NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So you believe NIST shares their experimental data with other scientists but blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Hi, here is the rest of my post that you didn't respond to:

Furthermore, you are not a physicist. You did not study physics in school beyond the most cursory courses required. You majored in computer science and minored in psychology. The most you could do to assist an investigation of WTC7s collapse is to tell the real experts if a piece of debris looks like a hard drive and to ask them how they feel about their mothers. You have no actual background in physics and no grounds to be telling people what the laws of physics are.

Finally, I attended the Canadian Nuclear Society conference in Calgary in 2009 where I met several representatives of the U of C Physics and Astronomy department. After reading your website where you claimed to have contacted them, I contacted them myself and they said you did not.

You lied about contacting the U of C. Given this pattern of behavior it is quite likely that you have been lying about other things as well.

Your pattern of dishonesty and lack of expertise and education makes your opinion in this area worth exactly @#$%, regardless of how many times you spam it.​

 

[cmatrix]

Hi, here is the rest of my post that you didn't respond to:

Furthermore, you are not a physicist. You did not study physics in school beyond the most cursory courses required. You majored in computer science and minored in psychology. The most you could do to assist an investigation of WTC7s collapse is to tell the real experts if a piece of debris looks like a hard drive and to ask them how they feel about their mothers. You have no actual background in physics and no grounds to be telling people what the laws of physics are.

Finally, I attended the Canadian Nuclear Society conference in Calgary in 2009 where I met several representatives of the U of C Physics and Astronomy department. After reading your website where you claimed to have contacted them, I contacted them myself and they said you did not.

You lied about contacting the U of C. Given this pattern of behavior it is quite likely that you have been lying about other things as well.

Your pattern of dishonesty and lack of expertise and education makes your opinion in this area worth exactly @#$%, regardless of how many times you spam it.​

Now you accuse me of not responding to part of your post. A part which consists entirely of lies, attacks and other off-topic misdirection. Yet you do not respond to the content of my post which conclusively showed you to be not only a walking contradiction but a believer in and defender of crackpot pseudo-science. Another glaring contradiction.

 

[cmatrix]

Given that NIST's programs are peer reviewed it doesn't really matter what you think. They met the standards of academic rigor. But your nutty professor refuses to show his pokemons and continues to fake the process every real scientist goes through when trying to demonstrate something of import.They have the support of a couple dozen peer reviewed articles, the ASCE, and the NFPA to name a few. Who supports Jonesy and Co? No one aside from the statistical inbreeding of the various members of groups like [INSERT APPEAL TO AUTHORITY TITLE HERE] for 9/11 Truth.

The govt has the right under FOIA exemptions to deny access to materials for, among other things, public safety. If you feel it is a miscarriage of justice grab your glove, get on the field, and stop crying about how the rules are unfair in the dug out. You want to play ball? Fine...too tough? Rev up your Xbox and pick up a copy of MLB 2010. And play at from the comfort of your armchair.

ROFL. The NIST WTC 7 report was not peer reviewed. You want to support your bizarre claim that the NIST WTC 7 report has the support of a couple dozen peer reviewed articles, the ASCE, and the NFPA? Any journal or organization that supports crackpot pseudo-science researchers that refuse to release their data cannot be trusted in any way shape or form.

 

[twinstead]

Any journal or organization that supports crackpot pseudo-science researchers that refuse to release their data cannot be trusted in any way shape or form.

In other words, if YOU don't agree with them, they cannot be trusted. But then again who cares if YOU cannot trust them, anyway?

 

[alienentity]

ROFL. The NIST WTC 7 report was not peer reviewed. You want to support your bizarre claim that the NIST WTC 7 report has the support of a couple dozen peer reviewed articles, the ASCE, and the NFPA? Any journal or organization that supports crackpot pseudo-science researchers that refuse to release their data cannot be trusted in any way shape or form.

Careful. You are not only ignorant, but you are appointing yourself as the arbiter of what is legitimate in the discipline of science. You are clearly not qualified to do that, any more than you would be qualified to lead such an investigation as NIST carried out.

Or do you harbour such delusions to think you know enough to lead such an investigation?

The fact is that the WTC 7 report is not an article published in a professional journal. We know that; you know that. So we know it was not peer-reviewed by a journal prior to publication.
But it was absolutely peer-reviewed before it was published. That is part of the standard practice which NIST follows, and which is found in most professional organizations. I suggest you learn about these things before making further inaccurate and false proclamations about them.

Just as an introduction, read this article about 'peer-review'.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Now you accuse me of not responding to part of your post. A part which consists entirely of lies, attacks and other off-topic misdirection.

You, Michael Fullerton, according your own facebook page, did not acquire the necessary education to properly critique the NIST reports on WTC 1, 2 or 7. You are neither engineer nor physcist. Nor did you train as such in your schooling. This is not something I have said, it's what you wrote on your own facebook page.

