NIST raw data?

[padragan]

Hi,

I wonder how much of the raw data NIST used for calculations and simulations that are available to the public? And how much of it that has been reviewed by peers that had access to it. Does anyone know?

We are discussing 911 in another forum (btw, Heiwa continued his "heiwa challenge" there and claim ha was banned from JREF because you couldn't prove him wrong... ;) ) and one of the twoofers make it sound like NIST is not sharing any indata at all (of course he is at the same time completely unable to lay forward any of the MOUNTAIN of evidence he calim to have, like cutter charges for nano thermite).

So, anyone with better insight than me on the complete process?


Kind regards!

[bill smith]

Hi,

I wonder how much of the raw data NIST used for calculations and simulations that are available to the public? And how much of it that has been reviewed by peers that had access to it. Does anyone know?

We are discussing 911 in another forum (btw, Heiwa continued his "heiwa challenge" there and claim ha was banned from JREF because you couldn't prove him wrong... ;) ) and one of the twoofers make it sound like NIST is not sharing any indata at all (of course he is at the same time completely unable to lay forward any of the MOUNTAIN of evidence he calim to have, like cutter charges for nano thermite).

So, anyone with better insight than me on the complete process?


Kind regards!

As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.

[PB2007]

As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.

And if they did, would you believe it?

[bill smith]

And if they did, would you believe it?

I'll tell you after we see the RAW fdata plus their assumptions and any tweaks they might have introduced in the computer model.

[PB2007]

Why? How qualified are you to analyze the numbers?

If person A says the numbers add up & person B says they don't, who would you believe and why? How would you check the figures?

[DGM]

As far as I know NIST refuse to release the data. That's a shame because now nobody can validate their work. It seems that we have to take their word for it.
Wrong. The data is in the reports. The raw data for their simulations is available for a fee (it's connected to proprietary software).

[bill smith]

Why? How qualified are you to analyze the numbers?

If person A says the numbers add up & person B says they don't, who would you believe and why? How would you check the figures?

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,

[padragan]

Wrong. The data is in the reports. The raw data for their simulations is available for a fee (it's connected to proprietary software).

Do you have a link or similar to back that up? It would be really nice to prove once and for all that they're not hiding things on purpose, but of ocurse the twoofers need to have it written on their forheads before they believe it themselves.

[bill smith]

Wrong. The data is in the reports. The raw data for their simulations is available for a fee (it's connected to proprietary software).

Can you prove that ? Bet you can't..

[DGM]

Do you have a link or similar to back that up? It would be really nice to prove once and for all that they're not hiding things on purpose, but of ocurse the twoofers need to have it written on their forheads before they believe it themselves.
It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).

[bill smith]

It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).

I am not laughing into my hand....ahem.

[DGM]

Can you prove that ? Bet you can't..
How much? Tell me specifically what was hidden.

[padragan]

It all depends on what specifically they're looking for. Most (if not all) of the data for the reports are contained within the reports (way to much to list unless your specific). I'll need to look up the link to the FOIA request (I think it was from Steven Jones) for the simulation data (most of it is in the reports anyway).

In this case we discussed the simulation of WTC7.

[carlitos]

padadragan, you don't post much here, so this is just free advice.

Click on the name "bill smith"
Choose "Add bill smith to your ignore list"

This will make the thread easier to follow.

[DGM]

In this case we discussed the simulation of WTC7.
Again, You need to ask them specifically what information is being hidden. The raw data file for the simulation is not going to do you any good unless you have the several thousand dollar program to run it (and main-frame computers). In any case all the data they used to put together the simulation (inputs) is in the reports.

[padragan]

Again, You need to ask them specifically what information is being hidden. The raw data file for the simulation is not going to do you any good unless you have the several thousand dollar program to run it (and main-frame computers). In any case all the data they used to put together the simulation (inputs) is in the reports.

Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.

[Newtons Bit]

padadragan, you don't post much here, so this is just free advice.

Click on the name "bill smith"
Choose "Add bill smith to your ignore list"

This will make the thread easier to follow.

JREF needs an option to ignore posts that have quoted posts by ignored users.

[DGM]

Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.
Point out the fact that NIST has produced over 12,000 pages of reports. What do they think is contained in these pages?

NIST would have done a youtube video but they (youtube) doesn't allow 960 hour videos. :D

[bill smith]

Well padragan...I guess you have your answer..

[padragan]

Point out the fact that NIST has produced over 12,000 pages of reports. What do they think is contained in these pages?

NIST would have done a youtube video but they (youtube) doesn't allow 960 hour videos. :D


Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.

[DGM]

Well padragan...I guess you have your answer..
Yeah, actually read the reports you criticize.

[DGM]

Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.
True.

See the last line of my signature.

[bill smith]

Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.

Here's some info from a jref poster on the hardware used padragan.


Deep44 wrote
Here's what NIST used for the LS-DYNA simulation (from the NIST report on WTC7):
Due to the nonlinearities in the analysis, as well as sequential local failures, a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete. The analyses were run on a Linux cluster with a head node with two 64 bit, 2.4 GHz processors and 4 GB of RAM and eight compute nodes with two 64 bit, 2.6 GHz processors. Six of the compute nodes had 8 GB of RAM and the remaining two nodes had 16 GB RAM.
This is for those who contend that over 100 GB of RAM would be necessary, the hardware would cost millions of dollars, etc. The cluster described above could most likely be replicated with commodity hardware for under $20,000 (give or take).

Does anyone know if the demo version of LS-DYNA allows parallel processing? If so, is there an upper limit on nodes or CPU-cores?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4919981&posted=1#post4919981 post 55

[padragan]

Here's some info from a jref poster on the hardware used padragan.


Deep44 wrote
Here's what NIST used for the LS-DYNA simulation (from the NIST report on WTC7):
Due to the nonlinearities in the analysis, as well as sequential local failures, a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete. The analyses were run on a Linux cluster with a head node with two 64 bit, 2.4 GHz processors and 4 GB of RAM and eight compute nodes with two 64 bit, 2.6 GHz processors. Six of the compute nodes had 8 GB of RAM and the remaining two nodes had 16 GB RAM.
This is for those who contend that over 100 GB of RAM would be necessary, the hardware would cost millions of dollars, etc. The cluster described above could most likely be replicated with commodity hardware for under $20,000 (give or take).

Does anyone know if the demo version of LS-DYNA allows parallel processing? If so, is there an upper limit on nodes or CPU-cores?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4919981&posted=1#post4919981 post 55

Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.

[bill smith]

Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.

Well we would need the hard numeric data, the assumptions they made and input and any other tweaks they used. But as you may have noticed that data is a closely guarded secret.

No big deal. we all know the score so we will bring them down by a thousand cuts instead.

[DGM]

Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.
It can be replicated. If your a collage or a university (I vaguely remember reading the data file is available for studies).

[pgimeno]

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.

[DGM]

Well we would need the hard numeric data, the assumptions they made and input and any other tweaks they used. But as you may have noticed that data is a closely guarded secret.

No big deal. we all know the score so we will bring them down by a thousand cuts instead.
Hey, maybe you can get your 1000+ "engineers" together and pony up to do a study.

[bill smith]

Hey, maybe you can get your 1000+ "engineers" together and pony up to do a study.

Why would we do that ? We want the data that was paid for from taxpayer dollars.They don't own the data., they hold it in trust. (that's really funny when you think about it..lol)

[DGM]

Bill:
You never replied to my question as to how much you want to bet. Why? Wait, you did the same thing last time you asked me to bet you (I believe it was "eat my keyboard and never post here again"). What, no confidence in you convictions?

[DGM]

Why would we do that ? We want the data that was paid for from taxpayer dollars.They don't own the data., they hold it in trust. (that's really funny when you think about it..lol)
I see what you mean. It's better to bitch on the internet about what you can't (presumably) get then actually do something about it. :rolleyes:

You really don't see why your getting no where?

[T.A.M.]

http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-sources-for-wtc-1-2

The Computer data is available here.

TAM:)

[DGM]

http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-sources-for-wtc-1-2

The Computer data is available here.

TAM:)
Yeah, but it's not a youtube video. :rolleyes:

it's useless without the expensive software to run it.

