NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Gravy]

So if the claim is true - it is a simple fact. If the claim is wrong its a wrong material claim.

No. A claim, like those I printed from Loose Change, is an assertion that may or may not be true. A fact has been proven to be true. "Material" in this context means "of importance."

claim |klām| verb[ reporting verb ]: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof : [with clause ] he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family | [with direct speech ] “I'm entitled to be conceited,” he claimed | [ trans. ] these sunblocks claim protection factors as high as 34.

synonyms: assert, declare, profess, maintain, state, hold, affirm, avow; argue, contend, allege; formal aver.

noun 1: an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt : [with clause ] he was dogged by the claim that he had CIA links | history belies statesmen's claims to be in charge of events.

synonyms: assertion, declaration, profession, affirmation, avowal, protestation; contention, allegation.

fact |fakt| noun: a thing that is indisputably the case
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; truth, verity, gospel.
antonyms: lie, fiction.

Fact: People heard explosive sounds at the WTC on 9/11.
Claim: There were bombs at the WTC on 9/11.

Fact: Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Claim: A missile hit the Pentagon.

 

[beachnut]

ERichardson, now TraitorBasher, can you support this assertion that you liked kookbreaker type name you change your name when you found facts about 9/11 and you now join the fight against lies and ignorance of the 9/11 truth movement?

Or do you like this petition as true sign of an honest effort to find truth despite all the biased veiled explosive hints in the petition to NIST?

 

[Horatius]

ERichardson is now TraitorBasher?! He's switched sides?!?

Impossible!

Psssst, Pomeroo: I think he defines "traitor" a bit differently than you do....

 

[kookbreaker]

OK, so EH whines about my name being allowed to exist...then in order to prove some kind of point he has his name changed to Traitorbasher.

Only in the mind of a troother.

 

[beachnut]

OK, so EH whines about my name being allowed to exist...then in order to prove some kind of point he has his name changed to Traitorbasher.

Only in the mind of a troother.

Does this mean he is trashing himself? What is a Traitorbasher? Anyone identify with that name? I think Traitorbasher did identify with another name, and it makes sense since he knows he is what ever the name implied that he identified with; what name was that?

What was his position on the NIST petition; and has it changed?

 

[T.A.M.]

If he is the same person, is he not breaking the forum rule thats says you can only have one account. the loss of his hard drive shouldnt cause that to change...if he lost his password etc...they could email it to him again...

Or is there a way to simply change your username on the same account?

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If he is the same person, is he not breaking the forum rule thats says you can only have one account. the loss of his hard drive shouldnt cause that to change...if he lost his password etc...they could email it to him again...

Or is there a way to simply change your username on the same account?

TAM

Yes, anyone can request a name change from the mods; which is what TraitorBasher (aka ERichardson) did.

 

[Miragememories]

Welcome back to page 1.

You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

I'm aware that NIST ran simulations on their WTC 1 and WTC 2 computer models based on; less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

I'm also aware that the NIST Report contradicts itself on this point, it states;

For WTC 1 “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)

The above statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission just one page earlier, that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344)

For WTC 2 “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)

BUT, in actuality, a landing gear and an entire engine did, in fact, exit WTC 2!

Because the model failed to create what actually happened when tested with any of the 3 scenarios, there was no valid basis for choosing the most extreme scenario and excluding the other 2.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.

And if people who reject it out of hand, took the time to understand the import of it's contents, they themselves might be in a position to add something substantive to this discussion.

MM

 

[Horatius]

Or is there a way to simply change your username on the same account?

TAM

See the discussion that ends with this post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2520996#post2520996

 

[Horatius]

And if people who reject it out of hand, took the time to understand the import of it's contents, they themselves might be in a position to add something substantive to this discussion.

MM

We haven't "rejected it out of hand". RMackey and I have explained why we reject it. Just bolding things doesn't change the argument (he says, as he bolds things himself ).

We do understand the "import of it's(sic) contents". It's you who doesn't seem to understand why we're rejecting it, despite efforts to explain it to you. So who is it who is "rejecting things out of hand"? Rather than just quoting the thing again, why don't you try and explain why our reasoning is wrong?

 

[T.A.M.]

Horatius:

Thank you for that information.

Traiterbasher...my apologies, as you clearly requested a name change, not sock puppeted in here...

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

That actually bears repeating here (and bolding) because, clearly, Miragememories did not understand it the first time around:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
And they're responding stupidly.

NIST clearly pointed out that, since none of their impact models had debris ejected from the other side, then they were all underestimates. Thus of their three estimates, the severe one is the best fit. The "base case" was retained as a control, and the less severe one was rejected.

Or another interpretation is that the model was flawed, thus producing flawed results.

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.”

The only basis for accepting the extreme case scenario, while rejecting the less severe case scenario, is that NIST chose to apply false logic in order to promote an assumption not supported by an objective investigation and analysis. They assumed that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire, and only chose case scenarios that made their computer models fit that assumption.
Computer models that had already proven to be flawed, and unless re-constructed to accurately depict the observed exit evidence, were not reliable could not be trusted to provide valid output.

Again, to substantiate this serious flaw in the NIST computer model;

“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)

“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.

Originally Posted by LashL


Then your clowns come along and say, "well, since none of the three showed such severe phenomena, then they're all wrong. And since they're all wrong, then the less severe one is just as valid."

That's the complaint.

The first part of that complaint is plausible, though it discounts the inherent difficulty of impact modeling.

The second part of that complaint is complete stupidity. The error committed is an error of equivocation. This is a logical fallacy.

Petition rejected.

Let's attempt to keep this civil LashL.

Labelling the petitioners, or any other 'non-clowns' as such, is a tactic that only reveals your uncontrollable prejudice and judgmental attitude, and consequently undermines your credibility.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Removed this quote due to incivil content

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

As the guys who put together the petition are biased so are you. You have not idea why the things they say are not valid and are self debunking. You should study up some, and try again. I am being serious you are being biased toward the lies of 9/11 truth movement.

I think Dr Jones is very personable. But for the life of me I can find no facts to support his position. Please expose the facts to help me.

Plus please stop cutting and pasting the petition, instead give us your analysis.

The reasons the models are wrong and please explain why the authors mislead others with some hearsay comments out of context and misinterpreted.

The main reason why the petitioners' biased conclusions are wrong is 9/11. Gee, the WTC towers did fall due to impact damage and fire. Now we have thousands of engineers who studied the WTC towers. Truthers use the big number of engineers who say it was an inside job. That number is .00067 percent of all engineers in the United States support you position. I would think you would find some more who support your position. If I had proof like you must have, I would go to real engineers.

BTW, I am one of the engineers who knows Dr Jones and Ryan are clowns when it comes to having facts on 9/11. It is too easy just to see their lies. Maybe one day you will be able to think for yourself and see their lies also. Knowledge is the key, and you must stop trusting anyone, I think you trust the truther experts who are the biased guys.

If you had some facts to support anything I would be the first to help you. Since you seem lost and mislead by the experts who are telling lies about 9/11, you must try harder to learn about 9/11. I would start asking why only .00067 percent of all US engineers support your ideas. If you dig hard you will see no one in the truth movement has any facts and the list of those who support 9/11, the so called experts/patriots have not one fact between them. Most, if not all of the 9/11 truth movement is biased political rant. This petition is biased political rant disguised as science; you have been fooled by the to court jester in the 9/11 truth movement Dr Jones.

 

[Mancman]

For WTC 2 “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)

BUT, in actuality, a landing gear and an entire engine did, in fact, exit WTC 2!

Because the model failed to create what actually happened when tested with any of the 3 scenarios, there was no valid basis for choosing the most extreme scenario and excluding the other 2.

Why not post the entire paragraph?

None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.
However, the impact behavior suggests that only minor modifications would be required to achieve this response. For example, if the starboard engine impact location was lowered by 1 to 2 ft, which is within the aircraft impact geometry uncertainty range, the engine would likely have a greater residual speed inside the tower (over 100 mph). In the global analyses performed, the engine impacted the underside of the 82nd floor, as shown in Figure 9–136. This resulted in a large reduction in speed of approximately 200 mph. In the component analyses discussed in Chapter 5, the engine speed decreased by roughly 60 mph when impacting an exterior panel alone. This additional speed would likely result in a large engine fragment exiting the northeast corner of the tower.

 

[Miragememories]

As the guys who put together the petition are biased so are you. You have not idea why the things they say are not valid and are self debunking. You should study up some, and try again. I am being serious you are being biased toward the lies of 9/11 truth movement.

No one here is without bias, that's pretty much a given. Just because a person is biased doesn't mean they are 'bent'. The petition presents a logical and reasonable case and regardless of whatever bias is held by it's authors, the validity of their argument is what counts. You show a fondness for calling people liars and labeling arguments that oppose your own as lies. All I ask is you prove a lie is a lie and not just a difference of opinion. Is that too much to ask?

I think Dr Jones is very personable. But for the life of me I can find no facts to support his position. Please expose the facts to help me.

Yes I agree, Dr. Jones comes across as being very personable. I suspect it's not an act and then he really is a decent guy who honestly believes what he says. It's amazing that someone with his academic credentials and life experience has presented so much material and at this late stage of the process, you beachnut can find no facts that support his position. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are letting your own personal bias interfere with your ability to see any of his 'facts'?

Plus please stop cutting and pasting the petition, instead give us your analysis.

The reasons the models are wrong and please explain why the authors mislead others with some hearsay comments out of context and misinterpreted.

You refer to the petition as if it's nothing more than a protest statement followed by a list of names.

What I'm quoting and rephrasing from that document, are what represents the crux of their arguments.

In a nutshell, NIST hangs their case on WTC 1 & 2 collapsing, because when fed the worst case scenario parameters, their computer model showed a collapse initiation.

The petition's complaint is that this is not valid because the NIST Report itself contains 'statements of fact' that provide evidence that the NIST computer model is flawed.

NIST is apparently taking the attitude that "we'll use it anyway" because that model combined with the input parameters of a worse case scenario is the only way they can achieve an outcome that supports an 'aircraft impact and fire' caused collapse. It ignores the fact that since the model also works with the less severe scenario, that the door remains open to alternative parameters that might have also resulted in the collapse initiation. But that would eliminate aircraft and fire damage as a cause because the model won't show a collapse initiation in the less severe version of that scenario. None of this will mean much to anyone who doesn't appreciate how serious it is to base conclusions on the output of a flawed model.

The main reason why the petitioners' biased conclusions are wrong is 9/11. Gee, the WTC towers did fall due to impact damage and fire. Now we have thousands of engineers who studied the WTC towers. Truthers use the big number of engineers who say it was an inside job. That number is .00067 percent of all engineers in the United States support you position. I would think you would find some more who support your position. If I had proof like you must have, I would go to real engineers.

Gee they did because they did? You're arguing based on incredulity. The how could so many experts be so wrong kind of reasoning. Well I could write a book or 100, on how many times throughout history the majority of 'experts' have been wrong.

Once you eliminate all the engineers who haven't been as close to the investigation as NIST, your thousands drop significantly. Among the NIST engineers, how many held lead positions where their primary role involved them in the published conclusions? How many NIST engineers were involved in the actual computer model usage and a party to the input/output decisions that were accepted or rejected? Do you believe that NIST administrators had no influence on the outcome via; how money was spent, priorities set, political concerns dealt with etc.?

I see little value is debating your .00000000000067 % or whatever amusing crumb of a percentage you wish to use as representative of the engineering support for the 9/11 truth movement.

Do you recall the old expression, "the silent majority"?

Anyway the position I'm dealing with in this thread is the case in the NIST Petition. I've clarified the argument about the flawed computer model and that is the topic I'm currently addressing.

BTW, I am one of the engineers who knows Dr Jones and Ryan are clowns when it comes to having facts on 9/11. It is too easy just to see their lies. Maybe one day you will be able to think for yourself and see their lies also. Knowledge is the key, and you must stop trusting anyone, I think you trust the truther experts who are the biased guys.

Are you a good engineer though?

Do you consider labeling an expert who has qualifications that probably highly exceed your own, as a 'clown', a good way to present your point of view?

I took engineering. I majored in electronics. I've met many good engineers, and I've met many mediocre engineers who are drawing a paycheck but are incapable of being trusted with major responsibilities or creating a professional technical report.

I ask if your a good engineer, because the heavy inflammatory bias and inarticulateness of your writing reflects a person who is not all that confident in their chosen area of expertise, or preparing papers that will pass peer review.

If you had some facts to support anything I would be the first to help you. Since you seem lost and mislead by the experts who are telling lies about 9/11, you must try harder to learn about 9/11. I would start asking why only .00067 percent of all US engineers support your ideas. If you dig hard you will see no one in the truth movement has any facts and the list of those who support 9/11, the so called experts/patriots have not one fact between them. Most, if not all of the 9/11 truth movement is biased political rant. This petition is biased political rant disguised as science; you have been fooled by the to court jester in the 9/11 truth movement Dr Jones.

Well that was mostly an echo of your earlier comments. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of how I've been influenced by the 9/11 truth movement. The only rant I'm observing at the moment is coming from you beachnut.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Wrong again. I have studied Dr Thermite Jones for a while. Yes his work on 9/11 is that of a clown. I am sorry, he got himself fired for his work on 9/11. Not one real journal will publish his work because it is clearly biased with political hate towards people Dr Jones is unwilling to confront. Thermite is not used for CD, or would thermite based systems go unnoticed on 9/11.

You must read Dr Jones first paper if you want to have a laugh on how he keeps changing his story to try and make it sound real. You must ask why there are not thousands of scientist, engineers, and other experts joining his cause.

You must ask yourself why there was a split in the Scholar for 9/11 truth. The camp broke into to two groups, one is made up of insane people with beam weapons and the other with clowns tying to fool people like you.

I was hoping if I had not been to engineering school and then on to get my Masters Degree, would I be like you and fall for lies about 9/11?

I feel sad you are not able to understand 9/11. You are using the work of fools and clowns who are clearly biased due to unknown reasons. Not one of the authors of the petition are qualified in the things they demand. Not one of the clowns/authors are able to get real support to put forth a real petition with teeth. Instead they say the model were not good enough etc. Then you cut and paste the stuff over and over.

I can not find one thing in the paper to change what happen on 9/11. I can not see one reason why this petition will not be answered by NIST, or why the authors can not answer the petition themselves. They claim to be experts but can not even answer their own questions. Only clowns and fools would summit such a clearly biased petition. By biased I mean they are wanting to say explosives did it, over and over again. The petition is junk as is every thing Ryan and Jones do on 9/11. Your 9/11 heroes are clowns because they are just fooling you with junk science.

If you have some facts to support your position I have been waiting for 3 or 4 days to see them. Some fresh facts to show why this work of Jones and Ryan has merit.

Silent majority was used by Nixon, he was a conspirator in the Watergate cover-up, I guess you are like Nixon a conspirator in the 9/11 truth movement of lies. You are in the ranting 9/11 lies minority group supported by only a few engineers.

MM, make it simple, show us one fact Dr Jones has that proves thermite was used to bring down the WTC and show that the WTC towers did not fall as the did, from impact and fire damage. You can not show us one fact and this is why Jones was fired/retired and why there is not thousand of experts helping Dr Jones lie.

Start your list now please, just the facts to prove any conclusion by the 9/11 truth movement.

1.

 

[Miragememories]

Wrong again. I have studied Dr Thermite Jones for a while. Yes his work on 9/11 is that of a clown. I am sorry, he got himself fired for his work on 9/11. Not one real journal will publish his work because it is clearly biased with political hate towards people Dr Jones is unwilling to confront. Thermite is not used for CD, or would thermite based systems go unnoticed on 9/11.

Excuse me. He got fired because he became too controversial for BYU. I see no evidence of hate in his writings or elsewhere. I agree he may be wrong about thermite, I don't know but I think you are very unwise to label people. It's self-serving and not constructive in the least. If CD was used in WTC 1, 2 & 7, there is no reason to expect a familiar demolition profile, given the extraordinary nature of the event. We do not know what was used or how it was implimented. Dr. Jones observed an event and attempted to place meaning on it. I don't fault him if his best educated guess falls short of the mark, Calling him a clown suggests you think your credentials, abilities, and achievements exceed his..I don't know who you are but I doubt this is the case. Please refrain from labeling people unless you can make the label stick. I'm trying really hard to be civil and it's not easy. Congrats on getting your masters but I'm not impressed. I've had PHD's working under me and they failed to impress.

You must read Dr Jones first paper if you want to have a laugh on how he keeps changing his story to try and make it sound real. You must ask why there are not thousands of scientist, engineers, and other experts joining his cause.

Why? I've answered that question. So much I could say but I can tell you are just playing this discussion like a tennis match..hit the ball..don't think about where it's coming from. In a nutshell, people don't stick their necks out normally. Heroes are rare. Expecting engineers or academics to leap into the fray is very naive of you.

You must ask yourself why there was a split in the Scholar for 9/11 truth. The camp broke into to two groups, one is made up of insane people with beam weapons and the other with clowns tying to fool people like you.

Of course I gave thought to that separation. Fetzer went into an area that was too extremely speculative to serve any good. He means well but his judgment is questionable.

I was hoping if I had not been to engineering school and then on to get my Masters Degree, would I be like you and fall for lies about 9/11?

I wouldn't preen so much about your Masters if I was you. It's just a piece of paper. Some people are more worthy than others.

I feel sad you are not able to understand 9/11. You are using the work of fools and clowns who are clearly biased due to unknown reasons. Not one of the authors of the petition are qualified in the things they demand. Not one of the clowns/authors are able to get real support to put forth a real petition with teeth. Instead they say the model were not good enough etc. Then you cut and paste the stuff over and over.

If you had any credibility, you would attack the argument instead of sweating over attacking the messenger.

I can not find one thing in the paper to change what happen on 9/11. I can not see one reason why this petition will not be answered by NIST, or why the authors can not answer the petition themselves. They claim to be experts but can not even answer their own questions. Only clowns and fools would summit such a clearly biased petition. By biased I mean they are wanting to say explosives did it, over and over again. The petition is junk as is every thing Ryan and Jones do on 9/11. Your 9/11 heroes are clowns because they are just fooling you with junk science.

If you have some facts to support your position I have been waiting for 3 or 4 days to see them. Some fresh facts to show why this work of Jones and Ryan has merit.

Again you talk on and on but you don't address the argument.

Silent majority was used by Nixon, he was a conspirator in the Watergate cover-up, I guess you are like Nixon a conspirator in the 9/11 truth movement of lies. You are in the ranting 9/11 lies minority group supported by only a few engineers.

Nixon is an interesting example because Watergate came very close to being a 9/11 like event. Certainly it was an attempted coverup that almost succeeded. I fail to see how you can compare me to a Nixon conspirator but then you don't seem to worry to much about how accurate the labels are you stick on people.

MM, make it simple, show us one fact Dr Jones has that proves thermite was used to bring down the WTC and show that the WTC towers did not fall as the did, from impact and fire damage. You can not show us one fact and this is why Jones was fired/retired and why there is not thousand of experts helping Dr Jones lie.

Start your list now please, just the facts to prove any conclusion by the 9/11 truth movement.

1.

First of all, Dr. Jones is more than just thermite. What are you other than a someone comfortably living in a belief protected by the ruling elite. He's taken the hard road. You sit back with full knowledge that noy only the establishment but the majority of the group in this forum are on your side.

One fact you ask for. It's always an absolute statement, as if one fact, or many facts really make a difference. You aren't interested. Facts have been presented but what you want is smoking gun evidence which obviously if we had available, it would have been presented.

MM

Edited to remove personal attacks; remember, attack the argument, not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[pomeroo]

Let the record show that ERichardson was asked several direct questions, all of which he evaded by simply running away. Perhaps he will re-surface to promote more nonsense that he can't support.

 

[twinstead]

And, MM, nowhere in your post did you address the issues folks here have with Jone's research.

Perhaps now is the time to prove any education you have wasn't 'purchased' and corroborate Jone's research with an expert's opinion...

 

[R.Mackey]

[Quoting from the nonsense "petition:"]

The only basis for accepting the extreme case scenario, while rejecting the less severe case scenario, is that NIST chose to apply false logic in order to promote an assumption not supported by an objective investigation and analysis. They assumed that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire, and only chose case scenarios that made their computer models fit that assumption.
Computer models that had already proven to be flawed, and unless re-constructed to accurately depict the observed exit evidence, were not reliable could not be trusted to provide valid output.

Let's attempt to keep this civil LashL.

Labelling the petitioners, or any other 'non-clowns' as such, is a tactic that only reveals your uncontrollable prejudice and judgmental attitude, and consequently undermines your credibility.

MirageMemories, those words were mine, not LashL's. Please pay attention.

The NIST report describes why it chose to reject the less severe damage case in detail. It is not, as your petitioners claim, because of circular reasoning. Please read and comprehend NIST NCSTAR1-2B, chapter 9.11:

The exterior panel from column 329 to column 331 between floors 94 through 96 on the south face of WTC 1 was knocked free by landing gear and possibly other debris. These columns were located in the center of the south wall of WTC 1, as shown in Figure 9–117. In both the base case and more severe damage global analyses, aircraft debris impacted the south face of the tower, as shown in Figure 9–118 and Figure 9–119, and exited the building. In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9–120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building. The figures also show the calculated landing gear debris for all simulations. None of the debris impacting the south wall happened to contain landing gear fragments. In the base case analysis, the debris impacted columns 328 to 330 at floor 96. In the more severe impact analysis, debris impacted columns 328 to 333 on both floors 95 and 96. In the base case analysis, very little damage was done to the exterior panels on the south wall. However, damage was heavy in the more severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9–121.

Because of model size constraints, the panels on the south face of WTC 1 were modeled with a very coarse resolution. Neither the spandrel splice joints nor exterior column butt joints were modeled. Column ends and spandrel edges were merged together. The model, therefore, underestimates the damage to the tower on this face. The calculated damage produced by the more severe impact is shown in Figure 9–121. Columns 329–331 on floors 94 through 96 had sustained substantial damage. Had a fine mesh been used on these columns, it is likely that they would have failed on floor 95, and possibly on 94 and 96. Based on the failure modes observed on the north face and on the speed and mass of the debris, the panel would potentially be knocked free by failing at the connections.

A portion of the landing gear of UAL 175 exited WTC 2 and landed on the roof of 45 Park Place. No photographic evidence was available to document the size of the fragment and whether this was a nose or main landing gear. From the damage to the building, it was believed that the landing gear fragment might have exited somewhere along the north wall between column 251 and the northeast corner on floor 81. Based on the final position of the landing gear and assuming the landing gear to be a projectile with a horizontal initial velocity, the exit speed of the landing gear from the north wall of WTC 2 can be estimated to be about 102 mph. Note that there is a significant uncertainty in this estimate associated with the exit trajectory, aerodynamic effects, landing position rather than final resting position of debris, etc.

The calculated aircraft debris distribution and landing gear and engine debris distributions for UAL 175 are shown in Figure 9–130 to Figure 9–132 for the three severity scenarios. A portion of the port main landing gear was seen to exit the building at approximately 230 mph in the more severe impact analysis, as shown in Figure 9–131(b). No landing gear debris exited the building in either the base case or less severe simulations. At the conclusion of the simulation, the base case analysis had a substantial piece of the starboard main landing gear still at approximately 130 mph that was expected to impact the northeast corner.

Emphases added by myself for clarity. And there's more. Feel free to read the whole chapter.

The point is that the report clearly describes why the severe case is the best fit to the damage observed, and the base case is reasonably close but underestimated. The decision to reject the less severe case is therefore entirely justified and has nothing to do with predetermining the ultimate outcome of their study.

As I have already described to you, the petitioners commit an error of equivocation. They furthermore incorrectly characterize NIST's decision process, constructing a scurrilous strawman as they do so. Because of these facts, the petition is absolutely worthless.

Now let me turn to the "clown" comment. This is not a tactic, as I have based my argument above on facts, not simply dismissed the opposition. But let me remind you who we're talking about.

The petitioners represent the self-titled "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice," which is a splinter organization of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." This group formed for the purpose of promoting their strange theories, with their primary communication being the so-called "Journal" of 9/11 Studies. The "Journal" is not a journal, but rather a rag, owing to its lack of peer-review. However, the "Scholars" lie outright when stating, on their front page:

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

The "Journal" is not peer-reviewed. If anyone doubts this, consider that I personally have debunked not one, not two, but three papers that still appear in their "Journal." This took hardly any effort on my part. And these aren't just minor typos we're talking about, they're gross, irresponsible errors of procedure, method, calculation, and analysis. There is no way on earth such shoddy workmanship would survive legitimate review. Nor have the authors seen fit to correct their work after receiving independent reviews, confirming their rejection of the scientific method.

And, oh yes, I mentioned they were a splinter group. The "Scholars ... for Truth and Justice" broke away from the original "Scholars" after two of its founders quarrelled with two of its other founders -- with one side unwilling to accept critical, indeed "peer review," of its pet theories, showing them to be utterly mad. And as if that wasn't bad enough, what was under dispute was the possibility of beams from space destroying the towers. In retaliation, the space-beam proponents highlighted the poor ethics of the remaining faction, namely the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice." Both sides bloodied and the damage done, they parted ways, each of them exposed as frauds by fellow fraudsters, no help from the legitimate scientists of the world required.

And now they write this petition.

This is why I call them "clowns." They are clowns. Clowns is the accurate term of art for what these people have become. They willingly pervert the scientific method, they fabricate motive and inaccuracy on NIST's part to make themselves seem relevant and economically viable, they will not respond to criticism of their own work, and they have been repeatedly shown to be 100% wrong.

On top of that, they make me laugh.

If that makes me biased, then so be it. I daresay none of you will be able to find fault with my reasoning.