NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[CHF]

People here should demand the same standard of factual accuracy from the government reports that they demand from conspiracy videos like Loose Change.

Here you will find engineering firms in every US state: www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Show them the petition.

Like it or not, this doesn't amount to anything without engineer backing.

Thermite Man, Water Boy and the "Scholars" won't submit it to engineers. Will you be a hero and do the honors?

 

[WildCat]

People here should demand the same standard of factual accuracy from the government reports that they demand from conspiracy videos like Loose Change.

Can you name a single acurate claim made in the Loose Change movie?

 

[TraitorBasher]

Can you name a single acurate claim made in the Loose Change movie?

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

 

[Pardalis]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

Approximately accurate?

 

[Horatius]

Well, I've finished reading the thing, and I'm totally underwhelmed. The only thing they have that hasn't been debunked before seems to be the above discussion of the use of certain simulations over others. And in fact, most of their complaints seem to be whining about how NIST didn't actually do any such simulations, because NIST acknowledges that those senarios don't lead to collapse conditions. Which you'd think the twoofers would appreciate, but no....

They seem to think that if certain models do not predict a collapse, then we must consider their pet hypotheses as well as the obvious fire and impact hypothesis, despite the conclusions as recited by myself and R.Mackey earlier that the exclusion of the lesser damage simulations is entirely logical.

Other than that, what is there? "Trusses didn't sag enough in their tests." Tests which weren't intended to model the events on 9/11. "WTC steel temperature measurements only showed 250 degrees C". Based on tests that couldn't measure any higher than that, from what I understand. "They were supposed to model the whole collapse". No, they weren't, and that doesn't impact the work they did do in any case. "They ignored the reports of explosions." Reports which have been explained over and over and over.....

For people who are complaining that NIST ignored too much in their report, these guys have ignored a whole heck of a lot of critisism themselves. 32 pages of whining, about 90% of which was debunked ages ago.

Next?

 

[kookbreaker]

Approximately accurate?

Its troother-speak for 'wrong'.

 

[kookbreaker]

"WTC steel temperature measurements only showed 250 degrees C". Based on tests that couldn't measure any higher than that, from what I understand.

Those tests were of paint on surviving columns from the fire. The purpose of those tests was to gauge the model of the fire's spread. It was not a be-all 'this is how hot the steel got' test. The paint tests couldn't go higher than certain temperatures since the paint would be gone and thus untestable. Beyond that there wasn't much way to test a piece of steel for how hot it got.

 

[babazaroni]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

Is 15 seconds approximately 10 seconds?

 

[T.A.M.]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

Isnt claiming that "approximately 10 seconds" is and accurate claim a contradiction?

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

~10 seconds for the first piece of debris to hit the ground, not for the entire building to collapse. Additionally:

The height of the top floor of the towers was 1,348 ft (411.0 m).
The height of the root of the towers was 1,368 ft (417.0 m).
The height of the antenna/spire of the towers was 1,731.9 ft (527.9 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc
Given the approximate acceleration at the towers would be 9.8 m/s^2 we can calculate both the time it would take to fall, and the velocity at any given point.
Using the formulas available on this page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html we generate the following (bolded lines are of greatest interest):
[table=""]Time|Accel - m/sec^2|Dist - meters
0.0|9.8|0.0
1.0|9.8|4.9
2.0|19.6|19.6
3.0|29.4|44.1
4.0|39.2|78.4
5.0|49.0|122.5
6.0|58.8|176.4
7.0|68.6|240.1
8.0|78.4|313.6
9.0|88.2|396.9
9.1|89.2|405.8
9.2|90.2|414.7
9.3|91.1|423.8
9.4|92.1|433.0
9.5|93.1|442.2
9.6|94.1|451.6
9.7|95.1|461.0
9.8|96.0|470.6
9.9|97.0|480.2
10.0|98.0|490.0
10.1|99.0|499.8
10.2|100.0|509.8
10.3|100.9|519.8
10.4|101.9|530.0
10.5|102.9|540.2
10.6|103.9|550.6
10.7|104.9|561.0
10.8|105.8|571.5
10.9|106.8|582.2
11.0|107.8|592.9[/table]
From this we can see that from the top floor it would take 9.1-9.2 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 89.2-90.2 m/sec.
From the root it would take 9.2-9.3 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 90.2-91.1 m/sec.
From the top of the spire/antenna it would take 10.3-10.4 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 100.9-101.9 m/sec.

Estimates on this vary do to visibility problems and which points are being used. I will use the values you provided in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2206211#post2206211 and go with 12-16 seconds.
[table=""]Reported Time|Calculated Time|%
12.0|9.1|131.9
12.0|9.2|130.4
12.0|9.3|129.0
12.0|10.3|116.5
12.0|10.4|115.4
13.0|9.1|142.9
13.0|9.2|141.3
13.0|9.3|139.8
13.0|10.3|126.2
13.0|10.4|125.0
14.0|9.1|153.8
14.0|9.2|152.2
14.0|9.3|150.5
14.0|10.3|135.9
14.0|10.4|134.6
15.0|9.1|164.8
15.0|9.2|163.0
15.0|9.3|161.3
15.0|10.3|145.6
15.0|10.4|144.2
16.0|9.1|175.8
16.0|9.2|173.9
16.0|9.3|172.0
16.0|10.3|155.3
16.0|10.4|153.8[/table]
We can see that the towers took somewhere between 115.4% to 175.8% free-fall time to complete collapsing. Personally, I do not consider 15.4%-75.8% margin of difference to qualify as being labeled "near".

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I also find it entertaining that, if I read the petition correctly, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have added ... and Justice to their moniker.

I believe Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is Stephen Jones' splinter group that he formed after he was kicked out of plain ol' Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Can you name a single acurate claim made in the Loose Change movie?

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

What the...?

W: "Can you name a single accurate claim?"
E: "No, but I can name an accurate claim."
E: ". . .approximately. . ."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Arkan_Wolfshade, on your first table, the second column reads, "Accel - m/sec^2". Should this column not read Velocity?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan_Wolfshade, on your first table, the second column reads, "Accel - m/sec^2". Should this column not read Velocity?

Quite correct, I missed a column. I shall attempt to edit the post.

ETA: Bah, no can do. Table 1 should read:
[table=""]Time|Accel - m/sec^2|Vel - m/sec|Dist - meters
0.0|9.8|0.0|0.0
1.0|9.8|9.8|4.9
2.0|9.8|19.6|19.6
3.0|9.8|29.4|44.1
4.0|9.8|39.2|78.4
5.0|9.8|49.0|122.5
6.0|9.8|58.8|176.4
7.0|9.8|68.6|240.1
8.0|9.8|78.4|313.6
9.0|9.8|88.2|396.9
9.1|9.8|89.2|405.8
9.2|9.8|90.2|414.7
9.3|9.8|91.1|423.8
9.4|9.8|92.1|433.0
9.5|9.8|93.1|442.2
9.6|9.8|94.1|451.6
9.7|9.8|95.1|461.0
9.8|9.8|96.0|470.6
9.9|9.8|97.0|480.2
10.0|9.8|98.0|490.0
10.1|9.8|99.0|499.8
10.2|9.8|100.0|509.8
10.3|9.8|100.9|519.8
10.4|9.8|101.9|530.0
10.5|9.8|102.9|540.2
10.6|9.8|103.9|550.6
10.7|9.8|104.9|561.0
10.8|9.8|105.8|571.5
10.9|9.8|106.8|582.2
11.0|9.8|107.8|592.9|[/table]

 

[bje]

I can only laugh at the absurdity of 9/11 Truthers

P.S.: Oh, and this part is the funniest thing I've read all week:

I can't decide which is funnier, the "Informational Injury," or that he was "strongly encouraged" to leave BYU. Good ol' Steven Jones, a man who'll die with his boots on, or at least he says he'll get around to it sometime.

