Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Hello Joseph Nobles

Mr. Nobles just recently addressed my latest post about his website. Yet again, he doesn't seem to think I'm addressing all that I should.

As we will see, Mr. Nobles has a talent for addressing one point out of a huge argument and acting as if it is the central point to the whole argument. Thus, he holds great promise in the debunking community.

He apparently thinks I don't have good reasons to distrust NIST.

Well, given the fact that I very clearly demonstrated that NIST falsified the data in their report about the lack of shear studs in WTC 7 (a point which, by the way, was supposed to be a reason that other steel skyscrapers had not collapsed from fire) and that NIST failed to factor in any thermal conductivity in their models, I'd say I have very good reason to distrust NIST. Given the fact that NIST obviously didn't factor in these parameters in their models, I'm not surprised that the NIST models found a "design flaw" in Building 7. I guess it also doesn't bother Mr. Nobles that NIST's report states that column 79 failed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate in 1/5 of a second, a virtual impossibility.

Mr. Nobles acts as if I don't address NIST's report as much as I obviously did. But perhaps that is why he didn't even provide a link to my original post.

I am well aware of the ARUP study. But, as you made clear in your original post Mr. Nobles, it is not impossible for steel buildings to collapse from fire, whatever their construction. But in any case, we are just talking about one building out of several buildings that all had more severe fires than the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Mr. Nobles, you constantly claim I ignore important points. And yet you don't address the points I do bring up in great detail. If you want to just take NIST at their word, then fine. But please try to point out anything that I get wrong, or else this will get quite repetitive. In other words, (as others on this blog have said) put up or shut up.