NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[cmatrix]

Jail time for what? We're still waiting for you to show us what they got wrong.

We're still waiting for you to show us what they got right. Hand-waving and arrogant pronouncements of faith don't cut it for me.

 

[cmatrix]

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?

OK you claimed I said I contacted U of C Physics and Astronomy dept. I have never ever said that I did contact U of C Physics and Astronomy dept. You are therefore lying. Find the post here that says otherwise.

So now can you explain away or confirm the massively contradictory position you hold:

"So you believe NIST shares their experimental data with other scientists but yet NIST refuses to release it to independent researchers citing that it "might jeopardize public safety"? Contradiction. So you believe their experiments have been replicated by independent researchers despite the fact that NIST won't release their data to independent researchers so they can attempt to reproduce it? Contradiction. You believe the NIST report is supported by evidence but you cannot produce the evidence? Contradiction. So you don't unquestioningly accept the NIST report but yet you attack anyone who dares question it? Contradiction. You believe you are not gullible but yet believe in a theory that has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever? Contradiction. You are a walking contradiction. A bona fide physical manifestation of double-think."

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OK you claimed I said I contacted U of C Physics and Astronomy dept. I have never ever said that I did contact U of C Physics and Astronomy dept. You are therefore lying. Find the post here that says otherwise.

It's right here, Micheal.

So far the challenge was sent to the majority of physics professors at: McGill University, University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Queens University, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, University of Calgary, University of Western Ontario, Simon Fraser University, Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University, Carleton University, University of Manitoba, Concordia University. It was sent to every engineering and architecture firm in the Okanagan, every physics and engineering instructor at Okanagan College and even all Vernon-area high school physics teachers. Not one person has responded with an explanation. Every known newspaper in Canada was contacted about this challenge. Not one newspaper has covered the story.​

Not only are you lying, you're also being very sloppy about your work. You didn't even bother to scrub your website of the incriminating material.

 

[cmatrix]

It's right here, Micheal.

So far the challenge was sent to the majority of physics professors at: McGill University, University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Queens University, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, University of Calgary, University of Western Ontario, Simon Fraser University, Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University, Carleton University, University of Manitoba, Concordia University. It was sent to every engineering and architecture firm in the Okanagan, every physics and engineering instructor at Okanagan College and even all Vernon-area high school physics teachers. Not one person has responded with an explanation. Every known newspaper in Canada was contacted about this challenge. Not one newspaper has covered the story.​

Not only are you lying, you're also being very sloppy about your work. You didn't even bother to scrub your website of the incriminating material.

That page states that the majority of physics professors at University of Calgary were contacted. i.e. they were contacted individually not just though the department office contact. You are the one lying not me.

 

[DGM]

We're still waiting for you to show us what they got right. Hand-waving and arrogant pronouncements of faith don't cut it for me.

Do you need a link to the report or do you need someone to read it to you?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That page states that the majority of physics professors at University of Calgary were contacted. i.e. they were contacted individually not just though the department office contact. You are the one lying not me.

I talked to U of C. They never heard of you. You lied.

 

[cmatrix]

I talked to U of C. They never heard of you. You lied.

Prove it. If you can't, why don't you explain away or confirm the massively contradictory position you hold:

"So you believe NIST shares their experimental data with other scientists but yet NIST refuses to release it to independent researchers citing that it "might jeopardize public safety"? Contradiction. So you believe their experiments have been replicated by independent researchers despite the fact that NIST won't release their data to independent researchers so they can attempt to reproduce it? Contradiction. You believe the NIST report is supported by evidence but you cannot produce the evidence? Contradiction. So you don't unquestioningly accept the NIST report but yet you attack anyone who dares question it? Contradiction. You believe you are not gullible but yet believe in a theory that has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever? Contradiction. You are a walking contradiction. A bona fide physical manifestation of double-think."

 

[excaza]

That page states that the majority of physics professors at University of Calgary were contacted. i.e. they were contacted individually not just though the department office contact. You are the one lying not me.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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

Where'd you see this? The entire NCSTAR-1A, 1-9, and 1-9A set is devoted to 7 World Trade.

On top of that, those numbnuts have obviously not read the reports. WTC 7 is indeed how it's refered to. They're all available for download here, and it's trivial to see that the term is in fact used in the reports.

Now, if those idiots are referring to the original reports on the main towers, then I wouldn't be surprised if references are few and far between. The NSCTAR 1-1 through 1-8 series is supposed to only concentrate on the main towers.

Either way, it's a stupid, an abysmally idiotic claim to make. It's so easy to refute with a single download. Who said this? Were they serious, or joking? Or did they get their myths crossed (yeah, like that's never happened) and mean to refer to the 9/11 Commision's Report?

 

[cmatrix]

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

You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

 

[triforcharity]

You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) key containing statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

Wrong.

Kook : Def

Slang
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.


So, the first time in history claim eh?

So, the Challnger Explosion could not have happened? How about Columbia?

Both were first time in history events, yet they happened.

 

[excaza]

You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

This may come as a shock to you, but repeating your assertion will not make it true.

 

[DGM]

You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

Who are these "independent researchers" and what steps have they taken to get the information?

 

[Justin39640]

You know what a kook is? Someone who wholeheartedly believes in a theory a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

I don't even think you understand how a computer model works. It's not cell animation.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you capable of addressing my previous post, cmatrix?

Money.

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?

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.

 

[TSR]

containing key statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind

.
And just when was the last time a 110 story building was brought down by CD?

When was the last time super duper nano thermite was used for a CD?

When was the last time a CD happened without weeks of preparation?
.

 

[cmatrix]

Wrong.

Kook : Def

Slang
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.


So, the first time in history claim eh?

So, the Challnger Explosion could not have happened? How about Columbia?

Both were first time in history events, yet they happened.

No right. Only strange, eccentric, or crazy people (kooks) believe in theories a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) key containing statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

Space ships have never blown up after takeoff?

 

[cmatrix]

Are you capable of addressing my previous post, cmatrix?

I'm capable of eating dog &*%# but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

space ships have never blown up after takeoff during reentry into the earth's atmosphere.?

ftfy, and yes, by extension according to your first time in history claim the Columbia reentry break is impossible. Disagreeing with this interpretation requires that you completely abandon this silly first time in history routine.

No right. Only strange, eccentric, or crazy people (kooks) believe in theories a) with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it b) key containing statements of behavior that are completely unprecedented in the history of mankind c) that is based on a computer model whose data is denied access to independent researchers and is thus unreplicated and indeed unreproducible.

Buddy, before you go on another issue of first in history you need to go study some material property tables... Engineering doesn't design under the premise that an unforeseen event is impossible, doing so would effectively be: A) incompetent B) Ignoring research into building materials C) Dangerous to both life and property D) A violation of building codes. Yes, that is something only crazy people would think to do in the profession or research category.

This may seem like a tangent but your complaint about the model data being disingenuous is based on your other claims.

 

[excaza]

Space ships have never blown up after takeoff?

Before the first one did? Nope.