False Authority: "Thoughts From a Former NIST Employee" on 9/11

[Morgan Lesko]

Not really. He can only speak of his personal experience, unless he's got documentation to back up the claim that this is actually NIST policy. Ketcham just did mathematical visualizations, not investigations.

It's somewhat besides the point, because NIST says there IS a "specific and compelling reason" not to - so the question is if Ketcham is qualified to judge the reason.

Thanks! Even just doing data visualizations, wouldn't his years at NIST give him direct and/or indirect knowledge of appropriate security practices for scientific data which must be kept secret? Doesn't his perspective add a little credence to complaints that the data are secret for reasons that are also secret? Isn't his opinion more valuable -- or at least uniquely different -- than others who have made the case for scientific transparency in the past?

 

[Mick West]

Thanks! Even just doing data visualizations, wouldn't his years at NIST give him direct and/or indirect knowledge of appropriate security practices for scientific data which must be kept secret? Doesn't his perspective add a little credence to complaints that the data are secret for reasons that are also secret? Isn't his opinion more valuable -- or at least uniquely different -- than others who have made the case for scientific transparency in the past?

Perhaps if he shared some actual experience he had with similar issues.

 

[Oystein]

Ketcham bears the burden of proof: a) that he is qualified b) that his experiences and qualifications pertain relevantly to NIST's forensic engineering force c) That his beliefs are "true".

I read that AE911Truth has recently showcast Ketcham as a speaker in a couple or so events they held. If you search their website or YouTube channell, you should be able to find videos of those speeches. If you are interested in whether Ketcham can and does support his opinions, I recommend you watch those speeches, and perhaps link us to relevant parts if you find gold.

 

[Morgan Lesko]

Ketcham bears the burden of proof: a) that he is qualified b) that his experiences and qualifications pertain relevantly to NIST's forensic engineering force c) That his beliefs are "true".

Unfortunately, I can't find any other content from him yet (please let me know if you have).

How can the belief that scientific data should be made transparent be "true" or "false"?

Doesn't the scientific process require the ability to replicate an experiment? If an experiment cannot be replicated, can it rationally be considered to be scientific or authoritative?

Isn't it reasonable for any citizen to believe that this public institution should publicly meet their burden of proof for their scientific claims, or their claim that transparency "might jeopardize public safety"? Thanks!

 

[Mick West]

Isn't it reasonable for any citizen to believe that this public institution should publicly meet their burden of proof for their scientific claims, or their claim that transparency "might jeopardize public safety"? Thanks!

That's a bit vague. It depends. What if revealing the specific reason for withholding the information were equivalent to releasing the information?

I don't know if NIST has a "good" reason to withhold the bits of the model they withheld. I'd like to see it released. I suspect it's largely for CYA reasons that they don't. But it's hardly evidence of controlled demolition.

 

[Mick West]

And more to the point, Ketcham's opinion on the matter is no more relevant than anyone else's. He sares nothing of his experience at NIST that is relevant.

 

[Morgan Lesko]

I agree that my questions are simply asking if he is justified as a citizen, with or without added authority as a former NIST employee. I look forward to see what we learn about him in the future, and am glad to hear you also support the release of the data. Thanks again!

 

[Oystein]

Unfortunately, I can't find any other content from him yet (please let me know if you have).

Try https://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth/videos

How can the belief that scientific data should be made transparent be "true" or "false"?

Hey, I put "truth" in quotes, to indicate this needs to be qualified.
If this is merely a belief, then you cannot cite it as a reason - beliefs are not persuasive.
I think AE911Truth markets Ketcham's believe as something that is, in some sense that goes above "mere" believe, "true" - suggestive that Ketcham's belief is based on some objective facts. Such facts could be written statue or policy, or demonstrable consistent practice throughout the Institute.

Doesn't the scientific process require the ability to replicate an experiment? If an experiment cannot be replicated, can it rationally be considered to be scientific or authoritative?

NIST did not do an experiment, they ran a model and reported on the results.
Withholding the model does not keep anyone from doing the same experiment - which is modelling the WTC7 and its fires. It didn't stop ARUP nor Weidlinger Associates from doing several models, it doesn't stop Leroy Hulsey from doing the same.

Isn't it reasonable for any citizen to believe that this public institution should publicly meet their burden of proof for their scientific claims, or their claim that transparency "might jeopardize public safety"? Thanks!

I, too, would be happier if they dumped all their hard drives' content into some publicly accessible cloud.
But as Mick says, not doing so does not make an argument for CD, nor against the big-picture hypothesis that fires brought down the building, nor against their specific probable collapse initiation sequence.

 

[benthamitemetric]

That's a bit vague. It depends. What if revealing the specific reason for withholding the information were equivalent to releasing the information?

I don't know if NIST has a "good" reason to withhold the bits of the model they withheld. I'd like to see it released. I suspect it's largely for CYA reasons that they don't. But it's hardly evidence of controlled demolition.

It's worth pointing out that it wasn't really NIST that withheld the data in response to the much cited Truther FOIA request and, in any case, it's not clear whether NIST truly does withhold data from forensic investigators, academics and other serious researchers. The Truther FOIA request was made to the Dept. of Transportation (which is the department in which NIST resides and the proper recipient of such a request pertinent to NIST). When a FOIA request is made, however, there is a statutory process that the lawyers at a given agency must abide by in determining whether information covered by such request can be released to the general public. This is different from a determination as to whether such data can be released to other researchers (subject to an NDA or otherwise). It is worth noting that (1) if you review Colin Bailey's testimony in the Aegis Insurance case, for example, you will find that he collaborated very closely with NIST in creating his WTC 7 model, and (2) the NIST WTC 7 report was re-published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, which does require, as a prerequisite to publication, that the authors of a manuscript provide their peer reviewers with all reasonably requested data necessary for their review. As such, there is some evidence that NIST has shared substantial amounts of data with others for certain purposes. Furthermore, the FOIA denial re the release of the data to the general public could have been challenged in federal court by the original petitioner, but it was not, and so there isn't much reason to think that denial was incorrect, especially given the fact that NIST's report concluded WTC 7 did have a very specific vulnerability (WTC 7 report concludes WTC 7 would have collapsed entirely even without fires had column 79 been removed between floors 11 and 13), which vulnerability we can imagine could be exploited to target and destroy similar buildings.

I think there are good arguments for NIST just releasing the data in spite of the vulnerability issue, but the proper forum for them to be hashed out is federal court. To this day, there is nothing stopping another data seeker from re-filing an FOIA for the data and pursuing it to federal court if denied again.

 

[Keith Beachy]

What about this claim by Ketcham: "First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided."

Doesn't his experience give him true authority to speak on policies and procedures within NIST?

Why do I, or an engineer doing a study on the WTC need NIST's data? NIST shared the final reports, and I think this claim/subject is mainly about WTC 7, not even a target of terrorists on 9/11. NIST clearly states goals and presents their work. Any engineer can from scratch develop original work on WTC 7 by doing research, and be independant. IF you take NIST's data, models, computations, how can the new work be independent.
Engineers who did studies independent of NIST did not quibble about what NIST did; they set goals and did their studies.

NIST has a probable collapse sequence for WTC. I don't see a valid issue on this subject, and there is no substance/evidence presented by Ketcham to support the claims/issue. Ketcham implies there are other possible causes, not fire - there is no evidence. What is secret? I have seen enough diagrams/plans/information on the WTC complex to start an independent study.

Using NIST as a scapegoat to support a CD inside job fantasy CD is not engineering, not science. NIST used science, not opinions, not speculation, their work is published and is backed by the evidence. Remember what probable means, and please read NIST and see if you think they met their goals.

The OP is about propaganda from AE911t, and the issue is an old claim. It makes no sense, and no evidence was supported.

 

[Morgan Lesko]

Try https://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth/videos

Thanks. Sorry, I was aware of the 1.5 minute video there, but it is similarly light like the public letter.

Hey, I put "truth" in quotes, to indicate this needs to be qualified.

I agree, thinking his claim for data transparency is an opinion regarding the scientific process.

NIST did not do an experiment, they ran a model and reported on the results. Withholding the model does not keep anyone from doing the same experiment - which is modelling the WTC7 and its fires. It didn't stop ARUP nor Weidlinger Associates from doing several models, it doesn't stop Leroy Hulsey from doing the same.

Isn't the process of modelling the experiment in this case? Replicating would just be using all the same modelling data to confirm the end results. I agree other groups have made other models which did not inform public policy. Thanks!

 

[jaydeehess]

Unfortunately, I can't find any other content from him yet (please let me know if you have).

How can the belief that scientific data should be made transparent be "true" or "false"?

Doesn't the scientific process require the ability to replicate an experiment? If an experiment cannot be replicated, can it rationally be considered to be scientific or authoritative?

Isn't it reasonable for any citizen to believe that this public institution should publicly meet their burden of proof for their scientific claims, or their claim that transparency "might jeopardize public safety"? Thanks!

Replication is a tenet of science. In fact, wrt WTC7 there have been several studies done. ARUP, WAI, etc. all determined their own data sets and ran their own fire and structural response programs.
Obtaining NIST's data and rerunning the same computer orograms is not "Replication", it is duplication of effort at best.
The only reason to do this would be akin to a witch hunt.

 

[Morgan Lesko]

Obtaining NIST's data and rerunning the same computer orograms is not "Replication", it is duplication of effort at best.

Thanks for your better definition! But if the models cannot be duplicated, doesn't that represent an even worse scientific standard? Also, would providing all model details have distinct value in empowering experimental variations starting from the official model, to better improve upon it? Wouldn't sharing all data help squash witch hunts?

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for your better definition! But if the models cannot be duplicated, doesn't that represent an even worse scientific standard? Also, would providing all model details have distinct value in empowering experimental variations starting from the official model, to better improve upon it? Wouldn't sharing all data help squash witch hunts?

Possibly.

Bear in mind:
When detailing the model, the NIST engineers necessarily made a large number of engineering judgements. Most were probably plausible and at the same time "wrong" in the sense that the resulting values did not represent with absolute precision the real situation. Some of those judgements concerned simplifications (to make the model computationally feasible), some were educated guesses.
You can do a million different models, each equally plausible and each equally "wrong", while it is impossible to make a "correct" model.
In that light, the value of one specific model appears somewhat dubious.

Bear in mind also:
NIST may very well be wrong - it is quite likely that it wasn't the 13th floor girder between columns 79 and 44, that was pushed off its seat by beams framing into it from the east, which kicked off the global collapse. After all, WAI and ARUP found different places and different mechanisms for floor framings around columns 79 to 81 to fail and start global collapse.

 

[bernard collin]

If you guys were spending 1% of the energy you spend trying to demolish P. Ketcham, maybe you would help dramatically in uncovering the truth. You are all about criticizing people's credentials or partial statement that they make, how about you really analyse the results of their investigation, like dust and nano thermite, or numerous explosion heard when NIST said there wasn't any, the testimony of the firefighters, the people who escaped from the ground floor and reported massive explosions, the films where you see all the explosions at multiple levels, the free fall speed of the building supposedly crushing his base, the pool of molten steel, the excessive temperature for months under ground, etc... tons of evidence that would warrant a real non biased enquiry.

 

[deirdre]

tons of evidence that would warrant a real non biased enquiry

if you have any actual evidence, that has not been discussed in other threads, you may present it in a new thread. Otherwise the topic of this thread is Ketchum and his credentials.

(and 1%?.. that's like a minute if I'm being really generous)

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

If you guys were spending 1% of the energy you spend trying to demolish P. Ketcham, maybe you would help dramatically in uncovering the truth. You are all about criticizing people's credentials or partial statement that they make, how about you really analyse the results of their investigation, like dust and nano thermite, or numerous explosion heard when NIST said there wasn't any, the testimony of the firefighters, the people who escaped from the ground floor and reported massive explosions, the films where you see all the explosions at multiple levels, the free fall speed of the building supposedly crushing his base, the pool of molten steel, the excessive temperature for months under ground, etc... tons of evidence that would warrant a real non biased enquiry.

That laundry list is covered in its entirety in existing threads. Have a read.

 

[Svartbjørn]

how about you really analyse the results of their investigation like dust and nano thermite

You mean like they did here:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-i...idence-for-thermite.t2523/page-18#post-192176

numerous explosion heard when NIST said there wasn't any

You mean like they did here:

https://www.metabunk.org/audio-refe...that-sound-like-explosions.t7989/#post-192585

the free fall speed of the building supposedly crushing his base,

You mean like they did here:

https://www.metabunk.org/how-buckli...for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/#post-203221

https://www.metabunk.org/tehran-pla...7-wtc1-2-comparisons.t8338/page-2#post-199167

https://www.metabunk.org/does-free-fall-means-controlled-demolition.t8325/#post-198771

https://www.metabunk.org/search/11021356/?q=free+fall&o=relevance

(thats the quick search I did in the search bar for the website for "Free Fall")

the pool of molten steel

You mean like they did here:

https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-trut...pse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/page-2#post-199344

Perhaps taking some time to search through the site (or even just through the 9/11 forum) will help answer a lot of your questions. You may want to take a look at the posting guidelines to understand how the threads are set up and why you're being asked to do certain things in certain threads... IE posting new claims in new threads or carrying on a discussion about a particular topic in a particular thread. Ive added the link below, but you can find them as a tab at the top of the website as well

https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

 

[Cube Radio]

Obtaining NIST's data and rerunning the same computer orograms is not "Replication", it is duplication of effort at best. The only reason to do this would be akin to a witch hunt.

Any genuine scientist would welcome such a "witch hunt". A genuine scientist welcomes the most superficially trivial effort to falsify their work. A genuine scientist would celebrate if a colleague showed that their life's work was in error, if the cause of science was advanced.

A pseudoscientist hides their research data from independent scrutiny. A pseudoscientist insists that a scientific question has been so definitively answered that further research is unwarranted. A pseudoscientist invents fake, irrational "public safety" reasons why their work should not be examined by their peers.

 

[MikeC]

I'm pretty sure running the same data through the same system is not something ""a genuine scientist" would welcome at all.

If you have a "new improved" analysis that can be done on the same data then yes, by all means.

But trivial replication is not any sort of effort to falsify work - it is just trivial - a waste of time and effort.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Any genuine scientist would welcome such a "witch hunt". A genuine scientist welcomes the most superficially trivial effort to falsify their work. A genuine scientist would celebrate if a colleague showed that their life's work was in error, if the cause of science was advanced.

A pseudoscientist hides their research data from independent scrutiny. A pseudoscientist insists that a scientific question has been so definitively answered that further research is unwarranted. A pseudoscientist invents fake, irrational "public safety" reasons why their work should not be examined by their peers.

Cube... you know full well that any scientist worth his salt will re-run an experiment if there's -constructive- critisim. Re-running an experiment because the temperature is 78.76C instead of 79C when the actual experiment has NOTHING to do with the temperature is frivolous and ridiculous. Its a waste of time, resources and money... thats the equivalent of whats being asked with most of this 9/11 stuff. Lets re-invent the wheel because somthing completely minute and unrelated has been spotted by someone on a website. Let's dump $100M into conducting the same experiment to eliminate a variable that has no basis in reality or fact, just so some putz on a forum somewhere can have their 5 minutes of internet fame.

 

[Tom Wells]

The fact that Ketchum is a former NIST employee means his credentials are probably comparable to those of the people who worked on the WTC report. Not everyone at NIST is an expert on steel skyscrapers. But they have knowledge of physics, computer modeling, and just general critical thinking that gives them some insight into the situation. Ketchum is not claiming that he is an expert on skyscraper collapses. He is claiming that NIST's investigation was not in good faith - that they ignored evidence - that their model does not match reality.

 

[Mick West]

But they have knowledge of physics, computer modeling, and just general critical thinking that gives them some insight into the situation.

Literally millions of people (myself included) have a similar skill set. And Ketchum never seems to have worked on anything even remotely similar - being more focussed on mathematics than physics and engineering.

 

[Tom Wells]

Then what is it about the current NIST employees that makes them trustworthy?

 

[deirdre]

The fact that Ketchum is a former NIST employee means his credentials are probably comparable to those of the people who worked on the WTC report.

No it doesn't. The janitor is a NIST employee too.

Then what is it about the current NIST employees that makes them trustworthy?

It isn't a matter of "trustworthy". It is a matter of 'do they have the proper expertise for the job at hand'. Ketchum doesn't.

 

[Tom Wells]

How do you know they have the proper expertise?

 

[deirdre]

How do you know they have the proper expertise?

How do you know they don't?

But this thread is about Ketchum. It is not a general discussion of NIST employees. If you find evidence that the men who worked on the reports do not have the proper expertise then you can let the world know.

 

[Keith Beachy]

The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.
...
Truth is where our healing lies.

Peter Michael Ketcham, USA

The fact that Ketchum is a former NIST employee means his credentials are probably comparable to those of the people who worked on the WTC report. Not everyone at NIST is an expert on steel skyscrapers. But they have knowledge of physics, computer modeling, and just general critical thinking that gives them some insight into the situation. Ketchum is not claiming that he is an expert on skyscraper collapses. He is claiming that NIST's investigation was not in good faith - that they ignored evidence - that their model does not match reality.

There is no evidence NIST ignored evidence. Ketcham repeats 9/11 truth taglines in his letter to the editors; "own footprint", "symmetrical" , and "free-fall acceleration".

As I then watched several documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious.

Peter Michael Ketcham, USA

Ketcham watched the documentaries from 9/11 truth and offers no evidence.

How do you know they have the proper expertise?

There is no evidence to support the ideas Ketcham has about NIST's work.

ae911t used Ketcham as an authority, "BREAKING NEWS: Former NIST Employee Speaks Out". Ketcham claims NIST ignored evidence, and offers no proof.

 

[jaydeehess]

How do you know they don't?

But this thread is about Ketchum. It is not a general discussion of NIST employees. If you find evidence that the men who worked on the reports do not have the proper expertise then you can let the world know.

,,,and you should add that Ketchum HAS been found wanting in this area of expertise.
It seems the above poster wants to investigate the hiring practise of NIST when it came to assigning work for the WTC reports.
I think we can assume that they assigned those tasks to people who had proper expertise, whereas Ketchum was not assigned to the WTC investigation. While there may well have been other reasons he wasn't, it is established that he lacks the expertise one would want in such investigation.

 

[jaydeehess]

Any genuine scientist would welcome such a "witch hunt". A genuine scientist welcomes the most superficially trivial effort to falsify their work. A genuine scientist would celebrate if a colleague showed that their life's work was in error, if the cause of science was advanced.

A pseudoscientist hides their research data from independent scrutiny. A pseudoscientist insists that a scientific question has been so definitively answered that further research is unwarranted. A pseudoscientist invents fake, irrational "public safety" reasons why their work should not be examined by their peers.

No, this is not a replication of an experiment. AE911T wanted to run the same program that NIST did, using the same data and settings that NIST did. Instead of a replication of an experiment it is simply a more complex version of adding 2+2 on a hand calculator to see if it always returns the same result.

AE911T is transparent in that what they wish to look for is whether or not NIST reported a different outcome than the computer actually produced. That's not an attempt at falsification, that is an accusation of fraud. ( gee, I wonder if any AE911T members have ever come right out and stated that NIST has perpetrated a fraud in the WTC reports....?)

 

[Tom Wells]

"There is no evidence to support the ideas Ketcham has about NIST's work."


The evidence they ignored:

(1) First hand testimony of explosions.
(2) The fact that it was suspiciously similar to a controlled demolition - sudden onset, free fall acceleration, straight down, complete destruction, symmetry, kink in the top before onset.

There is no skyscraper collapse in history exhibiting these features other than controlled demolitions. There is no example of a skyscraper behaving even remotely similarly as a result of just fire. That is enough evidence to test the demolition theory which they did not.

Taking a scientific approach does not mean ignoring basic intuition. These features of the collapse are stated intuitively but they can be made precise. For example, one can calculate a lower bound for the amount of energy needed to pulverize the materials. If this number is more than the gravitational potential energy of the building, that is evidence of an additional energy source. Other physicists have done that calculation and found the gravitational energy to be to small by a factor of at least 100. That is evidence. NIST ignored it.

 

[SR1419]

There is no skyscraper collapse in history exhibiting these features other than controlled demolitions. There is no example of a skyscraper behaving even remotely similarly as a result of just fire

This really is off topic for this thread and you should posit your claims in the appropriate threads...such as this one:
https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truth-forced-to-claim-plasco-collapse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/

 

[Tom Wells]

This really is off topic for this thread and you should posit your claims in the appropriate threads...such as this one:
https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truth-forced-to-claim-plasco-collapse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/

I was responding to: "There is no evidence NIST ignored evidence. Ketcham repeats 9/11 truth taglines in his letter to the editors; "own footprint", "symmetrical" , and "free-fall acceleration".

 

[EricL]

For example, one can calculate a lower bound for the amount of energy needed to pulverize the materials. If this number is more than the gravitational potential energy of the building, that is evidence of an additional energy source. Other physicists have done that calculation and found the gravitational energy to be to small by a factor of at least 100. That is evidence. NIST ignored it.

As noted elsewhere in reply to you, this is not the topic of this particular discussion. However, when you find the right place to post it, be sure to supply your evidence. Presenting second-hand information that's been passed from website to website countless times but never once verified is exactly the kind of problem that the founder of this site seeks to avoid in the discussions here.

 

[Oystein]

How do you know they have the proper expertise?

Many have academic degrees, often even PhDs, in the relevant disciplines of engineering or science. At least the lead authors have for the most part a number of academic publications to their name in prestigeous journals of the relevant fields of study. Some of their CVs are probably available online.

So we know for a certain fact that many of the NIST researchers that contributed to the WTC reports were eminently credentialed and experienced. We also know for a certain fact - because he admits it - that Ketcham lacks those credentials, as well as the necessary experience.

The only new and interesting piece of information that Ketcham brings to the discussion from his own actual experience as a NIST employee is his claim that NIST generally works diligently and can be trusted (I paraphrase loosely - check his original full text and what he actually says about NIST's culture of credibility).

 

[Oystein]

For example, one can calculate a lower bound for the amount of energy needed to pulverize the materials. If this number is more than the gravitational potential energy of the building, that is evidence of an additional energy source. Other physicists have done that calculation and found the gravitational energy to be to small by a factor of at least 100. That is evidence. NIST ignored it.

As has been pointed out, this is off-topic here, but too good (read: bad) not to bite...

Let's assume these claims are correct!
Each of the WTC twin towers had a potential energy in the gravitational field equivalent to abut 125 tons of TNT that was released by their collapse.
You claim that 100 times that energy was added.
That would be the equivalent of 12,500 tons of TNT.
Since most truthers generally fantasize that actual explosives, or (nano-)thermite were employed, which are comparable in energy density to TNT, this means that each tower must be thought of as having been prepared with charges of at least 12,500 tons of total mass.
That's about 100 tons of explosives/thermites on every floor. Or roughly 1000 pounds of explosives for every single column (core and perimeter) on every single floor.
This idea would be [impossible]
Alternatively, you may dream of nukes. But 12.5 kilotons equivalent are still as huge in their impact as 12,500 tons of actual TNT. [...]

[Mod: Edited for politeness]

 

[Keith Beachy]

"There is no evidence to support the ideas Ketcham has about NIST's work."


The evidence they ignored:

(1) First hand testimony of explosions.
(2) The fact that it was suspiciously similar to a controlled demolition - sudden onset, free fall acceleration, straight down, complete destruction, symmetry, kink in the top before onset.

There is no skyscraper collapse in history exhibiting these features other than controlled demolitions. There is no example of a skyscraper behaving even remotely similarly as a result of just fire. That is enough evidence to test the demolition theory which they did not.

Taking a scientific approach does not mean ignoring basic intuition. These features of the collapse are stated intuitively but they can be made precise. For example, one can calculate a lower bound for the amount of energy needed to pulverize the materials. If this number is more than the gravitational potential energy of the building, that is evidence of an additional energy source. Other physicists have done that calculation and found the gravitational energy to be to small by a factor of at least 100. That is evidence. NIST ignored it.

Ketcham did not present evidence or proof NIST ignored evidence.

Explosions? NIST did not ignore evidence.
Explosion mentioned 5 times...
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Explosion mentioned 5 more times
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Explosion 4 more times.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

The energy of collapse, the release of E=mgh, in each tower is >100 Tons of TNT in energy - this is why the WTC complex looked like it did, the equal energy was released due to gravity (E=mgh) to >200 2,000 pound bombs. There was no energy deficient, and NIST did not ignore it. Where does Ketcham talk about energy being a factor of 100 to little? I would call >200 2,000 pound bombs more than enough energy to do what we see at the WTC. A CD is a gravity collapse started by explosives, on 9/11 fire started the collapse; this is why the falling towers and WTC 7 look like CD, because CD is a gravity collapse. The energy used to destroy buildings is not explosives, it is the release of E=mgh, which does the damage, not the explosives. CD uses tiny amounts of explosives and uses gravity to do the work.

""sudden onset, free fall acceleration, straight down, complete destruction, symmetry, kink in the top before onset.""
These talking points are not evidence for CD, have been discussed, and related to bunk from 9/11 truth. Search the forum.

 

[Tom Wells]

[off topic commentary removed, wrong thread]

Explosions? NIST did not ignore evidence.
Explosion mentioned 5 times...
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

NIST sets an arbitrary threshold for the amplitude of an explosion. They have no way to calibrate eye witness testimony against this threshold. It appears to be a contrived argument to rule out explosives. That is the point Ketchum and others are making.

 

[Oystein]

NIST sets an arbitrary threshold for the amplitude of an explosion. They have no way to calibrate eye witness testimony against this threshold. It appears to be a contrived argument to rule out explosives. That is the point Ketchum and others are making.

Ketcham has absolutely precisely ZERO qualifications to assess this issue. That is the only valid and necessary point to be made about "explosions" in this thread.

Do you agree that Ketcham brings nothing at all to the table on this issue? No new information, no experience, no education, not even an argument. Nothing at all. Agreed? He is not in any way, shape or form approaching anything resembling an "authority" on the assessment of "reports of exposions" - please indicate if you fully agree with this statement, and if not, please explain what properties or history of Ketcham, personally, makes him an authority!

 

[Svartbjørn]

[off topic commentary removed, wrong thread]



NIST sets an arbitrary threshold for the amplitude of an explosion. They have no way to calibrate eye witness testimony against this threshold. It appears to be a contrived argument to rule out explosives. That is the point Ketchum and others are making.

Wheres you're evidence that its arbitrary?


How did you come to that conclusion?


Who decided that it was arbitrary?


What SHOULD the thresholds be to rule for or against explosives?


By what standard were those thresholds set?