• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

Panoply_Prefect

Graduate Poster
Panoply_Prefect
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,075
Location
Sweden
Hi!

This guy managed to get some of the SAP2000 models from NIST, for a reasonable fee of $58. They are downloadable from that address.

Havent seen this posted before, and apparenly this guy received it late april this year (last week really). Now all the truther-movement has do to is cough up the rest of the $2500 to get all of it.

/S
 
Last edited:
So now what will be do with these models?

I am surprised Dylan et al havent gotten a bunch of them, to offer their fans-- I mean their fellow truthers a bone.

TAM:)
 
NIST is a govt affiliated organization. Govt charges for things all the time. The models were created using custom made software in some cases, and there is probably some fee associated with reproduction costs of the models.

Ask them.

TAM:)
 
soundaddicted said:
Why do they have to pay NIST for this stuff? Didn't NIST use tax dollars to do it?
Click to expand...


Did you bother to follow the link?

Under the FOIA law, NIST may in certain circumstances charge for the time spent on processing the request. They charged $58, classifying my request as commercial, which was very reasonable. You can see my FOIA request letter (with my contact info removed) which was based on NIST's FOIA guidelines.
Click to expand...

-Gumboot
 
and I didnt even have to go and read the quotes gumboot provided, it is just a logical, non-paranoid conclusion.

TAM:)
 
Yeah, really. What are the troofers thinking? "A 58$ dollar fee!!! I can't afford that and they know it! They're hiding the TROOOF!"
 
Maybe they should stop taking the 11th of every month off work...
 
So now they have the blueprints, the models, the footage, the witnesses, the steel, the FDR/CVR data...

Is there anything else they need?

As the evidence continues to contradict the conspiracist claims- they move further and further away from the evidence and instead have to rely on death rays and mini nukes.

I'm afraid that pretty soon we will have nothing left to debunk.
 
Let's all keep in mind that twoofers cannot afford a plane ticket to the Middle East to find the still alive hijackers (so says DR Griffin).

So can we really expect them to pay for NIST models?
 
Totovader said:
So now they have the blueprints, the models, the footage, the witnesses, the steel, the FDR/CVR data...

Is there anything else they need?

As the evidence continues to contradict the conspiracist claims- they move further and further away from the evidence and instead have to rely on death rays and mini nukes.

I'm afraid that pretty soon we will have nothing left to debunk.
Click to expand...

The proof, because there's no proof for the temperature of the fire, only evaluation and modelisation. The witness? Many witness talk about explosion and debris and concrete in powder don't blow completly the building.
 
The more they have, the more they distort and believe they have the answers for "what really happened".
New computer models from NIST? Yes, lets play with them and speculate why this or that bit of data was put in there. Some, I bet, will even claim that NIST did the simulations for the demolitions and all that crap.
Some people just think too much. And yes it is possible to think too much.
They just want to keep going and keep going and keep going until they find a more convincing explanation. To their minds...nothing is convincing, so they get into this circular, conclusionless thought process and remain forever in doubt. It's a very wrong way to live. I don't know how they can make decisions.
 
Last edited:
Hourglassmemory said:
The more they have, the more they distort and believe they have the answers for "what really happened".
New computer models from NIST? Yes, lets play with them and speculate why this or that bit of data was put in there. Some, I bet, will even claim that NIST did the simulations for the demolitions and all that crap.
Some people just think too much. And yes it is possible to think too much.
They just want to keep going and keep going and keep going until they find a more convincing explanation. To their minds...nothing is convincing, so they get into this circular, conclusionless thought process and remain forever in doubt. It's a very wrong way to live. I don't know how they can make decisions.
Click to expand...

We must stop thinking and believe.:confused:

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.
 
tabouere said:
Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who has no clue about the efforts, abilities and methodology behind computer modeling.

If you don't trust modelling, I would advise that you never enter a building taller than 5 stories, or drive in a car built after 1985.

You might want to stay away from modern airplanes as well.
 
tabouere said:
We must stop thinking and believe.
Click to expand...

I think we must start think and accept.

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.
Click to expand...

Model is mathematical proof, the computer model is graphical representation of mathematical proof.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.
Click to expand...

It for people to see what the math and science say.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.
Click to expand...

Why you ask question about like Greening say?
 
Model is mathematical proof, the computer model is graphical representation of mathematical proof.
Click to expand...

A mathematical model is not a mathematical proof. They are entirely different concepts.
 
tabouere said:
We must stop thinking and believe.:confused:

Simulation is not a proof, especially when they don't know what was burning inside and the quantity of kerosene left in the building.

This model are for believer who want confort in what he believe.

If like Greening says the concrete was blown in little debris and dust..... When we know that more than 60% of the weight of the building is concrete..... It's raise a lot of question.
Click to expand...


Stop thinking and believe? Nonononono. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was talking about the conspiracy theorists. They just think too much. They speculate and try to find things that fit their speculation. They'll somehow distort the way the simulation should be interpreted and get their stupid conclusions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom