ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nist

Reply
Old 12th April 2007, 12:07 PM   #1
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
NIST Petition Demands Corrections

For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:09 PM   #2
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
OMG, the top dolts from the truth movement. No facts r us. Dr Thermite Jones, Keven Waterman Ryan...


Did you read the sophomoric paper before you post a question? Why not comment on the shortcomings of the dumb corrections they think are needed? What do you think about the engine stuff and models used? Which parts do you think are worthy of NIST consideration? Did you know NIST actually has already answered some of these question/ideas, and these guys are too challenged to find the answers themselves?

Last edited by beachnut; 12th April 2007 at 12:26 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:10 PM   #3
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
instead of petitioning, why hasn't these "leaders" who are requesting, done their own scientific testing and submitted their findings to Scientific Journals and related fields of discussion for peer reivew?

NISt is a report.
That means, OTHER people can do their own reports, as long as they too meet the criteria that needs to be expected.

NIST went through rigorous reviews before they released their reports.


That's all the "truth" movement has done:
whine
whine
whine
whine


and when asked "well show us your work"
all is silent.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:13 PM   #4
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM
1. I don't believe NIST is perfect, but it is FAR, FAR better than anything else out there, and even more so wrt anything the truth movement has put out.

2. How can you DEBUNK a petition. I know they have a long list of problems with NIST, but those are THEIR problems with it...how should I possibly debunk problems they have with it.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:23 PM   #5
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
1. I don't believe NIST is perfect, but it is FAR, FAR better than anything else out there, and even more so wrt anything the truth movement has put out.

2. How can you DEBUNK a petition. I know they have a long list of problems with NIST, but those are THEIR problems with it...how should I possibly debunk problems they have with it.

TAM
How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:23 PM   #6
DarkMagician
Graduate Poster
 
DarkMagician's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,529
Wau, 6 signatures.
__________________
Sometimes going by "Nyke" | "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" | "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts | Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed | I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.
DarkMagician is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:27 PM   #7
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM
No amount of details can provide validity to a silly notion.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:28 PM   #8
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM
Provide an example.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:30 PM   #9
DarkMagician
Graduate Poster
 
DarkMagician's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,529
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".
You misspelled "even."
__________________
Sometimes going by "Nyke" | "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" | "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts | Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed | I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.
DarkMagician is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:30 PM   #10
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM
Are you talking about the petition? It is not a cogently presented case, it is crap. Point to one cogent detail please?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:32 PM   #11
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Quote:
2. How can you DEBUNK a petition.

More to the point, why? The petition has been sent to NIST, and as best as anyone can determine, they are required to reply to it. Why do the CTs care what we think when they're going to get an answer out of the agency that did the thing?
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:37 PM   #12
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How quick you all are to knee jerk respond.

Try looking before you leap!

I suggest you make the effort to read the case enclosed. It's not just a case of "we the people....".

It's an excellent cogently presented case detailing..and I know you folks like details..detailing the flaws and failed logic in the current NIST Report.

MM
I waded through what I could, it is a long document. From what I saw it is a detail of what THE UNDERSIGNED find wrong with NIST. Why do I want to DEBUNK their OPINIONS of what is wrong with NIST?

and try and stop with the subtle insults (yes I find your accusations that I look before I leap to be insulting, as I did the insinuation that I post in a reactionary way), they are getting not only boring, but they may start to disobey the NEW RULES for this Subforum.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:38 PM   #13
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:40 PM   #14
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.
Agreed. Lets hope they are satisfied (doubtful) with the answer(s) they recieve.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:47 PM   #15
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Even though it stinks of a publicity stunt, I'm glad they're at least taking their issues up directly with NIST through appropriate channels.
I don't know if I would call these the appropriate channels. To be sure, it is a formal way to lodge a complaint, but NIST is only required to respond saying that they got it. They don't have to refute the data, change the report or debate/challenge the accusations.

NIST had a draft open to public comment for almost an entire year. Members of both the public and scientific community were invited to give their comments on the report, challenge methods, point out indiscretions and request that inaccuracies be addressed. NIST held dozens of public hearings, presented their drafts to congress, professional societies and public groups, and made corrections as they saw fit to their report.

Why, if the scholars had all of this (supposed) knowledge about inaccuracies in the report, have they waited until now to present them? It's a publicity stunt, and what's worse, Judy Wood thought of the idea first.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 12:54 PM   #16
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Are you talking about the petition? It is not a cogently presented case, it is crap. Point to one cogent detail please?
Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:00 PM   #17
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

I have no major trouble with this particular request, but even if corrected for, it would have negligble to nil impact on what happened in terms of collapse initiation. I see nowhere in this document where they make the case that the change above would make any difference to the eventual outcome (collapse initiation).

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:08 PM   #18
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:13 PM   #19
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I waded through what I could, it is a long document. From what I saw it is a detail of what THE UNDERSIGNED find wrong with NIST. Why do I want to DEBUNK their OPINIONS of what is wrong with NIST?

and try and stop with the subtle insults (yes I find your accusations that I look before I leap to be insulting, as I did the insinuation that I post in a reactionary way), they are getting not only boring, but they may start to disobey the NEW RULES for this Subforum.

TAM
New Rules?

No subtle insults were made in my reply.

By "look before you leap", I simply meant before you leap to respond (as in your first reply), take a bit of time to read some of what it is you are supposedly 'reacting' to!

The petition explains in great detail what is in the NIST Report that makes it significantly flawed and in need of correction. It's not opinions. It examines the NIST Report's content and reveals contradictions and logical flaws in their supposed reasoned conclusions.

I've repeatedly been accused of never presenting material that argues against the NIST Report, and when I do, you act dismissively without even examining it. That could be considered insulting as well.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:15 PM   #20
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM
Where are your key observations. I make the statement, I read your paper/petition by the dolts from the 9/11 truth movement. I see no reason NIST would not just answer the questions, even without some real brainless petition. They answer questions all the time. The point is there is not one thing the so called "experts" could not answer themselves. Meaning, there is not one thing in this request that will change the outcome, and I feel sad for you and the guys who are too thick to think for themselves.

Meaning this will not change the outcome of what happen on 9/11. All these examples are junk. The key observable, darn do you even realize the aircraft impact energy was enough to cut all the steel columns? Can you model simple energy? Do you understand what a model simulation is? Do you understand what NIST was doing; just their goals are more worthy than this narrow biased petition? Do you understand these dolt experts are full of BS about 9/11?

I have read and understand the petition. I do not care if NIST answers it, but I do feel sorry that Dr Jones is too blind to figure this out for himself. Such a personable person should not be in the business of fraud and lies. He is a disgrace to all in Physicists, Engineers, and Scientists.

I see no details of significant flaws in need of correction, you must not be qualified to understand this. It is opinions, biased opinions in the petition misleading people like you. The petition is full of shallow questions to make truther think they have examined the NIST Report's contents and revealed contradictions and logical flaws, but they are just playing you.

Why are you unable to comprehend the lies of the truth movement?

Last edited by beachnut; 12th April 2007 at 01:21 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:16 PM   #21
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,455
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).



Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.


Essentially they're claiming that because none of the simulations showed damage as severe as was actually observed, they should not have thrown out the least damaging simulation.

How's that again?

If anything, they should have only used the most severe case, if any. They probably should have run more simulatons, to get more severe damage results, and used those.

But of course, if they had done that, CTers would be whining about how they "Tweaked" the sims to get the damage they wanted.

Feel free to critisize NIST for not doing more sims, but claiming on this basis that they should have considered the least damaging senario in all their other work is completely off the mark.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:18 PM   #22
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.
I suggest you 'read' it before you go off on a favorite tangent.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:22 PM   #23
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I did read it.

I was also responding to the one item you found most significant. I don't find it so.

What else do you think is relevant?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:24 PM   #24
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And I can only suggest that given the short time you've had access to this document, you haven't fully read it nor have you made any serious attempt to digest it's contents.

I am not surprised.

MM
I am not surprised you are fooled by this petition. You may have read it but you do not comprehend it. Your posts confirm this, you just quote the petition. If you check the NIST report you may be able to debunk the petition. But it does not matter, the petition is meaningless and are biased opinions posed as questions that seem to sound neat to you and not real engineers. There is no substance, just truthers with nothing else left but to mislead others.

Last edited by beachnut; 12th April 2007 at 01:28 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:27 PM   #25
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And I can only suggest that given the short time you've had access to this document, you haven't fully read it nor have you made any serious attempt to digest it's contents.

I am not surprised.

MM
You are right...I already said it is a very long document. The example you gave was regarding the ejection of aircraft material on the opposite side of the tower. I a presuming their likely reason for bringing this up, is that ejection of material on the otherside, as opposed to not, indicates that there was a loss of some kinetic energy not attributable to absorption within the building via conversion to heat, and deformation of mateirals the aircraft penetrated/came in contact with.

So when I made the comment about not seeing any evidence, I meant that so far as I had read, that there was no attempt made, backed with evidence or scientific calculations, that the loss of said kinetic energy via expulsion of aircraft materials out the other side, would have been siginficant enough to effect in a significant, or beyond minimal, way, the outcome that is collapse initiation.

Are you saying that somewhere in that petition, they have scientific evidence or calculations that prove that the loss of this energy via debris expulsion, would result in no collapse initiation?

TAM

Edit: as for the ?New Rules" I was referring to the new "sticky" and its contents, at the top of this subforum.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:30 PM   #26
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,455
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
NISTian complacency.

If you take the time to read the whole thing you'll quickly see not only the significance of the author's case but the importance as well.

Obviously, you are using assumptions to avoid making the effort to read it.

MM

I haven't read the whole thing, but I did read the section you chose to highlight. The logical flaw was simply glaring. I'll get to the rest later.

And as mentoned by others, it's be nice if you canned the smug insinuations that we can't be bothered to read things. How long have you had this paper to read? Give us the courtesy of a little time to do the same.

Also consider that, as they paper is laid out in sections, it is natural to deal with the sections as they come. Methodical, and all. Also note that not every poster will have the knowledge to deal with every section. Just because an individual doesn't respond to every point, doesn't mean that point is valid.

Now, would you like to take a swing at explaining the logical reasons for using the least damaging simulation, when it is clear that the actual damage would have ben more severe than any of the cases they simulated? Or would you rather keep whining about others' reading speed?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:32 PM   #27
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In that case I can only suggest that the 10,000 page NIST report wasn't much more than a toilet break for you as well.

I don't believe you read and clearly comprehended that complete petition in the short time you've had available unless you purposely skimmed and assumed your way through it.

And you like to call me a liar.
I didn't read in detail the part where they rigorously define the term "information," nor where they proved from first principles that NIST did in fact "disseminate" their report, no... I skipped ahead to the actual complaints. But that part, I read.

Now, then, how about answering my question?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:44 PM   #28
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You are right...I already said it is a very long document. The example you gave was regarding the ejection of aircraft material on the opposite side of the tower. I a presuming their likely reason for bringing this up, is that ejection of material on the otherside, as opposed to not, indicates that there was a loss of some kinetic energy not attributable to absorption within the building via conversion to heat, and deformation of mateirals the aircraft penetrated/came in contact with.

So when I made the comment about not seeing any evidence, I meant that so far as I had read, that there was no attempt made, backed with evidence or scientific calculations, that the loss of said kinetic energy via expulsion of aircraft materials out the other side, would have been siginficant enough to effect in a significant, or beyond minimal, way, the outcome that is collapse initiation.

Are you saying that somewhere in that petition, they have scientific evidence or calculations that prove that the loss of this energy via debris expulsion, would result in no collapse initiation?

TAM

Edit: as for the ?New Rules" I was referring to the new "sticky" and its contents, at the top of this subforum.
Well T.A.M. you aren't really following the drift of their case. Unfortunately I'm at the end of my shift and I don't have time to go into their very precise wording and translate it to a form more easily digested.

At my age I have to read a document like that slowly and thoughtfully in order to grasp it's significance and meaning. It's kind of 'dry reading', but I think the initial part of the document where the author's illustrate NIST's failure to follow the accepted rules of logic combined with some serious contradictions when utilizing their computer simulations, makes some very important points about the questionable validity of the NIST WTC collapse conclusions.

I don't know what the "new sticky" at the top of the subforum refers to?

It is not my wish to violate any rules, unless they aren't being enforced.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:44 PM   #29
Spins
Muse
 
Spins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 702
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

All of the observables were not perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behaviour of the aircraft breakup and the subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models.

Originally Posted by NIST
Landing Gear Trajectory Comparison

A portion of the main landing gear of AA 11 exited WTC 1 at the 94th or 95th floor and landed at the corner of Rector St. and West St. The debris consisted of a tire, wheel, brake assembly and hub of a main landing gear, as show in Figure 7-69. Based on the final position of the landing gear and assuming the landing gear to be a projectile with a horizontal initial velocity, the exit speed of the landing gear from the south wall of WTC 1 can be estimated to be about 105 mph. Note that there is a significant uncertainty in this estimate associated with the exit trajectory, aerodynamic effects, landing position rather than final resting position of debris, etc. Another piece of landing gear debris, shown in Figure 7-70, was found embedded in what is postulated to be the panel containing columns 329, 330, 331, running from the 93rd to the 96th floors. This panel was dislodged from the building and found at Cedar Street near its intersection with West Street. As little other damage had been documented on the south face of WTC 1 it is postulated that the landing gear debris that landed at the corner of Rector St. and West St. also exited through this panel location.

The amount of aircraft debris found to exit WTC 1 in the global impact analyses varied, as shown in Figure 7-67 and Figure 7-68. However, no portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core. In order to simulate the trajectory of the specific pieces of the aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.
__________________
"One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

Last edited by Spins; 12th April 2007 at 02:14 PM.
Spins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:44 PM   #30
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,747
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2. . .
What? I could file a lawsuit against you because I think you smell funny. That doesn't mean I have a case.

Where do you get these idiotic ideas?
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:46 PM   #31
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I haven't read the whole thing, but I did read the section you chose to highlight. The logical flaw was simply glaring. I'll get to the rest later.

And as mentoned by others, it's be nice if you canned the smug insinuations that we can't be bothered to read things. How long have you had this paper to read? Give us the courtesy of a little time to do the same.

Also consider that, as they paper is laid out in sections, it is natural to deal with the sections as they come. Methodical, and all. Also note that not every poster will have the knowledge to deal with every section. Just because an individual doesn't respond to every point, doesn't mean that point is valid.

Now, would you like to take a swing at explaining the logical reasons for using the least damaging simulation, when it is clear that the actual damage would have ben more severe than any of the cases they simulated? Or would you rather keep whining about others' reading speed?
Well excuse me for using an incomplete extract.

Read it yourself and then challenge it.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:47 PM   #32
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Well excuse me for using an incomplete extract.

Read it yourself and then challenge it.

MM
The fact is the petition does not change the outcome of 9/11. Truthers have no facts and the guys who put this petition together are not able to understand the facts and evidence of 9/11. As an engineer, I found no worthy items of interest in the petition. I tried, but could not find one thing worthy that would change the outcome of 9/11 or the overall NIST conclusions. I find the petition actually has enough information in it to debunk itself. I find it funny you think there is something in the petition but can not pinpoint it. I find it funnier you are unable to state in your own words why there is something in the petition we would think changes the outcome of 9/11. I find it funny, I feel happy with my humble education, when Dr Jones' signature to this proves even lay people can out think a PhD!

I find Dr Jones' work on 9/11 to be an insult to all PhDs and formally educated people. This petition continues to support that finding.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:54 PM   #33
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.
The authors are responding to the NIST Report as written.

Any assumed or implied meaning outside of the NIST Report holds little validity or concern to the petitioner's arguments.

The authors address all NIST's stated computer simulation case scenarios.

I'm sure the authors' had an equal or greater understanding of the aircraft impact consequences than yourself.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 01:58 PM   #34
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
And they're responding stupidly.

NIST clearly pointed out that, since none of their impact models had debris ejected from the other side, then they were all underestimates. Thus of their three estimates, the severe one is the best fit. The "base case" was retained as a control, and the less severe one was rejected.

Then your clowns come along and say, "well, since none of the three showed such severe phenomena, then they're all wrong. And since they're all wrong, then the less severe one is just as valid."

That's the complaint.

The first part of that complaint is plausible, though it discounts the inherent difficulty of impact modeling.

The second part of that complaint is complete stupidity. The error committed is an error of equivocation. This is a logical fallacy.

Petition rejected.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:01 PM   #35
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The authors are responding to the NIST Report as written.

Any assumed or implied meaning outside of the NIST Report holds little validity or concern to the petitioner's arguments.

The authors address all NIST's stated computer simulation case scenarios.

I'm sure the authors' had an equal or greater understanding of the aircraft impact consequences than yourself.

MM
I doubt the authors could understand much of anything after reading how shallow an understanding they have of the whole matter. Based on the petition the authors show little or no understanding of the aircraft impact consequences. This is a fact and why more signatures are not on this poorly concocted junk paper.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:17 PM   #36
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,915
Yep, it's equivocation, again and again all the way through.

Consider this sentence (p. 7):

Quote:
Although the less severe impact scenarios were “in good agreement with observed damage”, the WTC Report later states that the “less severe case was not used in subsequent fire dynamics, thermal, and structural analyses as it did not reasonably match key observables.” (NCSTAR 1-6, p. 121)
Makes it sound like there's a contradiction there, doesn't it? How could the less severe impace scenario be "in good agreement with observed damage" and yet not match "key observables" related to the amount of damage?

The answer is in the passages actually being referenced by the quote "in good agreement with observed damage."

Quote:
The magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall were still in good agreement with the observed damage for this less severe impact scenario. (p.276)
Quote:
The mode and magnitude of the calculated and observed impact damage on the exterior wall are still in good agreement in this less severe impact analysis. (p.312)
(emphasis added)

In the less severe scenarios, even though the damage to the exterior wall was similar, no debris was ejected through the far wall of the tower -- contrary to the observed phenomena at the actual crashes. Thus this scenario was rightly rejected as uninformative regarding the subsequent chain of events.

The petition goes on to claim that the medium and severe scenarios were also wrong, because different specific airplane parts were ejected from the towers in the model than in the real event. On that basis it claims that the less severe scenario is therefore no less valid. That's more equivocation, fallaciously equating "inaccurate by virtue of showing different specific pieces of debris penetrating the far wall" with "inaccurate by virtue of not showing any penetration of debris through the far wall at all." Quite silly.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:18 PM   #37
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!
Tell you what, MM...

Why don't you take the amazing facts contained in that petition and get some engineers to sign on? Frankly, no one gives a toss whether Stephen Jones or Waterboy Ryan think there's a major problem with NIST's report.

People would start paying attention if engineers started signing on though.

Here you will find engineering firms in every US state: www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Give em a call!
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:30 PM   #38
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I also find it entertaining that, if I read the petition correctly, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have added ... and Justice to their moniker.

Whatever happened to The American Way?

P.S.: Oh, and this part is the funniest thing I've read all week:

Originally Posted by Stupid Petition, Page 29
Jones has also suffered an informational injury based on the WTC Report. As a scientist affiliated with a major university (that is, until he was criticized on University web sites for challenging the findings of the WTC Report and strongly encouraged to
leave BYU),
I can't decide which is funnier, the "Informational Injury," or that he was "strongly encouraged" to leave BYU. Good ol' Steven Jones, a man who'll die with his boots on, or at least he says he'll get around to it sometime.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:38 PM   #39
TraitorBasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 259
People here should demand the same standard of factual accuracy from the government reports that they demand from conspiracy videos like Loose Change.
TraitorBasher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:40 PM   #40
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Oh, but we do.

Loose Change has no factual accuracy whatsoever.

The NIST report still has some rough edges, but it's so far beyond Loose Change as makes no odds. Nonetheless, we're still trying to improve it in our discussions here.

Therefore, we are actually holding NIST to an even higher standard. Bully for us.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.