NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[T.A.M.]

Right... you're too lazy to go to a government office and fill out some paperwork. You don't care enough (or at all) about the victims and their families to find out the truth about what happened to them.

In other words, you're a typical 9/11 truther.

Exactly. I think we should divide them up into two distinct groups...the typical, amotivated investigoogler types, and then the few (scarce) who actually do some research and go out to get the evidence they wish.

First group much much larger then second

TAM

 

[beachnut]

For once, you are right. We do not have the evidence to support that claim because we aren't allowed to see it. Of couse, you don't see that as a problem. Hiding the simulation details from the rest of the scientific community is good science in your book.

The real reason this info was not released is because their computer simulation of the collapses is complete and utter baloney loaf.....

You support nut case ideas like this? Fire destroyed WTC 7, and the dolts in 911 can't figure it out. Now you want the data NIST to confirm 911 truth have idiotic ideas? Go to court. Leave out the utter baloney stuff, since it it not baloney, except for those who lack knowledge and have paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

[cmatrix]

OK I think we can all agree on the following and set this thread to rest:

The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with scientific jargon to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF do take NIST and their WTC 7 report seriously. They take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. They believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

OK I think we can all agree on the following and set this thread to rest:

Stop trolling...

 

[DGM]

OK I think we can all agree on the following and set this thread to rest:

The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with scientific jargon to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF do take NIST and their WTC 7 report seriously. They take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. They believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility.

By ALL , you are referring to all the voices within your own head?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OK I think we can all agree on the following and set this thread to rest:

The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with scientific jargon to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF do take NIST and their WTC 7 report seriously. They take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. They believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility.

Agreed.

 

[T.A.M.]

OK I think we can all agree on the following and set this thread to rest:

The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with scientific jargon to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF do take NIST and their WTC 7 report seriously. They take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. They believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility.

No....but I am sure we can all agree on the following...

The Conspiracy Theories surrounding 9/11 are absolute garbage dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists, such as Steven Jones and Harrit, that refuse to share the samples their experiments are based on would never have papers published (except in a sham vanity journal), would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the Jihadist apologists at JREF and on the internetz, do take the Conspiracy Theories surrounding 9/11 seriously. They take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. They believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of non-experts and fools. That is not skepticism that is gullibility.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK I think we can all agree on the following

Since this is patently untrue and you cannot help but know that it is patently untrue, then all you've done is expose yourself as a liar.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Agreed.

So you believe that the NIST WTC 7 report is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists". But NIST steadfastly refuses to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible and are therefore meant to be taken on faith. So you believe the NIST report is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST report is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. The NIST apologists here, including yourself, believe in these experts without question. That makes the NIST apologists here overly gullible not skeptical. These massive contradictions in your thinking betray an extreme affliction of double-think.

 

[DGM]

So you believe that the NIST WTC 7 report is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists". But NIST steadfastly refuses to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible. So you believe the NIST report is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST report is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. The NIST apologists here, including yourself, believe in these experts without question. That makes the NIST apologists here overly gullible not skeptical. These massive contradictions in your thinking betray an extreme affliction of double-think.

I believe you think superman can fly!

 

[TSR]

What about knowing that you are on a hijacked plane taking an
"instantaneous" tour through New York before being smashed into pieces into a skyscraper? I know! All instantaneous.

.
How would the passengers *know* they were going smash into a building? Was it announced? Were they invited en masse to the cockpit so that they could see where the plane was headed?

Yes, at better than 500 MPH, death would be pretty much instantaneous.
.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you believe that the NIST WTC 7 report is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists". But NIST steadfastly refuses to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible and are therefore meant to be taken on faith. So you believe the NIST report is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST report is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. The NIST apologists here, including yourself, believe in these experts without question. That makes the NIST apologists here overly gullible not skeptical. These massive contradictions in your thinking betray an extreme affliction of double-think.

How is that judicial review action? Just kidding, we know you won't do anything about it except whine on the internet.

By the way, how do you know that they didn't release it to other "scientists" outside the FOIA process? Maybe they have a "No Douchebags" policy, like my golf club?

 

[T.A.M.]

So you believe that the NIST WTC 7 report is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists". But NIST steadfastly refuses to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible and are therefore meant to be taken on faith. So you believe the NIST report is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST report is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. The NIST apologists here, including yourself, believe in these experts without question. That makes the NIST apologists here overly gullible not skeptical. These massive contradictions in your thinking betray an extreme affliction of double-think.

So you believe that Jones and Harrit's paper is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists". But Jones and Harrit steadfastly refuse to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible and are therefore meant to be taken on faith. So you believe the Jones and Harrit's paper is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the Jones and Harrit's paper is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of idiots. The Terrorist apologists here and others on the internetz, including yourself, believe in these idiots without question. That makes the terrorist apologists here and on the internetz verly gullible not skeptical. These massive contradictions in your thinking betray an extreme affliction of double-think.

TAM

 

[TSR]

Just the best type of evidence.

.
And what can physical evidence all by itself demonstrate?
.

 

[Miragememories]

.
And what can physical evidence all by itself demonstrate?
.

Physical proof maybe?

MM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So you believe that the NIST WTC 7 report is science-based not faith-based. And you beleive that "in science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists".

Yes.

But NIST steadfastly refuses to share their experimental data with other scientists. That means their experiments are unreplicated and unreproducible and are therefore meant to be taken on faith. So you believe the NIST report is not science but faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST report is not supported in any way it merely consists of the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. The NIST apologists here, including yourself, believe in these experts without question. That makes the NIST apologists here overly gullible not skeptical.

This is a repeat of the portions I crossed out, so no, I do not agree with this.

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.

 

[TSR]

Physical proof maybe?

.
So physical proof proves physical proof.

Is that your final answer?

Proof of what? Do we know where that physical proof was gathered, and under what circumstances? What about chain of custody? I could offer physical proof that water is wet, but is that relevant?

Free hint: physical proof all by itself proves nothing without accompanying testimony.

"I offer into evidence this small vial of sooperdoopernanotherm*te."

"Where did it come from?"

"..."

"How was it gathered?"

"..."

"What evidence do you offer that this had anything to do the collapse of WTC7?"

"But it's ***physical evidence*** Your Honor, the best kind...."

"Bailiff, take this person into custody for Contempt of Court"

"I do not contrac.... hey, let me go!"
.

 

[cmatrix]

Yes.



This is a repeat of the portions I crossed out, so no, I do not agree with this.

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.

 

[grandmastershek]

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.

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.

 

[beachnut]

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.

How much more time before you break this story, and succeed? ABC, CBS, NBC, Pulitzer, CNN!? When? When will you take action?