LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Do you think they infected him?
Why don't you follow Chris's lead and contact them yourself? Of course if you want answers, you'll need to be respectful.
- Status
Do you think they infected him?
Why don't you follow Chris's lead and contact them yourself? Of course if you want answers, you'll need to be respectful.
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
Do you think they infected him?
Why don't you follow Chris's lead and contact them yourself? Of course if you want answers, you'll need to be respectful.
Hello, traitorous pigs known as NIST? Who am I?...I'm a citizen journalist who's asking questions and demanding answers. Lemme talk to the guy responsible for covering up the controlled demolition...NOW!
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Just to clarify... in my conversations with NIST people, I never heard them say they had no initial hypothesis at all. It's entirely possible they started with the hypothesis that plane crashes plus ensuing fires somehow caused the collapse initiation. But after they said "We follow the evidence," I asked them, if you ever found any evidence of controlled demolition... a wire, a detonator, melted burns on the columns, anything, would you have followed that evidence? "Of course!" was the response. Just wanted to clarify in case there is any misunderstanding...
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
... and it only took them 14 years to begin planning such research. Love how they phrase it though. Its designed to "demonstrate the impossibility of the collapse". That there is objective research if I ever saw it.
Anyone want to lay odds whether we see either Mark Basile's red chip study or AE911T's computer study in the year 2015?
Animal
Master Poster
The answer is quite simple....The model uses standard data.......stand strength for weld, bolt torque, metal strength, live and dead loads, etc. etc.
In the real world.....welds may exceed the spec strength, and at times be less. Bolt torque may vary, imperfections in steel manufacture may make parts stronger or weaker than spec. Live and dead loads vary. Wind. Fire simulations not matching the exact fire. Objects in the building protecting parts of the steel structure from fire heating creating localized strength spots.
Take those variables time the number of structural members (as well as countless variables I did not think of off the top of my head) and you get millions of possibilities for the way the building collapses once the initiating even occurs.
Miragememories
Banned
Stating something is an impossibility does not make it so.
The NIST used an analytical method few people understood thoroughly and played with a vast array of unknowns to make it seem to the general public that a computer proved their hypothesis to be right and the AE911T wrong.
The artificialness of the collapse of 7WTC was as obvious as George W Bush fashioning himself in the mold of Johnny Carson.
With all due respect for your analyses and others JSanderO, only a designed implosion accounts for the clearly synchronous descent of the NE, NW and SW corners at FF acceleration for 8 storeys.
What people and for how long?
Sorry, but chatting up NIST receptionists to falsely pad the depth of your supposed journalist investigation does not count.
It only serves as blatant self-promotion for your, yawn, 20 videos.
In the 'real world', natural forces do not cause 47-storey buildings to collapse in the manner exhibited by 7WTC unless artificially assisted.
Without assistance by controlled demolition, and assuming natural forces were up to the task, part of 7WTC would have remained standing, or the greater part of the building would have quite obviously toppled towards the south.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Except that their method was peer-reviewed in the appropriate professional literature, by people who do understand it.
Do you understand it?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I thought we agreed you were not an engineer. Please state the foundation for this expert opinion you've just rendered.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
This is true. Those that do understand them thoroughly are called "experts". This would not include you or me, nor would it include Richard Gage or even Tony Szamboti.
One place where I would hope to find a few experts is the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and especially the editorial board of their principal professional peer-reviewed journal, the "Journal of Structural Engineering" (JSE). When the NIST-Team submitted their analytical method to the JSE in 2009, it was ranked by the SCImago Journal Rank as the 2nd best among 307 civil and structural engineering journals world wide according to H-Index (Hirsch number) and ninth according to SJR. So this is as prestigeous and respected as you can possibly get in the world of engineering science.
And guess what (actually, no need to guess, you should already know, because I explained it to you): Their method passed the peer review by the eminent, thoroughly competent experts selected by the JSE!
Contrast this to the venue that Harrit and Jones chose - Bentham Science Publishers, whose array of open access journals is primarily known for their "questionable peer-review practices". "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" has never been ranked at all, and has since been discontinued, after having published only 3.5 articles per year. This is the bottom-most rung on the ladder of science - you can't possible get worse than this (well, actually, you can).
It doesn't matter what it may "seem" to the general public. Neither the model nor the NIST reports nor the paper at JSE were made for the general public - they were made for a professional, competent audience. That most decisively excludes you, me and Mr. Gage.
And this is a bit that you invented. Quite possibly a lie - you should be perfectly aware that NIST did not work for the benefit of AE911T or with AE911T in mind. When the draft report on the WTC7 collapse was published in august 2008, with the full results of the modelling already finished, AE911T had been around for just over a year, and had yet collected signatures from only a few dozend engineers in relevant fields, representing under 0.01% of the trade. It was much more a non-entity than it is today.
Much of the work of course had been done before Gage's circus saw the light of day - it was a multi-year endeavour!
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And we wait with bated breath to see what prestigious venue the announced computer analysis by AE911T will be published in.
Keep in mind we've already seen snippets of what may develop as their computer analysis. It was upon that basis that Gage's counsel threatened NIST with dire consequences if they did not take him seriously -- that lawsuits would ensue and that the hallowed universities of Europe -- Cambridge was mentioned -- would be called upon to endorse AE911T's extant computer analysis.
Neither of course happened. Pepper handwaved away his threats, claiming that he couldn't get a fair trial from the corrupt American judicial system. And years hence, not a peep has arisen from Cambridge or any other European university taking NIST to task and endorsing Gage.
But keep in mind the wording of MM's statement is a cursory turnabout of my wording in criticizing AE911T's plans. Unless I miss my guess, their planned activity is aimed at the general public, most notably to convince the general public that AE911T has some sort of relevance or stature and is therefore worthy of more serious attention. AE911T most often aims their publications toward the benefit of the general public, so I think it's a reasonable guess.
In contrast the findings of NIST are certainly available to the general public, but are written presuming a specialist's level of understanding. By the same token anyone can obtain NTSB accident reports, but the reader is presumed to understand the sciences and methods behind what is covered in those reports. The reports provide suitable public accountability in both cases, but that accountability does not include generally educating the reader in the specialized topics they cover.
So while it's valid to say that some readers won't understand the methods NIST describes in their findings, it's a different thing altogether to suggest that because of it, NIST can credibly hope to fool its readers by unfairly manipulating the methods.
This is true. More importantly, the point I made to Szamboti -- which he has yet even to acknowledge, much less refute -- is that NIST's findings are not simply the dumb recitation of the results of computer modeling. Their conclusions were drawn on a consilience of investigation, one of which tools was the computer model.
The vast misrepresentation that AE911T perpetrates through Szamboti is that if some minute flaw can be found in the computer model, then the whole of NIST's findings must come crashing down as otherwise entirely unfounded. That isn't the case. But it's the argument AE911T appears to be mounting. The computer model is the straw man.
Indeed, but take it as a clumsy artifact of MM's turnabout ploy. What I listed was what I believe is an accurate summary of two avenues of research AE911T wishes to pursue. They wish to use computer modeling to achieve two goals: (1) prove NIST's analysis is incorrect, and (2) prove their theory of controlled demolition best fits the observation. Turning those goals about, as MM has done by changing a few words in my statement, doesn't really apply to NIST, as you've noticed, but I don't think that was necessarily his intent.
It wouldn't matter whether AE911T existed when NIST studied WTC 7, or even whether the allegations had been generally known about from any source. NIST has no power to investigate claims of wrongdoing. Therefore the notion that they were set specifically to refute any such claim is fairly unsustainable.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,342
Why would they wait until the early evening instead of doing it almost instantly when one of the other buildings collapsed, and why not collapse all 3 at almost the same time?
Wouldn't it have been even more suspicious to collapse 7 without the huge hole inside and fire, neither of which they could have relied on from collapse of the other buildings.
Was this an optional collapse that they planned, and only if it seemed like there was enough damage to it to not be suspicious?
This makes about as much sense as claiming fake planes for the WTC but a real missile, not a fake plane, for the Pentagon.
Wouldn't it have been even more suspicious to collapse 7 without the huge hole inside and fire, neither of which they could have relied on from collapse of the other buildings.
Was this an optional collapse that they planned, and only if it seemed like there was enough damage to it to not be suspicious?
This makes about as much sense as claiming fake planes for the WTC but a real missile, not a fake plane, for the Pentagon.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Is there any doubt that it will grace the prestigious YouTube?
They'll collect large amounts of money then present a cheesy video............
From what I can make out, they waited until early evening because they had to rig the building with explosives.
Apparently there wasn't a big hole in the side of 7 nor were there big fires.
It all makes perfect sense to truthers
but what would I know? just like the truthers I wasn't there either.George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Do you think they infected him?
Why don't you follow Chris's lead and contact them yourself? Of course if you want answers, you'll need to be respectful.
Never happen. He doesn't want his world view to crumble away.
Miragememories
Banned
Dodge 101.
Attack the arguer and ignore the argument.
Whether I am, or am not an engineer, is irrelevant.
I can say with certainty that 2 + 2 equals 4 without having to provide qualifications as a mathematician.
If a building can be seen to drop like a stone for 8 storeys, its underlying support must also be dropping like a stone for 8 storeys.
Any significant delay in the loss of support for each corner will result in a tilt.
The greater the difference, the greater and more noticeable the tilt.
In the case of 7WTC, controlled demolition by implosion is so obvious that Danny Jowenko, a professional demolition engineer noted it immediately upon observing the collapse video.
But, if the argument is so seriously flawed, a good engineer should have little difficulty exposing it as so.
Other than reciting the words of others and constantly resorting to verbose hand waving, I do not recall you presenting any original engineering arguments that you can claim as your own JayUtah.
The NIST engineers spent 7 years on the problem and they still couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Though they pretended they could.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Structural analysis is not equivalent to basic arithmetic. It is, in fact, a skill that requires rigorous licensure. I therefore do not accept the basis of your opinion.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why do you still lie and depict the collapse as taking ~6.5 seconds? You know this is a lie and continue to promote it. The collapse took 17+ seconds.
Why do you insist on lying?
Last edited:
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
I dont contribute much to 9/11 CTs,but do I understand this correct
Building 7 was prepped to demolish before the day thus the planes hitting twin towers sending debri raining down on to Building 7 setting it on fire weakening its structure was just a happy coincidence?
How did these fires and debri not interfere with the explosives planted? How were tptb going to explain the collapse of wtc7 had the planes not hit?
Building 7 was prepped to demolish before the day thus the planes hitting twin towers sending debri raining down on to Building 7 setting it on fire weakening its structure was just a happy coincidence?
How did these fires and debri not interfere with the explosives planted? How were tptb going to explain the collapse of wtc7 had the planes not hit?
- Status