11-08-2013, 08:26 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Everything NIST did was not incorrect and it is ignorant to assume that all parts of a large report are incorrect based on a finding that one area is.
Your reading comprehension in this case stinks. I didn't say it was ALL wrong and I certainly will not sayu it was ALL RIGHT. I said they got the wrong conclusions... and made mistakes in the report.... There was a lot of valuable information as well.
But you can't be a little bit pregnant eh?
Being pregnant implies all or nothing and is not a valid analogy here.
It is possible for a report to be very accurate in certain areas and at the same time have less accurate or even incorrect areas with incorrect conclusions. That description is what I think sums up the NIST report on the WTC collapses. There are accurate areas and the aircraft impact seems to be one and can be validated by other means.
Can't know and no way to know if they got THAT right because they missed other observations which they COULD see.
Accuracy of one area does not depend on accuracy which should have been easier in other cases. The impact damage due to the aircraft was an independent study. You also provide no cases to back your claim and are simply making unsupported blanket and nonsensical statements.