Ahh, I thought you were actually more interested in how the buildings came down, not whether the NIST report gave a satisfactory answer. I didn't realize you were just another retarted truther who gets a sense of superiority from "being in the know" about the huge conspiracy of the WTC.

Keep askin' questions bro...

.

The follow up by goodman isn't any better

Internet economists ftl

I promise to listen. Now, please, show me the part of the NIST report where they explain the actual fall of the twin towers.

I'm not asking questions, bra. I'm saying that what people think is in the report isn't there at all- not at all. This relates to my agnosticism directly because it backs it up: NIST doesn't know either. I had settled on my agnosticism before I had even read the report.

Of course, they don't say they don't know. They just talk about the initiation non-stop, hand wave the rest (there is one small footnote in the actual NIST report which acknowledges the omission so technically that is the hand wave) away, and call it a day.

But yeah, neither NIST or I are "in the know" unless you count "know we don't know" as "in the know".

I imagine something like 80% of the posts in the economics forum could make this thread.

This is not a question.

Anyway, as you seem to have noted, the report focuses on how the collapse started. NIST is an organisation that aims at giving safety recommandations, their report was written to prevent similar collapses from happening. They shouldnt be concerned with a precise description of every single details of what's happening when the building is already collapsing. And if someone wants such details there is plenty of material available anyway.

Their report was written for practical safety purposes, not to satisfy conspiration theorists who can never be satisfied anyway. I dont understand your obsession with what it does or does not cover. If you want an entire sequence of the collapse, the answer is just a google search away.

Deuces and Kerowo ruining what should be a great thread. Grats to you both.

Please don't let us interrupt your digression into gold digging.

...in a thread about sexism. This could have been a thread full of pure lol but instead you've flooded it with a boring discussion about 9/11 trutherism

Keep your bull**** where it belongs, just as I do mine in the sexism thread.

What I read here is you've got nothing, you know I am correct, but you can't bring yourself to either admit that or STFU.

NIST is pretty explicit in terms of what they were tasked to do and they went on to not do it. The answers are not a google search away. I don't hate to break it to you- google is not a super human or God and it doesn't have the answer to everything. NIST doesn't know what happened and neither does google.

We were talking about NIST's position on the collapse mechanism, not about trutherism, dumbass.

Bitter mad thread isn't becoming a monument to bullcrap amateur social theory construction (and subsequent deconstruction) that he wants every thread to become.

Feel free to refresh your memory about the thread's title/purpose. Note how dozens of pages about collapse mechanisms don't belong here. Dumbass.

It's unchained, dumbass. Stop complaining about topic integrity in unchained, dumbass. It doesn't even matter that someone called out my quote so I will defend it, dumbass.

So sorry I haven't kept up with the conversation

Yo yo yo, DUMBASS, I'll complain about whatever the f*** I please! I may even call you dumbass while I do.

Here's a fact. Your dumbass is in the process of ruining what could be a great thread.

But please, seriously, continue with your physics denial efforts re: 911 ITT. You know, because Unchained. And because following social norms clearly has been something you've actively avoided in life.

This thread was for stupid quotes. You are full of them. But it sure wasn't about your delusional truther bull****. But since you bleed stupidity everywhere you go I guess this is as good of place for you to contain as any place.

A quick google search tells me that wikipedia is a superhuman god and knows what happened. Apparently, a lot of engineering publications also know what happened.

This discussion totally belongs in a hall of shame thread, so fu haters

It's a quote thread. FU too.

"physics denial efforts". Can you even comprehend English?

You're such a ****ing dumbass you don't even know that the potential of this thread is a discussion of nominated shameful quotes, which is what has been going on, dumbass. Anybody who quotes nominates my quotes is going to be debated

Then why are you commenting on it?

Never did I contend that no one has a theory explaining the collapse. I said that the NIST report doesn't. You know? NIST? The people who were supposed to have some access to whatever paltry evidence was left for them to look at? The guys with all the funding? The report that so many gubmint truthers point to for validating their beliefs about what happened? That report doesn't propose any theory whatsoever regarding the actual collapse.