Then there is also this statement:

"Scholars are affected by the scientifically flawed WTC Report because it is a group actively engaged in researching the attacks of 9/11, and its research has been severely hindered by NIST’s publication of the WTC Report."

I just see absurdity in everything that comes out of 9/11 Truthers. That's why I don't argue with them or try to reason with them but try to make fun of them instead: tinyurl.com/2syurs

 

[Miragememories]

Dr. Frank Greening (aka Apollo20) quote;

"Researchers are under pressure to get the right results. The right results aren't always the right results, they are the results that the company wants, or the organization wants and if you get bad results, ie. embarrassing results, or controversial results..uhmm they might try and suppress you. And I think this happens everywhere and it's a crying shame and I think it's a big problem, in science, and industry and in government and unfortunately the universities are a party to this"

Dr. Frank Greening, also coined the term "NISTian" directed at the majority of you JREF Conspiracy members who treat the NIST WTC Report as if it was the WTC Collapse bible.

In the thread in the JREF Conspiracy Forum titled "Debate! What debate?", Dr. Greening has these comments to make about you JREF 'regulars';

"I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFe
eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the
following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?” you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal ar refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”!

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory.

NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?" end quote Dr. Frank Greening

I think Dr. Frank Greening was 'right on'!

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

Why are you changing the subject?

Dr. Greening's approach and attitude were regrettable. However, if you follow that thread, you'll see where he and I had a meaningful conversation -- and I demonstrated to him what was wrong with his argument. Without running back to the apron of NIST.

If you think Dr. Greening is 'right on,' then you must also accept his conclusion that 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job. Agree?

 

[chipmunk stew]

"I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFe
eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the
following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?” you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal ar refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal
<snip>" end quote Dr. Frank Greening

I think Dr. Frank Greening was 'right on'!

MM

That's neat. But he failed to mention the most common "mode of attack":

(vi) Demonstrate in detail, in several different ways if necessary, why the CTist is wrong


edit: By way of example--

Dr. Greening's approach and attitude were regrettable. However, if you follow that thread, you'll see where he and I had a meaningful conversation -- and I demonstrated to him what was wrong with his argument. Without running back to the apron of NIST.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

~10 seconds for the first piece of debris to hit the ground, not for the entire building to collapse.

also of note is that the first peices of debris to hit the ground fell from the impact site, not the top of the tower, so the freefall time of 9.8 seconds is not valid to compare to NISTs time estimates, and its use by the CTers is very deceptive

 

[HyJinX]

Dr. Frank Greening (aka Apollo20) quote;

"Researchers are under pressure to get the right results. The right results aren't always the right results, they are the results that the company wants, or the organization wants and if you get bad results, ie. embarrassing results, or controversial results..uhmm they might try and suppress you. And I think this happens everywhere and it's a crying shame and I think it's a big problem, in science, and industry and in government and unfortunately the universities are a party to this"

Dr. Frank Greening, also coined the term "NISTian" directed at the majority of you JREF Conspiracy members who treat the NIST WTC Report as if it was the WTC Collapse bible.

In the thread in the JREF Conspiracy Forum titled "Debate! What debate?", Dr. Greening has these comments to make about you JREF 'regulars';

"I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFe
eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the
following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?” you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal ar refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”!

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory.

NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?" end quote Dr. Frank Greening

I think Dr. Frank Greening was 'right on'!

MM

Do you have a question or are you just copy and pasting from other threads?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why are you changing the subject?

Dr. Greening's approach and attitude were regrettable. However, if you follow that thread, you'll see where he and I had a meaningful conversation -- and I demonstrated to him what was wrong with his argument. Without running back to the apron of NIST.

If you think Dr. Greening is 'right on,' then you must also accept his conclusion that 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job. Agree?

Additionally, Dr. Greening's opinion of the posters on this forum has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the counter-arguments the posters of this forum make against CT claims.