7 of 91
7
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 09 July 2012 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06

This site is obviously funded by the government.  No other possible reason exists for the “believers” in the official story (WTC7, and everything else) to engage in such diatribe (personal attacks) and ad hominem (shooting the messenger) than that they are hired by the government to do so.  Posts on the “Center for Inquiry” are brutally attacked merely for “inquiring.”  Well, I challenge anyone to argue with the following people as to whether there is an age old evil conspiracy which has long ago taken over the government.  (Are these people a bunch of stupid conspiracy theorists?  Bring it on!!!)

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately.  Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something.  They know that there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. - We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”—Woodrow Wilson

The real menace of our Republic is the invisible Government which like a giant Octopus, sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states, and nation.—John F. Hylan - Mayor NYC 1918-1925

“A financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” - Franklin Roosevelt

The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if the personal security is threatened.—Joseph Stalin

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”—J. Edgar Hoover.

“We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.  Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”—JFK, 1961

“Give me control of a Nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”—Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)

“We shall have World Government. Whether or not we like it. The only Question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”—James Paul Warburg

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings, and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop OUR PLAN for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.  We are on the verge of a Global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”—David Rockefeller, CFR, Founder of the Trilateral Commission

“The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all History! Its purpose is to destroy the United States .”—John Rankin , U.S. Congressman

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our Banking and Monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a Revolution before tomorrow morning.”—Henry Ford

“I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime.”—Albert Einstein, 1947

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 09:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3057
Joined  2010-04-26

Hey look!  A crazy person!  *Throws eggs and cheese at him.*

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 08 July 2012 11:46 AM
Michael Fullerton - 08 July 2012 11:18 AM

Conclusive? You believe a failed and fraudulent computer model that doesn’t replicate the actual event it is supposed to model (which is the whole point of a model) is conclusive? The WTC 7 building model takes much longer to fall, has no eight story period of free fall and shows massive deformations not seen in the actual WTC 7 fall. Computer models are only valid experiments when they replicate the thing they are modelling.

You believe a model which cannot be independently verified for errors because NIST refuses to release the data it is based on constitutes conclusive evidence? That explains a lot.

So the model is ‘failed’ and ‘fraudulent’ according to you, and then you turn right around and admit you don’t have access to the model they used because they didn’t give it out for independent verification. So you’re lying.

Cute. Well, when you have access to the model and actually determine its failings and fraudulent nature, let me know. Until then, you’re simply asserting in a vacuum.

If you’re so insistant on how important this is, construct your own model, see what happens and then submit it for peer review to the appropiate experts.

Interestingly enough, I need only Google for mere seconds to find detailed reports from NIST on the WTC 7 collapse analysis. Like so:

NIST Final Report on WTC 7 Collapse
Direct PDF Link

Funny how easily this information is available to anyone with five minutes access to Google and an actual interest in finding it is.

You sir are a liar, incompetent, ignorant and deluded. And you have the audacity to whine that you cannot find a scientist to debate you? Little hint: there’s reasons for that, I just listed them for you.

Er…the NIST WTC 7 model failed because it does not replicate reality. A model not acting anything like what it’s supposed to model is a failed experiment. It’s a shoddy failed attempt at replication. It’s fraudulent not because the data is not shared but because it is presented as valid science when it is nothing of the sort. Poorly done experiments that don’t replicate real events are not science. So…the low-brow insults you falsely claim apply to me actually apply to you.

Besides the fraudulent computer model what scientific “evidence” does the crackpot NIST WTC 7 report you referenced contain? None at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06
Dead Monky - 09 July 2012 09:03 AM

Hey look!  A crazy person!  *Throws eggs and cheese at him.*

Thanks!!!  Also throw me some ham, grits, home fries, a large OJ with that, and some Tabasco sauce, along with a fake moon landing.

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

Er…the NIST WTC 7 model failed because it does not replicate reality. A model not acting anything like what it’s supposed to model is a failed experiment. It’s a shoddy failed attempt at replication. It’s fraudulent not because the data is not shared but because it is presented as valid science when it is nothing of the sort. Poorly done experiments that don’t replicate real events are not science. So…the low-brow insults you falsely claim apply to me actually apply to you.

Besides the fraudulent computer model what scientific “evidence” does the crackpot NIST WTC 7 report you referenced contain? None at all.

