NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[BasqueArch]

Obviously NIST has nothing to hide:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

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.

What’s stopping you and Gage from doing your own ANSYS simulations. NIST has exhaustively published all the necessary inputs for WTC1,2,7; sizes, dimensions, strengths, spacings of beams, columns, joists, girders, spacing, number and location of shear bolts, clips, concrete strength, depth, reinforcing, heat, location, length of time, loadings, moment frames, etc. Since Derek Johnson is working on this, the claim NIST is withholding irreproducible information and results is false.

I recall Gage collecting thousands of dollars a year or two ago to buy ANSYS software for analysis, and thousands more to indict Sunder. What happened to that money? The analysis, the indictments?

Oh…. Right.

 

[T.A.M.]

Railroading a troublemaker (i.e. one who makes JREFers look really bad) off your forum on trumped up charges might benefit you in the short term but will make an extremely powerful story for me. I win either way.

I am doing no such thing. You were implying a threat...I called you on it. I did not suggest you be railroaded or kicked off the forum, did I?

TAM

 

[Dog Town]

Railroading a troublemaker (i.e. one who makes JREFers look really bad) off your forum...

Why are all TWOOFERS, so delusional?

 

[cmatrix]

Why not just file a lawsuit?

Why not just release the data? How on earth could the data "jeopardize public safety"?

If AE911Truth created a computer model showing how the three buildings were destroyed by explosives but refused to release the data citing "security concerns" how would JREFies respond?

 

[uke2se]

Why not just release the data? How on earth could the data "jeopardize public safety"?

Why not just file a lawsuit and get the data? Why whine about it here?

 

[Thunder]

Why not just release the data? How on earth could the data "jeopardize public safety"?

why are you asking us?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why not just release the data? How on earth could the data "jeopardize public safety"?

If AE911Truth created a computer model showing how the three buildings were destroyed by explosives but refused to release the data citing "security concerns" how would JREFies respond?

Why not just file a petition for judicial review, which is expressly set forth in the Freedom of information Act, and requires the department with holding the documents to prove that they should be with held?

Oh, that's right, it is so much easier to conspira-spank on the damn internet.

By the way, your AE911 truth analogy is laughably bad!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there anything new to talk about here, or has cmatrix just been in a coma for the last three months?

Dave

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Obviously NIST has nothing to hide:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

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.

"Physics-violating"? Really??

Truthers believe that the Law of Physics was "broken". However crazy and paranoid the claim is, they believe that steel evaporated into dust, that the law of gravity couldn't have caused the collapses, that fire doesn't cause steel to soften with heavy loads on them, ect. ect. ect. The Law of Physics weren't broken in any way, shape or form, 9/11 wasn't some fantasy, the events that happened that day were real.

The physical evidence supports the 9/11 Official Report that the Laws of Physics were there and are proven in the investigation by the Commission.

Not a single piece of evidence on the 9/11 Truthers side has ever surfaced to debunk the Laws of Physics.

And if you say that you have evidence that the Law of Physics was "broken", please, by all means, show us this evidence of which you speak of!

 

[BigAl]

Why not just file a petition for judicial review, which is expressly set forth in the Freedom of information Act, and requires the department with holding the documents to prove that they should be with held?

Oh, that's right, it is so much easier to conspira-spank on the damn internet.

By the way, your AE911 truth analogy is laughably bad!

Resubmit the request and if it'd denied, insist on an official answer as to why.

The FOIA process has recently changed for the better and it's productive to resubmit any request that resulted in a less than satisfactory response.

 

[Disbelief]

Why not just file a petition for judicial review, which is expressly set forth in the Freedom of information Act, and requires the department with holding the documents to prove that they should be with held?

Oh, that's right, it is so much easier to conspira-spank on the damn internet.

By the way, your AE911 truth analogy is laughably bad!

I like how the TM hits a roadblock in their search for the truth and collectively throw their hands in the air, unable to figure out the next step. They even have the esteemed Jammonius, a truther lawyer, who could file the lawsuit for them. Instead, they whine and cry.

 

[Chorduroy]

I like how the TM hits a roadblock in their search for the truth and collectively throw their hands in the air, unable to figure out the next step. They even have the esteemed Jammonius, a truther lawyer, who could file the lawsuiut for them. Instead, they whine and cry.

Isn't Jammonius a no-planer? I don't think I'd want him performing any legal duties on my behalf ...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Isn't Jammonius a no-planer? I don't think I'd want him performing any legal duties on my behalf ...

Maybe, but who wouldn't want to see him representing the truth movement in court?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

why are you asking us?

Because this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum. As a skeptic what might be the possibilities why NIST would refuse to release such data?

Do you accept their response that any release would jeapordize public safety?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why not just release the data? How on earth could the data "jeopardize public safety"?

If AE911Truth created a computer model showing how the three buildings were destroyed by explosives but refused to release the data citing "security concerns" how would JREFies respond?

Have you even attempted to send an email or make a phone call to find out why...clarification on the matter?

I know it is a step beyond investigoogling, but if you want to know, why not ask?

Oh let me guess, you KNOW that what ever answer you got, it would simply be a lie...right.

Self fulfilling rocks!!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I like how the TM hits a roadblock in their search for the truth and collectively throw their hands in the air, unable to figure out the next step. They even have the esteemed Jammonius, a truther lawyer, who could file the lawsuiut for them. Instead, they whine and cry.

jammonius is a lawyer? really?

really?

really?

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

Because this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum. As a skeptic what might be the possibilities why NIST would refuse to release such data?

Do you accept their response that any release would jeapordize public safety?

You know, if I was in their shoes, I would not.

And therefore I would have filed a petition for judicial review three months ago.

where is their petition for judicial review, or is this going to be another truther cluster ****?

 

[T.A.M.]

Because this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum. As a skeptic what might be the possibilities why NIST would refuse to release such data?

Do you accept their response that any release would jeapordize public safety?

accept? from my perspective, with my lack of expertise, and their plethora of it...I would accept it.

As a paranoid, know it all truther, hell bent on slandering and crucifying anyone related to the investigations of the attacks...no, I would want (not that I would seriously accept any answer from them if I was a truther) clarification.

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Because this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum. As a skeptic what might be the possibilities why NIST would refuse to release such data?

Do you accept their response that any release would jeapordize public safety?

Is there any evidence that NIST is refusing to release any data they have?

If in fact there is evidence, where is the source of the information?

If there isn't any evidence or source of information, then it's concluded that the information is false & that NIST has been able to release all the current data they have updated.

 

[T.A.M.]

The truthers are like a bunch of people standing around a hole, saying,

"Boy that is not the way that hole should look. Its too shallow. It needs to be dug some more."

but when someone says,

"Who wants to help dig the hole deeper." every one shrugs, then turns and leaves.

Laziest bunch of protesters I have ever seen.

TAM