jomper
Inactive Member
No, 3,370 files were classified along with "spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities", as I mentioned immediately above.
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
jomper
Inactive Member
The critical data is classified. I don't understand how anyone who respects the scientific method can be complacent about that and just shrug their shoulders in the way you do. The public paid for the research to be done and the only reasons I've seen on this thread (or anywhere else) to justify NIST refusing to release it are, frankly, quite ridiculous.
And so where do we go from here?
jomper
Inactive Member
Imagine if 'truthers' created an ANSYS sim using distributed computing that was accurate to the video evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, and then used it to claim that it proved the collapse was caused by high-tech explosives. If they then refused to release critical files from their computer sim I'm sure we'd all laugh with derision, which is exactly what the NIST report deserves.
A 37 minute Youtube video is not quoting the context. Can you give a time stamp there?
Here's what is probably the original usage:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/RemarksSunderAug212008briefing.pdf
Is there anything in particular in that document (or your video) that you disagree with?External Quote:
Why don't they do the sim (using whatever information they have), and then release the data? I mean AE911 has a pretty large budget.
jomper
Inactive Member
Yes, it's the fact that the principle evidence for this "new phenomenon" is a computer model that can't be independently verified. I'm sure you knew I was going to say that: it's still the truth.
Anything else? you agree with everything in there that's not based on the outcome of the full simulation?
jomper
Inactive Member
Does it not occur to you that the sim was developed with public money -- and as such the research and the model already 'belongs' as much to the members of AE911 as it does to anyone else? Why should they or anyone else be reduced to filing FOIA requests to verify the model, only to have them refused on the most vague and ridiculous grounds? And now you want them to build an alternative model just because NIST doesn't respect the scientific method? That's crazy. Why shouldn't, say, Ronald Brookman -- who as we have seen would very much like to verify the model and has the qualifications to do so -- not be allowed access to all the data collected on everyone's behalf, and the model made from it?
jomper
Inactive Member
As you may have gathered by now, if the NIST sim was independently verifiable and could be defended against accusations of drylabbing through genuine scientific transparency, I would not be calling on people (including you) to reject it on such a self-evident matter of principle.
That's like saying the CIA's fles on their current embedded operatives in Iran should be available to you because they were funded by public money.
The reason given was national security, you may disagree with it, but it's still a reason that trumps public access.
I think we all understand your objection now. Anything else?
jomper
Inactive Member
What nonsense. The CIA's agents in Iran are not using public money to engage in an allegedly scientific investigation of the collapse of a building.
Only if you accept the decrees of authority without thinking about them for five seconds -- I hope you don't consider yourself a skeptic.
If at some point it is determined that there's a public safety or national security issue with releasing data, then in relation to your point about public funds, it's the same thing.
I wish they wold release the data. However I don't think it is suspicious as the results seem to tally perfects with all the publicly available information, so there seems no reason to doubt them.
There was a fire, the firefighters could tell the building was going to collapse because it was sagging a long time before, and it eventually did collapse, nothing at all unexpected.
jomper
Inactive Member
...just accept it and whatever you do, don't think about it. Please, just don't think.
So that's why the scientific method is worthless to you. Everything in the unverifiable computer model tallies up! Well, time for bed, everyone. Let's all go back to sleep.
And remember: if
then whatever you do, don't ask questions about it -- don't even think about it. Duh Tuh Rusts might come for you in the night.
I'm a big fan of the scientific method. I'd agree that we have to take some of the report on trust if nobody independently verifies it. However I don't see any compelling evidence NOT to trust it. It all seems quite reasonable.
Have you read the full report?
Have you read the full report?
jomper
Inactive Member
Nobody takes science on trust without proper independent verification, and no-one should encourage anyone else to do so in the way you have been doing. You're not a fan of the scientific method at all.
I've read some of the report. Rather more than you've read of Karl Popper, I suspect.
Goodnight.
No, I'm a huge fan. I would certainly prefer it if they released all the data.
But in order to suspect that something other than fire caused the collapse, I'd actually need some kind of indication that that was even a possibility. There's a vast amount of evidence of fire (smoke, flames, heat, sagging building, etc), and there's zero evidence of the use of explosives. There's even negative evidence, in the absence of loud bangs, or detonators.
jomper
Inactive Member
But then, probably not eh? I can't hear explosions from 12 years ago either.
zzzzzzzzzzzz
There's tapes with audio. There are no explosions. Here's what demolition with explosives sounds like from similar distances:
Compare with:
jomper
Inactive Member
They sure look the same, though, don't they? The supposed absence of explosions has got to be the lamest argument not to look for evidence of explosives imaginable -- but it's the reason NIST gave for not testing for them, isn't it?
Goodbye, Mick. I've woken up with the realisation that I can't waste any more of my time on nonsensical arguments like "the bangs weren't loud enough". I'll leave you with this.
Keep standing up for the scientific method, won't you.
Goodbye, Mick. I've woken up with the realisation that I can't waste any more of my time on nonsensical arguments like "the bangs weren't loud enough". I'll leave you with this.
Keep standing up for the scientific method, won't you.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
The only 'evidence' of 'explosions' are folks comments 'under fire'. None of the reported 'explosions' match what one hears in controlled demolition. Not only that the collapses were WRONG.
Now explain how explosives could have been set and columns weakened without anyone know it?
Of course you are going to leave, you have no real evidence.
Now explain how explosives could have been set and columns weakened without anyone know it?
Of course you are going to leave, you have no real evidence.
jomper
Inactive Member
You should show some respect for the scientific method as well. Enjoy your life.
Jazzy
Closed Account
The NIST Report was a proper engineering forensic tour de force.
The simulation added clarification to what already was a clear, concise, and logical report which followed the timeline to collapse in the greatest possible detail, and closely followed the videoed collapse.
Your argument appears to be that the Report disqualified itself by not adding the figures used for the simulation (a security threat) to the results.
But the fact is that even without that final simulation, the Report had done its job. As an exercise in scientific method it is quite beautiful, and a pleasure to read.
This has been a non-issue. And you never engaged sensibly with it.
jomper
Inactive Member
Somewhat poetic, but entirely unscientific. As I said to you at the start, if your opinions were based on a report that could be independently verified, they might've been worth reading. Since you think the NIST model closely follows the video evidence, I don't think your opinion of what you see is worth anything either. You could've proved that you had something useful to contribute by presenting a "security concern" that in any way justified abandoning both the scientific method and the public interest, but you failed to do so. Of all the comments I've read and replies I've received on this thread, yours were without question the most fatuous.
Well, then there was the small matter of the fires that raged for hours in the location where the collapse was initiated. That would have required some rather fireproof explosives. The primers or any det cord would have gone off in the fire hours earlier. The rather speculative Nano-thermite would have been ignited.
They did not test for them because there was no indication they were used, and every indication they were not.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Extensive testing was done on the effects of prolonged exposure of structural steel to heat. These figures are from memory and as such are approximate but.... It was shown that over time exposure to temperatures of 1200 to 1400 degrees F. would ave weakened the structural steel about 40%. 1800 degrees would have taken it down over 90%. Temperatures of the burning internal contents of these buildings after the Jet-A ignition were shown to have met or exceeded those. Further analysis of the failure mechanisms of structural members in those areas exposed to that heat and the mapping of insulation destroyed by impact and / or not present at all plus the basic building design showed that the heat-caused pancake collapse of the towers was logical. 7 World Trade did not follow that pattern exactly but was more centrally pulled in by the heat-induced structural failure of the penthouse supports.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Which doesn't compare with my opinion of your judgement, or my wealth of experience in these fields.
I'm sorry, but you never attended to the scientific method in the first place.
Science concerns itself with the spectrum of FACTS, followed by interpretation, analysis, and prediction. Agreement between us would have to begin with agreement as to the relevant facts (in your case, a fail), followed by interpretation of those facts (in your case, another fail) followed by conclusions and predictions (you weren't even close).
Thanks, and goodbye.
I prefer debating with people who have the manners to debate in the first place. Or maybe you haven't left, in which case you'll give me the pleasure of teaching you something. Try and learn how to answer other people's questions properly, and do yourself a favor and quit the pomposity, eh? It's offensive.
You are typical, in that you will not discuss any specific instance in detail. Not a single one.
Before you get to that point, you're in with the insults. It's a dead giveaway that you're a flake. Well, FU.
hiper
Active Member
Not a scientific survey
Most people don't look at such videos. It's generally the conspiracy minded, and the debunkers.
Steel framed high rise fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg
I mean that's a fire right?
Steel framed high rise fire wtc 7
This is denying the light of day just because the government says it's night.
Last edited by a moderator:
When you shoot people, sometimes they die sometimes they do not.
When a building catches fire, sometimes it collapses, sometimes it does not.
It depends on a lot of factors, you can't simply compare one thing with another if they are different.
Here's another example, partial collapse of the steel framed portions:
When a building catches fire, sometimes it collapses, sometimes it does not.
It depends on a lot of factors, you can't simply compare one thing with another if they are different.
Here's another example, partial collapse of the steel framed portions:
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Mick, as you pointed out there are several factors that play into the WTC 7 (or any such fire) scenario: Temperature, duration, location and building design being the four most significant I can think of. If one studies the design of WTC 7 as well as the location and duration of the fire and the slow motion video of collapse starting with the penthouse one must at LEAST concede that said collapse could easily have been the result of structural failure. As well, you earlier stated correctly that any det cord or explosives in the area would have burned off relatively harmlessly hours before. Unless people are implicating firefighters in planting explosives during the fire, something I personally take umbrage at (with?) as I was one for eleven years after I left the military, as well as a Paramedic, rising to the rank of Lieutenant, and having taken every available fire school offered including aircraft suppression, maybe they should rethink their somewhat amateuristic theories. In my day I have Scotted-up and entered many working structures. The last thing on my and my team's mind was destroying what and who we were trying to save!
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but in this case it becomes exceedingly difficult to suffer fools!
hiper
Active Member
If we lived in the perfect world where there was no war and where the government was populated by the 'the good' of society
then yes it would be genuinely unthinkable that they could be involved in this kind of thing.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Humanity has been killing each other off since the beginning of time.
Like the feudal lords of old it is still might that makes right in this world.
For one the US of A is 1 person in 23 on the world scale yet uses 1/4 of the worlds oil.
Power in our world does not attract the 'good guys' of society but instead it attracts the corruptible, the vicious and the power hungry.
History is rife with government instigated false flag events... it is to mobilize public opinion.
And we all know who benefited from 9/11.
Oh and let's not forget that tens and tens and tens... of MILLIONS of people in the 20th century have died at the hands of their governments.
JRBids
Senior Member.
And your reason for what you see as a controlled demolition of WTC 7 is. . . .
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
That's political rhetoric, not engineering analysis.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
And this proves that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?????
It is a very politically sensitive science. Science is often unreliable, it often has a habit of being wrong and therefore needs revising or changing. When it is political science, that is even more likely. In fact this particular 'science' has been changed so many times it is hard to keep count. It is like the Bible, hammered to fit over time by committees and exclusion of relevant but inconvenient material.
Today we have the canonised version.
It has been well presented by many. I would say: How much have you researched what it takes to implode a building? but I won't because the building was not imploded which pretty much answers the question in itself.
Jazzy
Closed Account
What on earth are you writing about?
[video=youtube_share;2tcOi9a3-B0]http://youtu.be/2tcOi9a3-B0[/video]
English Literature, perhaps.
- Status
