NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

cmatrix said:
I will give an explanation of your lie that I lied when you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd like that explanation now please.

You said you contacted U of C Physics and Astronomy.

U of C says you did not.

You lied.

Why?
 
beachnut said:
Where is your detailed critique? It does not exist. You say things about the computer model and expose you don't know anything about the NIST model.

What would you do with the data? When will you release your detailed critique on the NIST model?
Click to expand...

When the Sun turns into a red giant.
 
triforcharity said:
I would tend to trust over 100 professional engineers, architects, and fire protection engineers, over a landscape engineer any day.

Yes, AE911T has a LANDSCAPE engineer (Lawn Boy) as one of their "Engineers". If I put "Sanitation engineer"
(Aka: Elephant **** picker-upper) will they let me in?
Click to expand...

Landscape engineering is an area of civil engineering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_engineering
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-landscape-engineer-do.htm
 
triforcharity said:
So, when will any of the dolts at AE911T be publishing a paper in a proper peer-reviewed journal showing NIST wrong? Or, do you take their word as golden?
Click to expand...

As soon as NIST releases their data and the model is examined. When will NIST publish their results in a proper peer-reviewed journal so their data can be examined and replicated?
 
cmatrix said:
Money. What's stopping NIST from releasing their data so their model could be verified and easily replicated? Jail time?
Click to expand...

why should NIST release their data to a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists, who have already determined that they are accessories to mass-murder and deserve prison time or the death penalty?
 
Thunder said:
why should NIST release their data to a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists, who have already determined that they are accessories to mass-murder and deserve prison time or the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Their data should be released so we can see if it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion.

Aren't you guys the so-called skeptics?
 
RedIbis said:
Their data should be released so we can see if it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion.

Aren't you guys the so-called skeptics?
Click to expand...

With all respect, who exactly cares if you think it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion? Do you really think your getting their data will change your mind in any way, shape, or form?
 
Thunder said:
why should NIST release their data...
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be like the letting people conduct radiocarbon dating on the Shroud of Turin. When such distinguished authorities such as the Church and NIST claim they have proof of something, people shouldn't need to see that proof to believe in it.
 
cmatrix said:
Money. What's stopping NIST from releasing their data so their model could be verified and easily replicated? Jail time?
Click to expand...

Possibly jail time or a large fine for releasing material that is deemed classified. We've already been over this. We don't know the reason for why NIST denies information, but it's easy for you to find out. Simply file a lawsuit. The least you'd get is an explanation.
 
cmatrix said:
Money.
Click to expand...


How would NIST releasing their model alleviate the money problem? Anyone so mistrustful of NIST would be compelled to test the model they were given to ensure that it produced the same results as NIST reported. Otherwise, NIST could release a perfectly sound model that stands up to scrutiny, but would, in reality, produce wildly different results from what they officially reported.

It seems completely at odds with your ridiculous position that you would suddenly trust NIST to give you the same model they used. So, you must test it to be sure. And that would require money (among other resources, but you apparently feel those aren't an issue).

No, NIST releasing their model doesn't do away with your money problem.

(Speaking of money... Weren't you offering up $10,000 as prize money in some laughable challenge? Don't numerous 9/11 Truth groups around the country do "fundraisers"? Why not just donate that money to a group willing to produce a model of the WTC7 collapse? You people are an absolute shame.)

What's stopping NIST from releasing their data so their model could be verified and easily replicated?
Click to expand...


The data they used in their model is already out there. As I understand it, the only mildly difficult information to acquire would be the plans to WTC7. But requesting to see those plans shouldn't be difficult for a qualified engineering willing to make an effort.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Yeah, that would be like the letting people conduct radiocarbon dating on the Shroud of Turin. When such distinguished authorities such as the Church and NIST claim they have proof of something, people shouldn't need to see that proof to believe in it.
Click to expand...

ehh...paranoid conspiracy theorists aren't looking to test the shroud of Turin, and they don't have pre-conceived notions that the RCC is guilty of mass-murder.

either way, you are comparing apples with buffaloes.
 
RedIbis said:
Their data should be released so we can see if it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion.
Click to expand...

there is no logical reason to believe that their data is based on anything but reality.

the ONLY folks who question the NIST findings, are those who already figured out what happened, on 9-12-01. :p


the only ones who have pre-coinceived notions of truth, are the Truthers.

Ironic...huh?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
With all respect, who exactly cares if you think it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion? Do you really think your getting their data will change your mind in any way, shape, or form?
Click to expand...

The scientific process doesn't care whether you have faith in NIST or not. Their refusing to release the data should arouse suspicion. Their pathetic excuse that it would jeapordize national security should be seen as the red herring it is.

You are supposed to be a skeptic. NIST could have dry labbed the results. Only faith prevents you from thinking critically about this.
 
RedIbis said:
The scientific process doesn't care whether you have faith in NIST or not. Their refusing to release the data should arouse suspicion. Their pathetic excuse that it would jeapordize national security should be seen as the red herring it is.

You are supposed to be a skeptic. NIST could have dry labbed the results. Only faith prevents you from thinking critically about this.
Click to expand...

So, what is stopping you, or anyone else, from filing a petition for judicial review?
 
RedIbis said:
Their data should be released so we can see if it's based on reality or a predetermined conclusion.

Aren't you guys the so-called skeptics?
Click to expand...

The best way to determine that would be to create your own model from scratch. That way it wouldn't share any faults that you might think the NIST model has.

Anybody capable of running the NIST model is capable of recreating the data that hasn't been released and anyone who can't recreate the missing data is probably incapable of running the model, even if it was released in full.

So, once you've finished your model, just compare your conclusions with those of the NIST and publish your results.
 
RedIbis said:
The scientific process doesn't care whether you have faith in NIST or not. Their refusing to release the data should arouse suspicion. Their pathetic excuse that it would jeapordize national security should be seen as the red herring it is.

You are supposed to be a skeptic. NIST could have dry labbed the results. Only faith prevents you from thinking critically about this.
Click to expand...
Is this what you whined to the teacher about when other students did not let you cheat off their papers?

A real structural engineer could run his own model with data he/she comes up with. Only engineers who are morons on 911 issues can't make their own models. It is a lack of research abilities and laziness.

Wake up, 911 truth has 9 years of failure because they earned it.

I am skeptical about cry baby engineers in 911 truth who can't do basic physics, and make up moronic claims based on their paranoid conspiracy minded imaginations. Faith?, you are supporting 911 truth based on hearsay, lies and faith. Who needs NIST, most of 911 truth has no clue what their goal was; and it not to answer idiotic 911 truth questions based on ignorance.
 
George152 said:
The latest kook trick is to claim that WTC7 is not mentioned in the NIST Report.
The Report uses the building number first so 7WTC is WTC7.
A small point but one the kooks are trying to push
Click to expand...

Well if you think about it, the building's address was "7 World Trade Center". Technically, the NIST is correct. Everyone who refers to it as WTC7 is technically incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom