer then the four years you mention. If you take a look at ALL of the photos instead of just cherry picking the few which shows one side which is only lightly damaged, you’ll see the side which was so heavily damaged that you would marvel that it survived as long as it did.

There was absolutely nothing about the destruction of the towers which is even remotely consistant with a controlled demolition.

It is deeply frustrating to receive this kind of response to a direct question on a supposedly skeptical forum. I reformulated my point as a direct question to you in the evidently vain hope that you would answer it for everyone’s benefit; instead you merely obfuscate the issue by accusing me of cherry-picking photos I have not mentioned*, or talking about the Towers when I have only referred to WTC 7. I have little doubt that you will further obfuscate in future and will never address my direct question with a direct answer, but every time you dismiss it without making a substantive point be aware you are showing yourself to be a pseudo-skeptic and not genuinely skeptical at all.

*You seem to be under the illusion that heavy damage to one side of a building explains why it would fall straight down. Even heavier damage to the south side of the building would make its near-symmetrical descent even more questionable, wouldn’t you agree? But before you directly address that question, the question of NIST’s use of the NCST Act on ‘public safety’ grounds to deny access to computer sim files, and the question of why the sims don’t resemble the evidence, why don’t you tell us why you think NIST was right not to test for explosive residue at WTC 7, given that the video evidence shows an undeniable period of complete free-fall.

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Hi Coldheart. I don’t know if that question was addressed to me or was even just rhetorical. My response though would be to say that establishing the truth of events like these matters for its own sake, even if the consequences of establishing the truth are not what one might hope for.

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?

It is not about the government.  It is about Science, Engineering and Education.

It is about the entire concept of CRITICAL THINKING and encouraging that behavior in children.

We are talking about a building 300 feet wide.

How does damage from falling debris and/or fire cause columns 300 feet apart to fall straight down at the exact same time and the BBC to report that the building had collapsed before it occurred?

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about any government but normal people understanding 300 year old Newtonian Physics should be standard procedure in advanced nations by now.  How is it that scientists could do good simulations of 25,000 mph meteor impacts years before 9/11 but can’t do building collapse simulations with all of the improvements in computers since then?

Why should we give a damn about Higgs Bosons and exoplanets when the scientists won’t resolve simple physics problems here on Earth?

9/11 is a scientific farce and all of our engineering schools are inescapably involved unless most people choose to ignore the obvious falsehoods.

But then that would say a lot about the psychology of European culture wouldn’t it?

And this site calls itself Center for Inquiry. 

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

[2838]
psik

jomper - 23 February 2013 10:03 AM

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 03:50 AM

What would proving that the government is concealing the real reason for the collapse of WTC 7 accomplish, exactly?  Its been effectively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but nobody from the Bush Administration is in jail.  Its been effectively proven that the heads of the various banks knowingly engaged in behavior which caused the economic collapse a few years ago.  None of them are in jail (and few, if any of them, have been fired).  HSBC knowingly, and actively engaged in subverting international law and laundered money for drug cartels and the government of Iran.  They got hit with a fine that didn’t even erase their profits from those activities.  What makes you think that the result would be any different if it turned out that the government is hiding something about the events of 9/11?

Hi Coldheart. I don’t know if that question was addressed to me or was even just rhetorical. My response though would be to say that establishing the truth of events like these matters for its own sake, even if the consequences of establishing the truth are not what one might hope for.

It wasn’t rhetorical, and if you’re truly serious of uncovering the truth for the sake of truth, then asking questions on message boards is a waste of time.  Buy a copy of The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, and use that to ferret out the truth.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time.

Coldheart Tucker - 23 February 2013 11:54 AM

Buy a copy of The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, and use that to ferret out the truth.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time.

http://pmccabe420.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/the-investigative-reporters-handbook-chapters-1-3-summary/

What does The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook say about physics?

psik

It is deeply frustrating to receive this kind of response to a direct question on a supposedly skeptical forum. I reformulated my point as a direct question to you in the evidently vain hope that you would answer it for everyone’s benefit;

Your question is irrelevant IS the answer to your question and I already explained why.