Actually, the reports contains a great deal of evidence. Eye witness reports, images, physics models, facts and figures regarding construction and design of the building, it even covers the laughable theory of explosives being used on the building and demostrates how there is no evidence of any such thing. Or requirement either.

But hey, why read the report or demostrate any aspect of it being flawed, right Michael? Just declare it’s no good and expect everyone to believe the combined sum of expertise of NIST is no match for your personal assessment, eh?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06
Robert Walper - 09 July 2012 12:41 PM

Er…the NIST WTC 7 model failed because it does not replicate reality. A model not acting anything like what it’s supposed to model is a failed experiment. It’s a shoddy failed attempt at replication. It’s fraudulent not because the data is not shared but because it is presented as valid science when it is nothing of the sort. Poorly done experiments that don’t replicate real events are not science. So…the low-brow insults you falsely claim apply to me actually apply to you.

Besides the fraudulent computer model what scientific “evidence” does the crackpot NIST WTC 7 report you referenced contain? None at all.

Actually, the reports contains a great deal of evidence. Eye witness reports, images, physics models, facts and figures regarding construction and design of the building, it even covers the laughable theory of explosives being used on the building and demostrates how there is no evidence of any such thing. Or requirement either.

But hey, why read the report or demostrate any aspect of it being flawed, right Michael? Just declare it’s no good and expect everyone to believe the combined sum of expertise of NIST is no match for your personal assessment, eh?

What’s “laughable” about explosives in the building???  I have a good sense of humor, but the only reason I’m laughing is because I can’t believe people are stupid enough to believe, I should say “claim” to believe, something as laughable as the NIST report.  Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?  (I’ll bet you have.)  It looked like a controlled demolition, therefore it was a controlled demolition because if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s got to be a duck.

If you really believe what you say. I suggest you start wearing a tin foil hat.  Yes, it might look silly, but at least nobody will be controlling your mind via electro-magnetic radiation.  Frankly, I don’t think your mind control is via EMR, more likely you are getting paid to pretend to believe the official story.  That is the only plausible explanation.

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3057
Joined  2010-04-26
sanchezal28 - 09 July 2012 10:00 AM

Thanks!!!  Also throw me some ham, grits, home fries, a large OJ with that, and some Tabasco sauce, along with a fake moon landing.

I can’t throw you a fake moon landing.  The Illuminati took away my access privileges. :(

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 09 July 2012 12:41 PM

Er…the NIST WTC 7 model failed because it does not replicate reality. A model not acting anything like what it’s supposed to model is a failed experiment. It’s a shoddy failed attempt at replication. It’s fraudulent not because the data is not shared but because it is presented as valid science when it is nothing of the sort. Poorly done experiments that don’t replicate real events are not science. So…the low-brow insults you falsely claim apply to me actually apply to you.

Besides the fraudulent computer model what scientific “evidence” does the crackpot NIST WTC 7 report you referenced contain? None at all.

Actually, the reports contains a great deal of evidence. Eye witness reports, images, physics models, facts and figures regarding construction and design of the building, it even covers the laughable theory of explosives being used on the building and demostrates how there is no evidence of any such thing. Or requirement either.

But hey, why read the report or demostrate any aspect of it being flawed, right Michael? Just declare it’s no good and expect everyone to believe the combined sum of expertise of NIST is no match for your personal assessment, eh?

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06
Dead Monky - 10 July 2012 07:45 AM
sanchezal28 - 09 July 2012 10:00 AM

Thanks!!!  Also throw me some ham, grits, home fries, a large OJ with that, and some Tabasco sauce, along with a fake moon landing.

I can’t throw you a fake moon landing.  The Illuminati took away my access privileges. :(

Just a note, I read on The Onion that the Chinese are planning their own fake moon landing by 2015.  Can’t wait to see that cheesy production.  If you want to get your access rights back from the Illuminati, maybe you can contact the local Freemason lodge.  Maybe call the Council on Foreign Relations at 202.509.8400, http://www.cfr.org.

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Okay, I admit it, you had me going there. I actually thought you were seriously arguing the issue and not pulling everyone’s leg. The report has enormous amounts of evidence in it, and you saying otherwise gave you away.

Very funny. :p

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:31 AM

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Okay, I admit it, you had me going there. I actually thought you were seriously arguing the issue and not pulling everyone’s leg. The report has enormous amounts of evidence in it, and you saying otherwise gave you away.

Very funny. :p

“The report has enormous amounts of evidence” yet you can’t name one single piece to support the crackpot belief that WTC 7 came down due to fire. Call me a skeptic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 10 July 2012 11:38 AM
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:31 AM

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Okay, I admit it, you had me going there. I actually thought you were seriously arguing the issue and not pulling everyone’s leg. The report has enormous amounts of evidence in it, and you saying otherwise gave you away.

Very funny. :p

“The report has enormous amounts of evidence” yet you can’t name one single piece to support the crackpot belief that WTC 7 came down due to fire. Call me a skeptic.

The report mentions the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers. That is one piece of evidence out of countless others, like diagrams of the building, layout of load bearing beams, etc.

Not fooling me, I’m on to you being a faker. :p

Next time it’s my turn and I’m demanding evidence WTC7 ever existed. :p

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:58 AM
Michael Fullerton - 10 July 2012 11:38 AM
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:31 AM

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Okay, I admit it, you had me going there. I actually thought you were seriously arguing the issue and not pulling everyone’s leg. The report has enormous amounts of evidence in it, and you saying otherwise gave you away.

Very funny. :p

“The report has enormous amounts of evidence” yet you can’t name one single piece to support the crackpot belief that WTC 7 came down due to fire. Call me a skeptic.

The report mentions the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers. That is one piece of evidence out of countless others, like diagrams of the building, layout of load bearing beams, etc.

Not fooling me, I’m on to you being a faker. :p

Next time it’s my turn and I’m demanding evidence WTC7 ever existed. :p

“the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers” come from the NIST WTC 7 computer model which does not model (replicate) the actual WTC 7 fall and is therefore invalid. Do you seriously believe an experiment that doesn’t replicate what is was designed to replicate is in any way valid? Scientific results require independent verification as well. NIST refuses to release the WTC 7 model data due to “security concerns”. You believe data from a non-replicating, invalid, unverified model constitutes scientific evidence? That explains a lot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 10 July 2012 12:10 PM
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:58 AM
Michael Fullerton - 10 July 2012 11:38 AM
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 11:31 AM

No, the NIST WTC 7 report contains absolutely no valid scientific evidence to support the crackpot belief that the building came down due to fire. That’s why you can’t simply state exactly what the evidence is because it doesn’t exist. Liike flat-Earthers all you have is a faith-based delusion grounded in bad science.

Okay, I admit it, you had me going there. I actually thought you were seriously arguing the issue and not pulling everyone’s leg. The report has enormous amounts of evidence in it, and you saying otherwise gave you away.

Very funny. :p

“The report has enormous amounts of evidence” yet you can’t name one single piece to support the crackpot belief that WTC 7 came down due to fire. Call me a skeptic.

The report mentions the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers. That is one piece of evidence out of countless others, like diagrams of the building, layout of load bearing beams, etc.

Not fooling me, I’m on to you being a faker. :p

Next time it’s my turn and I’m demanding evidence WTC7 ever existed. :p

“the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers” come from the NIST WTC 7 computer model which does not model (replicate) the actual WTC 7 fall and is therefore invalid. Do you seriously believe an experiment that doesn’t replicate what is was designed to replicate is in any way valid? Scientific results require independent verification as well. NIST refuses to release the WTC 7 model data due to “security concerns”. You believe data from a non-replicating, invalid, unverified model constitutes scientific evidence? That explains a lot.

Sorry, not buying it. You don’t actually believe that, you’re just faking. You may as well be trying to convince me you can’t read. :p

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 10 July 2012 12:13 PM
Michael Fullerton - 10 July 2012 12:10 PM

“the fire temperatures and steel strength compromising results using scientifically established numbers” come from the NIST WTC 7 computer model which does not model (replicate) the actual WTC 7 fall and is therefore invalid. Do you seriously believe an experiment that doesn’t replicate what is was designed to replicate is in any way valid? Scientific results require independent verification as well. NIST refuses to release the WTC 7 model data due to “security concerns”. You believe data from a non-replicating, invalid, unverified model constitutes scientific evidence? That explains a lot.

Sorry, not buying it. You don’t actually believe that, you’re just faking. You may as well be trying to convince me you can’t read. :p

And you exit with an argument from incredulity combined with a bare assertion fallacy. Typical CFI posturing.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 91
7