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.

 

letter to NIST

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


exponent, please explain why you think the NIST report is definitive and should be believed, when it is a report based on guesswork, with missing data?




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Because they can't, they want to believe that highjackers brought those building down.

[edit on 8/29/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
exponent, please explain why you think the NIST report is definitive and should be believed, when it is a report based on guesswork, with missing data?


I'll make this a quick reply as I accidentally lost a rather longer one I had done.

Essentially your characterisation as "guesswork" is just silly. NIST took reasonable measurements, all the information they had available and appropriate error margins. Nothing about this is wrong in any way. Yes it would have been nice if they had more information, but that information was not and is not available.

NIST did the best they could, and identified various mechanisms in WTC1,2 and 7 which have yet to be explained by any alternate theory.

If you characterise the NIST report as "guesswork", then you must logically also decry any report that is not of similar rigour. Tell me, what evidence do you use to support your theory?


posted by cashlink
Because they can't, they want to believe that highjackers brought those building down.

I don't know if this is supposed to imply you're a no-plane theorist, but that sort of theory is just ridiculous and I don't really plan on debating it.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
So you're agreeing with the NIST finding that column 79 appears to be the source of that initial collapse movement based on the observation of the east penthouse collapse?


NO i am not agreeing with NIST.

I am still trying to figure out why the buidling came straight down instead of to the side with the damage.

I have already proven the NIST report to be debunked because of improper testing and investigation.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So do you have any theories or any evidence to show why the penthouse collapsed first?


No, but we have plenty of evidnece that shows the building coming straight down.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO i am not agreeing with NIST.

I am still trying to figure out why the buidling came straight down instead of to the side with the damage.

Well lets start with the east penthouse, you were talking about how you had lots of information for me, and logically that should mean you can explain the same things that the NIST report can.

Why did the east penthouse fall first?

edit: I see you have already answered, but we all know the building came roughly straight down. NIST also knows this. I don't see your point?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
you were talking about how you had lots of information for me, and logically that should mean you can explain the same things that the NIST report can.


As proven the NIST report is debunked, why do you keep using it?

Besides NIST is not the official invetigating agency for 9/11 the FBI is, you should at least know that much.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


as proven, the NIST report has always disiproven all conspiracy theorists attempys to debunk it.

Plus the FBI report is not available to the public. Once it is, and it confirms the official story, I'm wondering how many CTers will say its a coverup still?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
as proven, the NIST report has always disiproven all conspiracy theorists attempys to debunk it.


Then are you stating the NIST report that states they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing lie?


Plus the FBI report is not available to the public.


Thats right, that means you have no real evidence, so its time for you and the other beleivers to stop lieing and stating they do.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Are you sure you even know what the NIST role in investigating the events of 9/11 was? It sounds like your really dont know. I think you need to do more research and fully understand what their role was.

With the FBI report not released yet, its time that you and your conspiracy friends stop lying and stating you know what happened. Besides, you guys cant even agree on what happened at all. Planes, no planes, holographic planes, no, directed energy weapons, no, missiles! Thermite!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Are you sure you even know what the NIST role in investigating the events of 9/11 was?


NIST was hired to do investigate and do reports on the buildings.

So if NIST failed to recover steel from buidling 7 for testing then they failed to do a proper investigation, simple as that.


With the FBI report not released yet, its time that you and your conspiracy friends stop lying and stating you know what happened.


So you admit the FBI reports have not been released, then you also admit the beleivers are lying when they state they know what happened?

We have evidence from research, FOIA request and e-mails that question the official story. Maybe you should try filing a FOIA request or e-mailing companies that were there, maybe you would learn something.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
The same could be said for you. You admit the FBI reports have not been released, then you have to admit that the conspiracy theorists are lying when they state they know what happened.

We have evidence from research, FOIA requests, experts and professionals in the field, and official testimony that support and confirm the official story.

When did you file your FOIA requests? 7 years after the events seems a long time to wait, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron We have evidence from research, FOIA requests, experts and professionals in the field, and official testimony that support and confirm the official story.


Well then please show it, that what i have been asking for. Becasue so far i have seen no real evidence posted by the believers.


When did you file your FOIA requests? 7 years after the events seems a long time to wait, don't you think?


I have been fileing FOIA request for over 3 years now, how about you ?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Essentially your characterisation as "guesswork" is just silly. NIST took reasonable measurements, all the information they had available and appropriate error margins. Nothing about this is wrong in any way. Yes it would have been nice if they had more information, but that information was not and is not available.

Thanks for that, exponent. Now I know, that no matter what, you believe the NIST report, as it is printed and that you can't see why it is guesswork.

You've made your position clear on that.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Not only that, but it should be pretty obvious that their guess work is WRONG. As stated several times in a few threads, their computer simulation of the collapse does not resemble observed reality. Just play the animation beside any video of the actual collapse.
If the column by the east penthouse is responsible for the global collapse, why on earth did the very center of the building kink when we should have seen the roof under the penthouse sag seeing as all the columns holding it up where failing? Just watch the simulation of collapse, it resembles what we should have seen, the east side of the building dropping before the rest of the building, it also appears the roof kins over there as well and not smack dab in the center as observed.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Thanks for that, exponent. Now I know, that no matter what, you believe the NIST report, as it is printed and that you can't see why it is guesswork.

You've made your position clear on that.

I notice how you completely fail to answer my questions. Which reports do you believe that are not guesswork? Because I suspect you're taking an intellectually dishonest position here. I am fully aware of alternative theories of 911, and I am aware of the extremely limited and haphazard evidence used. For example, observe my next post.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Not only that, but it should be pretty obvious that their guess work is WRONG. As stated several times in a few threads, their computer simulation of the collapse does not resemble observed reality. Just play the animation beside any video of the actual collapse.
If the column by the east penthouse is responsible for the global collapse, why on earth did the very center of the building kink when we should have seen the roof under the penthouse sag seeing as all the columns holding it up where failing?

It did, and it does in all videos of the collapse which have not been cut appropriately.
xs130.xs.to...

If the NIST report truly is guesswork, please explain how they were able to produce the same east penthouse collapse from fire simulation? Yes I am aware the further on the simulation progresses, the more inaccurate it becomes. So are NIST. They don't expect it to perfectly match, only people who have no idea what the software they're using does, do.


Just watch the simulation of collapse, it resembles what we should have seen, the east side of the building dropping before the rest of the building, it also appears the roof kins over there as well and not smack dab in the center as observed.

The roof does not kink in the centre. xs130.xs.to...

I think it's somewhat sad that despite these massive rants against the NIST report, the only alternate evidence offered is "it fell straight down", even though NIST and various non-truther scientists also are aware of this and factor it into their simulations/calculations.

ULTIMA. If you can't explain the east penthouse failure, perhaps you can explain the events in the 6 seconds between the east penthouse failing and the start of global collapse.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
NIST sold it self to a corrupt Government.
NIST presented a report of out right lies.
NIST is an embarrassment to the engineer community.
NIST cannot be trusted to any report again
NIST Lied making statement that they had no witness who heard and saw explosions.
NIST said no reason to look in to demolition base on the above lie.
NIST is unpatriotic to American science and the America people truth is not important to NIST.

My opinion is NIST lacks credible science to support their claim.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Okay, I guess you are right. The kink is a little towards the East. I guess that fact that the East end of the roof staying level with the West end during the entire collapse matches their computer simulation? In what way do you believe that NIST's computer simulation resembles the REAL collapse?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
In what way do you believe that NIST's computer simulation resembles the REAL collapse?


NISTs simulation provides a pretty decent match of the collapse until a couple of seconds after the main collapse phase starts. After that it's not terrible, but it is not perfect, the perimeter panels bulge out without failure where it appears in the videos they do fail. It's hard to know exactly what happened on the day to point out where NIST got it wrong, but they are aware that their collapse model becomes less accurate as it progresses. This is the state of the art in modelling structural failure at the moment.

Pop quiz, how long did their typical global collapse model take to run?




top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join