reply to post by CameronFox
See my response to Griff regarding Nicole Brown Simpson's murder.
You are off topic! What dose this have to do with NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code?
I assume you didn't read any of the link I provided.
Your assumptions are wrong as usal.
Speaking of “RED HERRINGS”! Your entire post is a RED HERRING and here is the “proof”, what dose anything you have quoted have to do with,
NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code?
Please refer to my first point on this post.
Anyone reading your posts can clearly see you are avoiding the OP topic!
Your only answers to anything are see my above post! See what I posted to Griff!
See what I posted in other post! Cashlink, all your answers have been answer in this tread and other threads! This is the same garbage you keep
repeating over and over.
Why do you continue to evade the issues with your own form of nonsense?
Really! With what little sources you have given I have found most of them “not” creditable. You are still trying to prove a “lie”.
You have found them not credible? Can you please tell me what criteria is involved in your process of determining what is and what isn't credible.
You have not given me one single source to any discussion on this topic on (NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code.) Read back to all your
post starting from page one to me thank you! You have not sent me one single “link” however everything you talk about has no foundation just
personal attacks, and insults, and more snide remarks.
Really! Care to prove that? Furthermore, “you” were ask the questions, and as always You imply your own authority and expertise but fail to
provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.
Um, what? My OWN authority? Care to show me where I do that?
Yes you do imply your own authority and you have an answer for every question for every truther who ask question. However the problem is you ( will
not) provide credentials, and you will not address issues and cite sources.
Do you really want me to go through your posts and point out your errors and your handwaving of evidence?
Yes please do! Ironically, “you” have no room to talk! Practice what you preach, to make such a claim after reading all of your posts!
That NIST lied.
You will not be able to provide any evidence of this, so I won't even bother to ask for it.
9/11 CONSPIRACY: NIST CHIEF ENGINEER LIES ABOUT MOLTEN METAL
www.youtube.com...
Proof NIST lies; WTC1 did not damage WTC7
www.youtube.com...
Kevin Ryan: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back
NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know
that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC
7.(3) The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for
several “responses to FAQs” on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its
final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.
However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid
criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, “We were very
open to alternative theories.” But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was
true, including the following:
• NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
Molten metal? What molten metal?
NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the
presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an
engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said “Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the
columns was red-hot, molten, running. The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan
Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as “kind of
melted.”(11) Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, “I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?
An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with
the alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction, available in several useful variations for the purposes of
cutting steel, can explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily.
The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).(17) This
hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by Professor Steven Jones.(18)
When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture,
called super-thermite or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied adequately in order to serve the purpose of a
deceptive demolition. Sunder’s answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction to the fact that a number of the NIST
WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like steel.(19)
NIST’s new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to
explosions, the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction, by several major media outlets, that the building
was coming down well before it actually did.
www.prisonplanet.com...
At lease I give answers, and address issues, and cite sources!
My opinion is, because the Bush administration who was behind putting the 911 commission together and the 911 commission hired NIST to
do their part of the Government story using Pseudoscience to hide the truth. (The reasoned the national standard was not applied) is because it would
have “revealed” the truth.
Maybe so, however, I was only given an “opinion” not a fact. Would you care to talk about the rest of my “opinion” that I also made. ( I
didn’t think so)
Not "maybe," it is a fact. You are basing an opinion on false information. You information that you gathered to form your opinion is not accurate.
Really! If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Besides my wrong opinion, who aloud NIST to investigate the
WTC.
Ashamedamerican, you are right however, NIST was hoping that we where[sic] all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it, hoping we where diluted in
Brittney Spears and all the media spoon-fed lies. Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic] by using the propaganda machines
the Media.
You do not have the right to add (sick quotes in my post!)
NIST was hoping that we where[sic]
all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it,
Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic]
CameronFox, You added these sick [sic] quotes to my “post”! (shame on you.)
Look Cash, you have been hounding be regarding my posting of sources. You know I do a great job of this. I take it kind of personal when you
accuse me of not being honest regarding my posts. Therefore, you put me in a position to point out to you that if you are going to speak about the
intelligence of someone, you should at least use spell check. I do apologize if this upset you and I will refrain from it in the future.
I know I make mistakes, and I know my writing skills are poor but I do my best! However, as of your writing skills you have no room to talk, I have
came across several miss-spelled words in your posts.
Look here camronFox, don’t you know when “you” need to jump ship when it is sinking!
[edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
[edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
[edit on 12/17/2008 by cashlink]
