Reply #50: NIST certainly is credible...

[Carefulplease]

Now that even the NIST disagrees with you they are no longer credible. ROFLMAO.

And whenever they agree with you on some statement they are suddenly authoritative? NIST certainly is credible. The agency employs thousands of career scientists, engineers and technicians, including a few Nobel laureates. This does not mean that every statement from any publication they produce can be isolated from context, given a literal interpretation and accepted uncritically. Any person or organization, however much credibility it has, will also produce inaccurate or misleading statements once in a while. If NIST's claim that the towers fully collapsed essentially free fall meant that this occured within roughly 9.2 seconds then that would contradict the numerical data they provide in the very same document.

The problem with NIST and FEMA is not the people who do the actual work and research. Most of them are ethical and well trained scientists. I am sure given what they've had to work with, they've done their best. The problem is the gatekeepers at these agencies and the information that the gatekeepers choose to present and what they choose to ignore.

No. The present problem is rather your inability to stay on topic or to produce arguments. You didn't address any of the arguments I produced. Do you really believe that the towers fully collapsed within roughly 9.2 seconds or not?

Edited to fix typos.