• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST raw data?

T.A.M. said:
You did not specify in the OP that WTC7 data is what you were looking for.

I found the above with a simple google search. I am sure the data exists, and like the WTC1/2 Data, is probably available...for a fee.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Yes I know, sorry about that. I actually did that on purpose hoping that there was a standard way of handling all the raw data. That way the question would not rise the next time not every single dot or exclamation mark is available.

And I have no problem with a fee, the point is if the data CAN be retrieved from them or not. I'm not the one stating that they lie...

Anyway, thanks for all the replies and answers.
 
Am I confused or something?

Bill, are you claiming that if what you mean by 'raw data' can not be converted into something you could understand using a desk top computer and Microsoft Office that NIST is "hiding something"? What do you mean by 'raw data' anyway? Is this just a word you're using to chase around the topic of "hiding" things, or is there some particular thing you want to see produced? I guess I should ask the same thing from padragan. What do you mean by raw data?
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
padragan, here's someone who got the SAP 2000 models of the towers from NIST:
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

He also gives a link to the page with guidelines on how to make the request.

Don't know if that will be of any help.
Click to expand...

Back in 2007 I filed a FOIA for some of the WTC1/2 data (about the same time I filed FOIA for the NTSB animation and some other stuff). It came back with a rather hefty price tag so I declined.

NTSB on the other hand sent me DVD's and stuff. They even called me, across the Atlantic. On the other hand I think there were lots of people filing more or less the same FOIA which made it possible for NTSB to just send us all the same DVD's.

I think a guy from Finland made the same NIST-foia as I and got more or less the same reply. Can't seem to find the link though.

EDIT: Found it. It's offline nowadays, but Wayback Machine's got it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071221200307/http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/foia-nist.html

All this is in relation to WTC1 and 2 though, so it doesn't really help Pandragan.
 
Last edited:
I could be grasping at straws here, but the data on WTC7 could be a little less thorough because it wasn't hit by a plane, and it didn't collapse on a bunch of people. Am I right?
 
bill smith said:
Not me of course. But we collectively have more than enough of the necessary expertise to check NIST's work which we will do down to the minutest detail. You know it,
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure of this? Do you have any understanding of this kind of 'expertise' might mean?

Bill, of all the Truthers here, it is only you I hesitate to call names. But this is a little too much for me. And once agan, what is this so-called 'raw data' that you would supposedly recognize if you saw it?
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
What makes you so sure of this? Do you have any understanding of this kind of 'expertise' might mean?

Bill, of all the Truthers here, it is only you I hesitate to call names. But this is a little too much for me. And once agan, what is this so-called 'raw data' that you would supposedly recognize if you saw it?
Click to expand...

NIST must release the data. It is not their their property. It is the property of the citizens of the United States who paid for it with their taxes.

Therefore it must be leleased into the public domain immediately so that it it can be forensically dissected by interested parties some of which do intend to point the finger and exact the pound of flesh.
 
Bill,


Pay the fee, and you are more than welcome to it.

Maybe that is what Gage et. al. should be doing with their money. Getting the facts from NIST, and proving them wrong.

But, alas, you and the rest of the twoofies won't do such a thing.
 
triforcharity said:
Bill,


Pay the fee, and you are more than welcome to it.

Maybe that is what Gage et. al. should be doing with their money. Getting the facts from NIST, and proving them wrong.

But, alas, you and the rest of the twoofies won't do such a thing.
Click to expand...

No, the data has already been paid for but NIST still have not released it blatantly contravening the law.See below.

'' Dear NIST FOIA Office:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey,
regarding the current status of the above referenced FOIA matter,
which was received by your office on February 4, 2009. My review of
the correspondence file in this matter indicates that our client sent
your office payment for processing the ANSYS computer data for this
request back in February ‘09, and that Mr. Ritchey has made numerous
email follow-up inquiries to your office regarding the status of your
processing and sending the responsive materials he has requested for
this FOIA request.

As you may know FOIA requires all federal agencies to make a final
determination on all FOIA requests within 20 working days, and the
2007 FOIA amendments expressly require a responding agency to provide
a requester with an estimated date for a final determination on a FOIA
request. See 5 USC 552(a)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, I would appreciate.....

( See post # 36 above for more detail.)
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No, the data has already been paid for but NIST still have not released it blatantly contravening the law.See below.

'' Dear NIST FOIA Office:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey,
regarding the current status of the above referenced FOIA matter,
which was received by your office on February 4, 2009. My review of
the correspondence file in this matter indicates that our client sent
your office payment for processing the ANSYS computer data for this
request back in February ‘09, and that Mr. Ritchey has made numerous
email follow-up inquiries to your office regarding the status of your
processing and sending the responsive materials he has requested for
this FOIA request.

As you may know FOIA requires all federal agencies to make a final
determination on all FOIA requests within 20 working days, and the
2007 FOIA amendments expressly require a responding agency to provide
a requester with an estimated date for a final determination on a FOIA
request. See 5 USC 552(a)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, I would appreciate.....

( See post # 36 above for more detail.)
Click to expand...
Bill, That post is from Aug. 2009 (we don't know the date of the actual letter). Do you have any proof he has not received the info since?
 
bill smith said:
NIST must release the data. It is not their their property. It is the property of the citizens of the United States who paid for it with their taxes.

Therefore it must be leleased into the public domain immediately so that it it can be forensically dissected by interested parties some of which do intend to point the finger and exact the pound of flesh.
Click to expand...

Bill, I absolutely agree with you. All government services should be completely free. That would include health care, education, and any purchase made from a government-owned company. But I'm an old-fashioned socialist from Canada, so I'm a little surprised you agree with me on this.

In your comment, you quote my post. Why would you do that? My comment was more about the ability of anyone who questions NIST research to understand what their raw data means. In my job, I work with complex software and do statistical modeling that is far beyond what most educated people would be comfortable doing. I have not read the NIST report nor would I be able to analyze what I understand would be raw data from this kind of research. The kind of models we are talking about here would be far beyond anyone except very particularly trained people. The machines and software needed to handle this kind of work would not be readily available. I would not be surprised if special software had be written just for the analysis of 911 events or if unique machines had to be used for the analysis.

I agree that government services should be completely free. But then I also agree that if taxes aren't high enough to make this possible, they should be raised until they are, even if that means that everyone works only for the government - I am an old-fashioned socialist, afterall. That you have to pay for some of this data is probably necessary because taxes in the USA aren't high enough, but also because preparing the data is quite time consuming and if every frivilious request had to be treated seriously, it could create problems for users who have a real interest. Since the ability to analyze data of this nature is almost certainly beyond anyone in the 911 Truth Movement, this really isn't a problem.

Afterall, Bill Smith, almost certainly everyone who can understand this raw data and has the machines to analyze it has already done this. And you can read their research in the major peer-reviewed journals in their engineering and other related disciplines. There is a list of these and other publications available through this forum. I can't remember where it is, but I'm sure others can direct you there.
 
Last edited:
Its a very complex analysis with lots of data and assumptions, and I am sure that once we have it then we will be able to pick it apart and find the truth. You wont catch us manipulating data, cherry picking, focussing on the irrelevant or publishing anything that hasn't been peer reviewed.

I am sure we can contrive a scenario that proves that the buildings should not have collapsed and then it will be NIST's turn to try and track down and check any issues with our model. Actually when I think about it, we will not even have to give NIST their model with our changes, because we are not a public agency.

This will certainly help to balance public perception that a multi-million dollar, peer reviewed expert analysis, is better than an architect with vision. Its only fair; our taxes paid for this analysis, as much as anyones.
 
NIST refuse to release WTC7 data

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director of NIST: Disclosure of WTC7 data "might jeopardize public safety"

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAW:

(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 Act if the Director finds that the disclosure of that information
might jeopardize public safety.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/0x1a.com/public/images/National_Construction_Safety_Team_Act_HR4687.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
bill smith said:
Not me of course. But we collectively have more than enough of the necessary expertise to check NIST's work which we will do down to the minutest detail. You know it,
Click to expand...

If you have all that expertise then why are you checking NIST's work? Put those gray cells to work and come up with your own model that shows only CD could have brought the towers down. I mean that's the only other alternative correct? So you don't need to disprove anyone else's model, you just need to produce your own, right?
 
switchpoint said:
If you have all that expertise then why are you checking NIST's work? Put those gray cells to work and come up with your own model that shows only CD could have brought the towers down. I mean that's the only other alternative correct? So you don't need to disprove anyone else's model, you just need to produce your own, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think any hi-rise steel framed buillding has ever been brought down by any method except explosive controlled demolition. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

tip. The demolition technique of vérinage is never used in hi-rise steel framed buildings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom