• 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.

...is denied

Good for NIST. It is a shame that anyone connected with 9/11 Truth keeps dangling low fruit to the families instead of just letting them get some closure.
 
The response by NIST actually includes a number of very helpful clarifications about the process by which they determined the appropriate assumptions to employ at certain stages in their models. Too bad Hulsey's grad students didn't have the benefit of this additional insight into how actual professionals should approach such a task before embarking on their ill-fated attempts to model WTC7. In any case, kudos to the poor soul at NIST who had to dig through their old files to set the record straight on these points, and thanks to AE911Truth for serving up to NIST the alley-oop pass it needed to dunk on them like this.
 
Last edited:
Little Dicky G said:
"Even a cursory reading of NIST’s letter, prepared by the staff of the Engineering Laboratory headquarters, reveals NIST’s response to be a blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request, written with the intention of misleading the uninformed reader into believing an adequate response has been provided...
Click to expand...

...and is in direct conflict with our intentional misleading of the addled reader."
 
MileHighMadness said:
NIST told AE 9/11 Truth to go pound sand.

https://www.ae911truth.org/nist

Of course they are going to appeal, so donate money now!
Click to expand...




Yes The appeal was denied.
However the NIST, in denying the appeal, attempted to scuttle the entire body of evidence that the re-examination of the facts the NIST used to justify their original conclusions. No longer veiled in secrecy, the reexamination will reveal to the scientific literate their step by step thought processes of evidence examination would also have to be scrutinized. Evidence previously rejected might gain veracity as verifiable evidences and facts are factored into the equations.
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Yes The appeal was denied.
However the NIST, in denying the appeal, attempted to scuttle the entire body of evidence that the re-examination of the facts the NIST used to justify their original conclusions. No longer veiled in secrecy, the reexamination will reveal to the scientific literate their step by step thought processes of evidence examination would also have to be scrutinized. Evidence previously rejected might gain veracity as verifiable evidences and facts are factored into the equations.
Click to expand...
Why are people gullible, when all they have are lies from ae911truth. How do they fool people? There is no evidence, no logic, no facts from 9/11 truth.

Who is hiding the evidence, you don't have? A&E idiots have other people's money... you were fooled by liars, and you don't know it.

You could have had a PhD in engineering since 9/11, instead you have PhD in spreading BS plagiarized from 9/11 truth sources of woo.
 
Fonebone said:
Yes The appeal was denied.
However the NIST, in denying the appeal, attempted to scuttle the entire body of evidence that the re-examination of the facts the NIST used to justify their original conclusions.
Click to expand...
Actually NIST just stood by their own analysis.

The process does not require them to scuttle anything.
 
I forget, what was supposed to be hidden in WTC7 again? What was the whole point of the "conspiracy"?

In all this tergiversating around with appeals to NIST containing minutiae, AE911Trooooth don't seem to have a bigger picture.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I forget, what was supposed to be hidden in WTC7 again? What was the whole point of the "conspiracy"?

In all this tergiversating around with appeals to NIST containing minutiae, AE911Trooooth don't seem to have a bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Well, The Securities and Exchange Commission was a tenant and they were investigating Enron, I seem to remember reading a legit piece about CIA operating from an office there and of course, the 23rd floor EOC was actually the command center used for the attacks. Too much evidence laying around, you know.

Basically, The entire World Trade Center was destroyed so WTC7 would become a paper shredder.
 
Fonebone said:
Yes The appeal was denied.
However the NIST, in denying the appeal, attempted to scuttle the entire body of evidence that the re-examination of the facts the NIST used to justify their original conclusions. No longer veiled in secrecy, the reexamination will reveal to the scientific literate their step by step thought processes of evidence examination would also have to be scrutinized. Evidence previously rejected might gain veracity as verifiable evidences and facts are factored into the equations.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that. Keep in mind, we are talking about people not involved in the attacks at all. Some of them, probably, weren't even working at NIST 20 years ago. Even the senior officials, have moved on. It takes years to achieve a senior position. And it's not held on to for decades.

Why would people who had no involvement in the coverup, continue with the coverup? They wouldn't. Why would they take responsibility for the murder of 3000 innocent people? It's just not something that would actually happen.
 
AJM8125 said:
Well, The Securities and Exchange Commission was a tenant and they were investigating Enron, I seem to remember reading a legit piece about CIA operating from an office there and of course, the 23rd floor EOC was actually the command center used for the attacks. Too much evidence laying around, you know.

Basically, The entire World Trade Center was destroyed so WTC7 would become a paper shredder.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that all CIA offices are in underground bunkers located beneath Buy More electronics stores.
 
This is just lying.

"Parties who submit requests for correction under the Data Quality Act are not automatically entitled to receive the corrective action they seek; they must successfully prove their case to the agency. They are, however, entitled to a point-by-point response to all relevant arguments contained in the request when the agency decides not to take corrective action. In this regard, NIST’s response to our request is nothing short of egregious.

Even a cursory reading of NIST’s letter, prepared by the staff of the Engineering Laboratory headquarters, reveals NIST’s response to be a blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request, written with the intention of misleading the uninformed reader into believing an adequate response has been provided."

They did exactly what they asked for if I look at the response from NIST

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/NIST-Response-2020-001.pdf

So who is misleading who here?
 
Well... another year has gone by, and another 9/11 anniversary. I stop in here, and what's there to see? AE911T still thinks that the nitpickery of minutiae over a single, isolated element will somehow be the magic key that demonstrates a collapse of WTC 7 couldn't happen.

In other words, nothing new.

Yeah, next year is the 20th anniversary. 20th!! I guess resurrected claims will come back into style out of nostalgia... :rolleyes:

So anyway, what in heaven's name is this current focus by the Architects and Engineers group on the expansion and supposed non-walkoff of the column anyway? If the column is expanding and even walking off a bit (their argument is that it's just not enough?) it's already causing a load transfer, right? So at that point, it's already a dynamic system, and AE911T is simply trying to insist that one possible outcome (trapping of the column) out of God knows how many is THE outcome.

Have I got that right? Why would the "trapping" actually stop the collapse? It's not like the loads would go away, right? If anything, they're all eccentric now and causing tension and compression forces elsewhere, I'd think. So what's the argument that it would stop? Seems to me that they're trying to say the snowball gets stuck behind the boulder, therefore the avalanche never takes place. But who am I; I'm no engineer.

Anyway... MileHigh? Dave Rogers? Ozeco41?? Yeah, it's me, EMH, the guy who hasn't been around for years. I'm trying to get my yearly Sept. 11 visit in before that AJM8125 attempts to make me dicks a potato... :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Welcome back, EMH.
Click to expand...

Hi Orphia! :D

AJM8125 said:
...he said, sitting on a 100 pound sack of Russets.

"Make".

Pfffft.
Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't put 'em there. :p

Plus, you keep promising to show your expert technique, but all the youtube links you give keep saying something about violating content policy...

MileHighMadness said:
EMH...good to hear from you.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Hey, how far off am I in what I was saying above about the column analysis, load shift, etc? I mean, if it's full of hooey, don't hold back. I'm either going to look like I'm lucky or ignorant, but either way, learning something would be cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom