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.

 

Question to all Debunkers and/or Official 9/11 story supporters.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter
Remember that I myself am a foresics engineer


I doubt that very seriously.


Who's being incredulous now? I wonder?


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Nutter]




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter
Remember that I myself am a foresics engineer


I doubt that very seriously.


Who's being incredulous now? I wonder?


It's not based on incredulity, but on the evidence supplied in your own posts.

The biggest error is your complaining about the building codes that NIST produced, etc.

Any and every person involved with structural engineering should know that NIST merely makes recs. And anybody claiming to be a forensics structural engineer would damn sure know that.

Therefore, you are lying.

But since your talking points have been easily shown to be illogical, please continue the discussion.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The biggest error is your complaining about the building codes that NIST produced, etc.


Learn to read:

Here is my "complaining" post about building codes.


Originally posted by Nutter
BTW. If Quintiere is correct and NIST is wrong, how does that change the codes propossed by NIST? Which affects us all.


Notice the part where I say "propossed by NIST"?


Any and every person involved with structural engineering should know that NIST merely makes recs. And anybody claiming to be a forensics structural engineer would damn sure know that.


That is what I stated. Again learn to read and comprehend the small details.



Therefore, you are lying.


Think what you will. I know where I recieve a paycheck from.


But since your talking points have been easily shown to be illogical, please continue the discussion.


My talking points are only illogical to those who read into something what they want. Try reading the actual words sometime. It may help.


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Let's see what the AIA has to say about the code changes recommended by NIST.


The major finding of the NIST report is that the design and construction materials of the World Trade Center did not contribute to the disaster; they performed exceptionally well. Despite this fact, the report offers several recommendations that are not supported by the investigation, nor are they backed by substantive research. In fact, the premises of some of the statements appear to be in error.


www.nistreview.org...

Looks Dr. Quintiere and myself are not the only ones who believe NIST to be in error.

Wait....there's more:


The recommendations in the NIST report are useful guidelines towards that end. Howere, the AIA believes that at times the recommendations overlook measures and technologies that are already in practice, or go in directions that are not supported by either the investigation or scientific reasearch.


Since the AIA represents 75,000 professionals


The American Institute of Architects represents more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging professionals, and allied partners


Does this mean that all those 75,000 professionals also do not agree with NIST's recommendations? Going by the logic around here it does. i.e. When we hear that the ASCE agrees with the NIST's findings we hear that atomatically everyone in ASCE agrees with the NIST findings. So when the AIA disagrees with the NIST recommendations, we can automatically assume that all 75,000 architects also disagree with the NIST recommendations.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

The codes that NIST came up with are bogus when considering a structural collapse. Why not change codes that really matter rather than having a new fire exit and wider exit stairs?



"Proposed" is nowhere in evidence in this post.

This is my evidence that you are not as you say.

Someone who is faking their qualifications would forget the facts, and insert their own biases.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Let's see what the AIA has to say about the code changes recommended by NIST.

Looks Dr. Quintiere and myself are not the only ones who believe NIST to be in error.


You just convinced me that you are definitely a joke.

The section that follows your quote does not deal with the actual codes, but who determines what codes will be used in the building.

At this point, nothing but a statement from a moderator confirming that you are as you say will convince me that you're nothing more than a typical truther.

IOW, you wil quote mine and drop innuendo to make your point.

Which, as I also pinted out, is at odds internally, and you have ignored. Namely, you cannot say that you trust a guv appointed review board, provide evidence that NIST is peer reviewed..... and also complain that NIST needs to be peer reviewed, and that you personally want to see the peer review and accuse NIST of "secrecy".

As i said, it's all just a ploy to make your request seem more respectable, when in reality you're not being consistent.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The section that follows your quote does not deal with the actual codes, but who determines what codes will be used in the building.


And the remainder of the report deals with more technical aspects. Did you even read it?


At this point, nothing but a statement from a moderator confirming that you are as you say will convince me that you're nothing more than a typical truther.


I don't care what you believe at this point. If a mod wants to verify who I say I am, then fine. But I'm not going out of my way just to satisfy a fundamentalist OS'er.


Which, as I also pinted out, is at odds internally, and you have ignored. Namely, you cannot say that you trust a guv appointed review board, provide evidence that NIST is peer reviewed..... and also complain that NIST needs to be peer reviewed, and that you personally want to see the peer review and accuse NIST of "secrecy".


No one has been able to review their structural modeling. It even states in the International Codes that such modeling data be submitted as part of the documentation.


APPENDIX E

USE OF COMPUTER MODELS

This appendix gives guidance regarding qualifications and information that should be provided when undertaking computer modeling. More specifically, the appendix requests that computer program data be submitted as part of the documentation.



As i said, it's all just a ploy to make your request seem more respectable, when in reality you're not being consistent.


Actually, my request is part of the International Building Code.


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Although, I will say Joey, that I have starred some of your posts in the past and have even been starring some in the "I have changed my opinion on 9/11" thread today. So, I am not trying to get into a pissing match with you.

But, I feel the NIST data should be given to those who raised the money and have the technical know-how to analyse it. It doesn't have anything in it that would be considered a public safety issue. What could possibly be in the data that would be a public safety issue?

As you keep saying, AE911 truth has the ability to recreate this data on their own correct?

So, why not just give it to them?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

What could possibly be in the data that would be a public safety issue?



You tell me.

You're not in the loop to make that determination though, that's for sure. Therefore, this question is based on incredulity.

Just like how AE member's objection is based on nothing but incredulity, since they have no data, your objection is based on incredulity, since you're not in the loop.

That's expected of someone masquerading as a forensics structural engineer though.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That's expected of someone masquerading as a forensics structural engineer though.


Name the mod you want me to send my 2009 tax forms to. On one condition though. You will have to make a thread publicly apologizing for calling me a liar. Are you willing to do that? If so, name your mod.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival



"The only conclusion that's feasible is that this report contains information
usable to effect the destruction of other buildings, and as such, this
information is classified from public exposure so that it doesn't fall into
the wrong hands."



"However implausible it may be that a terror organization could use
this information to start fires at key structural points in a building
to effect its demolition, this is the tacit implication."











I also think this is a logical assumption to make, I also believe that this very well could be what they are referring to when they refer to "a public safety issue". It certainly isn't that they are worried about other professionals not working with them in the future due to the release of their models AND because of their not cooperating with future investigations THIS would make releasing these models "a public safety issue", as the previous poster proposed.




If anyone could add to the possible reasons for NIST's decision to classify their research in this regard, I would be very interested.



This was also information I was hoping to glean from this thread. But I think I can rest my case, as evidenced by the posts in this thread, somehow a post about how debunkers could care less about NIST denying the public their models, has spiraled into whether or not Nutter is a forensics structural engineer(btw nutter you don't have to prove anything).

Classic debunker response tactics..ignore the question, change the subject, attack Truthers and then attack the poster, as I said this thread is just further proof of how most debunkers are.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



It certainly isn't that they are worried about other professionals not working with them in the future due to the release of their models AND because of their not cooperating with future investigations THIS would make releasing these models "a public safety issue", as the previous poster proposed


Now wait, how can you say it "certainly" is not that issue? Its one thing to say that you don't think that was the critical issue but how can you make such an absolute statement?

In fact, I consider the concept that the release of the input and results files may assist others that may want to use them for nefarious purposes but that really doesn't make much sense. You would be releasing information for buildings that already have been destroyed, and if you wanted to figure out how to destroy some other building then you would need the data that was specific to that building. The connection models for the WTC buildings are unique to that building.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Your a hundred percent right, I definitely cannot say certainly, I am, without question, not certain about that. I just think they would have responded differently in their denial, like "we cannot release b/c: proprietary issues that might cause future non cooperation" or something to that effect .

On your second point, I still think it could be the reasoning behind this particular denial. I didn't think of it as being something that was specific to the towers and seven, other than the fact it would have to do with fire. Something like the models showing some kind of easily reproducible fire induced fatal flaw in pre 9/11 built steel framed sky scrapers. Although this type of finding seems unlikely, the more I think about it.

IDK Hooper, Other than Rival and you, no one seems to have any idea what the "public safety issue" could be. It's not a easy question to answer, and a seemingly strange response for NIST to make in regards to the denial of computer models of collapses the whole world has seen.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



IDK Hooper, Other than Rival and you, no one seems to have any idea what the "public safety issue" could be. It's not a easy question to answer, and a seemingly strange response for NIST to make in regards to the denial of computer models of collapses the whole world has seen.


I think you have to read Section 7 in its entirety to have an understanding of the possible reasons for the denial. Particulary, read section 7(c).



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Sorry could you link to it(I thought you were talking about NIST's report section 7c but I am having trouble locating it.

I also was going to post this information that I found on NIST's Federal Registrar notice regarding the release of proprietary property(namely pics and videos they received from 9/11) being released due to a FOIA that is pending from 09. Talked about here on the linked doc...




SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has received requests made under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (Title 5 U.S.C. 552) (FOIA) for the photographs and videos NIST collected as part of its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (Buildings 1 and 2) and World Trade Center Building 7. The FOIA requests are located at: wtc.nist.gov... FOIArequests09_15_42_63_88.pdf. During the course of its investigation NIST received thousands of photographic and video images from hundreds of photographers.
Under the FOIA, the Government is required to release to a requester copies of documents it maintains that are not otherwise protected by an exemption to the FOIA. One particular exemption, exemption (b)(4), protects from disclosure any records, or portions thereof, which contain ‘‘trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.’’ 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
If you submitted photographic or video images to NIST for its World Trade Center investigation and if you believe that some or all of the images should be withheld, you must notify NIST in writing within ten (10) working days (i.e., excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal public holidays) from the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. Your written response must specifically identify which images you submitted to NIST for which you are asserting privilege under exemption (b)(4). You should include copies of your images with your written response to help identify your images. If you do not positively identify your image(s), your written response will not be considered. Your written response must indicate that you are responding to this




edocket.access.gpo.gov...

Notably the exemption code 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4):




"Protects from disclosure any records, or portions thereof, which contain ‘‘trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.’’


My point being, it would seem that they have a exemption that they could of used as a denial if it was something of the nature like you mentioned(like the one above). Instead they choose to use a "public safety issue" exemption. I can't seem to find anything about a public safety issue exemption or why they would use it(if they even list the basic reasons why). I'm still looking though.

One question for any takers, I have been reading around about their computer model they used and won't release, what does the term "validated" mean to NIST when referring to their model? Does it mean that they had other people look at the model and say it was ok, basically?

They seem to always talk so highly of this model, how it was state of the art explaining everything that went into it, every chance they get. To all of a sudden classify it, so cryptically I might add, as "a public safety issue" seems so strange. Something seemingly so harmless, a computer model of a collapsing building, somehow now a danger to the public's safety??

If it does get released, maybe we will be able to see for ourselves.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


STATUTE-
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a copy of a record,
information, or investigation submitted or received by a Team shall
be made available to the public on request and at reasonable cost.
(b) Exceptions
Subsection (a) of this section does not require the release of -
(1) information described by section 552(b) of title 5 or
protected from disclosure by any other law of the United States;
or
(2) information described in subsection (a) of this section by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology or by a Team
until the report required by section 7307 of this title is
issued.
(c) Protection of voluntary submission of information
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Team, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and any agency receiving
information from a Team or the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, shall not disclose voluntarily provided safety-related
information if that information is not directly related to the
building failure being investigated and the Director finds that the
disclosure of the information would inhibit the voluntary provision
of that type of information.
(d) Public safety information
A Team and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall not publicly release any information it receives in the
course of an investigation under this chapter if the Director finds
that the disclosure of that information might jeopardize public
safety.

-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 107-231, Sec. 7, Oct. 1, 2002, 116 Stat. 1475.)



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Lol I see I wasn't that far away from what I wanted, Like I had suspected though, it doesn't say anything of help to my questions.

Well I guess you can stick a fork in this one, that is at least until any new information comes up, I will try to post it back here.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I just wanted to update everyone who still might be paying attention to this, or wondering what will happen with these NIST models that have been declared a "Public safety threat".

One(of many) that have filed FOIA requests to NIST for the so far undisclosed evidence, was a guy named Aiden Monaghan. I was listening to a previously linked to interview with him on the Corbett show. You can find it here: 911blogger.com...

In this interview he talks about the (for me) big missing piece of information that was truly needed to finally begin to understand why NIST has cited this seemingly odd reason for refusal of the FOIA.

It seems that by NIST categorizing the model as a public safety threat, it automatically removes it from any kind of FOIA litigation. Around a year after the attacks, congress enacted a law that would make any evidence deemed to be a threat to public safety completely off limits from ever being discussed let alone released.

So obviously, this doesn't tell us what is in this model(or not in it) that deems it so dangerous that it has somehow become a threat to all of our safety(Yes, I'm still talking about a computer model).

But at least we know the why, of why they named it a public safety issue: Because by doing this they knew that it would never see the light of day.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join