FourthBase wrote:isachar wrote:FourthBase wrote:isachar wrote:FourthBase wrote:Winging it is the way to figure shit out, you mentally diseased twit.
Uhh, no, and neither is pulling shit out of your ass which is just another way of saying 'winging it', but I can sure see how you, Jeff, Sir Isaac Nomo and orzo think that's the case.
Not much more we need to know about your methods and approaches, I guess.
Hope you're using rubber gloves?
"Winging it" does not necessarily mean pulling shit out of your ass, dickhead. It can also mean doing something without guidelines, which is antithetical to your fucking Truth Brigade which dogmatically enforces opinions on others. Leave, you piece of shit.
"Doing things without guidelines" - as with no methodology, no discipline, no systemic method of approach, no scientific method and no validity.
Yup, sure sounds like pulling things out of your ass to me. But like, whatever, dude. I'm sure a number of people here can relate.
Nice try warping the sense of "winging it", you fucking tool. What you and others
want is for NIST to have winged it, i.e., for them to have examined the evidence without any preconceptions, without any guidelines telling them what they were supposed to conclude. And here you are trashing the concept of winging it, because
here it's an antidote to your crusade of 9/11 Truth orthodoxy. Like I said, go fuck yourself.
FB, now we're getting somewhere.
I didn't want NIST to do anything other than to put forward a credible and valid explanation for the WTC's collapse.
NIST's entire case rests on its bogus, backwards assume your own results computer simulation. This is where they used a computer to simulate what the internal temps had to have been (using highly optimized assumptions which were themselves unrealistic) across large areas of one or more floors to cause sufficient steel to fail to initiate a 'global' collapse. (They didn't give a fig or spend even a sentence on what happened after the moment of initiation of collapse.)
They then assumed these temps were, in fact present, and were what caused the collapse.
This is called assuming your own results/conclusions. And it is a priori indication of scientific fraud and/or ineptitude.
That's all the NIST official fairy tale hangs on.
When they commissioned a lab to test structural steel by actually exposing it to real fire simulated to replicate the conditions inside the WTC's, IT DID NOT FAIL, even though it was subjected to direct exposure/temps for longer than the steel inside the WTC's.
They actually ceased doing live fire tests after that and never got around to doing a lab test that would have even more closely replicated the actual condtions to which the steel was exposed. Rather, they decided to rely on the computer simulation instead.
And, none of the steel recovered from the site at or near the point of impacts shows any sign of having been exposed to such temps.
Now, I've seen this kind of hide the pickle trick many times before in various 'official' though more mundane government lies and hoaxes otherwise known as 'studies'. I've made my living for the past 30 years deconstructing such fairy tales and exposing them. This phony computer simulation is the smoking gun which exposes the official story to be a fairy tale.
Now, I can understand that you may not grasp why this is the case, but I can well assure you that the phony computer simulation is the Achilles heel of the NIST investigation, since absent the phony simulation, they have nothing else to back up their theory. But it sure did do its intended job, didn't it? They got you, Jeff, Sir Isaac Nomobrain, orzo and millions of others. As they usually do with their phony junk - cause, after all, they're the govt and they'll crucify anyone who tries to cross them. Believe me, I know from personal experience.
Now, I don't suppose you've got up against the government on such issues - to have the credentials to do so and to call their phony crap that to their faces. I have. Numerous times over the last 30 or so years, and I've never been shown to be wrong.
What I can say with all confidence is that the phony computer simulation used by NIST is precisely the type of technique the govt employs when it wishes to play hide the sausage. The fact that this type of hoax usually works against most doesn't make it valid. It only goes to show that there's a sucker born every minute and, if you're the govt, you can fool most of the people most of the time.
Unfortunately, you, Jeff, Nomo and orz are among the fooled. But not just among them. You've volunteered yourselves to come forward to be complicit in the hoax and to wage a vigorous and vengeful and sustained attack on those who point out the emperor (NIST's analysis) has no clothes.
But, if that kind of nonsense is what passes your 'winging it' threshhold, so be it. I don't seek to deny you or others your opinion. But we should all be cognizant on the bogus foundation on which your, Jeff's, Sir isaac Nomo and orzo's opinion/faith rests.
Get yourself a big box of rubber gloves, buddy. You're gonna need it.
