Yeah, A chiropractor and a "cellphone engineer" Hold on, my local "sanitiation engineer" has a special place for that group.
As for the physicist, where is his C.V.? What has he published? a book of poems?
Ah, Howard.
That list consisted of a retired US Air Force colonel, a physicist, a professional commercial airline pilot, an aerospace engineer, a mathematician, a
chemist/lawyer, a computer scientist, a forensic pathologist, a kinesiologist, a former Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, a
government-employed statistician, a biologist, an engineer and manufacturer, a US military intelligence specialist, and a a US naval intelligence
specialist, among a few others.
The point was, you said/suggested no one in their right mind would risk their respectable, professional careers and reputations to support these
ideas, that you try to put forward as crazy and insane and off-the-wall and etc. etc.
The above list shows a number of people who have done just that.
The people who conducted the research and wrote the NIST reports are structural engineers and material scientists.
...and government employees that answer to authority.
I think it only fair that any criticism of their work be from a peer in other words a scientist or engineer trained in the same discipline.
On the other hand, if any of your "SIPNE" group is planning to comment on the NIST report, then by all means lets see it.
Until there is any proof of the fires reaching high enough temperatures and damaging enough columns to bring both the whole damned buildings down, the
NIST report is just a theory. In fact, that a concrete slab fell and made both buildings destroy themselves top to bottom is just a theory, and a
rather weak one at that. There is no evidence of it. Further, these NIST reports aren't even final yet are they? The captions at the tops of the
pages say "for public comment." I wasn't aware that public comment had much of an effect on objective science.
And besides, it's biased. They start with a conclusion at NIST. They fix all of their evidence around that conclusion, which was the buildings came
down like the government initially said. It doesn't need 'commenting on' outside of those issues. Whoever wrote the thing needs a slap in the face,
as does anyone who thinks it's the holy grail of 9/11 physics. It's not.
pothead
Actually, never done it before in my life. The only illegal substance I've ingested was a little whiskey for a sore throat that my grandma gave me,
and that was just once. Smoking is unhealthy, and pot has a lot of agents known to cause cancer. I'm just saying it's stupid to make marijuana
illegal while legalizing nicotine/tobaccco and alcohol, which both claim an amazingly high number of lifes. Do you have to be a pothead to hold that
opinion? Or do you not know how to think for yourself regarding
anything?
Seriously. The judgment of a person who runs for president as a Grassroots party candidate is a little suspect IMHO. To each his own, i
suppose, but I reserve judgment on his opinion as a result.
That's fine. Personally I don't see how it discredits what he may say or point out, but as you said, 'to each his own'.
I have not seen one single argument based on a technical evaluation of the data and a report. Instead all you can do is impune the work because
NIST is a federally funded agency. 
In other words an ad hominum attack.
No, you've simply been avoiding/ignoring the posts that disprove its fundamental concepts for the most part. At least you have not rebutted or
accounted for any of the following thus far:
A) Evidence posted here suggests the fires were never hot enough to result in anything that could cause both buildings to collapse from top to
bottom.
B) A lack of fireproofing does not make steel itself weaker. That is an ignorant suggestion. Steel is very resistant to heat even without
fireproofing, making (A) a valid argument.
C) The report is biased, starts with a conclusion, and does not entertain any other scenarios or theories as possibilities, or even state what
problems there may be with them. All the evidence they off is geared around their conclusion.
D) There are many aspects of collapse the NIST does not explain, ie demolition squibs.
E) And lastly, yes, it is from a government agency.
It seems to me that this is the perfect opportunity for SPINE to show us thier backbone. If you want to tout them as scientists and engineers,
fine. If they fail to comment or critique the NIST reports, then as far I am concerned, they are SPINE-less.
Why do you hold the NIST report to be the holy grail here, Howard? What makes you think that only in rebutting it could the conspiracy be true? The
report is
biased, and is
far from all-encompassing.
You are confusing the final report with the technical process used to get to that point. The initial goal of the project was to determine the
technical causes of the collapse. The final report presents tose facts determined by the investigation. Since there was no evidence of explosives or
other causes for the collapse, it was not necessary to waste time pursuing that.
Twitchy covered this. Numerous demolition squibs, unbelievable collapse rates, 100% pulverized concrete, the exaggerated ejection of material, the
perfectly symmetrical collapses, and numerous witness testimonies, including those of firemen, noting various explosions and odd occurences during
collapse.
Does the NIST report attempt to explain any of those, despite their clear presence and contradiction to the gravity theory? No.
Btw Howard, what proof is there that the collapses were initiated when a concrete slab fell and resulted in the total collapse, top to bottom, of both
buildings? Oh, yeah, there is none. Hm. Hypocrit? No, not even that, because there actually
is evidence for what
we're suggesting.
Silverstein still say "pull
back"?
