CDZ clean debate on the NIST report banned

[eots]

OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.

Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.

there are no conspiracies in good science

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

 

[eots]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

 

[Hollie]

Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.

there are no conspiracies in good science

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

The NIST report is available to you. I don't believe that you Alex Jones groupies have managed a successful refutation.

 

[Hollie]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

 

[eots]

there are no conspiracies in good science

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

The NIST report is available to you. I don't believe that you Alex Jones groupies have managed a successful refutation.

NIST's computer model is what NIST offers as proof.but that proof is invalid, unverified , not reproduced and unavailable for peer review

 

[Hollie]

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

The NIST report is available to you. I don't believe that you Alex Jones groupies have managed a successful refutation.

NIST's computer model as what NIST offers as proof.but that proof is invalid, unverified and unreproduced.

That's the conspiracy theory you have bought in to.

 

[eots]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

No one said he did ..you use a strawman repeatedly and ignore some of the best scientific minds in the country and pretend they do not exist ,your argument is completely invalid

 

[Hollie]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

No one said he did ..you use a strawman repeatedly and ignore some of the best scientific minds in the country and pretend they do not exist ,your argument is completely invalid

Despite your hysteria, you're left to offer mere conspiracy theories.

 

[eots]

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

The NIST report is available to you. I don't believe that you Alex Jones groupies have managed a successful refutation.

NIST's computer model as what NIST offers as proof.but that proof is invalid, unverified and unreproduced.

That's the conspiracy theory you have bought in to.

no those are simple facts that I have documented...the proof NIST offers is a computer model that is unverified, and has not been peer reviewed

 

[eots]

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

No one said he did ..you use a strawman repeatedly and ignore some of the best scientific minds in the country and pretend they do not exist ,your argument is completely invalid

Despite your hysteria, you're left to offer mere conspiracy theories.

what I have is...you can not support your theory..the NIST theory with physics or science

 

[Hollie]

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

can you present hard evidence for the NIST theory ?

The NIST report is available to you. I don't believe that you Alex Jones groupies have managed a successful refutation.

NIST's computer model as what NIST offers as proof.but that proof is invalid, unverified and unreproduced.

That's the conspiracy theory you have bought in to.

no those are simple facts that I have documented...the proof NIST offers is a computer model that is unverified, and has not been peer reviewed

Pass that on to Alex Jones.

 

[eots]

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

 

[Hollie]

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

Twoofer News. All da' news dats the whole twoof.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.

Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.

there are no conspiracies in good science

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

No, they are just called that by those who believe the Swiss Cheese story put out be the government.

 

[Hollie]

Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.

there are no conspiracies in good science

Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.

The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,

Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?

No, they are just called that by those who believe the Swiss Cheese story put out be the government.

It's a twoofer twosome.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

I knew the official story was a lie before Alex Jones said anything about it.

 

[Hollie]

I know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.

There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.

People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.

You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.

The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.

the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not science

NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.

they are called conspiracy theories to avoid debating the physic and science..you made the claim NIST report is science how do you support this claim.

I'm not aware that Alex Jones and Infowars has much science to offer.

I knew the official story was a lie before Alex Jones said anything about it.

I knew that.

 

[eots]

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

Twoofer News. All da' news dats the whole twoof.

that is about all you are left with in your flailing attempts to support the NIST report...nothing but inane gibberish..I feel sorry for you

 

[Hollie]

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

Twoofer News. All da' news dats the whole twoof.

that is about all you are left with in your flailing attempts to support the NIST report...nothing but inane gibberish..I feel sorry for you

Well really, what you have offered to support your conspiracy theories consists of cut and paste from TNN (Twoofer News Networks), and a bunch of silly, carelessly edited YouTube videos.

Let's remember that with just a little nudge, you can be coaxed into flailing, YouTube cutting and pasting, flailing about conspiracy theories involving, space aliens, Gulf of Tonkin and some other conspiracy involving Wesley Clark.

DId I miss any other conspiracy theories?

 

[eots]

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

Twoofer News. All da' news dats the whole twoof.

that is about all you are left with in your flailing attempts to support the NIST report...nothing but inane gibberish..I feel sorry for you

Well really, what you have offered to support your conspiracy theories consists of cut and paste from TNN (Twoofer News Networks), and a bunch of silly, carelessly edited YouTube videos.

Let's remember that with just a little nudge, you can be coaxed into flailing, YouTube cutting and pasting, flailing about conspiracy theories involving, space aliens, Gulf of Tonkin and some other conspiracy involving Wesley Clark.

DId I miss any other conspiracy theories?

again you can not support NIST report so you use strawman and red herrings