AE911 Gets some WTC7 ANSYS data via FOIA

RedIbis said:
Do you know what impulse management is?
Click to expand...

No one answer this question. Redibis has already shown the childish game he intends to play here. Anyone who does answer and tries to explain, will just have "bare assertion fallacy" thrown back in their face.
 
alienentity said:
Funny how camcorders always manage to pick up the sound of explosives during controlled demolitions.
But not a single one when WTC7 collapsed.

Hmmm, I wonder why?
Click to expand...

They wrap charges in a mattress don'tchya know?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Secondary explosions are common in structural fires. No explosive signaturesa were recorded by LDEO or Protecs seismographs. Since naturally occurring secondary explosions don't come from charges affixed directly to a buildings structural supports, which are in turn rooted to the buildings foundation, they won't show up on siesmographs. The behavior and characteristics of the explosions witnessed on 9/11 match secondary fire explosions. They do not match demolition charges. How many times do we have to explain this to you? They weren't looking at seismograph readouts when they said that and they don't think that way today. We're not pretending, we actually do know. You're attempting to project your state of ignorance onto us. Name-calling is against the JREF forum member agreement.
Click to expand...

How much did the 93 bomb register Sword_of_Truth?
 
RedIbis said:
Bare assertion fallacy.
Click to expand...

That is not a bare assertion fallacy.

It was a statement of his understanding of what impulse management means. Your response should have been to explain how he was wrong. Instead you completely step on your dong with a nonsensical misuse of a fallacy.

My god, Red, why in the hell do you even bother posting anymore? Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Or do, I guess it is kind of funny.
 
bill smith said:
I predicted exactly this last week. What do you bet that the missing files mean that the rest will only provide inconclusive results. Utterly predictable dishonest NIST behaviour.

Now of course we want to know exactly in what way the information could possibly 'jeapardise the public safety.' and whether NIST can legally make a decision not to release it . As public servants paid from taxpayer money I doubt that they have the exective authority themselves to make such a decision. I think this is just a delaying tactic.

The department of Commerce would have that decision I think. Isn't that run from the Whitehouse ? I think it was during Bush's tenure ? Could be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes this makes sense.

Listen bill, if NIST were part of some GRAND conspiracy, they would simply fake all the data to comply with the outcome they wanted, and provide it to the public. With the public not having access to the materials upon which the data sets were based, they would not know the difference.

So the idea that they are withholding some data sets because they "fear the real truth will come out" is just silly.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Bare assertion fallacy.
Click to expand...

ignorance and incredulity noted.

please, pretty please provide any example of any type of explosive capable of cutting through steel beams which is silent, or cannot be heard at less than a miles distance.

It shoudl be EASY. Pretty please red.

You really should look up what thermobaric actually means and then show me the pictures of ALL of the glass withing a half mile of ground zero blown out.

oh wait... there are plenty of pictures of buildings right across the street with windows in them. It wasn't thermobaric explosives.
 
T.A.M. said:
Yes this makes sense.

Listen bill, if NIST were part of some GRAND conspiracy, they would simply fake all the data to comply with the outcome they wanted, and provide it to the public. With the public not having access to the materials upon which the data sets were based, they would not know the difference.

So the idea that they are withholding some data sets because they "fear the real truth will come out" is just silly.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You have exactly described the situation TAM. NIST have verifiaby lied in the WTC7 final report. The reason that they are witholding data is that they dare not show it. Not that it matters. In their current form they are finished.

The Institute may continue as most of it's scientists are completely bona fide and blameless. But the scandalous way that their work has been hijacked and warped for political reasons by people at the top ike Shyam Sunder and John Gross for instance will be ended with extreme punishments handed out.

See what Lord Griffin has to say in the attached audio from yesterday.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/
 
Last edited:
Profanz said:
How much did the 93 bomb register Sword_of_Truth?
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell me if you understand what I posted first, before you try to run away by changing the subject?

Do you understand how the characteristics of the explosions on 9/11 matched natural fire-caused explosions and did not match demo-charges?
 
T.A.M. said:
Yes this makes sense.

Listen bill, if NIST were part of some GRAND conspiracy, they would simply fake all the data to comply with the outcome they wanted, and provide it to the public. With the public not having access to the materials upon which the data sets were based, they would not know the difference.

So the idea that they are withholding some data sets because they "fear the real truth will come out" is just silly.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

NIST cannot fake the data to conform with the results they showed. Well, actually they can but then we would see the impossibly fake input data that achieved such a result.

Ergo. They will not release the data. Dishonest and criminal behaviour well worthy of the proposed Grand Jury Investigation of NIST.. Should I say the now pretty well unavoidable Grand Jury Investigation.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
Listen bill, if NIST were part of some GRAND conspiracy, they would simply fake all the data to comply with the outcome they wanted, and provide it to the public. With the public not having access to the materials upon which the data sets were based, they would not know the difference.

So the idea that they are withholding some data sets because they "fear the real truth will come out" is just silly.
Click to expand...


No, the idea that they are withholding any of the data sets is silly, because there's no justifiable reason to do so.
 
deep said:
No, the idea that they are withholding any of the data sets is silly, because there's no justifiable reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Not any more silly than having a petition that claims to have over 1100 people on it but has less than 1000 signatures.

Of course if you are really concerned about the "withheld" datasets, then contact NIST and ask for them.

Of course you may have to pay to get them... feel free.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Ergo. They will not release the data. Dishonest and criminal behaviour well worthy of the proposed Grand Jury Investigation of NIST.. Should I say the now pretty well unavoidable Grand Jury Investigation.
Click to expand...

Then they are really witholding data that makes it impossible to fully simulate their model from beginning to end?
 
RedIbis said:
And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.
Click to expand...

Stunning. In RedIbis world, either line of sight restriction applies to sound, or it can't apply to vision. This breaks new ground in stupid.

RedIbis, look up the word 'diffraction'.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom