911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required

This is the business of anyone your threatened, which is anyone who does not support the “Global 9/11 Truth Movement”. Grumpy’s comments have to be totally taken out of context in order for your claims to be credible.

You keep spamming the forum with the same unsupported claims. Answer the questions posted rather than reposting (spamming) the forum with the same baseless claims.

Oh, so you're saying you do your 20 hour silent meditation while you post? And you read 16 hours while you sleep?

He didn't say that? Funny, it's YOUR quote. YOU said he said that.

First read this:

Now that you understand this, you can now note the simple points:

1. To claim that the WTC collapse from fire is fraudulent.
2. Any insurance claims based upon claims of fire or that the buildings collapse as a result of an act of terrorism is also fraudulent.

Why?

Simple, because NIST's work is not fact...its a "hypothesis"...with no greater weight than Professor Steven Jones' hypothesis.

They carry equal weight...simply because they both rely on an assumption.

Without hardcore physical proof...neither hypothesis can take priority.

That's from a pure scientific viewpoint and the simple facts of reality.

I don’t know what constrictions you live under but it’s a free country where I am and I’ll do whatever I want.

First read this:

Now that you understand this, you can now note the simple points:

1. To claim that the WTC collapse from fire is fraudulent.
2. Any insurance claims based upon claims of fire or that the buildings collapse as a result of an act of terrorism is also fraudulent.

Why?

Simple, because NIST's work is not fact...its a "hypothesis"...with no greater weight than Professor Steven Jones' hypothesis.

They carry equal weight...simply because they both rely on an assumption.

Without hardcore physical proof...neither hypothesis can take priority.

That's from a pure scientific viewpoint and the simple facts of reality.

I've established that NIST produced a report that violated the Data Quality Act.

There should have been more than one working hypothesis.

According to whom? You or Jones or other CTers? The NIST based their hypothesis on the verifiable fact that two planes crashed into the Twin Towers dumping huge amounts of jet fuel and setting a massive blaze. Just because they did not waste their time on non-relevant assumptions like a 30 remember 20 net ton planting thermite strike team does not mean their hypothesis or report is flawed. Where is your invocation of Ockham’s razor now?

According to standard procedures of the scientific method.

We all know the ultimate reason why it wasn't done was because of insurance policies...the same reason it was not regarded as an "act of war"...

Does NIST's report need to be changed?

Yes.


Will that happen?

If certain groups take the appropriate steps, then yes, there is no getting away from the letter of the law on this one.



What impact will that have on Insurance claims?

Could be a little prickly...

Man, you are all over the place with this CT and related cause of yours. First you claim that your goal is to reopen the investigation and seek criminal charges for those responsible, then it’s about a war for oil, now it’s about an insurance scam.

No, only people like you claim to know something and that something is just an unsupported claim. Where is your response to the questions? Where are you credible organizations that support your claims of thermite use?

All I see are your hollow claims.

MMC,
If you're going to do that 20 hours of meditation today, you'd better get started.

That all amounts to the same thing...they are just different aspects of the event.

Which is why the fire-induced collapse hypothesis was pushed within 48 hours of the attack...insurance.

As I said earlier, otherwise we are left with two scenarios:

1. Pre-existing damage to the towers
2. Poor construction

The first would make the insurance null and void and the second would be near impossible to prove.

They took the safe option and ran with it.

The only problem is, that policy may have led to them ignoring an, as yet, unidentified threat to America.

That's too risky, it is best to push forward with Professor Steven Jones' work, just to be on the safe side. It provides grounds for rigorous investigation of those who had access to the site.

Also, under the Data Quality Act, it is legally required.

Ah yes, 48 hours: The length of Northern Irland's days.

MMC

More lies about me I see. I said it was my forum, meaning I am a member and have as much right to post as you do(this in response to you telling me to stop posting in "your" thread.)

Niether Genesplicer nor Grumpy could simply admit this was accurate, which it is.

We won't admit this is true because it is total male bovine feces.
Nist's report was based on THE FACTS. The reason they say it is "the most probable cause" is because in science nothing is ever considered "Proven". They have, however looked at the facts and this is their conclusion:

A group of cavedwellers learned to fly.
The planes hit the building, created documented major structuiral damage and starting huge multi floor fires.
The fires further weakened already compromised structures through uneven heating and warpage.
The stresses exceeded the structural strength of the remaining structure. Beams buckled and failed on the damaged floors.

The towers fell.

This is "the most probable cause" given the evidence.

And, as you have always been before, WRONG.

The only scientifically viable explanation is that proposed by NIST.

Cavemen learned to fly.

It's just that simple, your speculations are totally unsupported, therefore CRAP>

You have never even read those reports, you know nothing and I am not sure you can prove you are human!!! You've establishe only one thing. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. That you have provided much evidence for(and no evidence of anything else)

Grumpy
The collapse began.