You stated on the website of Vernon 9/11 truth that you had contacted the Physics and Astronomy department of the University of Calgary. When I contacted UofC Physics and Astronomy, they said they never heard of you.

You did lie about contacting UofC. These are facts, not attacks. That they reflect poorly upon you is your own doing.

Yet you do not respond to the content of my post which conclusively showed you to be not only a walking contradiction but a believer in and defender of crackpot pseudo-science. Another glaring contradiction.

Your pattern of lying and lack of expertise make the above statement null and void.

 

[alienentity]

You, Michael Fullerton, according your own facebook page, did not acquire the necessary education to properly critique the NIST reports on WTC 1, 2 or 7. You are neither engineer nor physcist. Nor did you train as such in your schooling. This is not something I have said, it's what you wrote on your own facebook page.

You stated on the website of Vernon 9/11 truth that you had contacted the Physics and Astronomy department of the University of Calgary. When I contacted UofC Physics and Astronomy, they said they never heard of you.

You did lie about contacting UofC. These are facts, not attacks. That they reflect poorly upon you is your own doing.



Your pattern of lying and lack of expertise make the above statement null and void.

Is that true cmatrix? Or can you provide proof that you contacted U of C?

 

[T.A.M.]

ROFL. The NIST WTC 7 report was not peer reviewed. You want to support your bizarre claim that the NIST WTC 7 report has the support of a couple dozen peer reviewed articles, the ASCE, and the NFPA? Any journal or organization that supports crackpot pseudo-science researchers that refuse to release their data cannot be trusted in any way shape or form.

Thats some deep paranoia. So exactly how many people with how many institutions do you believe to be dishonest on this matter, and hence part of the cover up?

TAM

 

[adkinsjr]

Thats some deep paranoia. So exactly how many people with how many institutions do you believe to be dishonest on this matter, and hence part of the cover up?

TAM

Any institution unsupportive of the "truth" cult mythology is a part of the government coverup.

Wake up people, wake up!

 

[adkinsjr]

Thats some deep paranoia. So exactly how many people with how many institutions do you believe to be dishonest on this matter, and hence part of the cover up?

TAM

Any institution unsupportive of the "truth" cult mythology is a part of the government coverup.

Wake up people, wake up!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is that true cmatrix? Or can you provide proof that you contacted U of C?

The Annual Alberta Science Teachers Conference is coming up in November. I may be traveling to Calgary to retrieve some Canadian Nuclear Society materials held by the U of C Physics and Astronomy department and bring it back to Edmonton for the conference (Fun Fact: at last years ATA Science Conference, I had the honor of meeting then JREF president Dr. Phil "the Bad Astronomer" Plait!).

I could ask them again if they have ever heard of Micheal Fullerton or Vernon 9/11 truth, but I doubt the answer is going to change from last time.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bump for Cmatrix.

Still waiting for that explanation of why you lied, Micheal.

 

[cmatrix]

Bump for Cmatrix.

Still waiting for that explanation of why you lied, Micheal.

I will give an explanation of your lie that I lied when 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."

 

[carlitos]

cmatrix,
You may think that the paragraph you just "quoted" above makes a cogent argument. Allow me to be the first to disabuse you of that notion.

 

[cmatrix]

cmatrix,
You may think that the paragraph you just "quoted" above makes a cogent argument. Allow me to be the first to disabuse you of that notion.

I can't wait to see an actual disabusement as opposed to merely a pompous pronouncement.

 

[theshillbarrett]

Obviously NIST has nothing to hide:

Their crackpot physics-violating theory based solely on a computer model cannot have its data publicly scrutinized as it "might jeopardize public safety". Well millions of pitch fork wielding Americans could certainly jeopardize NIST's public safety.

Yes, I agree a crackpot conspiracy blog site is a number 1 reliable source

A professional scientific organization is simply too unreliable

 

[kylebisme]

Exactly, when a professional scientific organization like NIST says their models prove their conclusions and other reputable scientists who've surely seen the models agree, only a crackpot could consider those conclusions anything but reliable, regardless of if the models are ever publicly released. Some fools just don't know when to vest their faith in authority to do their thinking for them.

 

[triforcharity]

Exactly, when a professional scientific organization like NIST says their models prove their conclusions and other reputable scientists who've surely seen the models agree, only a crackpot could consider those conclusions anything but reliable, regardless of if the models are ever publicly released. Some fools just don't know when to vest their faith in authority to do their thinking for them.

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?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Exactly, when a professional scientific organization like NIST says their models prove their conclusions and other reputable scientists who've surely seen the models agree, only a crackpot could consider those conclusions anything but reliable, regardless of if the models are ever publicly released. Some fools just don't know when to vest their faith in authority to do their thinking for them.

What's stopping opponents from creating their own models?

 

[ktesibios]

What's stopping opponents from creating their own models?

A shortage of pizza boxes?