you're clearly in the wrong forum, JREFer.
you're clearly in the wrong forum, JREFer.
1. You are a part of JREF. I really wish people would stop crapping on JREF, when their issue is with their treatment by debunkers.
2. You should ask NIST why they feel releasing the info would endanger public safety. None of us (that i know of) work for them.
TAM
I strongly believe that it was not NIST who made the decision to not release their models. But rather some division of DoD, Homeland Security, or some other national security related administrator.
I'm fairly sure that a bunch of NIST engineers were asked "if this information were released, is it possible that it'd help someone successfully execute some terrorist attack?" Along the lines of Myriad's Eiffel Tower example above.
I'm fairly sure that an honest engineer would respond, "Well, theoretically possible ..."
While thinking, "there's nothing mysterious here. They've got access to structural engineers of their own. The FEA programs have been described in detail and are all commercially available. They've got all the clues that they need to figure out the exact answer. The raw data to THESE buildings ain't the missing piece to attack the Eiffel Tower. The raw data to the Eiffel Tower is." And so on...
I expect that most of the engineers find zero threat or reason to withhold the data.
But I can see lots of national security bureaucrats, who are paid to take no chances, deciding (with reasonable, if misguided, intentions) to restrict relatively irrelevant info from distribution. "... just in case ..."
JMO.
tom
I'm fairly sure that a bunch of NIST engineers were asked "if this information were released, is it possible that it'd help someone successfully execute some terrorist attack?" Along the lines of Myriad's Eiffel Tower example above.
I'm fairly sure that an honest engineer would respond, "Well, theoretically possible ..."
While thinking, "there's nothing mysterious here. They've got access to structural engineers of their own. The FEA programs have been described in detail and are all commercially available. They've got all the clues that they need to figure out the exact answer. The raw data to THESE buildings ain't the missing piece to attack the Eiffel Tower. The raw data to the Eiffel Tower is." And so on...
I expect that most of the engineers find zero threat or reason to withhold the data.
But I can see lots of national security bureaucrats, who are paid to take no chances, deciding (with reasonable, if misguided, intentions) to restrict relatively irrelevant info from distribution. "... just in case ..."
JMO.
tom
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Fire isn't a "hypothesis! Fire is a very real thing.
But we know that you think that if you put your hand over a campfire & you keep it there for mintues at a time that you wouldn't feel any heat or pain while your hand's being cooked & burned away.
That's why Truthers feel nothing for those that died on 9/11. They're a bunch of heartless, emotionless cowards who think up silly theories in order to make them look "smart".
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.
You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This is so true.And here is what every truther just heard you say...
Big brother made them say it...
TAM
Every SE I talked to (seeing that I have to deal with them anyway) says there's enough information in the report to just "run it for themselves".
The general consensious.... "why do I mess with these nuts". (I say " everyone needs a hobby")
And here is what every truther just heard you say...
Big brother made them say it...
TAM
And, if you define Big Brother as a "national security advisor", this is one of the few cases where I'd say that they are right.
Except that it's a case where "Big Brother made them NOT say it".
This is the way that security issues & decisions always happen. Some researchers have a concern that some piece of information might be dangerous if used by unscrupulous people or a military enemy.
So the issue goes into a black hole for awhile, where a couple of people with some (greater or lesser) acquaintance with the field try to make that judgment. You almost never get a clue as to why they make their decisions. And looking at the results afterward can leave you scratching your head as to "what were they thinking?"
tom
Ditto. It's a little embarrassing here too. I keep it mostly to myself.
My interest (for 30 years or so) has been an enduring fascination with broken epistemologies.
Why do otherwise intelligent people come to believe utter nonsense?
I never anticipated, at the outset, how useful that study would be in everyday business.
tom
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Those cute twoofers say the darndest things!
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
The excuse that the information could potentially make it easier for Terrorists to collapse buildings with less explosives placed strategically is f'n stupid.
In fact, it is the JREF bs that I originallly referred to.
And to those of you who say......file a FOIA blah blah blah......get a life. This is the internet......and you all are like ostriches with their collective heads in the sand.
The real reason this info was not released is because their computer simulation of the collapses is complete and utter baloney loaf.....
In fact, it is the JREF bs that I originallly referred to.
And to those of you who say......file a FOIA blah blah blah......get a life. This is the internet......and you all are like ostriches with their collective heads in the sand.
The real reason this info was not released is because their computer simulation of the collapses is complete and utter baloney loaf.....
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
For once, you are right. We do not have the evidence to support that claim because we aren't allowed to see it. Of couse, you don't see that as a problem. Hiding the simulation details from the rest of the scientific community is good science in your book.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Hey, they modeled the towers with stacks of pizza boxes. What more could you possibly ask for?
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
I'm curious about this little rant, especially the "this is the internet" part. Are you suggesting that it is ostrich-like behavior for one person to suggest that another person desiring the truth of a real-world event get off the Internet and do something productive in the real world? Can truth only be found on the Internet? Or do you believe that FOIA requests are "an Internet thing" and therefore meaningless in the real world?
Perhaps you can clarify.
Last edited:
And another one plunges into the depths of anger, ignOrance, and whining.
Dont fill out an FOIA, it only helps further the argument that the truthers are a bunch of cowardly investigooglers that are concerned only with being anti government and wasting time in their mothers basements. Multiple arguments from personal opinion only, noted....
TAM
Lol...like they would allow you, or me, or anyone outside of perhaps a valid, reputable engineering firm (with nondisclosure agreement at a minimum in p lace).
I suppose they should allow you access to the Dna pcr data as well....how about being allowed to see and touch the plane parts....i suppose you should be granted access to that also.
TAM
Bullwinkle2009
Student
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35
Head spinning
Hi, I might need to go seek therapy myself before they let me deploy next year.
They won't release the data
The simulation they used but won't let anyone see is baloney
Without seeing it or the data they claim it is baloney
Because they didn't see it, this must be proof it is baloney
Reason in America is dead
Hi, I might need to go seek therapy myself before they let me deploy next year.
They won't release the data
The simulation they used but won't let anyone see is baloney
Without seeing it or the data they claim it is baloney
Because they didn't see it, this must be proof it is baloney
Reason in America is dead
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Right... you're too lazy to go to a government office and fill out some paperwork. You don't care enough (or at all) about the victims and their families to find out the truth about what happened to them.
In other words, you're a typical 9/11 truther.
Bullwinkle,
It is, unfortunately, a very common truther MO. They will, in the end, refer to all physical and other collected evidence that does not support their paranoid view of what happened, faked or planted. I have seen many of them complain that they have not been allowed to see the plane parts or other such evidence....as if the general public should be allowed to just walk in and lay their hands and eyes on such things.
Ridiculous, but all too common.
TAM
It is, unfortunately, a very common truther MO. They will, in the end, refer to all physical and other collected evidence that does not support their paranoid view of what happened, faked or planted. I have seen many of them complain that they have not been allowed to see the plane parts or other such evidence....as if the general public should be allowed to just walk in and lay their hands and eyes on such things.
Ridiculous, but all too common.
TAM