NIST: Our First Official WTC-7 Analysis Might Be Completed Before the 7th Anniversary of 9/11!

[mhatrw]

But don't count on it.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Why do you continue to post factually inaccurate statements, mhatrw?

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf (pdf)

[mhatrw]

2. Since when is a progress report is a completely analysis, boloboffin?

Factually inaccurate, indeed.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. It is an analysis and it has been released.

Whassamatta? Is it not official enough for you?

[nebula]

5. Link?? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

6. He already GAVE you the link in his previous post...

duh.

[nebula]

8. Interim 'Report' on WTC7

That's what NIST calls their 'report' on WTC7.
Do you understand the meaning of 'interim?'

Seven years after 9/11, NIST has given us nothing on Building 7 beyond empty speculation.

COLLAPSE HYPOTHESIS

WTC 7 suffered a global collapse. The initiating cause or causes of this collapse, and its sequence of events, are still being investigated though fire appears to have played a key role and there may have been some physical damage on the south side of the building.

---p. L-34, NIST Interim Report


So that's your idea of a report? LOL, what a joke!

[SDuderstadt]

9. Have you actually READ the interim report?

I bet you haven't.

[nebula]

11. I have, have you?

Of course you haven't.

Not only have I read it, but have even provided quotes from it. It states in the report "the initiating cause or causes of this collapse, and its sequence of events, are still being investigated."

In other words, they haven't a clue about Building 7.
At least not anything that they would ever admit to.
They would rather play dumb and ignorant than ever admit it was a CD.

Therefore, it's still 'under investigation.'

[SDuderstadt]

12. And, of course....

you have hard evidence that it's CD, right? Maybe you should e-mail Sy Hersh.

I think it's fair to assume NIST is more reliable than you are. And providing quotes from the Interim Report hardly proves you read it. It's apparent from some of the goofy things you post that you haven't read it.

[nebula]

13. You claim the report to be complete,

contrary to the official position of NIST--which states it is 'in progress.'

So who is lying? Hmmm?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Ummm, point to where I EVER said it was...

complete.

You DO know the meaning of the word "interim", right?

[nebula]

15. Someone should 'interim' their ass

perhaps it would motivate them to write something other than insulting bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Point to where I ever said it was...

complete, please. Otherwise, apologize.

[nebula]

17. You certainly implied it

I pointed out where the interim report clearly states it is not complete.
Your reply to my post disputed that, but with nothing to back it up.

You apologize for making false claims.

[SDuderstadt]

19. I see...

now you claim I "implied it" but can't bring yourself to admit I never ever said it. Pathetic.

[mhatrw]

7. Read the OP. It's not a completed analysis. It's a progress report. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

10. More footstomping.

The Interim Report gives the working hypothesis and a great number of proposed sequences for analysis. The recent update (Dec 2006) gives a second status report, and the working hypothesis remains virtually unchanged. Reasons for the delay are also given, including the gargantuan task of propagating several of the most likely scenarios throughout the building.

[mhatrw]

20. Yep. Rome wasn't built in seven years. Right? n/t

[wildbilln864]

3. but don't hold your breath! n/t

[jberryhill]

18. Yes it might. Are you in a hurry?

Your doctor only gave you a few weeks to live or something?

Do you think you will agree with anything in the final report?