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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 




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.



It would nice if people could remember the word thread and On Topic!





posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

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.


And that's the interesting part - why was it denied? What was the outcome of the suit? Was it actually denied or was this just a statement by someone?



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.


How many papers have you read where they include the entire raw data set? I can't recall any. Especially a large, complex ANSYS model. It's so unlikely as to be not worth expecting.

If they're refusing it to EVERYONE, then that's interesting, back to the question 'Why?'. If no one at all is ever going to be privy to it, then NISTs model and simulation results may be unicorn flatus.

If it's just ATS member Joe being refused, then I could see it: I've been denied raw data a few times and had to go through whatever prime I was working for at the time to get access. THAT'S not that unusual, at least in my experience, and especially for this particular issue, I'd be refusing you too if I were NIST and had a legal means to do so.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

So what I want to know to the supporters, is how do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?


I don't trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work. I did find a report on a complex physics problem that did show the work. An independant investigation by a team of professors at one of the most presigious engineering schools on the planet. MIT.

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

web.mit.edu...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

Please show me the part about WTC7 in that paper. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by iamcpc
 

Please show me the part about WTC7 in that paper. Thanks.


I thought the topic of your post was the question:

"How do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?"

I didn't know that the question was really:
"How do you trust a report on the collapse of WTC 7 that doesn't show the work?"


I have accepted the fact that I don't know what caused the collapse of WTC7. I will never know. No one will ever know what caused the collapse of WTC7. There will only be theories. There will only be theories which are very difficult to investigate because of the inability to answer the following questions:


What specific debri hit WTC7?
(no one knows)
How much did the debri weigh that hit WTC7?
How fast was the debri going that hit WTC7?
How much visible damage was done to WTC7?


(they can use physics and science, video and picture, to get a ballpark figure of what hit WTC 1 and 2, how much it weighed, how fast it was going, and how much visible damage was done)

So to do a detailed investigation into the collapse of a building that may or may not have been damaged and then set on fire you need to answer a lot of questions about the damage that simply will never be answered.

Do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that does show the work? One that was an independant investigation and report?


[edit on 14-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
The damage to 7 was totally, completely, and utterly unable to account for the SIMULTANEOUS and total failure of every load bearing member and beam at the lower levels, resulting in the ' free fall ' of 2.4 seconds, admitted by NIST. Below 7 was a massive and sturdy structure that was reinforced and could only be taken out with an explosive. many explosions are documented.

Damage above in a structure cannot cause the total removal, in a moment, of ALL the main beams , huge steel beams that could only be ' vaporized' by extreme temps, impossible with a fuel fire. There is no doubt, no questions, that all the WTC complex was destroyed on purpose and with advanced systems. Look at the crater of Bldg. 6 and tell me that was not blown out by either a nuke device or other extreme high explosive.

Damage was never an issue, but a cover. Bldg. 7 was supposed to go down at the same time as the reat, in the am. The devices failed, to a degree, and the lobby was blown out with great loss of life, and later other floors exploded, all witnessed, long before any planes hit a tower.

Bldg. 7 had to be reworked and set again, and finally at 5:20 pm they got it to drop, but were forced to let the world see it , from a few angles, something they never wanted,because they could not help but drop 7 straight down in a typical demo and not the dustification seen in the Towers and 6. The perps thought that it would all be over before lunch, but were forced to acomodate the stubborn system that failed early in the day.

When the sappers finished, and whoever was guarding 7 at the time and controlling access would know who they are, word went out that 7 was coming down. Someone either overheard something in a radiom message or some technician working for the perps felt bad enough to alert a few rescue and firemen and spread the word that it was about to go. There was even a countdown.

And some people ask what evidence? Therein is the problem; there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE !! The evidence is so massive, so convincing, so unassailable , so undebateable, that all a believer in the official story can do is convince themselves...because no one else is buying the nonsense.

Any rational, intelligent and structured discussion of the known facts leads to only one conclusion: 9-11 was a complex, highly planned operation brought about by elements of the military, politicians, intel agents, likely Mossad agents...and men far more powerful, men who tell Dick Cheney what to do, at that level, to make sure that their beliefs in American supremacy in the face of a multi-cultural society, a society that would soon lose ' traditional values', in firmly cemented.

To do this they willingly sacrificed a few thousand civilians and as many military as needed. They figure that our sacrifice will be justified in the long term historical sense. They think that someday people will bless them for what they did, because if America is supreme in energy and resources, we rule the world, or at least dominate how it becomes in the future.

They figure that if we do not, Russia and or China will, and that would threaten, in their mind, our future. Most of these neocon types are convinced that a nuclear war is uinevitable to establish top dog staus for the remainder of foreseeable history, and their status and bunkers they think will get them through the rough times to reimerge at the top of the pile and working to amass more fortune than ever before, and more power.

These men, and some women, are cold, calculating killers with tremendous intellects but a soul that has no compassion for the condition of others, especially those who are not close to them. Humanity becomes a tool, a resource, to play the game. Anyopne who really thinks that the official story is true has to , by definition, forsake reality and embrace delusion. There is no other way to accept it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

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.


Weren't there beams connecting the columns in the core? Let's see you find data on them.

Gregory Urich created a spreadsheet which Frank Greening says is the best data available. But Urich admits that he did a linear interpolation on the perimeter wall panels on the basis of the total weight.

The NIST report specifies the total for the steel in 3 places but never provides a total for the concrete. So the people claiming we have accurate data haven't trie do get accurate data. They just want to believe the problem is solvable to their satisfaction.

psik



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

I thought the topic of your post was the question:

"How do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?"

I didn't know that the question was really:
"How do you trust a report on the collapse of WTC 7 that doesn't show the work?"


If you didn't know what I was referring to you didn't read the OP, have poor reading comprehension, or are intentionally avoiding the topic.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


You're doing a great job man, being about as straightforward and making things about as easy as possible for these people still struggling to get their wits about them after that day.


Six Sigma's post was typical of these amateur, severely misguided individuals. He tells you the numbers and equations are all there in the report, so you can't say they didn't show their work, he just doesn't know what they mean.



Of course as soon as you point out that they have no evidence, as the OP rightly did, they start trying to shift the burden of proof back onto you and try to make you answer all number of questions about technical fields that they even admit they don't understand, as if batting at someone blindly like this is how you "debate." I hate to say it but political correctness has ruined this country, and there is still such a thing as STUPID. Millions of people in this country -- are STUPID. And before you reading this think, "yeah, and it's you," no, let's try this again. Learn to use basic logic and reasoning and then maybe we'll talk. Trying to weasel out of your own burden to answer questions definitively about what happened on 9/11, when millions of people are ASKING QUESTIONS (and don't EVEN LIE to yourself and pretend WE are saying we know it all already!!!) when you think you already know everything important, and millions of others still are not satisfied with what has been shown, is not only bad form and illogical but is STUPID because these people don't even realize that their "arguments" make no sense. If NIST proved something then someone would be able to show it. But you watch this forum and these posts and you'll see this WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER HAPPEN!! And no twisting and turning of rhetoric is going to change that, and everyone is able to see who is really backed up by what.


Someone, anyone, show what NIST proved, and how they proved it. A few million people are still waiting to see, while a few million idiots are convinced without even seeing it that it exists, on blind faith and trust alone. But enough ranting and rhetoric -- freaking SHOW WHAT NIST PROVED AND HOW!! AND GOOD LUCK!!!


9/11 was an INSIDE JOB.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

freaking SHOW WHAT NIST PROVED AND HOW!! AND GOOD LUCK!!!



They proved plenty.

In it, you'll find sections on:

1- examinations of physical specimens of the steel saved by FEMA, that proved that the steel wasn't of substandard quality.

2- examination of truss seats and welds that proved that the welds weren't of poor quality.

3- examination of columns that validated their fire models

4- examination of window breakage that proved their fire models


There's more, but you won't get the point anyways.

If you want some specifics, they're available.

You are a prime example of the type of truther that provides easy fodder for debunking, so please request some specific answers. It will be instructional to lurkers when they realize just how uneducated sheeple the truthers are.....



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

freaking SHOW WHAT NIST PROVED AND HOW!! AND GOOD LUCK!!!



They proved plenty.

In it, you'll find sections on:

1- examinations of physical specimens of the steel saved by FEMA, that proved that the steel wasn't of substandard quality.

2- examination of truss seats and welds that proved that the welds weren't of poor quality.

3- examination of columns that validated their fire models

4- examination of window breakage that proved their fire models


There's more, but you won't get the point anyways.

If you want some specifics, they're available.

You are a prime example of the type of truther that provides easy fodder for debunking, so please request some specific answers. It will be instructional to lurkers when they realize just how uneducated sheeple the truthers are.....


He did not provide fodder for debunking, he asked a question which you did not answer by a long shot. They did not provide the models in the report, therefore they cannot possibly have answered the question.

You can go in the report and find sections like you did, but to read and understand them is apparently beneath debunkers.



[edit on 20-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You can go in the report and find sections like you did, but to read and understand them is apparently beneath debunkers.



Let's clarify.

NIST wouldn't be able to prove a lot of things to the TM's satisfaction, unless there were sensors and video cameras wired all over the building.

Realists however, realize that this standard of proof is not attainable, so these calls for "proof" from the TM can be discarded as rubbish.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Let's clarify.

NIST wouldn't be able to prove a lot of things to the TM's satisfaction, unless there were sensors and video cameras wired all over the building.


That's just what you say, but you personally are also not informed enough to read into the numbers, how they must be calculated, and see how their conclusions were actually derived. Because if you were, you would try to do so, and encounter the same problem we have.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
Because if you were, you would try to do so, and encounter the same problem we have.


Wrong.

I'm educated, and not prone to paranoia, therefore if I don't understand something, I go to non conspiracy sites and get unbiased answers.

Therefore I am able to understand it.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

NIST wouldn't be able to prove a lot of things to the TM's satisfaction, unless there were sensors and video cameras wired all over the building.

Realists however, realize that this standard of proof is not attainable, so these calls for "proof" from the TM can be discarded as rubbish.


Actually, NIST didn't prove anything, the report doesn't even claim that. The information we are asking for exists and is being withheld. The thread is about why you believe the report without said information. In particular the computer model used to arrive at their conclusion. Without this model we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion. You seem to trust it but cannot explain why. Either answer or don't. Lack of a direct answer will say more than anything.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The thread is about why you believe the report without said information.


Cuz I'm not a paranoid lunatic.


Without this model we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion.


Like most rational people, my opinion doesn't rely on just what one entity says.

But when there are engineering studies from many different sources, some that disagree with minor aspects of the report, but still agree with terrorists>planes>impact damage>fire>firedamage>collapse, and all laugh at the various cd scenarios...... well then, the rational folks realize that truthers are unhinged.

You may want to refer to Bazant's reply to Anders Bjokman's letter to The Jpurnal of Engineering Mechanics. Bjorkman was a petitioner of the month at aetwoof49/11.

www.flashback.org...

Some highlights:

no meaningful mechanics argument
groundless
incorrect
his disconnected quantitative estimates prove nothing
nothing can be deduced

Gettin' the picture yet?

This is ae's best.

And he's a joke......



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
Because if you were, you would try to do so, and encounter the same problem we have.


Wrong.

I'm educated, and not prone to paranoia, therefore if I don't understand something, I go to non conspiracy sites and get unbiased answers.

Therefore I am able to understand it.



"Joey," NIST didn't show critical parts of their work. There is no "non conspiracy site" that can make this "okay" with an "unbiased answer." You are only pretending that you understand what's in the NIST report to argue with us, and it is plain as day. Just look at the title of this thread. You still don't get it. You really need to take a physics or engineering class, and try to pass any of it without showing your work. Maybe even ask your instructor why it's important to show your work. This is very elementary, and you are only confused because there are legions of laymen such as yourself on the internet who are very confused about the significance of NIST not providing the necessary data for a number of important sets of calculations.





Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

The thread is about why you believe the report without said information.


Cuz I'm not a paranoid lunatic.


What you are demonstrating is that you will ignore a logical point for a number of illogical reasons that are completely unrelated to the said point. You can't seem to fully comprehend the implications of NIST not showing their work (a problem for real scientists and engineers who want to recreate their conclusions), not because of what's in their report (which you admittedly don't understand yourself and must seek advice from others of your select choosing -- a classic "sheep mentality"), but because at the end of the day you are completely incapable of changing your mind about what happened on 9/11 ever again. So you have to adjust everything you come across to fit that fact, that you will never, ever, change your views, and you must have a hell of a time trying to cope with all that you see, to get enough of a rush out of arguing with people so as to do it nearly every single day!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

"Joey," NIST didn't show critical parts of their work.


I'm aware of your objections.

But I'm also aware of the fact that NIST cannot, cuz of private property laws, release some of the structural details.



There is no "non conspiracy site" that can make this "okay" with an "unbiased answer."


Actually, there are. When questions are asked of others about whether or not this is normal, and get answers that yes it is in such a report, it obviously leads to the question of why is that. And then when THAT answer is that these reports aren't written for laymen, but for professionals, it explains exactly why statements from NIST like " once the upper block begins to move it will obviously overwhelm the lower structure" aren't accompanied with equations, etc.

BTW, there are plenty of papers available that contain those equations, if you care to take a look at the entirety of the scholarly work on the subject...


What you are demonstrating is that you will ignore a logical point for a number of illogical reasons that are completely unrelated to the said point.


You know what I DO notice?

1- nearly 9 years in, truthers still have no hypothesis

2- this doesn't bother any of you at all. At least the moon hoaxers and bigfooters try. You guys don't.

3- it also doesn't bother any of you that you have made zero progress.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

The thread is about why you believe the report without said information.


Cuz I'm not a paranoid lunatic.


Without this model we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion.


Like most rational people, my opinion doesn't rely on just what one entity says.

But when there are engineering studies from many different sources, some that disagree with minor aspects of the report, but still agree with terrorists>planes>impact damage>fire>firedamage>collapse, and all laugh at the various cd scenarios...... well then, the rational folks realize that truthers are unhinged.

You may want to refer to Bazant's reply to Anders Bjokman's letter to The Jpurnal of Engineering Mechanics. Bjorkman was a petitioner of the month at aetwoof49/11.

www.flashback.org...

Some highlights:

no meaningful mechanics argument
groundless
incorrect
his disconnected quantitative estimates prove nothing
nothing can be deduced

Gettin' the picture yet?

This is ae's best.

And he's a joke......


Debunking conspiracy theories has absolutely nothing to do with proving the OS true. I say it so much the poeple who actually read my posts before they respond are sick of hearing it. I have an entire thread about it that remains debunker free. It is a known logical fallacy and quite frankly pretty "jr high".

I want you to link me to one single study that shows the math that explains the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers that day.

I understand that looking at only one report is not reason to believe it. Thats excellent cognative ability. The problem is that no other report claimed to prove what did happen using real numbers. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios, and one actual scenario.

While the truth movement has come along and presented any number of possible scenarios, the actual scenario still has not been found using numbers from the real world.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I want you to link me to one single study that shows the math that explains the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers that day.




I'm sure you do.

But instead, I'll ask you to study the entire body of work, like I did, and then come back here with specific questions.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join