MM, Let's Discuss NIST

[Firestone]

I've seen the method of this thread used before, and it generally works fine.

Take a specific claim of a truther and start a new thread about it, with the very clear intention of keeping the thread on-topic.

My experience is that this kind of thread is in general quite short. (Guess why. )

But it can then be used as a reference when another truther (or the same truther actually) makes the same claim a few weeks or months later.

 

[Miragememories]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2289453&postcount=159

I'm glad to find that another engineer is among the ranks. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss some of your objections to the NIST report. I recall you saying that you didn't find it "convincing" enough. What, specifically, are your objections?

Ranks of what?

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."
"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."




I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM

 

[WildCat]

Ranks of what?

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."
"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."




I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM

Does this mean you can't find fault w/ anything in the NIST reports and so are just going to rant about getting your feelings hurt?

 

[The Almond]

Ranks of what?

The ranks of JREF regulars.

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

This was an honest question. You're an engineer; I'm an engineer. Why can't we discuss the technical aspects of the NIST report in an open, honest way.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Now that's not very nice.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

Why should I care what these people said about you?

The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."

I'm still looking for a fruitful discussion. But you've been rather combative about this issue thus far. I took this thread away from the others to get away from the name-calling that devolved the other threads.

"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."

It's unfortunate, but it's true. I've personally debated with conspiracy fantasists who claimed to have engineering credentials. When called on it, they never managed to show their capacity to solve engineering equations or debate on a technical level consummate with myself and other engineers.

If you're a technically savvy, educated person, you can be the first one to debate me on that level. You show me your equations, and I'll show you mine.

I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM

Quit whining. You said your best grades were in structural engineering. That means you took classes and understood the material. You've made specific, material claims about not being convinced that the NIST NCSTAR is valid. Tell me why, and use your technical background.

 

[Miragememories]

Does this mean you can't find fault w/ anything in the NIST reports and so are just going to rant about getting your feelings hurt?

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

I'd like to see you support this, because it's wrong.

It also appears you aren't familiar with the use of bounding envelopes in event reconstruction, like many other non-engineers who've posted similar misinterpretations of NIST.

So show us where you got this, and we'll see if we can't find your problem for you.

 

[beachnut]

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

MM

You are using the same old CT stuff on this post. How many times has this junk been posted at JREF?

Do you have some facts? Or are you like the rest of the CT world, no facts?

There are a few engineers who support the theories of the CT world of lies. Most use no calculations and those that did calculations are wrong and have been corrected when their work actually bared a semblance to reality.

So you have zero engineering work that support the lies of the 9/11 truth movement. Why would your efforts, which you bragged about in engineering, have any thing new to offer? Can you support the lies of 9/11 truth movement?

What new stuff are you holding out on with Charlie Sheen which are indisputable facts on 9/11? Where is your stuff?

So far you have just rehashed old lies. Got some new ones?

 

[WildCat]

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

Funny, a certain banned poster likes to call me that over at the SLC forum...

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

...and has been going on and on about that lately.

Socks anyone?

 

[T.A.M.]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM

 

[Free Thinkr]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM

Methinks the purpose behind the hiatus was to "review his notes on" (read: google) the NIST report.

 

[The Almond]

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

False.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

And how did they get those data? Did they do experiments? Did they look at video footage?

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility.

Do you have a reference for that?

Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

How does reduced accuracy mean that NIST is wrong? How much was the accuracy reduced by?

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

False

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

False

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

So, let me get this straight. NIST made too many approximations and too coarse of a design inference to make their WTC 1 & 2 models valid, yet they haven't come out with the WTC 7 model fast enough? What are you basing your performance metrics on?

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.

 

[WildCat]

Methinks the purpose behind the hiatus was to "review his notes on" (read: google) the NIST report.

Either that or pdoherty miragememories got called on a lie (having taken engineering classes) and ran away.

 

[Free Thinkr]

Either that or pdoherty miragememories got called on a lie (having taken engineering classes) and ran away.

Or perhaps a combination of the two: he ran away and, while away, happened across this oft-posted/debunked "argument," and was sufficiently emboldened to return and stick it to those rascally JREFers.

 

[negativ]

Never mind, it's like asking what Santa Claus is going to bring me.

 

[Miragememories]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM

 

[WildCat]

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM

Do you have any specific problems to report, using your engineering education pdoherty Miragememories?

 

[Arus808]

the content of what is in that report of 10,000 pages is more important than the content of your thus far, 80 posts of nothing.

 

[Miragememories]

False.

And how did they get those data? Did they do experiments? Did they look at video footage?

Do you have a reference for that?

How does reduced accuracy mean that NIST is wrong? How much was the accuracy reduced by?

False

False

So, let me get this straight. NIST made too many approximations and too coarse of a design inference to make their WTC 1 & 2 models valid, yet they haven't come out with the WTC 7 model fast enough? What are you basing your performance metrics on?

I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.

Gee you really squeezed your engineering brain to reply "false" to my assertion that the NIST computer model was the crux of their case. I can see you are really relishing the opportunity for an exchange of thoughts with another engineer. BS. Your so-called serious offer of discussion is just another ploy to entertain your JREF cronies.

Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.

Once you start fudging the numbers, the results are effectively guesswork. NIST is a U.S. government organization and they were working on a scenario that never seriously considered anything but plane crash and fire.
Yes this is old news but the news is the news...get over it..sorry rehashing is so boring.

I will say, for my own amusement, that 5.5 years is awfully long time to explain or decide they can't explain the collapse of WTC7! If Gravy's WTC7 Report is so gooood; why not send it to NIST? Save them alot of hard work and money.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM

As opposed to a few compressed videos on Youtube?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.