Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

letter to NIST

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Can you please go to:

www.dictionary.com

Look up the word contradiction.

Then once again list the contradictions from the NIST report.




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Then once again list the contradictions from the NIST report.



I listed a couple contradictions from different NIST reports. They all have contradictions.

So how can you take the final building 7 report serious with the fact that they did no recover any steel for testing?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So how can you take the final building 7 report serious with the fact that they did no recover any steel for testing?


They didn't need steel for testing.

Any questions?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
anyone that sees this report as anything but a tool to beat back legitimate public concern and questioning on the subject are kidding themselves.

why did this report only manifest after massive growing public demand? why was the entire subject of WTC7 ignored by the 911 commission in the first report? not to mention other important facts such as core columns.

the point is, evidence of this event was whisked away and destroyed as fast as possible. the 911 commission left out important facts. the group assembled to make up that commission were alone enough to raise red flags to the legitimacy of their report. any sane person that knows these facts knows enough not to trust any report that comes from the same source.

if a five year old child writes a story that the moon is made of cheese. even if he writes ten thousand pages of confusing text and provides his very best pictorial representation to prove his theory, knowing that he is an imaginative child keeps us from the need to read the entire report to confirm this not true.

i'll read an entire report just as soon as one is written from a credible and neutral source that only has truth as it's objective. until then i consider reading one sided reports that are designed to come to only one conclusion a serious waste of time.

by the way, mr. sunder says they would look at other credible evidence, but none has come forward. this is ridiculous, to say the least, as the reason for the report is to refute the mountains of growing evidence that is being discussed all the time.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

I wondered when I watched the video, what exactly is the NIST's definition of "robust" science?

"ROBUST!"


google definition: Big assertive and full-flavored.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't need steel for testing.


Why didn't they need steel for testing?

How can you do a proper investigation and report if you do no testing?

Also why did it take 7 years for this report to come out if they did not need to do testing?

[edit on 25-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't need steel for testing.


Why didn't they need steel for testing?


Because they had all the other evidence. Duh.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It didn't take 7 years.

1- When did NIST take over the investigation?

2- When did they start work on WTC-7

Now tell us how long they spent on the investigation.

For someone that claims to do a lot of research. You failed at your last statement.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Why didn't they need steel for testing?

I'll state up front that I am a 'debunker', but that you are somewhat correct in this point.

Steel from the buildings is marginally useful in understanding the collapse. However, you need to be able to differentiate damage suffered pre-collapse and during collapse. This is extremely hard and I encourage you to read NCSTAR 1-3 to get the basics of how pieces were identified to be kept in the case of WTC 1 and 2.

WTC7 steel, if NISTs failure mechanism is accurate, should have (barring collapse damage) displayed some reasonably identifiable damage. Unfortunately none was available for NIST to test, so they did the best job they could regardless and identified a pretty good match with events.


How can you do a proper investigation and report if you do no testing?

Rigour? I hate to quote with a one word reply but what answer were you expecting? You gather as much information as is available to you and determine the possible chains of causality. Your definition of 'testing' would also depend on your personal credulity. Cars are tested using the same type of analysis as NIST used, but they also crash actual cars together and measure the results. Tell me, why would they do both?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
It didn't take 7 years.


Oh so you can show me anothier final report on building 7 from NIST that was done earlier.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Oh so you can show me anothier final report on building 7 from NIST that was done earlier.

False Dichotomy. No truth movement source has produced a comprehensive report, when they do would you like us to measure from 9/11 or from the time they actually started the report?

Trying to ridicule NIST by making false claims is probably not the best strategy.

edit: and for a laugh, we actually can show you another report, from 2004: wtc.nist.gov...

Still your point was entirely invalid and hopefully you will concede that.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Trying to ridicule NIST by making false claims is probably not the best strategy.


Oh i do not have to ridicule NIST all you have to do is look at thier contridicting reports that lack proper testing.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh i do not have to ridicule NIST all you have to do is look at thier contridicting reports that lack proper testing.

Then why are you trying to? You realise of course the contradiction you posted before was not accurate in any way shape or form right? You claim that NISTs baseline models contradict with their other models, yet these models have different starting parameters. That is the point, we don't know values of things like plane speed, building mass (we have a better estimate now thanks to Urich) perfectly, so you test a range of values. This is what NIST did, both lower and higher than the calculated values.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is what NIST did, both lower and higher than the calculated values.


1. NIST original computer model stated neither the plane impacts or fires casued the collapse of the towers.

2. NIST's own reports state they failed to recover steel for testing from building 7.

How can we take NIST reports serious if they contain contridictinos and missing tests?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA11. NIST original computer model stated neither the plane impacts or fires casued the collapse of the towers.

Incorrect, NIST originally had 3 models, including one that closely approximated the building's behaviour.


2. NIST's own reports state they failed to recover steel for testing from building 7.

How can we take NIST reports serious if they contain contridictinos and missing tests?

Nobody recovered steel from WTC7, does this mean all reports on it will be inconclusive, that nobody can prove one theory or another?

edit: I just re-read this post and it does give a slightly wrong impression. NIST of course only had one model of the way the towers were constructed, but they 'ran' this model 3 distinct times with parameter variations appropriate to their error margins. As a result there is no 'original' model to compare and contradict, only a model with slightly lower values for aircraft speed etc. These differences in values are within the margin for error. That is the point of doing three different analyses, you take the measured values, a lower bound and an upper bound.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ultima,

Once again you were asked to answer very simple questions.

1- When did NIST take over the investigations in the collapses at the WTC?

2- When did NIST start working on WTC-7?

3- When did NIST release their final report on WTC-7?

When you are done, do the math and tell me how long they took.

Thank you,

-TY-



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Nobody recovered steel from WTC7, does this mean all reports on it will be inconclusive, that nobody can prove one theory or another?


Well FEMA did recover steel and do testing.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
3- When did NIST release their final report on WTC-7?
-


They just released thier final report. But its too little, too late.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


As usual ....

You failed.

You once again were unable to answer VERY simple questions. But you did realize that once you did answer them, you would have been proven wrong .....again.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
But you did realize that once you did answer them, you would have been proven wrong .....again.


How was i proven wrong when i have showed that NIST failed to recover any steel for testing?

The answers to your questions also prove that NIST failed to do a proper report.

The NIST report is debunked since they have not done proper testing.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join