[padragan]

http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-sources-for-wtc-1-2

The Computer data is available here.

TAM:)

Nice page. However, I couldn't find any data files for WTC7.

[T.A.M.]

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:)

[bill smith]

Nice page. However, I couldn't find any data files for WTC7.

Here's something I ran accross..

'' 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.....

Read on.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20860

[ozeco41]

Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.

Take care that they don't con you into playing their game.

The claim that NIST hid data is already off the topic focus. The critical issue is "demolition or not". It is easy to demonstrate "no demolition" then it is up to "their" side to prove the "no demolition" explanation wrong OR to give a counter explanation as to how their demolition mechanism worked - the mechanism they postulate. They cannot and will not do it, even those who try with a bit of engineering (eg Szamboti or Chandler) always fudge the "how it happened" mechanisms.

That is the point at which "they" start the evasions with "nano thermate" or "hidden data" or anything else they can throw. All of them side tracks and going down those tracks puts you into the position of playing the game they want - you will never reach the end because they will always shift the goalposts with another diversion.

Recent months have seen a big shift in the focus of most of these threads. All the real discussion is well and truly over. The "discussion" continues in the side tracks which is all that the current "truthers" are interested in.

[carlitos]

Recent months have seen a big shift in the focus of most of these threads. All the real discussion is well and truly over. The "discussion" continues in the side tracks which is all that the current "truthers" are interested in.
I hadn't realized it prior to finding this forum, but this is the case with pretty much all CTers. Rather than use scientific method and falsify a hypothesis, which would require actually claiming something, they prefer to muddle through this or that detail and analyze it to death.

It's really no different from having a photo of bigfoot proven a hoax; the believers just go to the next photo and put the onus back on you. Or the holocaust deniers discussing this witness testimony or the plumbing at Dachau or whatever. Details that don't go anywhere to prove some cohesive point.

Which is a long way of saying "good point." :)

[bill smith]

I love this thread. How guilty you all sound lol. I will archive this one for use elsewhere. Muchas Gracias..

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I love this thread. How guilty you all sound lol. I will archive this one for use elsewhere. Muchas Gracias..

Coming from a whacko who has no evidence to pin anyone to any particular crime, why aren't we impressed?

[padragan]

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:)

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.

[padragan]

Take care that they don't con you into playing their game.

Thanks for the warning, but I'll be ok... ;)

I've debated these airheads for years and know their methods inside and out.

[Scott Sommers]

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?

[Panoply_Prefect]

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.

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.

[aggle-rithm]

I am sure the data exists, and like the WTC1/2 Data, is probably available...for a fee.


That's how the NWO keeps things secret....by CHARGING for it!

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

[carlitos]

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?

[aggle-rithm]

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"?

That's the other way.

[Scott Sommers]

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,

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?

[bill smith]

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?

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.

[triforcharity]

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.

[bill smith]

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.

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.)

[DGM]

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.)
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?

[Scott Sommers]

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, 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.

[Telltale Tom]

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.

[dafydd]

Coming from a whacko who has no evidence to pin anyone to any particular crime, why aren't we impressed?

Bill doesn't want to impress anyone,just fishing for a reaction. Don't react.

[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

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

[TheRedWorm]

And?

[DGM]

And?
There is no, "and".

Bill: Did the sender of this request ever respond to NIST with a "need to know"?

This was over a year ago, What's his delay?

[switchpoint]

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,

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?

[bill smith]

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?

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.

[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?

[BigAl]

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.


You really are ignorant of what really happened at WTC, aren't you?

Deutsche Bank Building

Damage

The collapse of 2 World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building and destroyed the entire interior of the structure. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up but it was decided that the 42 story ruin was to be taken down.

Deconstruction

In October, 2009, it was announced that deconstruction of the Deutsche Bank Building would finally resume, and as of March, 2010, the building has been reduced to 21 stories. According to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, demolition of floors 19 through 21 is currently in progress, and the building is expected to be dismantled at a rate of two floors per month. If the deconstruction continues at this rate, then the building will finally be gone by January 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building

[bill smith]

You really are ignorant of what really happened at WTC, aren't you?

I bet the attacks kept the demolition bill pretty cheap for Ol' lucky Larry eh Al ?
Bet the Deautche Bank wished they'd had a plane too ? lol

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=7084

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

[bill smith]

[QUOTE=BigAl;6133266]

Delete

[bill smith]

Quote:
Requoting Big Al

You really are ignorant of what really happened at WTC, aren't you?

Deutsche Bank Building

Damage

The collapse of 2 World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building and destroyed the entire interior of the structure. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up but it was decided that the 42 story ruin was to be taken down.

Deconstruction

In October, 2009, it was announced that deconstruction of the Deutsche Bank Building would finally resume, and as of March, 2010, the building has been reduced to 21 stories. According to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, demolition of floors 19 through 21 is currently in progress, and the building is expected to be dismantled at a rate of two floors per month. If the deconstruction continues at this rate, then the building will finally be gone by January 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building

bill smith replied

I bet the attacks kept the demolition bill pretty cheap for Ol' lucky Larry eh Al ?
Bet the Deutche Bank wished they'd had a plane too ? lol

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/view...p?storyid=7084

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

[TheRedWorm]

And how was Larry lucky?

[switchpoint]

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.

What information??????

[switchpoint]

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.

Well, I could be wrong, but the detailed as-builts for most buildings are a matter of public record, particularly buildings of "public accomodation". Moot point anyway. Its just a dodge.

[triforcharity]

Well, I could be wrong, but the detailed as-builts for most buildings are a matter of public record, particularly buildings of "public accomodation". Moot point anyway. Its just a dodge.

True, some drawings are public record. I don't think the electrical or plumbings ones are though. And I think the buildings that held federal offices might be exempt, as well as backs and such, for obvious reasons.

But, it really is just a dodge.

[triforcharity]

I bet the attacks kept the demolition bill pretty cheap for Ol' lucky Larry eh Al ?
Bet the Deautche Bank wished they'd had a plane too ? lol

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=7084

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

And not a single cited source for the information in that article. Gee......wonder why.......:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Another very powerful piece though isn't it tri ? I guess that people can easily use their intuition there. It's not hard to smell the big fat rat is it ?

With thanks to Big Al without whom it would never have come together so well.

[Dog Town]

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.

LIE!

That entire "article", is full of them. No surprise BS posted it.

[bill smith]

LIE!

That entire "article", is full of them. No surprise BS posted it.

Are you sure ?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/451667443_11404d072b_o.jpg

[Dog Town]

Are you sure ?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/451667443_11404d072b_o.jpg

Yes!

Do some simple research, it won't kill ya. Instead of searching for half truths, at best, to fit your delusions! It's out there!

[BigAl]

Are you sure ?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/451667443_11404d072b_o.jpg

"Asbestos"? So what?

Most big buildings of a certain age are full of the stuff and we have lots of them in Manhattan.

We don't demolish these buildings, we "abate"
the risk. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_abatement

Of course you really don't care. You've been shown this before.

[bill smith]

From around the 12 minute mark Steven Jones talks about NIST and WTC7 including the pseudo-science that NIST imposed on the American people and their failure to release the data from which their conclusions could have been verified. As it is we are asked to take their word which we absolutely will not do, ever.

http://www.archive.org/details/WorldTradeCenterDemolitionLecturesByJonesAndRyan

[TheRedWorm]

Asbestos is really nasty stuff. Last thing you want is a bunch of that crap in the air...

[DGM]

From around the 12 minute mark Steven Jones talks about NIST and WTC7 including the pseudo-science that NIST imposed on the American people and their failure to release the data from which their conclusions could have been verified. As it is we are asked to take their word which we absolutely will not do, ever.

http://www.archive.org/details/WorldTradeCenterDemolitionLecturesByJonesAndRyan
Bill:
I think you might need to explain again why anyone might give a **** what Jones has to say.

[Carlos]

From around the 12 minute mark Steven Jones talks about NIST and WTC7 including the pseudo-science that NIST imposed on the American people and their failure to release the data from which their conclusions could have been verified

How?

The only way to do this is doing all the work again.