NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[DGM]

What's stopping opponents from creating their own models?

According to them they "can't get the plans for the building". The only hitch to this is they never say who they've actually tried to get them from. I can picture they contacted NIST or FEMA but the trouble is, they don't own them or at liberty to give them away. The original architect when belly-up a while ago. Have any of them contacted Silverstein Properties?

 

[A W Smith]

According to them they "can't get the plans for the building". The only hitch to this is they never say who they've actually tried to get them from. I can picture they contacted NIST or FEMA but the trouble is, they don't own them or at liberty to give them away. The original architect when belly-up a while ago. Have any of them contacted Silverstein Properties?

even if the architectural firm was still in business. the construction documents for any building are not freely available to the general public. they are privately owned property. I myself ran into this problem for a recently built residence with structural issues. the town would not release the construction documents to the owner, my architect. nor me the contractor. they would let us look at them in the office but that was all. The original architectural firm ignored his calls.

 

[kylebisme]

I would tend to trust over 100 professional engineers, architects, and fire protection engineers, over a landscape engineer any day.

Sure, it's just a simple matter of knowing how to choose who to trust. The NIST report says their model is consistent with how WTC 7 actually came down, and they consulted lots of people with impressive qualifications in that report, while plenty more don't question it. So, there's absolutely no reason anyone should need to see the model to believe it's the proof NIST says it is, their word is obviously golden.

 

[triforcharity]

Sure, it's just a simple matter of knowing how to choose who to trust. The NIST report says their model is consistent with how WTC 7 actually came down, and they consulted lots of people with impressive qualifications in that report, while plenty more don't question it. So, there's absolutely no reason anyone should need to see the model to believe it's the proof NIST says it is, their word is obviously golden.

So, when will any of the dolts at AE911T be publishing a paper in a proper peer-reviewed journal showing NIST wrong? Or, do you take their word as golden?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sure, it's just a simple matter of knowing how to choose who to trust. The NIST report says their model is consistent with how WTC 7 actually came down, and they consulted lots of people with impressive qualifications in that report, while plenty more don't question it. So, there's absolutely no reason anyone should need to see the model to believe it's the proof NIST says it is, their word is obviously golden.

But, of course, you not only know what you're talking about, but wouldn't dare lie to us, huh? And what reason can you give us to trust any of the words coming out of your head? These engineers have proven themselves in their work (outside of the NIST report). You have done nothing.

 

[beachnut]

Sure, it's just a simple matter of knowing how to choose who to trust. The NIST report says their model is consistent with how WTC 7 actually came down, and they consulted lots of people with impressive qualifications in that report, while plenty more don't question it. So, there's absolutely no reason anyone should need to see the model to believe it's the proof NIST says it is, their word is obviously golden.

Wow, does this mean you are breaking out some differential equations and your own analysis to prove NIST got it wrong, and fire did it, but did it your way? Wow. Did it take a whole year? You do have something more than empty talk? No?

If you need to attack NIST to have your idiotic fantasy come true in your mind, you better do a better job. Fire caused WTC 7 to collapse, and you can't prove otherwise by attacking NIST, you have to do your own study. Good luck.

I can model the WTC 7 collapse myself, so I don't need NIST to tell me about thermal expansion, one of the oldest phenomena in the universe. As for your weak attack on NIST, go ahead, but you have failed to do more than expose your lack of knowledge in models, fire, explosives, and more. Keep up the good work; will you be back next year?

 

[George 152]

The latest kook trick is to claim that WTC7 is not mentioned in the NIST Report.
The Report uses the building number first so 7WTC is WTC7.
A small point but one the kooks are trying to push

 

[kylebisme]

Wow, does this mean you are breaking out some differential equations and your own analysis to prove NIST got it wrong, and fire did it, but did it your way?

Nah man, I'm saying the fact that NIST made their model proves WTC 7 must have come down they said it did, so there's no need to even see their model come down to believe them, or to bother reproducing NIST's conclusions. Only a fool wouldn't realize that such distinguished authority is beyond reproach.

 

[WildCat]

Nah man, I'm saying the fact that NIST made their model proves WTC 7 must have come down they said it did, so there's no need to even see their model come down to believe them, or to bother reproducing NIST's conclusions. Only a fool wouldn't realize that such distinguished authority is beyond reproach.

Truthers couldn't understand the model anyway. You guys think chicken wire cages, barbecue grills, billiard balls, trees, pizza boxes, plastic office organizer trays, and cardboard boxes make accurate models of 1300' tall skyscrapers.

 

[triforcharity]

Nah man, I'm saying the fact that NIST made their model proves WTC 7 must have come down they said it did, so there's no need to even see their model come down to believe them, or to bother reproducing NIST's conclusions. Only a fool wouldn't realize that such distinguished authority is beyond reproach.

Feel free to research it.

I suggest the following colleges and organizations for fire science education.

Worchester Polytechnic Institute

NFPA

Interfire

US Fire Administration

University of Maryland-Department of FPE

Louisiana State University

University of Florida

Journal of Fire Science

Those would be great places to start.

 

[beachnut]

Nah man, I'm saying the fact that NIST made their model proves WTC 7 must have come down they said it did, so there's no need to even see their model come down to believe them, or to bother reproducing NIST's conclusions. Only a fool wouldn't realize that such distinguished authority is beyond reproach.

You have seen their model results. To check it, do your own model. No one needs NIST to tell them WTC 7 fell due to fire. Firemen on 911 knew it.

You want all the work NIST did? Are you a structural engineer? What good would having their data do? If you suspect WTC 7 was CD, then you have no capabilities to understand the NIST model in the first place since you fall for lies and delusions. If you are an engineer and you believe in CD of WTC 1, 2, and 7, you have wasted serious money earning a degree which has failed.

911 truth can't figure out 911 so they make up junk to hide their failure to understand fire and engineering. Giving 911 truth the data on WTC 7 would not help 911 truth figure out 911. They are incompetent, and would make up more lies.

What is your point. Why tap-dance and fail to make a point?

 

[Miragememories]

Truthers couldn't understand the model anyway. You guys think chicken wire cages, barbecue grills, billiard balls, trees, pizza boxes, plastic office organizer trays, and cardboard boxes make accurate models of 1300' tall skyscrapers.

Ahh the blind faith in the invincibility of computer modeling.

Garbage in equals garbage out no matter how pretty the presentation.

MM

 

[DGM]

Ahh the blind faith in the invincibility of computer modeling.

Garbage in equals garbage out no matter how pretty the presentation.

MM

Can we expect to see better from you? Come on convince us.

 

[Miragememories]

"Ahh the blind faith in the invincibility of computer modeling.

Garbage in equals garbage out no matter how pretty the presentation.
"

"Can we expect to see better from you? Come on convince us.
"

No that is not how it works in a discussion DGM.

One liners are fine if your a comedian, but they offer nothing of substance
when used as a response in a discussion forum.

Now, if offering nothing of substance was your intent, than I guess you were more than successful.

I was hoping to see an argument as to why the NIST's pioneered computer model should be taken as seriously as it is?

Especially given the NIST's frequent equivocation about how inexact their data was.

MM

 

[DGM]

No that is not how it works in a discussion DGM.

One liners are fine if your a comedian, but they offer nothing of substance
when used as a response in a discussion forum.

Now, if offering nothing of substance was your intent, than I guess you were more than successful.

I was hoping to see an argument as to why the NIST's pioneered computer model should be taken as seriously as it is?

Especially given the NIST's frequent equivocation about how inexact their data was.

MM

I wasn't being funny. What exactly did they get wrong? Your criticizing an engineering study by saying simply "I don't believe it". Tell us what's wrong., we'll listen (Do I need to say your argument needs to be at least as well sourced as NIST?)

 

[Miragememories]

I wasn't being funny. What exactly did they get wrong? Your criticizing an engineering study by saying simply "I don't believe it". Tell us what's wrong., we'll listen (Do I need to say your argument needs to be at least as well sourced as NIST?)

I am saying, tell us why it is right?

The onus is as much on you prove the validity of your position as it is on me.

I am not criticizing an engineering study.

I am critical of a computer model that was a pioneering venture and had
no history of precedence that would give it the kind of credibility that you comfortably assign it.

MM

 

[DGM]

I am saying, tell us why it is right?

The onus is as much on you prove the validity of your position as it is on me.

I am not criticizing an engineering study.
I am critical of a computer model that was a pioneering venture and had
no history of precedence that would give it the kind of credibility that you comfortably assign it.

MM

Yes you are. You asking us to prove it's right. The proof is in the engineering. They did not use any cutting edge techniques. Your saying the engineering is wrong.

What is wrong with what they did?

 

[beachnut]

... I am critical of a computer model that was a pioneering venture and had no history of precedence that would give it the kind of credibility that you comfortably assign it.

MM

Where is your detailed critique? It does not exist. You say things about the computer model and expose you don't know anything about the NIST model.

What would you do with the data? When will you release your detailed critique on the NIST model?

 

[BasqueArch]

NIST Straw Herring

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.

I've never understood the whining either.

For WTC1,2,7 NIST published for all the sizes dimensions strengths of all steel members bolted connections locations plans sections bracing shear studs stiffeners moment connection details heights loading time and location of fires extent of planes damage fireproofing concrete weight strength thickness reinforcing metal pan size gauge wind speed and much more.

Gage panhandled $6-8 k last year to buy the necessary software to crack NIST. What happened to that?

NCSTAR's data provided all the input necessary for NIST's highly experienced top of the line structural engineers to model the collapses, so why can't Gage and his 1000 professionals just take this data and ....


oh ... right.

 

[kylebisme]

You have seen their model results.

Exactly, NIST released videos their model is it starting to come down as shown in this video:



Then in my imagination I've seen the model continue to come down just like WTC 7 did. What more could anyone need? Like the old adage goes, "believing is seeing" and anyone who isn't a fool should be able to see NIST's model results totally proves their conclusions are impeccable.