• 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.

What does AE911T plan to do with data on WTC 7?

jaydeehess

Penultimate Amazing
jaydeehess
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
20,849
Location
40 miles north of the border
Proponents of AE911T have called for the release of data that NIST used as input to the fire simulation program FDS. The claim is that they want it to "verify" ,,,,something. I am not clear on whether they wish to verify the veracity of the data input values or that these values would produce the results that NIST published.

If the former then obviously AE911T has the wherewithal to perform an FDS of their own since they must be capable of generating that data themselves. Therefore one wonders why in 11 years they have not bothered to do so..

If they simply wish to run the NIST data through the same FDS to confirm or refute the NIST published results then that's another matter. Since a computer is incapable of deception then they are essentially (actually they come right out and say it) accusing NIST of absolute fraud, and by extension, accusing the researchers of fraud as well in either changing the results themselves , manipulating the data, or covering up for those who did.
This of course is hardly the way to go to convince someone to hand over their work. With a prejudice that NIST researchers lied in those asking for the data, what possible impetus would there be for those researchers to do so?

Furthermore if AE911T is incapable of generating its own input data then NIST could conveivably offer them data values that would repeat the results they published and AE911T would be incapable of disputing that data.
 
Frame it, hang it over their mantle of their fireplace. It'll make a nice conversation starter.
 
AE911Truth has no intention of doing anything other than making noise. It is a phantom organisation - Gage and a few core workers. The 1700 signatories a small number - far less that the "ratbag fringe" few percent you would expect in any demographic sector. And nothing action oriented in their so called "membership".

The cream of those core workers have never shown themselves capable of making a reasoned supportable claim that has any impact on the main findings of the official explanations.

And Gage is a "talking head" front man who does not contribute to the technical content of their claims. Admittedly a good talking head but zero contribution to reason supported claims. And "they" cannot be unaware that if they ever risk going up against a reasonable process they will lose big time. End of road if they risk it. So why take the risk?

Meanwhile Gage still keeps his travelling circus performing to ever decreasing audiences.

And we here do a public service by entertaining a couple of his core supporters. And nothing they do here adds anything of significance to the debate. The technical debate is over - reduced to mud-slinging efforts directed at NIST credibility. See the WTC7 Walkoff thread for an exercise in futility because it will not and cannot go near the underlying claim of CD...

Plus others like Chandler and "dadeets" show more prudence by not coming here to get their rear end handed back to them on a plate....fricasseed with sauce.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess, do you have a link or two so members can read up on the topic?
 
Oystein said:
jaydeehess, do you have a link or two so members can read up on the topic?
Click to expand...

Locally its been Christopher 7 who has been claiming that AE911T was demanding the input data to the FDS performed on WTC 7 in order to 'verify' the results. At first he stated that they wanted the data to "verify it" then upon questioning seemd to say that he meant "verify the results" so its unclear whether they want to examine the data itself or utilize the data in somefashion to see if they can confirm or reject the FDS results, and therefore the conclusions drawn from said results, which NIST published in the WTC 7 final report.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8288570&postcount=366
See
 
I'm sure that they plan to do with the data what they always do, use it to spin more lies, to dupe a few more fools, so that Gage get's his paycheck.
 
If they were after the truth so much how come they didn't start asking for this information years ago?
 
This whole "release the data" is a red herring.

The input data and assumptions are in their report. Any competent engineer could easily duplicate NIST's results.

AE 9/11/Gage is not interested in doing this. If they did, it would put an end to their claim that "they are covering something up".
 
How do they plan on applying the data to cardboard boxes?
 
I could be mistaken but I believe that AE911T has requested(when adressing NIST directing) and demanded (when posting on the internet while accusing NIST of various nefarious and criminal acts) this data, over the past several years since the final report was released.

Given the difficulty of navigating the ae911t website (seems they want you to read the entire 40+ pages) , perhaps a proponent of theirs could respond to the questions posed in this thread.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Locally its been Christopher 7 who has been claiming that AE911T was demanding the input data to the FDS performed on WTC 7 in order to 'verify' the results. At first he stated that they wanted the data to "verify it" then upon questioning seemd to say that he meant "verify the results" so its unclear whether they want to examine the data itself or utilize the data in somefashion to see if they can confirm or reject the FDS results, and therefore the conclusions drawn from said results, which NIST published in the WTC 7 final report.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8288570&postcount=366
See
Click to expand...

O....kay.... and what are the chances that C7 even understands this stuff well enough to repeat similarly enought what AE911T really want or said or requested? :rolleyes:




DGM said:
This whole "release the data" is a red herring.

The input data and assumptions are in their report. Any competent engineer could easily duplicate NIST's results.

AE 9/11/Gage is not interested in doing this. If they did, it would put an end to their claim that "they are covering something up".
Click to expand...
AE911T/Gage are not only not interested in doing this, they are adamantly opposed to spending their propaganda money on such real research.

SanderO of the911forum was on the board of AE911T briefly (dang, I forgot his real name). They changed the bylaws specifically in order to vote him out of the board when he suggested that AE911T spend money on doing their own FEA. Proposing to actually do a new investigation was considered treason by Kevin Ryan and others.
 
Oystein said:
SanderO of the911forum was on the board of AE911T briefly (dang, I forgot his real name). They changed the bylaws specifically in order to vote him out of the board when he suggested that AE911T spend money on doing their own FEA. Proposing to actually do a new investigation was considered treason by Kevin Ryan and others.
Click to expand...

Naturally. A real "independent investigation" would cut into Gage's pay check.


That is what AE9/11 is all about.

Any "truther" that hasn't figured this out and still gives money is "dumber than a box of hammers".

:rolleyes:
 
Here's the other problem.

If they get the data, it will mean nothing really, until you translate it back into a visual image with the FDS software. It'll mean nothing.

Not to mention the whole "control" or baseline problem. They have nothing to compare it to. It'll be useless to them. Well, it makes for good fodder though.
 
I suspect, and invite correction from any AE911T supporter, that they will point to the data and make a feeble creation purporting to call into question that this data could produce the results that the FDS did for NIST

I doubt that they will show a re-run of the FDS.
 
Is it telling that no supporter of AE911T has shown up here to adress this question? I deliberatly made the thread topic so that it would be noticed by such persons yet no one is touching this.
 
jaydeehess said:
Is it telling that no supporter of AE911T has shown up here to adress this question? I deliberatly made the thread topic so that it would be noticed by such persons yet no one is touching this.
Click to expand...

Yep. The only thing AE911T "supporters" care about is Gage's petition's borked Appeal to Popularity.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Yep. The only thing AE911T "supporters" care about is Gage's petition's borked Appeal to Popularity.
Click to expand...
Age beats me again - needed to consult the "Urban Dictionary for "borked". I see it means something that engineers of my vintage described with a word related to consensual sex activities.... :o -- whatever they were

Talking about the dynamic of language - I'm running a losing battle with my daughters over the (alleged) word "apps". They bought me an iPad for my recent birthday. Me, a 'punched card era'* 'fortran 2'* type. :(





* if you are too young to know just ask
 
Last edited:
Other than Christopher 7, who has ignored this thread and my posing the question in another thread, are there any other proponents, or members, of AE911T posting on this forum?

If so will none of then address the question?

Will none of them go to Gage et al and ask?

Is it not considered important by them to know what their organization has planned in this matter?

Really, I expected some reply, even if it was along the lines of "that's for us to know and you to find out".
 
ozeco41 said:
Age beats me again - needed to consult the "Urban Dictionary for "borked". I see it means something that engineers of my vintage described with a word related to consensual sex activities.... :o -- whatever they were

Talking about the dynamic of language - I'm running a losing battle with my daughters over the (alleged) word "apps". They bought me an iPad for my recent birthday. Me, a 'punched card era'* 'fortran 2'* type. :(





* if you are too young to know just ask
Click to expand...

This old guy's got you covered there. "apps" are the small sampler dishes served before your main course at a restaurant, short for "appetizers". Not sure how that relates to a phone though.....:D:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom