Save your sanctimonious crap for someone who cares. Part 2 - Page 41

sunflower · 11-26-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

no..they explain the collapses

No they don't. Please read the relevant portion of the NIST report (I know you love that word).

Circus · 11-26-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

Aliens, godzilla, pod planes, laser beams, etc., have nothing to do with why the NIST can't explain the collapses. You resort to this idiocy to justify it, though. What low standards you have, Circus.

Once again, NIST wasn't interested in the opinions of crazy people on the internet.
Nist cared about a safety assessment. They analyzed why the towers collapsed so that future architects and structural engineers can apply that knowledge to future buildings. Now, in this assessment, they found zero evidence for a controlled demolition. They also found zero evidence of alien species.
To investigate a Controlled Demolition under such conditions would be as equally crazy as investigating alien species causing the collapse.

I know that Bush is "mean" and he's a "big lying pooh pooh head", but that doesn't change or alter the science stuydied by the 200+ (120 private) relevant experts at NIST.

Circus · 11-26-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

That is bullshit and you know it. All that other crap you talk about is nonsense BUT the CD theory is a viable explaination. And as we have discussed many time before they carted the rubble off so quickly that it never had a chance to be thoroughly examined.

I believe the 200+ (120 private) experts at nist who say there is zero evidence of a controlled demolition, not Eagleclaw on the internet.

dadakarma · 11-26-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

Once again, NIST wasn't interested in the opinions of crazy people on the internet.
Nist cared about a safety assessment. They analyzed why the towers collapsed so that future architects and structural engineers can apply that knowledge to future buildings. Now, in this assessment, they found zero evidence for a controlled demolition. They also found zero evidence of alien species.
To investigate a Controlled Demolition under such conditions would be as equally crazy as investigating alien species causing the collapse.

I know that Bush is "mean" and he's a "big lying pooh pooh head", but that doesn't change or alter the science stuydied by the 200+ (120 private) relevant experts at NIST.

I guess you're incapable of interpreting my post about why your bullshit about godzilla, etc., is irrelevant to NIST's inability to explain the collapses.

Keep spinning, though. It's funny!

eagleclaw · 11-26-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

I believe the 200+ (120 private) experts at nist who say there is zero evidence of a controlled demolition, not Eagleclaw on the internet.

And now that it is 6 YEARS later and we still don't have an explanation for Building 7 does your love for the "experts" and NIST still hold true? 6 YEARS and still nothing about Building 7!!!!!

Are they counting on everybody forgetting about it? Or maybe they haven't been able to come up with any cool video's to state their case, like the Pentagon when they had Purdue University make one up that shows the wings of Flight 77 ripping through those steel and kevlar re-enforced concrete walls.

Circus · 11-26-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

I guess you're incapable of interpreting my post about why your bullshit about godzilla, etc., is irrelevant to NIST's inability to explain the collapses.

Keep spinning, though. It's funny!

You're the one spinning.
Nist explained precisely why the buildings collapsed.
It's thousands of pages long.

NIST didn't really bother much with what happened after the collapse was initiated. It had very little to do with their "Fire Safety Investigation". I'm pretty sure structural engineers are more interested in preventing collapses, than in understanding what happens after a building has already started collapsing.
NIST did not write a debunking piece of conspiracy lies. They wrote a safety report.

kblair7 · 11-26-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

You're the one spinning.
Nist explained precisely why the buildings collapsed.
It's thousands of pages long.

NIST didn't really bother much with what happened after the collapse was initiated. It had very little to do with their "Fire Safety Investigation". I'm pretty sure structural engineers are more interested in preventing collapses, then in understanding what happens after a building has already started collapsing.
NIST did not write a debunking piece of conspiracy lies. They wrote a safety report.

Agreed. Thank you for taking the time to write a well thought out response.

Circus · 11-26-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

And now that it is 6 YEARS later and we still don't have an explanation for Building 7 does your love for the "experts" and NIST still hold true? 6 YEARS and still nothing about Building 7!!!!!

Are they counting on everybody forgetting about it? Or maybe they haven't been able to come up with any cool video's to state their case, like the Pentagon when they had Purdue University make one up that shows the wings of Flight 77 ripping through those steel and kevlar re-enforced concrete walls.

In regards to buliding 7, I believe the dozen or so fire chiefs and captains who appraised the building and concluded that it was so heavily damaged that collapse was imminent.
See? I believe the actual fire chiefs that were there and appraised the building, not amateurs in their parents basement that studied grainy collapse videos.

sunflower · 11-26-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

You're the one spinning.
Nist explained precisely why the buildings collapsed.
It's thousands of pages long.

NIST didn't really bother much with what happened after the collapse was initiated. It had very little to do with their "Fire Safety Investigation". I'm pretty sure structural engineers are more interested in preventing collapses, then in understanding what happens after a building has already started collapsing.
NIST did not write a debunking piece of conspiracy lies. They wrote a safety report.

eagleclaw · 11-26-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

I believe the 200+ (120 private) experts at nist who say there is zero evidence of a controlled demolition, not Eagleclaw on the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circus

In regards to buliding 7, I believe the dozen or so fire chiefs and captains who appraised the building and concluded that it was so heavily damaged that collapse was imminent.
See? I believe the actual fire chiefs that were there and appraised the building, not amateurs in their parents basement that studied grainy collapse videos.

You did not answer the question. I don't care what you are speculating, where is the report from Building 7?

Come on, you know so much and have an obvious affinity for anything official, where is the report from your "GODS", the "relevant experts"?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode