Posted: Nov 18, 2010 11:51 pm
by uke2se
Patriots4Truth wrote:
You didn't once try to explain the link. If you are not aware, it consists of humongous amounts of techno-babble that could easily fly over people's heads. Technobabble can be used dishonestly to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. I expect more honesty in a debate.

You got honesty. I gave you a link to a post which you checked with other people and found to be a good representation of the truth. What I take offense to is your claim that you were doing my job for me. You weren't. You were simply fact checking what I provided for your own sake. I already knew what I posted was a good representation of the truth, as I had already fact checked it. I don't claim to understand all the technical jargon myself, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that you did exactly what could be expected of you, and so did I. Please don't accuse me of laziness in the future.

Patriots4Truth wrote:
It sure looks like Nist plays dumb (maybe "forced to admit freefall" is too strong of wording): part 1, part 2, part 3

NIST made a few drafts before releasing their final report. The data never changed. What did change after the report draft was opened up for public comment was an extra comment about the partial free-fall of WTC 7, due to a comment by Chandler. The reason it was left out at first was because NIST deemed it irrelevant. To indulge the 9/11 conspiracists, and the people who would be prone to be affected by said people - in the interest of openness - , NIST included a reference to the irrelevant partial free-fall in their final report.

There was no coercion on Chandler's part. It was simply an act of kindness by NIST. 9/11 conspiracists of course jumped on this as a major victory for their "movement".