NIST Petition Demands Corrections
- Thread starter Miragememories
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nist
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
Hyperviolet:
We would not likely throw anything at you. Of all of the recent influx of posters who favor the alternative story, or elements there of, you are perhaps one of the most reasonable and sensible.
TAM
TAM, thanks for the kind words.
Now, can you please endorse my submission!?!?
I reaaallly wanna win this challenge. I hear 1st prize is a speedboat.
Don't be mean, give the boy the boat.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Hyperviolet, the accounts of explosions and things that sound like explosions are a matter of public record. They are not a claim made by Loose Change. Do you understand that?
I posted a list of actual claims made in Loose Change. Feel free to start a new thread and demonstrate which are true.
I posted a list of actual claims made in Loose Change. Feel free to start a new thread and demonstrate which are true.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
There is nothing "clever" about the challenge. It is perfectly straightforward. You only have to understand the difference between a fact and a claim.
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
Gahh! I keep returning to this thread. Okay. My point is i think your challange of material claim is blurred between wrong claims and actual facts.
Take for example - a "material claim" you say Loose Change gets wrong.
"2. Prior to 9/11 the rules of engagement were changed to require permission from the Secretary of Defense before shooting down a threatening aircraft."
For the sake of reasoning lets just suppose this is true. That it was that simple. This is what happened.
Now if i submitted that to your challenge, this would be disregarded as simply another straight "fact" or "part of the public record" and no longer a 'material claim.'
However, this is something loose change got wrong and therefore is an example of another incorrect "material claim"
Take for example - a "material claim" you say Loose Change gets wrong.
"2. Prior to 9/11 the rules of engagement were changed to require permission from the Secretary of Defense before shooting down a threatening aircraft."
For the sake of reasoning lets just suppose this is true. That it was that simple. This is what happened.
Now if i submitted that to your challenge, this would be disregarded as simply another straight "fact" or "part of the public record" and no longer a 'material claim.'
However, this is something loose change got wrong and therefore is an example of another incorrect "material claim"
Miragememories
Banned
Well back to the original thread topic, the NIST Petition Demands Corrections.
It's late and I won't be able to address this as well as I should but no matter, I expect what I write will be largely ignored anyway.
First of all, the NIST petition is quite dry reading, at least for me it is. I sympathize with anyone who can't be bothered to wade through it.
The basic argument for NIST to listen to the petition is that; " inaccurate information and/or incorrect analysis by NIST would lead to improper building codes, standards and practices. These improper building standards could, in turn, lead to needless deaths if such standards are too lenient, or unnecessary expenses if the standards are too strict."
The petition argues that NIST has made serious errors that have resulted in erroneous analysis, and consequently, findings that are not acceptable for developing safe building codes. The NCST Act requires the NIST to “recommend, as necessary, specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices,” and recommend “actions needed to improve the structural safety of buildings, and improve evacuation and emergency response procedures.”
In a nutshell, the petition challenges the credibility of the NIST computer simulation conclusions due to contradictions in how they were handled.
NIST found that the less severe case models would not result in the collapse of either tower and therefore excluded them. This exclusion would have been logically valid if the observable evidence (video and photos of the exit wound was in agreement). They are not.
For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345) This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344) Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.
For WTC 2, the WTC Report states:
“No landing gear debris exited the building in either the base case or the less severe simulations.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
“In all three simulations...it was estimated that the building contents would likely stop the engine fragments prior to impacting the northeast corner of the exterior wall.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
“None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
Because a landing gear and an entire engine did, in fact, exit WTC 2 in real life, there was absolutely no basis for selecting the base and more severe cases while eliminating the less severe cases based on the first “key observable.” The model in effect failed to create what actually happened in all 3 scenarios.
Effectively, all 3 scenarios, less severe, base and severe result in simulations that fit the observed results to the opposite wall, regarding exit damage. NIST should have accepted all 3 scenarios or discarded all 3 scenarios. Only the severe case scenario resulted in a collapse initiation, so NIST went with that.
NIST's second “key observable” that the less severe case did not match was that “the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” This justification for excluding the less severe case is invalid because it is based on false logic. The main goal of NIST’s investigation and analysis was to determine the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. NIST is not logically or scientifically permitted to
assume that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire and only choose computer models to fit that assumption.
If the Towers did not collapse solely due to impact damage plus the resulting fires in NIST’s computer simulations, then the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were not the sole cause of the buildings’ collapses. It is not scientific to selectively choose only those computer simulations that result in a preordained conclusion. To do so is to invite the accusation of political expediency.
NIST’s bias in this regard is especially apparent in light of the fact that the WTC Report admits “The magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall were still in good agreement with the observed damage for this less severe impact scenario.”
(NCSTAR 1-2B, p.276) (describing WTC 1)
And, “The mode and magnitude of the calculated and observed impact damage on the exterior wall are still in good agreement in this less severe impact analysis.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.312) (describing WTC 2).
Thus, by using flawed reasoning and false justifications for rejecting the less severe cases, NIST violated the NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines when it excluded the less severe damage case from its fire dynamics, thermal, and structural computer simulations. In fact, NIST’s exclusion of the less severe damage cases was, at a bare minimum, arbitrary and capricious, and at worst appears to have been done deliberately in order to fit a preordained conclusion.
Under the NIST IQS, “objective” information is information that is “accurate, reliable, and unbiased.” Because NIST has not provided any scientifically sound justification for excluding the less severe damage case from its computer simulations, any and all information that relies solely on the base case and/or the severe case is not “objective” because it is not accurate, reliable or unbiased. In fact, NIST seems to be heavily biased towards finding that aircraft impact plus the resulting fires were the sole
cause the WTC Towers’ collapse because NIST adopts a demonstrably false justification for excluding a damage simulation in which “the towers would not have collapsed.
I have to stop here but the petition is only partially concluded at this point.
The validity of their argument is good and the lack of scientific objectivity on the part of NIST is certainly apparent.
MM
It's late and I won't be able to address this as well as I should but no matter, I expect what I write will be largely ignored anyway.
First of all, the NIST petition is quite dry reading, at least for me it is. I sympathize with anyone who can't be bothered to wade through it.
The basic argument for NIST to listen to the petition is that; " inaccurate information and/or incorrect analysis by NIST would lead to improper building codes, standards and practices. These improper building standards could, in turn, lead to needless deaths if such standards are too lenient, or unnecessary expenses if the standards are too strict."
The petition argues that NIST has made serious errors that have resulted in erroneous analysis, and consequently, findings that are not acceptable for developing safe building codes. The NCST Act requires the NIST to “recommend, as necessary, specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices,” and recommend “actions needed to improve the structural safety of buildings, and improve evacuation and emergency response procedures.”
In a nutshell, the petition challenges the credibility of the NIST computer simulation conclusions due to contradictions in how they were handled.
NIST found that the less severe case models would not result in the collapse of either tower and therefore excluded them. This exclusion would have been logically valid if the observable evidence (video and photos of the exit wound was in agreement). They are not.
For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345) This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344) Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.
For WTC 2, the WTC Report states:
“No landing gear debris exited the building in either the base case or the less severe simulations.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
“In all three simulations...it was estimated that the building contents would likely stop the engine fragments prior to impacting the northeast corner of the exterior wall.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
“None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)
Because a landing gear and an entire engine did, in fact, exit WTC 2 in real life, there was absolutely no basis for selecting the base and more severe cases while eliminating the less severe cases based on the first “key observable.” The model in effect failed to create what actually happened in all 3 scenarios.
Effectively, all 3 scenarios, less severe, base and severe result in simulations that fit the observed results to the opposite wall, regarding exit damage. NIST should have accepted all 3 scenarios or discarded all 3 scenarios. Only the severe case scenario resulted in a collapse initiation, so NIST went with that.
NIST's second “key observable” that the less severe case did not match was that “the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” This justification for excluding the less severe case is invalid because it is based on false logic. The main goal of NIST’s investigation and analysis was to determine the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. NIST is not logically or scientifically permitted to
assume that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire and only choose computer models to fit that assumption.
If the Towers did not collapse solely due to impact damage plus the resulting fires in NIST’s computer simulations, then the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were not the sole cause of the buildings’ collapses. It is not scientific to selectively choose only those computer simulations that result in a preordained conclusion. To do so is to invite the accusation of political expediency.
NIST’s bias in this regard is especially apparent in light of the fact that the WTC Report admits “The magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall were still in good agreement with the observed damage for this less severe impact scenario.”
(NCSTAR 1-2B, p.276) (describing WTC 1)
And, “The mode and magnitude of the calculated and observed impact damage on the exterior wall are still in good agreement in this less severe impact analysis.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.312) (describing WTC 2).
Thus, by using flawed reasoning and false justifications for rejecting the less severe cases, NIST violated the NIST IQS and OMB Guidelines when it excluded the less severe damage case from its fire dynamics, thermal, and structural computer simulations. In fact, NIST’s exclusion of the less severe damage cases was, at a bare minimum, arbitrary and capricious, and at worst appears to have been done deliberately in order to fit a preordained conclusion.
Under the NIST IQS, “objective” information is information that is “accurate, reliable, and unbiased.” Because NIST has not provided any scientifically sound justification for excluding the less severe damage case from its computer simulations, any and all information that relies solely on the base case and/or the severe case is not “objective” because it is not accurate, reliable or unbiased. In fact, NIST seems to be heavily biased towards finding that aircraft impact plus the resulting fires were the sole
cause the WTC Towers’ collapse because NIST adopts a demonstrably false justification for excluding a damage simulation in which “the towers would not have collapsed.
I have to stop here but the petition is only partially concluded at this point.
The validity of their argument is good and the lack of scientific objectivity on the part of NIST is certainly apparent.
MM
The Petition is a sophomoric politically biased rant that is self debunking. Only a little bit of research is needed to refute this tripe and I doubt even simple questions can be formulated to be worthy of further investigation. They debunk themselves with the post by not explaining why. You must try harder to come to a correct analysis, so far it appear you do not have a very good grasp of engineering or any background in science, and you need further training to help you see problems with your analysis. I still can not find anything in this paper but veiled attempts to make up stuff based on Dr Thermite Jones' ideas that explosives were used. If you do not see this is just junk you want to believe in the biased ideas in the petition.
Please post your reasons a specific topic in the petition is needed, in your own words, with support instead of copy and paste repeat of the whole petition. I can find no need for anything in the petition. The petition is biased and the authors present only enough information to fool truthers with no science back ground. It is fluff, you may be able to ask better questions if you tried. The simulations are models, do you understand how hard it is to model the real world? Do you even know F=ma is an approximation? (OMB do not tell WR)
Biased petition to fool 9/11 truthers; news at 11! - I am sure someone can provide play by play explanation for the whole petition, and do much better than a cut and paste job by any truther. One could start by restating the lack of proof for explosives. But what a waste of time.
Last edited:
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
That actually bears repeating here (and bolding) because, clearly, Miragememories did not understand it the first time around:
R.Mackey said:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Yes, IF it were true, it would be a fact!
Since the evidence says otherwise, it is a claim. If the LC guys had uncovered evidence to show otherwise, such as the documents being altered, then they'd be on their way to proving their claim. But they don't do that, and there you have your "truth" movement.
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
So if the claim is true - it is a simple fact. If the claim is wrong its a wrong material claim.
Gravy : you are asking the impossible.
"Name 1 material claim loose change gets correct. Bear in mind, if the claim is correct it would be a fact and not a material claim and doesnt count. If the claim is wrong its a material claim and false."
Or basically
"Name one wrong thing loose change gets right"
Of course i can't. No one can.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I just want to make an observation, regarding whether LC has any correct claims in it.
It is important to distinguish between the presented facts of the case, and the claims made by the filmmakers BASED ON THOSE FACTS.
For example, it is a fact that the quotes they present are what people actually said. However it is not a "claim" of LC that they said this. Likewise they have video depicting the buildings collapsing, however it is not a "claim" of LC that the buildings collapsed.
These things are evidence. Evidence are not claims. By and large, the "evidence" presented by LC is accurate and true. The problem is the claims they make, BASED on this evidence, are false.
For example they depict the video evidence of the WTC collapse, and then CLAIM that it looks like a controlled demolition. The WTC collapse itself is not a claim. It is the conclusion based on this evidence that is the claim. And the claims, at every step, are false.
-Gumboot
It is important to distinguish between the presented facts of the case, and the claims made by the filmmakers BASED ON THOSE FACTS.
For example, it is a fact that the quotes they present are what people actually said. However it is not a "claim" of LC that they said this. Likewise they have video depicting the buildings collapsing, however it is not a "claim" of LC that the buildings collapsed.
These things are evidence. Evidence are not claims. By and large, the "evidence" presented by LC is accurate and true. The problem is the claims they make, BASED on this evidence, are false.
For example they depict the video evidence of the WTC collapse, and then CLAIM that it looks like a controlled demolition. The WTC collapse itself is not a claim. It is the conclusion based on this evidence that is the claim. And the claims, at every step, are false.
-Gumboot
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I challenge your claim that pomeroo's post was, or contained, a fallacious appeal to authority. Justify your accusation or withdrawel your claim.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
No, pomeroo did not do this as Jowenko was not part of the discussion until after your accusation of appeal to authority. Pomeroo's post was critical of laypersons that are not experts in the field dismissing the opinion of experts in the field.
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
I've never heard the claim that Jowenko thinks the towers were intensionally demolished, just not in a controlled way.
ERichardson, now TraitorBasher, can you support this assertion?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
That many Americans are, or are not, familiar with explosions in the towers prior to their collapse is completely irrelevant to the the logical consistency and factual accuracy of the what is being discussed. Please leave such red herrings and veiled appeals to the public and large number of individuals out of this discussion.
No, he can't support his falsehood. Jowenko understands perfectly well that jihadists flew planes into the twin towers, which eventually caused those buildings to collapse. It's pretty tough when the only demolition expert in the world who supports the smallest, most utterly obscure aspect of your grand myth totally rejects the heart of it. But, when you're peddling absolutely nothing but lies and fabrications, you take what you can get.
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
I have not been ignoring this thread. I have just had a rather unfortunate incident where I managed to wipe my entire hard drive including my xp recovery partition. Fortunately I had a linux install disk but I have never used linux before so im flying by the seat of my pants here.
I will respond in time.
I will respond in time.