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.

 

Science without math is garbage, NIST.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by richierich
The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.


Yet, interestingly, you don't see the lower portion of the building vanish. Nor is it obvious that the windows and/or facade fly off. It doesn't take but a whiff of overpressure to blow windows out, yet you don't see this on the lower part of the building.

BTW, did you admit that the report is full of data, tables, and mathematical formulae? It looked like that.

Also, I ran across the "free fall from time x to y" statement about 30 seconds into looking for the flame simulation models, it's not like it's hidden.



You DO see the lower levels vanish...as they turn to dust and debris once all the core beams and supports were blown. The FACT that NIST admits freefall means:


The supports were of NO resistance whatsoever, and that means that some energy took them all out at the same time, and that cannot happen in a collapse .The building dropped straight down and all supports were so compromised already that the falling mass had NO obstruction, for several seconds. THAT is smoking gun evidence.

I believe small nukes were used along with several other types of explosives...only a nuke could vaporize steel ( proven) and cause the heat that stayed for months. This was a nuclear event...the Towers were turned to dust by these devices as well. No other answer can account for what is seen. Nothing else can vaporize steel and cause the eruptions seen as the Towers were dustified.

i used to think DEW was the way....but nukes cause the damage seen to the cars and such, and better than DEW.




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
I believe small nukes were used along with several other types of explosives...only a nuke could vaporize steel ( proven) and cause the heat that stayed for months. This was a nuclear event...the Towers were turned to dust by these devices as well. No other answer can account for what is seen. Nothing else can vaporize steel and cause the eruptions seen as the Towers were dustified.

i used to think DEW was the way....but nukes cause the damage seen to the cars and such, and better than DEW.


Dude, seriously? Now I understand why you think a pilot would try to radio for help instead of trying to defend himself from being murdered.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Are personal attacks at someones character suppose to make you sound intelligent?

The above is proof of the very essence of what is wrong with this whole thread. Instead of actually using the thread as a discussion you resort to saying:

It's a fair guess you can't read it.


Again is that what ATS is about personally attacks? If someone was to resort to such measures its likely that is the only means in which to ruse response. Its fair to say, your unwise, forth being if you are wise, you'd sure find other ways to express and discuss idealogy and issues on ATS.

Yet again someone who supports the OS using tactics that single the person instead of the thread.



Yet what have we seen from you? A demand for the math, the simulation, the models and what not. The simulator they used is free, there are any number of NIST authored papers on the methodology, and what you DON'T have are the models used in the simulation, but you've pretty much got the rest.

If you're that insistent, why not write your own models? Or pursue why whoever you're being irate for didn't get the model? I note you didn't reply to that. What did they state as the reason for refusing? How do YOU know the guy even asked? Have YOU asked?

You see, you don't know. You're quoting something you heard from someone who heard from someone who put it on a website, but there's no hard evidence that the request was made, or refused, or why it was refused if it was, at least I haven't seen any on the thread so far.

I haven't BEGUN to personally attack you, just to ask you pointy questions, which you've pretty much answered by dodging around. They're not that outrageous - if you had the model, would you know what to do with it, and if not, why do you care? Do you understand the math sufficiently to be able to comment on it? How do you know the solidity of the cause you're taking up, in this case, the "FOIA denial", which may or may not be true? Why do you think that scholarly papers contain raw data, when they don't? Have you ever tried to get raw data from a study from the author(s)? And is NISTs putative refusal thus unusual, or par for the course? See, you don't seem to have enough info to know whether to be outraged, which is the point I'm trying to get across to you.

And before you go for the red blinking 10 point type, yes it IS about you - you can't really come to a thread entitled "science without math is garbage", shake your fist at NIST and their evil deeds, and then when someone questions your base assumptions and qualifications run around squealing "its not about me! its not about me!". You've chosen a side, made a statement of position, and then you don't want it discussed.

I always viewed ATS as less a soapbox for 1-way declamations than a forum for discussion. If you say "This is so! they are unsciencey because they don't give you the raw data in the report!" then you really ought to not be too upset when someone asks you why you expect that, when it's rarely true.

It may be true that they're refusing FOIA request for the model and simulation parameters - I don't know one way or the other, and the WHY, if so, would be about as interesting to me as the data itself. Why the refusal? Under what authority? Is the refusal only for unqualified 'researchers'? How was the request phrased (very important)?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
You DO see the lower levels vanish...as they turn to dust and debris once all the core beams and supports were blown. The FACT that NIST admits freefall means:


You see this happen after the building falls INTO the lower levels. Not before, unless I'm seriously misremembering.



The supports were of NO resistance whatsoever, and that means that some energy took them all out at the same time, and that cannot happen in a collapse .


OOH, an absolute. Well, two of them. Here's an alternative - once you got enough momentum and mass pancaking down, a number of intermediate floors failed so quickly that given the data available, they offered so little resistance as to be unmeasurable, given the quality of data on hand. Until it really started piling up and being less readily crushable later in the fall, when you see the fall rate begin to slow again.

One each white crow, for your absolute.



The building dropped straight down and all supports were so compromised already that the falling mass had NO obstruction, for several seconds. THAT is smoking gun evidence.


No, the report says that at first it was falling slowly, accelerated until in the middle it wasn't distinguishable from free fall given the data, then slowed a good deal at the end. That's smoking gun evidence of resistance in the upper floors at first, but then when the mass grew sufficiently large the intermediate floors offered very little resistance, until the end when the building was a big crap pile and much less compressible.



I believe small nukes were used along with several other types of explosives...only a nuke could vaporize steel ( proven) and cause the heat that stayed for months. This was a nuclear event...the Towers were turned to dust by these devices as well. No other answer can account for what is seen. Nothing else can vaporize steel and cause the eruptions seen as the Towers were dustified.

i used to think DEW was the way....but nukes cause the damage seen to the cars and such, and better than DEW.


Actually, there are a HUGE number of reasons why this is bogus. Both DEW and nukes. To the point that no rational human with any grasp of physics can possibly believe it. I had you figured for a death beamer, but you're sort of a combo nuker/beamer. I don't see that a lot, it takes a massive suspension of disbelief that I'm not sure I could pony up. Congratulations.

(ps - the cars that burned were running, except the ones that were on the failed gas line in the parking lot. Ingestion of tiny particulate dust in a running vehicle grinds the engine to bits.)



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
BTW, did you admit that the report is full of data, tables, and mathematical formulae? It looked like that.


But don't you need to understand the physics to know what data to collect to plug into the mathematical equations in the first place?

Try finding the weight of the standard. floor assemblies. There were 84 floors of the same design in each tower. They had to know the weight before they dug the hole for the foundations. So why isn't that information available now.

psik



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The OP is correct, yes, NIST did show some of it equation, however some of the equations did not stand up to real math or science.
Most people have accepted that NIST has been debunked, and was never peer reviewed.
NIST made up half of the garbage in their hypotheses and applied pseudo science hoping they would fool the American people.

NIST is not worth debating any longer, it is proven junk science.
That is why it was not peer reviewed because NIST knew it would not stand up to real science. In my opinion, anyone supporting NIST and their hypotheses lacks any real understanding of mathematics and basic science. Many people who are only supporting NIST, are doing it on a belief system, that our governments are honest people and would never lie or harm them.




[edit on 13-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
however some of the equations did not stand up to real math or science.


Can you please site the equations?

Thank you for assisting me with this.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Why in all your Calculus II rants, why don't you explain these equations then? I mean being the astute knowledgeable individual you claim you are:

EXPLAIN THE MATH THEN!


I haven't BEGUN to personally attack you, just to ask you pointy questions, which you've pretty much answered by dodging around.


Well a least you admit you planning on this then! Thanks for embedding that in your posting history.

Good show!

Now the funny thing is you link me to NIST calculation tools and expect me to what, laugh really hard at you attempts to look so intelligent?

NIST has admitted it has made errors. As should you.

As for the rest I have said my peace I am sorry you cannot seem to accept your attempt and a ruse have failed miserably.

Have a great day!



[edit on 13-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability

Now the funny thing is you link me to NIST calculation tools and expect me to what, laugh really hard at you attempts to look so intelligent?


You, the ability are the one that said they would throw the report in the trash bin. Funny thing is...you have no idea why. You have not read the NIST report, yet you are so quick to dismiss it because truther websites said so.


NIST has admitted it has made errors. As should you.


Admitted that made errors? Care to elaborate? What did they make errors on? Can you please source these errors?


As for the rest I have said my peace I am sorry you cannot seem to accept your attempt and a ruse have failed miserably.


Ah... a drive by truthing! Makes claims and fails to back any of them up. Typical.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The purpose of the math is to just Razzle Dazzle the people that can't understand the math anyway.

It is so AUTHORITY can give people that warm and comfy feeling that the people in charge know what they are doing.

TRUST US, WE DID THE MATH!

What do you mean, "How much did a floor assembly weigh?"

None of your business. Shut up and go away.

The PHYSICS people will have to spend the rest of the century explaining how they didn't get this settled in less than two years. 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. But far worse and bigger.

psik



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



You, the ability are the one that said they would throw the report in the trash bin. Funny thing is...you have no idea why. You have not read the NIST report, yet you are so quick to dismiss it because truther websites said so.



I dismiss the reports that are given out by FEMA and NIST because they said to begin with we are not responsible for the information within, IE its NOT ACCURATE read the thread here!

A Question of Accuracy in FEMA Reports
Plus the Omission Commission was hardly trustworthy! Yet let me just blinding follow the fools of the bridge right?


Admitted that made errors? Care to elaborate? What did they make errors on? Can you please source these errors?

See Above.


Ah... a drive by truthing! Makes claims and fails to back any of them up. Typical.


Hmm? I never made claims I agreed with the OP. Learn the difference!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by loveguy
 

If the evidence is strong, papers should be published in journals that provide refereed reviews, rigorous examination of the evidence, and have a readership that would follow up with additional research. It is apparent that the evidence is too weak and the science is too flawed for any of the 911 'researchers' to have papers accepted in real journals.


This is actually in a thread where the poster is referring to "truthers". You can see how if this standard were actually applied to the NIST report it would not pass the criteria they desire. The double standard is disgusting.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"if I go to the insurance agency and show pictures of a car hitting mine, causing mine to burst into flames and burn"

Insurance agencies do not investigate insurance claims, they sell insurance policies. Insurance adjusters investigate claims. On many occasions, insurance carriers have been known to hire some of the most highly skilled forensic experts to help investigate their claims.

What exactly is the point of your post, except for showing us that you know absolutely nothing about how the insurance industry works?

[edit on 13-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

Why in all your Calculus II rants, why don't you explain these equations then? I mean being the astute knowledgeable individual you claim you are:

EXPLAIN THE MATH THEN!


I'm not the one saying it didn't exist, or that I question it, nor am I passionately demanding that it be produced, RIGHT NOW (imagine red blinky 10x type).

I actually used to do this on ATS, until it dawned on me that pulling up mathcad to make pretty JPG files of equations and walking people through them was a waste of time and bandwidth. You will occasionally see me still do it with people who are worth the time and bother, Neon Haze comes to mind.






Well a least you admit you planning on this then! Thanks for embedding that in your posting history.

Good show!


Nope, just saying that I haven't begun to attack you. No attack has occurred. Just questioning your point, which you don't seem to want to address.




Now the funny thing is you link me to NIST calculation tools and expect me to what, laugh really hard at you attempts to look so intelligent?

NIST has admitted it has made errors. As should you.


You're carping that none of it was made available. You are wrong, as demonstrated. So, tell me, did you ever find out about the FOIA?

edit: typo

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Bedlam
BTW, did you admit that the report is full of data, tables, and mathematical formulae? It looked like that.


But don't you need to understand the physics to know what data to collect to plug into the mathematical equations in the first place?


Probably, but the thread's position seems to be that nothing was made available, which seems to be incorrect - there are papers describing the methodology and the tools at least are for the downloading.

As far as a physics primer on statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, concrete and whatnot, that's probably at least a 4 year curriculum in structural engineering - not really in the scope of NISTs publication.

They ought to be able to produce raw data for the inspection of qualified reviewers, including the model, the simulation parameters and initial state data, and some indication of how they reached the values they plugged in, their pubs also say that they ran some physical simulations to verify the model assumptions in places and that data would be interesting, I'd expect. You ought to be able to get enough out of them to at least be able to start the simulator and come back in six months with the same results they got.

If whassname's assertion that they are refusing to divulge the data is true, it would be interesting to see what the justification was, if in fact they DID refuse it. I could see it not being made available to the riff-raff, but it would be surprising that they'd refuse Dr Pardoen or someone like that.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



I'm not the one saying it didn't exist, or that I question it, nor am I passionately demanding that it be produced, RIGHT NOT (imagine red blinky 10x type).


Wow MR Calculus II now that doesn't sound intelligent.


I actually used to do this on ATS, until it dawned on me that pulling up mathcad to make pretty JPG files of equations and walking people through them was a waste of time and bandwidth. You will occasionally see me still do it with people who are worth the time and bother, Neon Haze comes to mind.


I didn't realize that you can't type equations out on a keyboard, so much for using a graphing calculator MR CALCULUS II.


Nope, just saying that I haven't begun to attack you. No attack has occurred. Just questioning your point, which you don't seem to want to address.


What? I have repeated addressed you!



You're carping that none of it was made available. You are wrong, as demonstrated. So, tell me, did you ever find out about the FOIA?


I'm wrong? Coming from someone who knows so much about math I won't take your criticism to heart, actually I could care less really what you think or say, you haven't provided a thing for me to think otherwise.

Have great day!

BTW sometime try to address the original OP ok!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by loveguy
 

If the evidence is strong, papers should be published in journals that provide refereed reviews, rigorous examination of the evidence, and have a readership that would follow up with additional research. It is apparent that the evidence is too weak and the science is too flawed for any of the 911 'researchers' to have papers accepted in real journals.


This is actually in a thread where the poster is referring to "truthers". You can see how if this standard were actually applied to the NIST report it would not pass the criteria they desire. The double standard is disgusting.


Yet, papers on NISTs methodology WERE published in refereed journals. I linked to one upthread, and I have some more white crows for this claim if you'd like...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Probably, but the thread's position seems to be that nothing was made available, which seems to be incorrect - there are papers describing the methodology and the tools at least are for the downloading.

They used a computer simulation but did not release the simulation. A FOIA was filed by one of or members here on ATS, lawsuit ensued when the FOIA was denied.

This thread is not about that member and FOIA of said information. This thread is about why people believe the NIST report without having access to this simulation, the numbers put into it, and the output. Without those things included the report lacks scientific merit. Like I said in the OP, go to a college class and write a program and only give the teacher the output. I'm sure you'll remember to include it next semester when you're taking the class again.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Yet, papers on NISTs methodology WERE published in refereed journals. I linked to one upthread, and I have some more white crows for this claim if you'd like...


And they used what raw data? The raw data that has not been released? Also nice move cutting off the quote before it mentions rigorous review of the data. In this case, rigorous review of data is not possible as data is not public information. That is the point of the whole thread.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I didn't realize that you can't type equations out on a keyboard, so much for using a graphing calculator MR CALCULUS II.


Perhaps you can point me toward the graphing calculator that's hooked to ATS, I must have missed it. I've always had to use mathcad to make jpg's, it's a pain to do.

Oh, and that's Mr Tensor Calculus, if you're going to shriek names. The paper that you guys claim didn't exist that I linked upthread looks about on the level of Calculus II.



I'm wrong? Coming from someone who knows so much about math I won't take your criticism to heart, actually I could care less really what you think or say, you haven't provided a thing for me to think otherwise.


Why bother? Tell ya what, someone comes along and actually starts to show any comprehension of that PDF, I'll get off my butt and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, it gets into one of those "here's a 1000 points of cut and paste that took me 5 minutes to gather, refute them all individually or admit defeat!" types of asymmetric arguments that are so loved here.

Make you a deal. YOU walk through the first page equations, and we'll do the rest together. Otherwise, I'm not seeing the point.

As far as the OP, what's the title of the thread? Ah, yes "Science without math is garbage", yet it's easy to see that they used math to justify their position, even came up with a nice Navier-Stokes simulator to do it with. Whether their assumptions were valid is another matter.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join