CDZ clean debate on the NIST report banned

[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?

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

 

[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?

I have presented some of the best scientific experts in the country willing to speak out independently on the NIST reports violations of basic physics and scientific method and you make flailing attempts to negate them with inane references to cut n paste and twoofer news networks..because you can not possibly support the NIST report with facts

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

Is deflection all you have?

Sad.

 

[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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

 

[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?

I have presented some of the best scientific experts in the country willing to speak out independently on the NIST reports violations of basic physics and scientific method and you make flailing attempts to negate them with inane references to cut n paste and twoofer news networks..because you can not possibly support the NIST report with facts

You have presented silly YouTube videos along with cut and paste links to some of the more notorious Twoofer News Networks.

You may wish to examine your motives for creating multiple threads that all contain the same cut and paste material for your various exploitations of conspiracy theories.

You're getting frantic, Bunky.

 

[Dot Com]

It's a conspiracy theory, that's why it goes in the CT department.

there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST report

The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.

disagreement with the work of any paper or report released by the government is a conspiracy theory ...really is that how science works ?

That's not how science works. The Jooooos and the North Koreans are employed by the CIA to edit papers or works released by the government.

Dats da twoof.

you DO realize that you are in the CDZ do you not Hollie Please read the CDZ sub-forum rules. Keep that snarkiness up & I will report your place-holder posts.

 

[Dot Com]

There appears to be no debating the NIST report even though thousands of highly qualified experts have called it in to serious question and even former NIST head fire investigator has called for a fact drive reinvestigation ..any attempt to do so results in the thread being moved to conspiracy theories where debwunker can post inane insults and loony tunes videos and avoid all facts
dont you think this topic should be able to be discussed based on science and fact in a clean debate or do you agree with George?

Thousands? Really?

Why do you suppose the Mods keep moving this to the Conspiracy section?

The second video is from WAHRHEITSBEWEGUNG911, and all of their videos are about the 9-11 conspiracy.

Seems to me that the Mods are moving your threads to the correct forum.

why are you wasting your time here then deflecting?

 

[Hollie]

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

I wasn't aware that anyone but those who share your propensity for conspiracy theories consider Alex Jones an expert on anything, let alone credentials in anything but delusional thinking.

 

[Hollie]

It's a conspiracy theory, that's why it goes in the CT department.

there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST report

The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.

disagreement with the work of any paper or report released by the government is a conspiracy theory ...really is that how science works ?

That's not how science works. The Jooooos and the North Koreans are employed by the CIA to edit papers or works released by the government.

Dats da twoof.

you DO realize that you are in the CDZ do you not Hollie Please read the CDZ sub-forum rules. Keep that snarkiness up & I will report your place-holder posts.

You're gonna tell? Oh, my.

 

[Dot Com]

^ n00b trolling the CDZ. Funny..... NOT!!!

As to the OP, thanks for providing a ton of info that no one has yet to discuss for some reason

 

[eots]

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

I wasn't aware that anyone but those who share your propensity for conspiracy theories consider Alex Jones an expert on anything, let alone credentials in anything but delusional thinking.

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

 

[Hollie]

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

I wasn't aware that anyone but those who share your propensity for conspiracy theories consider Alex Jones an expert on anything, let alone credentials in anything but delusional thinking.

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

So where is his evidence for explosives?

Personal blogs are fine because they're not accountable to peer review.

One of the problems you conspiracy theorists face is the lack of physical evidence to support the conspiracies, but then, that's what keeps conspiracies alive for those predisposed to believe them.

If you're going to cut and paste all the same conspiracy theories involving the thermite charges conspiracy, just link to the various other threads where you have previously, repeatedly and tediously cut and pasted those conspiracy theories.

 

[Hollie]

^ n00b trolling the CDZ. Funny..... NOT!!!

As to the OP, thanks fro providing a ton of info that no one has yet to discuss for some reason

Are you expecting anyone to debate YouTube videos or Alex Jones
re-runs?

 

[Hollie]

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

I wasn't aware that anyone but those who share your propensity for conspiracy theories consider Alex Jones an expert on anything, let alone credentials in anything but delusional thinking.

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

It would be in good form if you attribute your cutting and pasting to its source, which is, as usual, a Twoofer site.

 

[Dot Com]

it would be good form for a n00b to post a source to her rebutals & stop w/ the grade school taunts

Otherwise, go infect someone else's thread.

 

[Hollie]

it would be good form for a n00b to post a source to her rebutals & stop w/ the grade school taunts

Otherwise, go infect someone else's thread.

The board rules require attribution for cut and paste material.

Your comments are spam.

 

[Dot Com]

acct been dormant for 2+ years? Hello sock

back to topic.

 

[eots]

it would be good form for a n00b to post a source to her rebutals & stop w/ the grade school taunts

Otherwise, go infect someone else's thread.

The board rules require attribution for cut and paste material.

Your comments are spam.

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

You believe that the NIST report is refuted by Twoofer News Networks. That's fine. Twoofer News finds an audience with those folks who share a personality trait that makes conspiracy theories both exciting and believable.

twoofer news is something you made up..it does not exist..these experts are well documented individuals with solid creditails and experience

I wasn't aware that anyone but those who share your propensity for conspiracy theories consider Alex Jones an expert on anything, let alone credentials in anything but delusional thinking.

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

So where is his evidence for explosives?

Personal blogs are fine because they're not accountable to peer review.

One of the problems you conspiracy theorists face is the lack of physical evidence to support the conspiracies, but then, that's what keeps conspiracies alive for those predisposed to believe them.

If you're going to cut and paste all the same conspiracy theories involving the thermite charges conspiracy, just link to the various other threads where you have previously, repeatedly and tediously cut and pasted those conspiracy theories.

the evidence for explosives is
the symmetry of the collapse
the free fall speed of collapse
excessive temperatures and melted steel
concrete pulverised to dust
thermitic residue in the dust of wtc
multiple eyewitness accounts

 

[eots]

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust... - 911Truth.org

 

[Dot Com]

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust... - 911Truth.org

peer reviewed and in the scientific journal. Who could refute that?