David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

bill smith said:
On 03.03.2010 Richard Gage gave an interview in Boston. In that interview he says that NIST are refusing to release the data needed to accurately reproduce their computer model of the collapse of WTC7. For 'Reasons of the public safety' or some such nonsensical NIST rubbish.



http://www.gators911truth.org/MOV-GAGE-WBZ.html audio
Click to expand...

And yet here he is saying that he raised the $824.98 for the data. NIST was refusing to pay for the time(?) and hard drives needed to meet his request, as they should seeing as it's taxpayers money.

How much money have you given Gage bill?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
And yet here he is saying that he raised the $824.98 for the data. NIST was refusing to pay for the time(?) and hard drives needed to meet his request, as they should seeing as it's taxpayers money.

How much money have you given Gage bill?
Click to expand...
I think the statement from 03.03.2010 is probably the correct one and they are refusing to release the data.

After all they could never have said that the information 'would ' endanger the public safety' and then gone ahead and released it anyway. That sorts it out pretty clearly Sam.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think the statement from 03.03.2010 is probably the correct one and they are refusing to release the data.

After all they could never have said that the information 'would ' endanger the public safety' and then gone ahead and released it anyway. That sorts it out pretty clearly Sam.
Click to expand...

You would have to show where NIST actually said that, and a comment by anyone else that said that NIST said that won't fly.

The link I gave doesn't have a date (funny that huh?) while ones above it do. And then there's one below that that has NIST releasing even more data to him for $228.98 (again with no date).

It seems to me that the issue (as it was with everything else NIST has released, ABC and their pictures for example) has been over the fees and not about secrecy or trying to hide something nefarious. Just due diligence for the taxpayers money.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
You would have to show where NIST actually said that, and a comment by anyone else that said that NIST said that won't fly.

The link I gave doesn't have a date (funny that huh?) while ones above it do. And then there's one below that that has NIST releasing even more data to him for $228.98 (again with no date).

It seems to me that the issue (as it was with everything else NIST has released, ABC and their pictures for example) has been over the fees and not about secrecy or trying to hide something nefarious. Just due diligence for the taxpayers money.
Click to expand...
We will have to wait and see. Perhaps NIST is witholding some critical portion of the data which renders the rest useless. That may well be what happened.

Still, I think in all cases NIST can be forced into full disclosure by taxpayers. That or we can hang them out to dry even more with their failure to do so. I think it's time for ae911truth.org to go large on this.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
We will have to wait and see. Perhaps NIST is witholding some critical portion of the data which renders the rest useless. That may well be what happened.

Still, I think in all cases NIST can be forced into full disclosure by taxpayers. That or we can hang them out to dry even more with their failure to do so. I think it's time for ae911truth.org to go large on this.
Click to expand...
You have no clue what NIST did as you spew junk ideas mindlessly from 911 truth. You will be waiting forever to see since 911 truth is delusional as noted in your posts of their failed ideas.

Force into disclosure? LOL, you don't have a clue on 911 and you post nonsense. You have never posted anything worthwhile. David has an agenda and has left science to his paranoid conspiracy theories and biases; the only people you and David inspire to take action kill people because of their mental illness; only crazy people and idiots believe your lies and false statements. Why do you lie and spread false statements? Out of ignorance?

I think it's time for ae911truth.org to go large on this.
Click to expand...
Funny, good job posting lies and idiotic statements like this.
 
Bill, what still raises any concern about the NIST holding some data until today? Did the ae911truth reproduce the entire model and results from the hard drives they bought from them?
 
fallout said:
Bill, what still raises any concern about the NIST holding some data until today? Did the ae911truth reproduce the entire model and results from the hard drives they bought from them?
Click to expand...

I don't really know what is going on in the NIST WTC7 data thing. All I know is that Richard Gage's most recent statement indicates that NIST is sitting on the data which means that their model ( upon which thir whole explanation depends ) cannot be independentlty verified by any scientific body on Earth.

We are required then to take their assurance that WTC7 was not demolished, despite ppearances , entirely on Faith. A most unusual way for a spremier cientific body of the caliber of NIST to behave.

Well worthy of a Grand Jury Investigation in fact.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I don't really know what is going on in the NIST WTC7 data thing. All I know is that Richard Gage's most recent statement indicates that NIST is sitting on the data which means that their model ( upon which thir whole explanation depends ) cannot be independentlty verified by any scientific body on Earth.

We are required then to take their assurance that WTC7 was not demolished, despite ppearances , entirely on Faith. A most unusual way for a spremier cientific body of the caliber of NIST to behave.

Well worthy of a Grand Jury Investigation in fact.
Click to expand...


Interesting. So, having no idea whether or not they have released their data under the FOIA as called upon to do, and facing several options including:

1. Contact them and find out.
2. Wait for further information about the question to be reported to you from third party sources.

You choose option 3:

3. Convene a Grand Jury.

Bill, are you sure you're not the one secretly running the U.S. government? Because if you were, given that kind of efficiency, it would fully explain why my taxes are so high.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
The FOIA Data

It has come to my attention that stream of consciousness monologues unrelated to facts is the popular modern meme. Since propositions are not now required to be accompanied by evidence , here’s what happened:

1. Gage asks for lots of data from the government.
2. Government tells Gage data costs $1,000, send money.
3. Gage, like the people that incessantly pester you for money because their car ran out of gas, panwebhandles specifically to purchase this world- altering data.. Gets money from saps.
4. A year goes by, nothing is heard about the data or money.
5. Gage buys Eiffel Tower souvenir.
6. Someone asks, “Gage what happened to the data results?”
7. Gage mumbles about a conspiracy – no results, money is unaccounted for.
8. Someone complains about the money sent to Gage specifically to purchase and accomplish glorious things with this data.
9. Government investigates Gage’s non-profit status.
10. Gage protests audit is attempt by the government to silence Thet Ruth.
11. Gage’s girlfriend plea bargains and spills the beans.
12. Gage claims she’s a government plant.
13. Gage panwebhandles money for his defense.
14. Gage buys Arc de Triomphe souvenir.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think the statement from 03.03.2010 is probably the correct one and they are refusing to release the data.

After all they could never have said that the information 'would ' endanger the public safety' and then gone ahead and released it anyway. That sorts it out pretty clearly Sam.
Click to expand...

Why would they respond to a FOIA request explaining that in order to get the data they have to purchase it, then say that they can't release it due to endangerment?

Doesn't make logical sense, does it? Though you are not logical.
 
wargord said:
Why would they respond to a FOIA request explaining that in order to get the data they have to purchase it, then say that they can't release it due to endangerment?

Doesn't make logical sense, does it? Though you are not logical.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are agonising over it..Poor NIST..

Here's something I ran accross..

'' Dear NIST FOIA Office:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey,
regarding the current status of the above referenced FOIA matter,
which was received by your office on February 4, 2009. My review of
the correspondence file in this matter indicates that our client sent
your office payment for processing the ANSYS computer data for this
request back in February ‘09, and that Mr. Ritchey has made numerous
email follow-up inquiries to your office regarding the status of your
processing and sending the responsive materials he has requested for
this FOIA request.

As you may know FOIA requires all federal agencies to make a final
determination on all FOIA requests within 20 working days, and the
2007 FOIA amendments expressly require a responding agency to provide
a requester with an estimated date for a final determination on a FOIA
request. See 5 USC 552(a)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, I would appreciate.....

Read on...
http://911blogger.com/node/20860
 
bill smith said:
Maybe they are agonising over it..Poor NIST..

Here's something I ran accross..

'' Dear NIST FOIA Office:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey,
regarding the current status of the above referenced FOIA matter,
which was received by your office on February 4, 2009. My review of
the correspondence file in this matter indicates that our client sent
your office payment for processing the ANSYS computer data for this
request back in February ‘09, and that Mr. Ritchey has made numerous
email follow-up inquiries to your office regarding the status of your
processing and sending the responsive materials he has requested for
this FOIA request.

As you may know FOIA requires all federal agencies to make a final
determination on all FOIA requests within 20 working days, and the
2007 FOIA amendments expressly require a responding agency to provide
a requester with an estimated date for a final determination on a FOIA
request. See 5 USC 552(a)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, I would appreciate.....

Read on...
http://911blogger.com/node/20860
Click to expand...

What the hell are you saying? It is completely illogical to tell someone they can have the data for a price in a letter that everyone can read and then say that they can't have the data due to endangerment. I never knew someone could be so illogical until I read your drivel.

Why would anyone address a letter to an office? Each letter from NIST is signed by someone. Why didn't they address it to that person? And why isn't the information about this guy actually making the payment added?
 
Last edited:
I'm still interested on knowing about whether they are still holding data required to fully test their model or not.
 
fallout said:
I'm still interested on knowing about whether they are still holding data required to fully test their model or not.
Click to expand...
Fallout there is a guy who opened the attached thread offering to send the emails we Truthers are scared to send. I have already registered a request with him in post #44 in the link. He says I will have a copy of the email he sends on the 13th of this month. You could register a request for him to contact NIST about the data they are refusing to release. Do it soon though in case he backs off.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5706191&posted=1#post5706191
 
Last edited:
The revolution is coming! But in the meantime we're too scared to send a FOIA request to an engineering organization.

What is a coward?
 
fallout said:
Bill, what still raises any concern about the NIST holding some data until today? Did the ae911truth reproduce the entire model and results from the hard drives they bought from them?
Click to expand...

Fallout, a word of advice from one who's been there: if you want an answer that has some basis in reality, ask someone other than bill smith.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom