It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST Declines Debate with American Taxpaying Public

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am not questiong the details of the report itself here, rather the refusal of conversation/debate regarding the report by the NIST.


Because they cannot be forced by a citizen organization to participate in a debate about anything. They are completely entitled to refuse to participate.

The entire report may be garbage. It may have been simply a way to look busy for 3 years. But the fact remains, they can publish the report and not look back.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am not questiong the details of the report itself here, rather the refusal of conversation/debate regarding the report by the NIST.


Because they cannot be forced by a citizen organization to participate in a debate about anything. They are completely entitled to refuse to participate.

The entire report may be garbage. It may have been simply a way to look busy for 3 years. But the fact remains, they can publish the report and not look back.


I respectfully disagree.

If the public demands accountability for their dollars they will get it.

It's just a debate or a couple of questions. Why on earth would the government even care. Let them talk and put all of this conspiracy stuff to rest.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I thought they did have an extended open to the public question/comment period before they published a final report? I'm not positive. Anyone know about this?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
If the "conspiracy theorists" asking for an open forum with the NIST are so easy to debunk, wouldn't the NIST JUMP at the chance to prove them wrong?

No, it wouldn't. The american public in general thinks its the height of absurdities to suggest that a missile hit the pentagon, or that american soldiers hijacked and crashed the twin towers planes, or even that bush knew and happily permited it to happen.

I don't think you should cite the public interest in this, since the public isn't interested in it.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
"NIST Declines Debate with American Taxpaying Public"

I think a more appropiate title would be:

"NIST Declines Debate with people who will not believe anything they say and lynch them no matter what because NIST are "g'ment sheep" and the mob are stuck in their train of thought with no turning back"

That more accurate title probably explains their lack of co-operation much better I would say in this case.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
"NIST Declines Debate with American Taxpaying Public"

I think a more appropiate title would be:

"NIST Declines Debate with people who will not believe anything they say and lynch them no matter what because NIST are "g'ment sheep" and the mob are stuck in their train of thought with no turning back"

That more accurate title probably explains their lack of co-operation much better I would say in this case.


Yes, that is more appropriate and completely based in reality too, batman said.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
A few questions:

1. If you wrote a 20,000 page report... Wouldn't you jump at the chance to defend and answer questions regarding said report?


I would certainly not jump at the chance to debate in a format set up by something called "The Muckraker Report." Like Agent Smith said, why agree to debate people that have already made up their minds that you are lying and are guilty of aiding and abetting mass murder?

The only reason you ever see debates like this is when it's in the public interest, like evolution-creation. So many people believe in Creationism that the public interest is served inasmuch as they become more educated about why Creationism is bunk by watching these kinds of debates.

But in the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the public interest is not served, at least not as far as the NIST experts see it.

Besides, it seems that most of the questions you have laid out around here involve variations between the different reports that have been generated by government agencies. The NIST is correct that it is not in their purview to explain how it is that, for example, the 9/11 commission's timeline differs from other timelines. The NIST sets engineering standards (look up what NIST stands for.) It is not their bailiwick to go around explaining why every building fails (this is usually done by professional engineering firms that are hired by insurance agencies), beyond reporting on to what extent such failure was due to the standards they had implemented (if said standards were actually followed.) Their report was generated primarily as a way to take an overview of how the built-in engineered safety factors were overcome in the 9/11 collapses, and to make recommendations in new standards to help prevent such an occurance in the future.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts2. If the "conspiracy theorists" asking for an open forum with the NIST are so easy to debunk, wouldn't the NIST JUMP at the chance to prove them wrong?

Isn't this question the same as the first? Is this some sort of trick?


Originally posted by Slap Nuts3. Is their report the only deliverable/accountablility that they believe they owe the American tax paying public?

Yes it is, and I agree.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts4. Do they fear something or are they far to elite to answer to meager old scientists?

They may fear for their professional reputations if they were to associate themselves with some of the so-called "experts" at "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." I doubt there is any elitism involved. You should realize that the NIST is primarily a bureacracy. There are some scientists there, many more technicians but mostly they are bureacrats. When they need work other that physical testing of systems and components and their designs done, they contract out. Many of the authors of the NIST report are professional people that work in the private sector leading design units, risk assessment teams and also as college professors. Structural engineering is the kind of science that takes advantage of breakthroughs in other sciences (like computer science and materials science) and makes very few of it's own breakthroughs. The point being that as far as conducting actual "science," there's not a lot of that. Mainly it's engineering.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts5. Does academia, white and blue collar America not deserve a few question and answer sessions with the guys who investigated the crime of the century?


This is basically the same question as number 3, is it not?
As was said, the NIST report stands on it's own data. If new data arise, anyone is free to research how the new data changes things. Academia, white collar and blue collar America are all free to read the NIST report. Few have any real issues with it.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts6. Are we to dumb to understand so they refuse to tell?


Well, I can't speak for you, but I don't consider this to be true of myself.


I just want to say that there has been no real investigation into any "alternative theories" regarding the 9/11 collapse. NIST's report was about the construction and engineering standards of the WTC and how to upgrade these standards based on what was found in the investigation. FEMA's report was about the emergency response to the attacks. The 9/11 Commission's report - which is often ridiculed for not even mentioning WTC7, was not about the attack at all, never was supposed to be. It was a political ploy that was made by both sides, and was primarily aimed at either nailing the current administration and the party in power for their failure to protect the American people (read: "It's W and the Republican's fault so vote for us!) or nailing the previous administration and it's party (Clinton let it slide too long, the Dems were weak on National Security, now look where they got us, vote for us!) The Commission's report was ostensibly about the failure of pre-9/11 intelligence, and had nothing at all to do with any conspiracy theory or any physical explanations for the collapses. It just wasn't within the scope of what the Commission was formed to do.

Because of this, these reports cannot be legitimately cited by conspiracy theorists as part of the conspiracy, or even as misleading. To do so is to use a straw man argument, the most aggregious of which is one that appears in this very thread - sneering at the 9/11 commission's report for not mentioning WTC7.

Might as well ridicule Peyton Manning for not playing goalie in a World Cup Soccer match.

Harte



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howard RoarkI'll tell you what, Why don't you start the debate right here. Please provide information of all of the strucutral engineers that support the demo theory.
When you have done that, then maybe NIST will listen.



Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why ONLY SE's Howard? Why not CE's, ME's and Physicists? Are only SEs qualified? How about military demolition experts?

Is your assertion that they are such ELITE scientists that they should not have to answer to anyone other than a large group of SEs that I personally assemble and you approve?

Structural Engineers are uniquely qualified for this sort of thing, that's why. And please lets all notice that Howard said absolutely nothing about who the NIST should have to "answer to."
The field, by the way, is called forensic engineering. Such forensics requires the input of several engineering disciplines, depending on the various issues being investigated. So, of course materials is a very important part of such forensics, where physics per se certainly is not.

Regarding CE's, if you mean Civil, then no, if you mean Construction, then yes. Physicists, no. Demolition experts? Since this is the proposed theory, then why not?


Originally posted by Slap NutsDid the NIST ONLY consult with SEs Howard? What is your fascination and divine reverence for SEs?

Would you let Steven Hawking question them? After all, he only has twelve honorary degrees and a Ph.D... NONE of which I beleve are in structural engineering


Why would anyone not "let" Stephen Hawking do such a thing? You are aware, are you not, that Hawking is perfectly capable of forming a scientific opinion on the issue. Has he?


Originally posted by GriffActually mechanical engineers would probably know a little bit more about how a building collapses. Structural engineers study how to make buildings stay up...i.e. statics. Mechanical engineers study how moving parts work....i.e. mechanics. A building failing has moving parts....therefore a mechanical engineer would be a very good person to ask these questions.

Plus, since structural engineering and mechanical engineering are both based off of physics, physicists can be lumped in there also.


This is a pat answer to a very complicated question. So let me give a pat response.

With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, it was immediately evident that all of chemistry, thus all of biology thus all of medicine was also "based off" physics. So, would you lump a Veterinarian in there with your other "experts?"

I hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering. It's just a B.S., so I'm no "expert" I suppose. What you say about statics vs. dynamics is true in general, but the "moving parts" that you mention in a failing building are not at all similar to the moving parts in dynamics, in that they are not predictable. In dynamics, you're given things like length, moment arm, rotational speeds, gear radii and tooth counts, threads per inch, velocities, momentums, etc. The idea is to be able to design a machine that not only can be easily assembled, utilized and maintained, but also fits well within the designated space for it and has no parts that interfere with each other.
That's about the gist of it.
A failing building is a chaotic system, and nothing can be predicted about it, and only after the failure can facts about the failure be inferred, and usually only inferred (not deduced.)
I'm biased so I'll say a Mechanical Engineer is a useful guy to have around, but believe me when I tell you any decent Mechanical Engineer will refer to a Structural Engineer or a Construction Engineer for answers about any building failure. Similarly, a Structural Engineer would no doubt refer to a Mechanical Engineer for answers about how to go about modifying his car engine or frame for street racing.

Harte



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I think the word 'debate' is the wrong option here.

Debate is like arguing points. I think more appropriate would be: Asking questions in regards to the NIST report....

There's a difference.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'll tell you what, Why don't you start the debate right here. Please provide information of all of the strucutral engineers that support the demo theory.

When you have done that, then maybe NIST will listen.



Why ONLY SE's Howard? Why not CE's, ME's and Physicists? Are only SEs qualified? How about military demolition experts?

Is your assertion that they are such ELITE scientists that they should not have to answer to anyone other than a large group of SEs that I personally assemble and you approve?

Did the NIST ONLY consult with SEs Howard? What is your fascination and divine reverence for SEs?

Would you let Steven Hawking question them? After all, he only has twelve honorary degrees and a Ph.D... NONE of which I beleve are in structural engineering

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]




I think what he's saying is that structural engineers are the best qualified people to diagnose the collapses. Which I totally agree with.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Howard puts so much on emphasis on structural engineers because the government does. The government does because they know SE's aren't the relevant experts here.

Structural engineers, working strictly within their field of expertise, wouldn't be relevant in the least to most all of the major issues with the collapses. The rapid rates of collapse, the expulsions, the loss of angular momentum, etc., those are all out of structural engineers' expertise. SE's design buildings to stand. That's all they do professionally.

Thus the government puts emphasis on these people because they know the SE's won't be able to tell a damned bit of difference without venturing into other fields of knowledge, and then the SE's would be out of their field of expertise.


Rapid collapse rates relate to a bare minimum of lost momentum, etc. Angular momentum and the amount of pressure that would or would not be accumulating in the buildings as they collapsed are all general physics issues, not structural engineering issues.




[edit on 6-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
To the people who try using the amount of money that it would cost to get this thing going: well let's take some of that our of the damn pork that's out there. Or let's find a rich guy to pony up the cash, or lots and lots of people to pony up the pennies. I'll put $5 on it.


I would certainly not jump at the chance to debate in a format set up by something called "The Muckraker Report." Like Agent Smith said, why agree to debate people that have already made up their minds that you are lying and are guilty of aiding and abetting mass murder?

To convince the stander-by who are watching all this, not knowing what to think. To finally crush and disgrace the opposition. Too bad they don't even have to do that, the people who were dumb enough to believe the NIST report are doing all the "smashing down" for them, or at least "smashing down" in the eyes of the stander-by with arguements like "Man how many people would have to know about this? Hundreds? Thousands?" That's right guys, hundreds if not thousands if not millions!


[edit on 7-7-2006 by iamjman]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Regarding Structural Engineers: Who the heck do you think is performing investigations of collapsed buildings? Might be a bit different in a Conspiracy landscapes, but here the building collapses are being investigated by... drumroll... Structural engineers.
Why?
As it was said, they're trained to design building that can stand reliably. This OTOH means they have the best knowledge and training to search for whatever went wrong.
Of course physicist can do it as well. But he'll need to learn all these things. The same applies for Mechanical engineer or some homeless from our capital. To perform such an investigation, they all would need to learn structural engineering first. Or they'd end with wrong results.

Does anyone for example think that a physicist would better explain say plane crash than a team of airplane designers and crash investigators? After all, it's all physics, lift, drag etc...



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
REGARDING SEs: You are all aware the the difference between an SE, ME, EE and CE is about 16 credits in any college of engineering right? It is all applied calc and physics. Placing the SE on a pedestal for this sort of investigation is a joke.

I know a few CSEs that would like to look at the black box modeling applications used but I guess they are not qualified.

REGARDING MUCKRAKER: It is the ST911 TEAM that would be debating/asking questions. Good discredit attempt though.

Still reading. Will reply later.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
No, it wouldn't. The american public in general thinks its the height of absurdities to suggest that a missile hit the pentagon, or that american soldiers hijacked and crashed the twin towers planes, or even that bush knew and happily permited it to happen.

I don't think you should cite the public interest in this, since the public isn't interested in it.


Who the heck are you a polling service? How the heck do you claim to know what the public wants?

Zogby, which is FAR more qualified than you seems to disagree.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
You are aware, are you not, that Hawking is perfectly capable of forming a scientific opinion on the issue.


BANG!

So, in the group of those able to form an opinion we have Hawking, SEs and construction engineers BUT NOT physicists, MEs, Civil Engineers or anyone else.

Got it.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
If your so sure that the NIST report is wrong then play their game. Go through their report and cite their errors, add your questions and see if you can get it published. Put it in terms people can understand and you might have a bestseller on your hands.

I don't blame NIST for not wanting to have an "open" forum about the report. Can you imagine the circus that would become? If they were to have a forum, how do you determine the participants? There would be lawsuits galore from those who were not included.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If your so sure that the NIST report is wrong then play their game. Go through their report and cite their errors, add your questions and see if you can get it published. Put it in terms people can understand and you might have a bestseller on your hands.


I have mentioned more than once in this thread that I do not expect them to answer to ME. The original question is why they will not engage those more qualified than myself in an open forum.

What you imply is that if I want ANY answers from the NIST that I will need to come up with RESOURCES beyond my means. Time and money being the main two. They had an open checkbook from the tax payers. I do not. Give me $20,000,000 and ACCESS TO THE EVIDENE I will come up with 50x the number of experts to BLOW AWAY their crap backwards science.

Until then, I just want them to answer a few questions from a select few people.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Which 16 credits are you talking about? If the credit system is the same as here, the difference between me (studying Electrical Engineering) and Structural Engineer is ca. 250 credits out of 330, in case I count Maths and Physics as common (not true, but let's suppose so). The credit amount for Magister degree in SE is the same. Does that mean I can do offhand Structural Engineering and SE can do electrotechnology? Doubt so.

Let's ask another question. Would you accept results of plane crash investigation performed by a commitee of physicians, chemists, automobile designers and cruise ship captains? All are after all highly trained.
Or would you accept a surgery by a dermathologist?
Would you like the jet you're travelling flown by an airplane designer with an ultralight craft pilot license instead of a porfessional pilot?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
What you imply is that if I want ANY answers from the NIST that I will need to come up with RESOURCES beyond my means. Time and money being the main two. They had an open checkbook from the tax payers. I do not. Give me $20,000,000 and ACCESS TO THE EVIDENE I will come up with 50x the number of experts to BLOW AWAY their crap backwards science.

Until then, I just want them to answer a few questions from a select few people.


What resources other than a computer do you need? You obviously know who you mean by "a select few people", what's to stop you from gathering the questions and putting them into the form of a report? If that fails you can always try your Senator or Congressman. NIST does answer to them after all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join