NIST raw data?

[bill smith]

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Red worm when they say '' disclosure of that information might jeopardize public safety '' do they mean that disclosure might result in riots and a possible American French Revolution ?

 

[femr2]

come up with your own model

Information, which NIST were provided access to, is required to build such a model.

To build a comparable model, NIST must release the information it was based upon.

The buildings no longer exist. There does not seem to be a rational public safety issue.

 

[carlitos]

Therefore, inside job.

 

[bill smith]

Therefore, inside job.

How much taller though ?

 

[Seymour Butz]

The buildings no longer exist. There does not seem to be a rational public safety issue.

Why not?

What professional experience tells you this?

Incredulity only, right?

 

[bill smith]

Why not?

What professional experience tells you this?

Incredulity only, right?

There were great fears that most of the evidence would be destroyed even back in 2001. As indeed it was. ....And guess what we have ?.....you got it....computer generated hypotheticals' It would be funny if it wasn't such a sick tragedy.

''..unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/fireengineering_manning.html

 

[DGM]

Information, which NIST were provided access to, is required to build such a model.

To build a comparable model, NIST must release the information it was based upon.

The buildings no longer exist. There does not seem to be a rational public safety issue.

Why can't the "truth" movement start from scratch like NIST did? Have they actually ever tried to conduct an independent investigation?

 

[BigAl]

Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/fireengineering_manning.html

Why don't you contact Manning and ask him if the industry hasn't learned and applied lessons to his satisfaction since he gave this quote in January 2002.

 

[Telltale Tom]

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.

<snip>

Actually I am changing my view from post 54 above.

Indeed, it seems to me that the only possible method of bringing down a hi-rise is by sophisticated analysis: which is why we want the data to prove that it couldn't be done in this case.

Since we believe that the only way to demolish any hi-rise steel framed building is with controlled demolition, then it will be impossible to make tall buildings fail by analysis.

So Bill, if an analysis could prove that any tall steel building could collapse without CD, would we change the truth to say " while it has been proven that tall buildings can collapse as a result of fire and impact we are sure the twin towers were not CD".... or would we still use the lack of precedent as part of our irrefutable proof?

- Do you think the Empire state building would stand up if we removed a third of the perimeter columns and then some of the core..by a plane or by fire.
- What do you think the difference is between a CD explosion, and hitting the building with an aircraft.
- The squibs on the WTC towers seem rather tame in comparison to the plane impact, and sometimes I find it hard to believe that they caused the building to fall down, but I think its the scary music that convinces me. What does it for you?

 

[femr2]

Why can't the "truth" movement start from scratch like NIST did? Have they actually ever tried to conduct an independent investigation?

You'd have to ask them.

Release a full set of structural plans for buildings 1, 2 & 7 (and a barrow-full of additional required information) and I'm sure such a process would begin. As I said, it's not possible to build a model comparable to those NIST built without access to the same information. The simplest route for that is for them to release it. They've declined. Ho hum. Nowt more to be said on the point really.

 

[DGM]

You'd have to ask them.

Release a full set of structural plans for buildings 1, 2 & 7 (and a barrow-full of additional required information) and I'm sure such a process would begin. As I said, it's not possible to build a model comparable to those NIST built without access to the same information. The simplest route for that is for them to release it. They've declined. Ho hum. Nowt more to be said on the point really.

By "release" do you mean make them public to everyone on the internet? Why?

AE "truth" has over 1000 engineers. Are you saying they couldn't "reverse engineer" the buildings and conduct an independent investigation even if NIST or anyone else did want them too?

 

[femr2]

By "release" do you mean make them public to everyone on the internet?

Yes.

Why?

To enable building of the suggested model. If someone provided it to me directly and I built a model, it would be a primary element of release of any analysis to release the information it was based upon, so either way it would become public.

AE "truth" has over 1000 engineers. Are you saying they couldn't "reverse engineer" the buildings and conduct an independent investigation even if NIST or anyone else did want them too?

You'd have to ask them, but what would be the point in building such a model ? If such a model was built, based on guessed structure, it would instantly be rejected, as would a model built from said plans if it didn't behave in the same way as the black-box NIST model.

It would be interesting to see how the NIST model behaved if allowed to run to completion.

There's nothing much to add in the context of this thread. The data is not being released. Full stop.

 

[DGM]

To enable building of the suggested model. If someone provided it to me directly and I built a model, it would be a primary element of release of any analysis to release the information it was based upon, so either way it would become public.

And who's to say you wouldn't use this to exploit possible vulnerabilities in the design (of other buildings of similar designs)?

It would be interesting to see how the NIST model behaved if allowed to run to completion.

There's nothing much to add in the context of this thread. The data is not being released. Full stop.

I believe Purdue along with WPI was able to get the information, maybe you could get another university to help you with your quest. Have you tried this?

 

[femr2]

And who's to say you wouldn't use this to exploit possible vulnerabilities in the design (of other buildings of similar designs)?

Who's to say NIST built the structure faithfully ? I'm not saying they didn't, but without that reference material there's no way to know. So if I built a model of equal complexity to NIST but different results, you really think there would be no calls to confirm it's validity with plans ? Right.

I believe Purdue along with WPI was able to get the information, maybe you could get another university to help you with your quest. Have you tried this?

Eh ? What quest ?

As I said, there's nothing much to add in the context of this thread. The data is not being released. Full stop. Laters.

 

[DGM]

Who's to say NIST built the structure faithfully ?

For me it's the total lack of structural engineers questioning the results that proves it for me.

Eh ? What quest ?

Your mission to prove them right or wrong. Have you wondered or asked yourself why after this many years no large engineering firms have taken up the quest for "truth"? You do know that the findings of NIST cost developers large amounts of money due to changes in codes. Why are they not bitching?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Who's to say NIST built the structure faithfully ?

The rational. We don't get scared of shadows like CTerz do, nor do we think the weird occasional clicking we get on our telephone is the NSA's latest and greatest tapping program kicking in.

This doesn't include twoofs.

You're a twoof.

I'm not saying they didn't, but without that reference material there's no way to know.

And without many years of relevant structural enginering, there's no way for you to know that what you might release could be a security risk to help sabotage other buildings.

IOW, you're not qualified to have an opinion on much besides counting pixels. Stick to that.

So if I built a model of equal complexity to NIST but different results, you really think there would be no calls to confirm it's validity with plans ? Right.

There would be an overwhelming amount of calls questioning your sanity and abilities.

What quest ?

MT's quest to back in silent explosives.

As I said, there's nothing much to add in the context of this thread. The data is not being released. Full stop. Laters.

Wow, when it's pointed out that others might have been given access that he is requesting, he runs away.

Another fine example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[femr2]

when it's pointed out that others might have been given access that he is requesting, he runs away.

Am requesting nothing.

Enjoy.

 

[triforcharity]

You'd have to ask them.

Release a full set of structural plans for buildings 1, 2 & 7 (and a barrow-full of additional required information) and I'm sure such a process would begin. As I said, it's not possible to build a model comparable to those NIST built without access to the same information. The simplest route for that is for them to release it. They've declined. Ho hum. Nowt more to be said on the point really.

They do not own the structural drawings for the building. They (I assume) belong to the buildings' owner.

Has anyone tried contacting the building owner? Most likely not.

 

[beachnut]

Poor 911 truth. The movement makes money for a few who are frauds and they have no experts to do anything but make up delusions.

The do nothing movement, 911 truth, 8 years of failure iced with the insanity of Jones and the fraud of Gage traveling on donations made by the clueless.

Blueprints? Need some? The real world is a conspiracy to the failed 911 truth movement based on moronic ideas and baseless lies. Who was the first moron who made up the CD of the WTC? How dumb do you have to be to believe the lies from 911 truth?

The only thing 911 truth is successful at.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg
8 years of spewing lies.

Giving the data to the truth movement? They are incompetent idiots. What would they do, make up more lies? Gage's many members of AE dolts-R-Us failed the second they signed up. Jones got fired, Gage bilks money spewing lies. The best the TM has, insanity and fraud.

 

[tsig]

Why can't the "truth" movement start from scratch like NIST did? Have they actually ever tried to conduct an independent investigation?

I wonder why the "1200 structural engineers" don't investigate it themselves. They claim the expertise so why don't they do something rather than whining about the lack of investigation?