NIST updates

[Kryptos]

FYI - NIST has updated their website:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

These changes are in response to a letter. NIST responded to the letter, addressing some of the controlled demolition theory, such as:

"Your letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC towers"

They deny numerous changes that were requested.

Here is the letter:
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

Of course, the truthers read this as "NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable - Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed"

 

[jhunter1163]

I gather this is the response to the RFC Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones sent in. It's a complete and total smackdown of every point in the RFC. Denied, denied, denied!

Ah, sweet schadenfreude.

 

[e^n]

I gather this is the response to the RFC Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones sent in. It's a complete and total smackdown of every point in the RFC. Denied, denied, denied!

Ah, sweet schadenfreude.

Ah but PrisonPlanet can lie to twist things to sound like they might support them

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm

 

[Wildy]

Of course, the truthers read this as "NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable - Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed"

Speaking of something like that. May I show you something from our favourite friend Mr. The-WTC-was-built-with-a-concrete-core-that-was-filled-with-explosives-that-I-can't-prove-but (breath) you-can't-prove-me-wrong-because-I-will-never-accept-anything-you-post-because-it-has-been-infiltrated-or-censored-by-something-that-I-also-cannot-prove (breath) and-if-you-aren't-an-American-then-you-shouldn't-even-be-talking-in-such-a-thread-unless-you-are-some-NWO-shill aka ChristopherA.

Which is a thread basically titled exactly as you wrote just there.

 

[pomeroo]

I suspect that Doctor Emmett L. Brown, AKA Max Photon, won't be pleased.

Ah, what am I saying? He'll blast off into the deepest recesses of the universe and discover some new principles of a science no one on Earth recognizes.

 

[RedIbis]

What do you guys make of this?

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf (pg. 4)

 

[WildCat]

What do you guys make of this?

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf (pg. 4)

What do you make of it? It is obvious you don't understand what NIST is saying. There simply isn't enough data to fully explain such a chaotic event. It's bewildering that truthers can't ever seem to understand this.

 

[Quad4_72]

What do you guys make of this?

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf (pg. 4)

Reading for comprehension is key.

"At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."

That quote is a couple of lines up from yours. In other words the actual collapse itself is too complicated to model. Anything else?

 

[The Doc]

I fail to see how this letter supports the conspiracy theory in any way. In fact, it specifically states that no evidence indicates the use of explosives.

I have yet to read the whole thing, but this isn't really anything new coming from NIST.

ETA:
Furthermore, NIST isn't claiming that the total collapse of the towers was impossible at all. They are claiming that modeling such an event is impossible and that they cannot provide a total collapse model because too much data is involved. It's an explanation as to why only the initiation was modeled.

Some people are just so stupid and ignorant.

 

[Par]

What do you guys make of this?

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf (pg. 4)

I took it to mean that it wouldn’t be possible for NIST (or anyone else, for that matter) to fully explain every aspect of such a complex event.

 

[RedIbis]

What do you make of it? It is obvious you don't understand what NIST is saying. There simply isn't enough data to fully explain such a chaotic event. It's bewildering that truthers can't ever seem to understand this.

I understand just fine. They're being honest.

 

[RedIbis]

I fail to see how this letter supports the conspiracy theory in any way. In fact, it specifically states that no evidence indicates the use of explosives.

I have yet to read the whole thing, but this isn't really anything new coming from NIST.

It also specifically states that they didn't test for explosive residue.

 

[WildCat]

I understand just fine. They're being honest.

The drowning man desperately clings to a straw...

 

[The Doc]

It also specifically states that they didn't test for explosive residue.

Yes, because there was no reason to test for explosive residue. It didn't fit the purpose of the investigation, and there was no preliminary indications from the 500+ interviews that took place that explosives may have been involved.

 

[pomeroo]

It also specifically states that they didn't test for explosive residue.

The 9/11 fantasy movement is dead.

 

[Quad4_72]

You are getting owned redibis just like the loons who sent that letter in. Give it up.

 

[DGM]

It also specifically states that they didn't test for explosive residue.

They wouldn't really need to. Examining the failures on site would show easily any use of explosives. People were there cleaning up and not one person noticed anything suspicious.

 

[RedIbis]

You are getting owned redibis just like the loons who sent that letter in. Give it up.

The letter I quoted was from NIST.

They're quite clear when they say,

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

 

[WildCat]

The letter I quoted was from NIST.

They're quite clear when they say,

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"

It's quite clear you don't understand what they are saying. But then, reading comprehension was never a truther strong suit.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I understand just fine. They're being honest.

The trouble is, the attitude of the truth movement actively discourages honesty, when a general statement that certain phenomena are inherently incapable of being modelled exactly is taken as an admission that those tasked with their analysis are negligent, dishonest or even treasonous.

Dave