NIST Experts

[Freddy]

It's been around for 30 years because it's the way it is. Hello?

I see the March Stundie Nominations are in. Too late for another?

 

[Gravy]

It's been around for 30 years because it's the way it is. Hello?

I hate to ask, SCG but your post does prompt the question: do you think the Apollo missions landed men on the Moon?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

[in Response to uk_dave's request to "think carefully"]

Think carefully?

You're joking.

He's got you there, Dave.

 

[Gravy]

Can you give me a few of Kevin Ryan's many lies? So I can confront him with them?

Sure. You've inspired me to assemble a longer critique of some of Ryan's writing, but here are a three lies for now.

1) UL certified WTC structural steel.

In his March, 2006 presentation “9/11 - A Closer Look,” Ryan misrepresents Silverstein’s statement, which is (in part) “And I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." (On screen graphic of March, 2006 quote below omitted)

"I said...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And [the fire department commander] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What could be Ryan’s reason for omitting “We’ve had such terrible loss of life,” which was the basis for Silverstein’s statement?

Quoting Silverstein incompletely and out of context apparently didn’t satisfy Ryan’s needs. Two months later, in a presentation remarkably subtitled “A New Standard of Deception,” Ryan makes a serious error of commission and says,

2) "Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building."

Meanwhile, this slide appears on screen, to include Silverstein ("and I") as a decision-maker: (On screen graphic of May, 2006 quote below omitted)

3) "I said...maybe the smartest thing do do is pull it. And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Ryan changed “They” to “the fire department commander” and then to “We.” He is blatantly lying to try to support his claim.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I hate to ask, SCG but your post does prompt the question: do you think the Apollo missions landed men on the Moon?

Please, please, please say no. I really want to find a good debate on Apollo.

That means not saying "but there weren't any stars in the photos" or "the shadows were parallel" or "Jack White is a photo analyst" or "Bart Sibrel knows what he's talking about."

 

[The Doc]

SCG,

Kevin Ryan, in 9/11 Mysteries, claimed that NIST never did any tests to show that fireproofing would have been removed from the steel under the conditions of an aircraft impact. He was wrong. NIST has a 326 page section of their report dedicated to just that.

Ryan also claimed he was fired from his job for questioning NIST. He was wrong. He was fired for representing his own opinions as if they were the opinions of UL.

That's 2 lies. Plus Gravy's 2... not looking good, is it?

 

[Steve]

It's been around for 30 years because it's the way it is. Hello?

(Bolding above is mine). Derail: This caught my attention beacause my five year old daughter has recently started using "hello?" at the end of some of her sentences. I think it is cute, and appropriate, for a five year old girl. Make of that what you will. /derail.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So you also believe that man didn't land on the moon... for the exact same reason that you believe the NIST report is a sham?

I knew you'd say that. Of course, I did not say, nor did I imply, that I believe in the moon landing hoax.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SCG,

Kevin Ryan, in 9/11 Mysteries, claimed that NIST never did any tests to show that fireproofing would have been removed from the steel under the conditions of an aircraft impact. He was wrong. NIST has a 326 page section of their report dedicated to just that.

You mean the shotgun blammo tests?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Please, please, please say no. I really want to find a good debate on Apollo.

That means not saying "but there weren't any stars in the photos" or "the shadows were parallel" or "Jack White is a photo analyst" or "Bart Sibrel knows what he's talking about."

I'm not the guy to argue the moon hoaqx theories. Sorry to disappoint. My heros were the Apollo 16 guys, because I watched it launch live.

But now that I think about it... hmmmmm...

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I hate to ask, SCG but your post does prompt the question: do you think the Apollo missions landed men on the Moon?

Yes, I do. But it would have been much cheaper and easier to just hoax it. And we would have believed it.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I see the March Stundie Nominations are in. Too late for another?

Awesome! What's the record for Stundie nominations?

I notice they don't take the context of the discussion into account.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You mean the shotgun blammo tests?

How would you set up a test to determine the effect of ~500mph debris impacts on the integrity of the fireproofing?

In what ways would it differ from NIST's tests?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How would you set up a test to determine the effect of ~500mph debris impacts on the integrity of the fireproofing?

In what ways would it differ from NIST's tests?

I don't know, but I wouldn't try to pass the blammo test off as scientific fact.

 

[Disbelief]

I don't know, but I wouldn't try to pass the blammo test off as scientific fact.

So, you don't know or anyone else in the truth movement, but what they did was wrong. How about providing some real input if you think their test methods are wrong.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't know, but I wouldn't try to pass the blammo test off as scientific fact.

If you have a scientific criticism of it, post it; otherwise your OPINION doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

 

[T.A.M.]

So your proposal SCG, to the USG, regardless of political party in power, is that when any event occurs that requires scientific investigation, that also has a criminal element attached, that the scientists can have NO affiliation past or present with the USG...

good luck with that...even if the people wanted it to happen, it never could...

TAM

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So your proposal SCG, to the USG, regardless of political party in power, is that when any event occurs that requires scientific investigation, that also has a criminal element attached, that the scientists can have NO affiliation past or present with the USG...

good luck with that...even if the people wanted it to happen, it never could...

TAM

You're right, TAM. Research science and government do tend to be married up. That does make it tough!

 

[T.A.M.]

You're right, TAM. Research science and government do tend to be married up. That does make it tough!

Yes but the marriage is due to how much responsibility the govt has, over such a wide array of areas, scientific and not. Hence at some point, almost all companies, almost all scientists, have had govt requested or govt involved contracts...it is a fact of life.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't know, but I wouldn't try to pass the blammo test off as scientific fact.

What is your problem with the test? It's not as though they brought in some yokel who pulled the shotgun off his pickup's gunrack and fired off a hip shot.

They took advantage of the fact that shotgun shells have controlled variables--the explosive force is predictable, the pellets are uniform, and there's a lot of test literature they could refer to. They could rig it a fixed distance from the test samples, and they could calculate to a high degree of accuracy the force of the impact when they fired the pellets at the test samples. You could hardly ask for better test conditions.

All of this data is available to the public.