• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST raw data?

padragan

Scholar
P
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
119
Hi,

I wonder how much of the raw data NIST used for calculations and simulations that are available to the public? And how much of it that has been reviewed by peers that had access to it. Does anyone know?

We are discussing 911 in another forum (btw, Heiwa continued his "heiwa challenge" there and claim ha was banned from JREF because you couldn't prove him wrong... ;) ) and one of the twoofers make it sound like NIST is not sharing any indata at all (of course he is at the same time completely unable to lay forward any of the MOUNTAIN of evidence he calim to have, like cutter charges for nano thermite).

So, anyone with better insight than me on the complete process?


Kind regards!
 
padragan said:
Hi,

I wonder how much of the raw data NIST used for calculations and simulations that are available to the public? And how much of it that has been reviewed by peers that had access to it. Does anyone know?

We are discussing 911 in another forum (btw, Heiwa continued his "heiwa challenge" there and claim ha was banned from JREF because you couldn't prove him wrong... ;) ) and one of the twoofers make it sound like NIST is not sharing any indata at all (of course he is at the same time completely unable to lay forward any of the MOUNTAIN of evidence he calim to have, like cutter charges for nano thermite).

So, anyone with better insight than me on the complete process?


Kind regards!
Click to expand...

As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.
 
As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.
Click to expand...

And if they did, would you believe it?
 
Why? How qualified are you to analyze the numbers?

If person A says the numbers add up & person B says they don't, who would you believe and why? How would you check the figures?
 
bill smith said:
As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The data is in the reports. The raw data for their simulations is available for a fee (it's connected to proprietary software).
 
PB2007 said:
Why? How qualified are you to analyze the numbers?

If person A says the numbers add up & person B says they don't, who would you believe and why? How would you check the figures?
Click to expand...

Not me of course. But we collectively have more than enough of the necessary expertise to check NIST's work which we will do down to the minutest detail. You know it,
 
DGM said:
Wrong. The data is in the reports. The raw data for their simulations is available for a fee (it's connected to proprietary software).
Click to expand...

Do you have a link or similar to back that up? It would be really nice to prove once and for all that they're not hiding things on purpose, but of ocurse the twoofers need to have it written on their forheads before they believe it themselves.
 
padragan said:
Do you have a link or similar to back that up? It would be really nice to prove once and for all that they're not hiding things on purpose, but of ocurse the twoofers need to have it written on their forheads before they believe it themselves.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).
 
DGM said:
It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).
Click to expand...

I am not laughing into my hand....ahem.
 
DGM said:
It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).
Click to expand...

In this case we discussed the simulation of WTC7.
 
padadragan, you don't post much here, so this is just free advice.

Click on the name "bill smith"
Choose "Add bill smith to your ignore list"

This will make the thread easier to follow.
 
padragan said:
In this case we discussed the simulation of WTC7.
Click to expand...
Again, You need to ask them specifically what information is being hidden. The raw data file for the simulation is not going to do you any good unless you have the several thousand dollar program to run it (and main-frame computers). In any case all the data they used to put together the simulation (inputs) is in the reports.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Again, You need to ask them specifically what information is being hidden. The raw data file for the simulation is not going to do you any good unless you have the several thousand dollar program to run it (and main-frame computers). In any case all the data they used to put together the simulation (inputs) is in the reports.
Click to expand...

Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.
 
carlitos said:
padadragan, you don't post much here, so this is just free advice.

Click on the name "bill smith"
Choose "Add bill smith to your ignore list"

This will make the thread easier to follow.
Click to expand...

JREF needs an option to ignore posts that have quoted posts by ignored users.
 
padragan said:
Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Point out the fact that NIST has produced over 12,000 pages of reports. What do they think is contained in these pages?

NIST would have done a youtube video but they (youtube) doesn't allow 960 hour videos. :D
 
DGM said:
Point out the fact that NIST has produced over 12,000 pages of reports. What do they think is contained in these pages?

NIST would have done a youtube video but they (youtube) doesn't allow 960 hour videos. :D
Click to expand...


Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom