NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Miragememories]

For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

 

[beachnut]

OMG, the top dolts from the truth movement. No facts r us. Dr Thermite Jones, Keven Waterman Ryan...


Did you read the sophomoric paper before you post a question? Why not comment on the shortcomings of the dumb corrections they think are needed? What do you think about the engine stuff and models used? Which parts do you think are worthy of NIST consideration? Did you know NIST actually has already answered some of these question/ideas, and these guys are too challenged to find the answers themselves?

 

[Arus808]

instead of petitioning, why hasn't these "leaders" who are requesting, done their own scientific testing and submitted their findings to Scientific Journals and related fields of discussion for peer reivew?

NISt is a report.
That means, OTHER people can do their own reports, as long as they too meet the criteria that needs to be expected.

NIST went through rigorous reviews before they released their reports.


That's all the "truth" movement has done:
whine
whine
whine
whine


and when asked "well show us your work"
all is silent.

 

[T.A.M.]

For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

1. I don't believe NIST is perfect, but it is FAR, FAR better than anything else out there, and even more so wrt anything the truth movement has put out.

2. How can you DEBUNK a petition. I know they have a long list of problems with NIST, but those are THEIR problems with it...how should I possibly debunk problems they have with it.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

1. I don't believe NIST is perfect, but it is FAR, FAR better than anything else out there, and even more so wrt anything the truth movement has put out.

2. How can you DEBUNK a petition. I know they have a long list of problems with NIST, but those are THEIR problems with it...how should I possibly debunk problems they have with it.

TAM

How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM

 

[DarkMagician]

Wau, 6 signatures.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM

No amount of details can provide validity to a silly notion.

 

[Rob Lister]

How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM

Provide an example.

 

[DarkMagician]

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

You misspelled "even."

 

[beachnut]

How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM

Are you talking about the petition? It is not a cogently presented case, it is crap. Point to one cogent detail please?

 

[Triterope]

2. How can you DEBUNK a petition.

More to the point, why? The petition has been sent to NIST, and as best as anyone can determine, they are required to reply to it. Why do the CTs care what we think when they're going to get an answer out of the agency that did the thing?

 

[T.A.M.]

How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM

I waded through what I could, it is a long document. From what I saw it is a detail of what THE UNDERSIGNED find wrong with NIST. Why do I want to DEBUNK their OPINIONS of what is wrong with NIST?

and try and stop with the subtle insults (yes I find your accusations that I look before I leap to be insulting, as I did the insinuation that I post in a reactionary way), they are getting not only boring, but they may start to disobey the NEW RULES for this Subforum.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.

 

[T.A.M.]

Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.

Agreed. Lets hope they are satisfied (doubtful) with the answer(s) they recieve.

TAM

 

[The Almond]

Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.

I don't know if I would call these the appropriate channels. To be sure, it is a formal way to lodge a complaint, but NIST is only required to respond saying that they got it. They don't have to refute the data, change the report or debate/challenge the accusations.

NIST had a draft open to public comment for almost an entire year. Members of both the public and scientific community were invited to give their comments on the report, challenge methods, point out indiscretions and request that inaccuracies be addressed. NIST held dozens of public hearings, presented their drafts to congress, professional societies and public groups, and made corrections as they saw fit to their report.

Why, if the scholars had all of this (supposed) knowledge about inaccuracies in the report, have they waited until now to present them? It's a publicity stunt, and what's worse, Judy Wood thought of the idea first.

 

[Miragememories]

Are you talking about the petition? It is not a cogently presented case, it is crap. Point to one cogent detail please?

Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

I have no major trouble with this particular request, but even if corrected for, it would have negligble to nil impact on what happened in terms of collapse initiation. I see nowhere in this document where they make the case that the change above would make any difference to the eventual outcome (collapse initiation).

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.

 

[Miragememories]

I waded through what I could, it is a long document. From what I saw it is a detail of what THE UNDERSIGNED find wrong with NIST. Why do I want to DEBUNK their OPINIONS of what is wrong with NIST?

and try and stop with the subtle insults (yes I find your accusations that I look before I leap to be insulting, as I did the insinuation that I post in a reactionary way), they are getting not only boring, but they may start to disobey the NEW RULES for this Subforum.

TAM

New Rules?

No subtle insults were made in my reply.

By "look before you leap", I simply meant before you leap to respond (as in your first reply), take a bit of time to read some of what it is you are supposedly 'reacting' to!

The petition explains in great detail what is in the NIST Report that makes it significantly flawed and in need of correction. It's not opinions. It examines the NIST Report's content and reveals contradictions and logical flaws in their supposed reasoned conclusions.

I've repeatedly been accused of never presenting material that argues against the NIST Report, and when I do, you act dismissively without even examining it. That could be considered insulting as well.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

Where are your key observations. I make the statement, I read your paper/petition by the dolts from the 9/11 truth movement. I see no reason NIST would not just answer the questions, even without some real brainless petition. They answer questions all the time. The point is there is not one thing the so called "experts" could not answer themselves. Meaning, there is not one thing in this request that will change the outcome, and I feel sad for you and the guys who are too thick to think for themselves.

Meaning this will not change the outcome of what happen on 9/11. All these examples are junk. The key observable, darn do you even realize the aircraft impact energy was enough to cut all the steel columns? Can you model simple energy? Do you understand what a model simulation is? Do you understand what NIST was doing; just their goals are more worthy than this narrow biased petition? Do you understand these dolt experts are full of BS about 9/11?

I have read and understand the petition. I do not care if NIST answers it, but I do feel sorry that Dr Jones is too blind to figure this out for himself. Such a personable person should not be in the business of fraud and lies. He is a disgrace to all in Physicists, Engineers, and Scientists.

I see no details of significant flaws in need of correction, you must not be qualified to understand this. It is opinions, biased opinions in the petition misleading people like you. The petition is full of shallow questions to make truther think they have examined the NIST Report's contents and revealed contradictions and logical flaws, but they are just playing you.

Why are you unable to comprehend the lies of the truth movement?