AE911 Gets some WTC7 ANSYS data via FOIA

[BigAl]

Cryptome (www.cryptome.org) continues to get 9/11-related information via FOIA. Today he posts an NIST FOIA "Final Response" which produced some but not all ANSYS files for WTC7. The reason given for withholding some of them was that it would "jeopardize public safety".

The response is addressed to Ronald Brookman who is one of the people Telltail Tom lists as one of the engineers in AE911. I'll take him at his word.

Props to some Truther for actually trying to get some information. Lets see what they can do with it.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf Dated Jan 26, 2010.

[bill smith]

Cryptome (www.cryptome.org) continues to get 9/11-related information via FOIA. Today he posts an NIST FOIA "Final Response" which produced some but not all ANSYS files for WTC7. The reason given for withholding some of them was that it would "jeopardize public safety".

The response is addressed to Ronald Brookman who is one of the people Telltail Tom lists as one of the engineers in AE911. I'll take him at his word.

Props to some Truther for actually trying to get some information. Lets see what they can do with it.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf Dated Jan 26, 2010.

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.

[bill smith]

So NIST say that it would "jeopardize public safety" to release all of the data so that we could verify their unlikely results. I submit that it absolutely "jeopardises public safety" for them not to do so,

Who wants to hazard a guess in what way the release of the data could possibly jopardise anybody's safety- except NIST's own safety of course.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So NIST say that it would "jeopardize public safety" to release all of the data so that we could verify their unlikely results. I submit that it absolutely "jeopardises public safety" for them not to do so,

Who wants to hazard a guess in what way the release of the data could possibly jopardise anybody's safety- except NIST's own safety of course.

Why should I accept the word of someone who admits lying about WTC7 and has stated an intention to continue lying?

[bill smith]

Why should I accept the word of someone who admits lying about WTC7 and has stated an intention to continue lying?
NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

That's you saying that. You have admitted to lying about WTC7 and you said you were going to continue lying.

[BigAl]

NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

[bill smith]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

[RedIbis]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions,

Speaking of liars, Red, none of us ever said that.

What would have picked up the vibrations from cutter charges placed against structural beams inside WTC7 is the seismographs operated by LDEO and Protec. But they didn't pick up any such signatures.

How do you explain this violation of the laws of physics, Red?

[Dog Town]

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

Biased much?

[Edx]

Speaking of liars, Red, none of us ever said that.

Really? There's cameras near it that should have picked up explosions, like one of the news cameras few blocks away giving some women an interview (the one that had the baby).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really? There's cameras near it that should have picked up explosions, like one of the news cameras few blocks away giving some women an interview (the one that had the baby).

That camera wasn't on a helicopter.

Oops. Got my WTC7 photo threads confused.

You're absolutely right about the Ashleigh Banfield eyewitness interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs) video. It definitely would have picked have picked up the sounds of the cutter charges detonating if there were any.

Which is unfortunate for Red and Bill.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=bill smith;5715146]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.

Whats dishonest about it? They know whats in those files, you do not.
Its possibly dishonest but you do not have any evidence that it is.

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.

I'd like to know that too. But lets face it even if they released it all and it makes perfect sense to 99.99% of people qualified to understand the data the Truthers movement would simply call it faked.
Is there a single truther equipped to be able understand the data? I mean really understand without thinking every reasonable assumption is a NWO plot?

They can't accept hi def video of planes and MIT and Purdue analysis of the WTC collapses so it does not seem likely that anything NIST does would make them understand.:boggled:

[sheeplesnshills]

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

LOL .....it doesn't really matter what real experts show or tell you, you are not going to change your mind on this. I doubt you can.

[RedIbis]

That camera wasn't on a helicopter.

Oops. Got my WTC7 photo threads confused.

You're absolutely right about the Ashleigh Banfield eyewitness interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs) video. It definitely would have picked have picked up the sounds of the cutter charges detonating if there were any.

Which is unfortunate for Red and Bill.

Really, it definitely would? How many blocks away is the interview? Why didn't it pick up the sirens of the cop cars?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really, it definitely would? How many blocks away is the interview?

They were closer than this camera was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2nGtVURPlE).

Or this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GSSX6qnXM)

Or this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYV-l827Efg)

And this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kh47v0KsGM)

Oh... and there's still that annoying little detail of the lack of explosive signatures on the seismic sensors.

What's the matter Red... is your poor widdle theory starting to feel inadequate? Is this making you feel like you want to punch out a FDNY veteran?

Why didn't it pick up the sirens of the cop cars?

Because the cops were there already and didn't need their sirens anymore. It was 5:30 in the afternoon, for crying out loud. Are you really that thick?

[Profanz]

They were closer than this camera was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2nGtVURPlE).

Or this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GSSX6qnXM)

Or this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYV-l827Efg)

And this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kh47v0KsGM)

Oh... and there's still that annoying little detail of the lack of explosive signatures on the seismic sensors.

What's the matter Red... is your poor widdle theory starting to feel inadequate? Is this making you feel like you want to punch out a FDNY veteran?

Because the cops were there already and didn't need their sirens anymore. It was 5:30 in the afternoon, for crying out loud. Are you really that thick?

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11. Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11. What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

[AJM8125]

Don't recall seeing any explosions on all the videos either, other than the plane impacts. You'd think someone might've caught one, what with all the cameras and all.

[dtugg]

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11. Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11. What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

They clearly were not explosives.

[Sam.I.Am]

What makes you think that they had the sirens on?

[16.5]

Really, it definitely would? How many blocks away is the interview? Why didn't it pick up the sirens of the cop cars?

Hi Red, you clearly don't have the first freaking clue how loud an explosive is.

I mean not the first clue at all. So much so, that I as a "debunker" want to thank you for your post. It was that ridiculous.

Let us compare: a siren that is two blocks away is not that easy to hear, and if the source is pointing away, you might not be able to hear it all. A decent size demolition explosive, Red, you can't just hear it from two blocks away, Red (I will type this very slowly):

YOU. CAN. FEEL. IT.

Great Post RED!

[njslim]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.


There is one video (or a series of video) taken by fire photgrapher Steve
Spak which clearly show the south face of WTC 7, which was struck by
WTC 1 and set on fire.

Can see smoke pushing out from fires on multiple floors

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11.

The prescence of secondary explosions proves the buildings were on fire.

Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11.

Yes, we have (see above).

What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

So if they weren't strong enough to even be recorded then they weren't from explosives.

[alienentity]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

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?

[TruthersLie]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

No red.

Your comprehension of what CD explosives sound like is rather limiting. And yoru arguments from ignorance and incredulity on this topic are rather stunning.

ANY cd charges going off capable of cutting the steel beams on wtc7 would have produced a sound level above 160 decibels. That is incredibly loud.

Those types of explosions would not have been very muffled in a building missing lots of windows. Even in a building completely enclosed by windows the overpressure and the shrapnel would shatter all of the windows.

It would be clear and sharp and incredibly hard to miss EVEN BLOCKS AWAY.

Yet not one video has any sound of explosions. We have video where you can hear the RUMBLE as the building collapses, but no explosions.

why is that?

[Scott Sommers]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

What does the Washington Post...I mean Times say about this? They're the mainstream media and owned by the Moonies at the same time.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl
Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.


And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

The place that I believe the press cameras were placed was near Canal St & Church St. This is the long shot from the north that is the only WTC7 collapse video I have seen. That's 0.7 miles from GZ. That's not that far for sound of man-made demolition to carry. In any case, none of the cameras that were closer recorded anything and none of the many thousands of people within the 0.7 mile radius report sounds consistent in timing and brisance with man-made demolition when WTC7 came down.

[RedIbis]

[...]nanoenergetics hold promise as use-ful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

What do you guys think "impulse management" might mean?

[BigAl]

What do you guys think "impulse management" might mean?

I say they mean the ability to design a specific pressure over time curve when it goes bang. This is related to the brisance value of an explosive compound.

The idea of thermobaric (TBX) explosives at WTC is just as stupid as any kind of thermite and explosive demolition. I don't think TBX would do anything but blow all the glass out of a WTC tower.

[dtugg]

I don't think RedIbis even knows what a thermobaric weapon is.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What do you guys think "impulse management" might mean?

Why don't you find out for us?

[Childlike Empress]

John Young of cryptome.org is the guest of yesterday's episode of Sibel Edmonds' podcast show. Should be interesting.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/03/13/podcast-show-25/

[Sword_Of_Truth]

John Young of cryptome.org is the guest of yesterday's episode of Sibel Edmonds' podcast show. Should be interesting.

That bitch yaks a lot for being the "most gagged woman in america".

And now she has her own show where she interviews other people?

If the NWO really existed, wouldn't they have bumped her off by now?

[Childlike Empress]

It's episode 25 already. "The NWO" isn't so worried because most people, like you, simply don't pay attention. But Jesus hates you for calling her a bitch.

[Profanz]

That bitch yaks a lot for being the "most gagged woman in america".

And now she has her own show where she interviews other people?

If the NWO really existed, wouldn't they have bumped her off by now?

Yes. It kind of makes you wonder why Ashcroft retroactively classified the documents she wanted to talk about in the first place. Why did they bother if it's all really just a bunch of nonsense?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But Jesus hates you for calling her a bitch.

God loves all his children, but like any parent is probably very disappointed when one of them grows up to be a bitch.

Yes. It kind of makes you wonder why Ashcroft retroactively classified the documents she wanted to talk about in the first place. Why did they bother if it's all really just a bunch of nonsense?


Because all the attack orders for the ninja demo crews on 9/11 written in turkish and given to the FBI to burn and bury not thinking that there might be some low-grade desk flunky who speaks turkish there.

[RedIbis]

I say they mean the ability to design a specific pressure over time curve when it goes bang. This is related to the brisance value of an explosive compound.

The idea of thermobaric (TBX) explosives at WTC is just as stupid as any kind of thermite and explosive demolition. I don't think TBX would do anything but blow all the glass out of a WTC tower.

Bare assertion fallacy.

[Profanz]

So if they weren't strong enough to even be recorded then they weren't from explosives.

But there were explosions witnessed and some recorded on 9/11. Some people even firefighters thought they were bombs. You can only pretend to know after the fact they were or weren't. This is the essence of JREF 9/11 debunking. That and name calling.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But there were explosions witnessed and some recorded on 9/11.

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?

Some people even firefighters thought they were bombs.

They weren't looking at seismograph readouts when they said that and they don't think that way today.


You can only pretend to know after the fact they were or weren't.

We're not pretending, we actually do know. You're attempting to project your state of ignorance onto us.

This is the essence of JREF 9/11 debunking. That and name calling.

Name-calling is against the JREF forum member agreement.

[RedIbis]

I don't think RedIbis even knows what a thermobaric weapon is.

Do you know what impulse management is?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you know what impulse management is?

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.

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

They wrap charges in a mattress don'tchya know?

[dtugg]

Do you know what impulse management is?

The management of impulse.

Do you know what thermobaric weapons are?

[Profanz]

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.

How much did the 93 bomb register Sword_of_Truth?

[16.5]

Bare assertion fallacy.

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.

[RedIbis]

The management of impulse.

Do you know what thermobaric weapons are?

Weapons that are thermobaric.

See, I can be juvenile, too.

[T.A.M.]

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.

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:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Weapons that are thermobaric.

See, I can be juvenile, too.

Have you ever stopped?

[TruthersLie]

Bare assertion fallacy.

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.

[bill smith]

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:)

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/

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How much did the 93 bomb register Sword_of_Truth?

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?

[TruthersLie]

delete

[bill smith]

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:)

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.

[T.A.M.]

Lord Griffin is an ******* and kiss my unroyal ass...lol

TAM:)

[deep]

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.


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

[TruthersLie]

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

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.

[fallout]

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.

Then they are really witholding data that makes it impossible to fully simulate their model from beginning to end?

[Thunder]

It's episode 25 already. "The NWO" isn't so worried because most people, like you, simply don't pay attention. But Jesus hates you for calling her a bitch.


does this mean I can say "Jesus hates YOU for supporting terrorists"?

[Dave Rogers]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

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

[Dave Rogers]

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11. Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11. What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

So in order to be responsible for the collapses, the explosions would have to have taken place within a couple of seconds before the visible initiation of the collapse. So in order to have severed steel the explosives would have to be high brisance, which would create an unmistakable and extraordinarily loud sound, louder than the sound of the collapse. So no such sound was reported by any witnesses, and no such sound was recorded on devices which were suitably placed and of more than sufficient sensitivity to pick them up. The evidence, therefore, strongly and unambiguously supports the argument that explosives didn't cause the collapse. That's what.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Do you know what impulse management is?

In this context, it's the control of the release of energy in an exothermic reaction so as not to release it all in a single burst. In other words, thermobarics are capable of slowing down the release of energy to produce a longer duration explosion, the exact opposite of what is required for destruction of steel. Brief, high-speed, high-pressure energy release, which is required for severing of structural steel members, is outside the capability of thermobaric weapons. If that were not the case, the Twin Towers would have fallen immediately after the initial aircraft impacts, which produced a fuel-air deflagration very similar to the effect of a thermobaric explosion.

Dave

[BigAl]

Then they are really witholding data that makes it impossible to fully simulate their model from beginning to end?

We use the models to understand which beams failed in the fire so as to make better buildings in the future.

We don't need a model to know that fire and the lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

[fallout]

We use the models to understand which beams failed in the fire so as to make better buildings in the future.

We don't need a model to know that fire and the lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

We who?


Separately, is what bill said true? Are they holding data with the "jeopardise the public safety" excuse? That's what I want to know.

[funk de fino]

Weapons that are thermobaric.

See, I can be juvenile, too.

The fact you mentioned thermobaric weapons showed us that fact already Red. You really are on an epic fail roll at the moment.

[sheeplesnshills]

NIST have verifiaby lied in the WTC7 final report.

Where? Link please.

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.

Are you threatening people? I think thats a breach of forum rules

See what Lord Griffin has to say in the attached audio from yesterday.

LORD???????? When was he made a Peer?

[sheeplesnshills]

bill smith;5717695]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.

Who in the truther movement has the technical skills to do that? Griffin? Gage?
Jones? ROTFLOL!


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.

I hope you are not a betting man or you might be in for a painful shock :)

[sheeplesnshills]

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

I can think of at least one reason. They may expose a design feature that makes similar buildings vulnerable to attack. Do you think its justified to release such information just for truthers to disbelieve that as well and open up perhaps hundreds of potential targets for the terrorists?? (Yes I know, you think they don't exist:boggled:)

[fallout]

I can think of at least one reason. They may expose a design feature that makes similar buildings vulnerable to attack. Do you think its justified to release such information just for truthers to disbelieve that as well and open up perhaps hundreds of potential targets for the terrorists?? (Yes I know, you think they don't exist:boggled:)

But what is the actual data they didn't allow public? I know you don't know , because it isn't public, lol... But what is the allegedly missing part of the data?

[BigAl]

We use the models to understand which beams failed in the fire so as to make better buildings in the future.

We don't need a model to know that fire and the lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

We who?



Everyone with the compentency to make a structural model and interpret the results.



Separately, is what bill said true? Are they holding data with the "jeopardise the public safety" excuse? That's what I want to know.

Yup. that's what the FOIA response said.

[aggle-rithm]

How much did the 93 bomb register Sword_of_Truth?

Speaking for myself, I don't know. But I do know that if they did register on a seismograph, then it supports the point that there couldn't have been explosives on 9/11 because they didn't show up on the seismograph. If they did NOT register on a seismograph, then it supports the idea that even if there were explosives, they, like the 93 bomb, weren't powerful enough to cause a collapse.

[aggle-rithm]

LORD???????? When was he made a Peer?

When he was selected to serve on a jury. A jury of his peers.

[aggle-rithm]

Do you know what impulse management is?

A quick Google search reveals that there are many possible meanings for this term. For instance, I use impulse management to train my dogs.

Perhaps you could tell us which definition you have in mind?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Speaking for myself, I don't know. But I do know that if they did register on a seismograph, then it supports the point that there couldn't have been explosives on 9/11 because they didn't show up on the seismograph. If they did NOT register on a seismograph, then it supports the idea that even if there were explosives, they, like the 93 bomb, weren't powerful enough to cause a collapse.

The 1993 bomb wasn't coupled directly to a structural member as a pourpose-built demolition charge would be.

In order to bring down WTC 1, 2 and 7, there would have been tens of thousands of demolition charges.

[sheeplesnshills]

But what is the actual data they didn't allow public? I know you don't know , because it isn't public, lol... But what is the allegedly missing part of the data?

The bit NIST is not releasing?:)

[Myriad]

Do you know what impulse management is?


It's what Truthers who try to shoot their way into the Pentagon need more of, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[RedIbis]

It's what Truthers who try to shoot their way into the Pentagon need more of, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

What's a Truther?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What's a Truther?

There's one in your bathroom in the window just above the sink. Go look.

[RedIbis]

There's one in your bathroom in the window over the sink. Go look.

Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse. It's merely a simple tactic of guilt by association. If I'm a Truther than I'm also an anti-semite and lumped in with murderers.

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

[16.5]

Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse. It's merely a simple tactic of guilt by association. If I'm a Truther than I'm also an anti-semite and lumped in with murderers.

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

Bare assertion fallacy.

[sheeplesnshills]

Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse. It's merely a simple tactic of guilt by association. If I'm a Truther than I'm also an anti-semite and lumped in with murderers.

Ok what would you call yourself?.....and it was the so called "truth" movement that uses the word so much that "truther "was an inevitable nickname.
(I do agree with you its a very inaccurate description:)

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

I would agree. Libertarians (essentially neo anarchists) share many of the same characteristics of Truthers and I suspect make up a large part of their numbers.

[carlitos]

Nice semantics. Labeling as a "truther" is ... bad?

http://911truther.com/
It's been a few months since my first exposure to the evidence being presented by the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Today I'm starting 9/11 Truther Cyberzine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated[15][18] organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][22][23][24] The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement.[25][26] Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers",[27] "9/11 skeptics"[28] or "truth activists",[29] while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".[15][29]

Awesome video - I'm a Truther... I'm a Republocrat
oBQqJvpOndo

[Myriad]

Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse.


Of course it isn't. Perhaps you will be good enough to tell me which forum member(s) I've so labeled, and what objectionable label I've given them, so that I can make amends.

In the meantime, was my answer to your question about impulse issues correct?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Dave Rogers]

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

You'll be kind enough, of course, to point out the bit in Myriad's post where he said that Truthers would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse. It's merely a simple tactic of guilt by association. If I'm a Truther than I'm also an anti-semite and lumped in with murderers.

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

You seem to be genuinely ashamed of the things you believe. Although you make many insinuations, you avoid putting forth any concrete arguments that you might have to defend, and you are clearly embarrassed to be spoken of in the same breath as people who apparently hold the same beliefs.

So why do you persist in believing?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There's one in your bathroom in the window just above the sink. Go look.Labeling is not conduct becoming of a moderator of a forum that is supposedly trying to promote critical thinking and civil discourse. It's merely a simple tactic of guilt by association. If I'm a Truther than I'm also an anti-semite and lumped in with murderers.

By the illogic of Myriad's failed attempt at humor, Libertarians would have to bear the responsibility of the Pentagon shooter since he identified himself as such.

I'd like to thank all the little people who helped me achieve my sudden promotion and pre-emptively apologize for my imminent, but mercifully brief, reign of terror and petty abuse of my new powers.

[RedIbis]

Of course it isn't. Perhaps you will be good enough to tell me which forum member(s) I've so labeled, and what objectionable label I've given them, so that I can make amends.

In the meantime, was my answer to your question about impulse issues correct?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I didn't say anything about forum members.

In the meantime, no, you were neither clever nor correct.

[16.5]

In the meantime, no, you were neither clever nor correct.

Bare assertion fallacy.

[dtugg]

It's always hilarious when truthers object to being called truthers.

[Myriad]

I didn't say anything about forum members.


I take it then that I did not in fact apply derogatory labels or any other such incivility to any forum members, which would (if I had done so) be conduct not becoming a moderator of these forums. That is a great relief.

I am, however, mortified to learn that RedIbis does not regard my response concerning the meaning of impulse management (that is to say, my association of "impulse management" with "impulse control," as in "poor impulse control" as a phrase sometimes used to describe people who act unwisely on impulse, such as the Truther who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon) to be either clever or correct. I shall strive to do better.

Being something of a nerd, I also associate the word "impulse" with "impulse power" which propels spaceships lacking warp drive capabilities in the Star Trek universe. Presumably such a system would require control mechanisms, hence "impulse management" might refer to a portion of the engineering systems of a future spaceship, such as those that will never be invented or built if Truthers ever succeed in their efforts to suppress all scientific and engineering expertise in favor of their own uninformed judgments, as they already do in all venues they control.

Am I getting warmer?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Newtons Bit]

I take it then that I did not in fact apply derogatory labels or any other such incivility to any forum members, which would (if I had done so) be conduct not becoming a moderator of these forums. That is a great relief.

I am, however, mortified to learn that RedIbis does not regard my response concerning the meaning of impulse management (that is to say, my association of "impulse management" with "impulse control," as in "poor impulse control" as a phrase sometimes used to describe people who act unwisely on impulse, such as the Truther who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon) to be either clever or correct. I shall strive to do better.

Being something of a nerd, I also associate the word "impulse" with "impulse power" which propels spaceships lacking warp drive capabilities in the Star Trek universe. Presumably such a system would require control mechanisms, hence "impulse management" might refer to a portion of the engineering systems of a future spaceship, such as those that will never be invented or built if Truthers ever succeed in their efforts to suppress all scientific and engineering expertise in favor of their own uninformed judgments, as they already do in all venues they control.

Am I getting warmer?

Respectfully,
Myriad

God you're wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Ships with warp drives still travel under "impulse power" for their sub-light propulsion.

Ugh!

[ElMondoHummus]

God you're wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Ships with warp drives still travel under "impulse power" for their sub-light propulsion.

Ugh!

:lolsign:

[beachnut]

But there were explosions witnessed and some recorded on 9/11. Some people even firefighters thought they were bombs. You can only pretend to know after the fact they were or weren't. This is the essence of JREF 9/11 debunking. That and name calling.
911 truth moronic ideas have failed for 8 years. Some of the massive explosions heard were bodies hitting the ground. Failure is an absolute for 911 truth, and supporters continue to fail, defeated by similes. 911 truth's lack of evidence is showing. 911 truth ideas have failed, and with your support are guaranteed future failure due to lack of evidence, no substance and failed talk. Does 911 truth give guides to make moronic posts when people join 911 truth delusions cults?

Cryptome (www.cryptome.org (http://www.cryptome.org/)) continues to get 9/11-related information via FOIA. Today he posts an NIST FOIA "Final Response" which produced some but not all ANSYS files for WTC7. The reason given for withholding some of them was that it would "jeopardize public safety".

The response is addressed to Ronald Brookman who is one of the people Telltail Tom lists as one of the engineers in AE911. I'll take him at his word.

Props to some Truther for actually trying to get some information. Lets see what they can do with it.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf (http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf) Dated Jan 26, 2010.

Profanz,
Where do the explosions come in for WTC7? Who heard explosions from WTC7? Where in the OP were explosions part of the FOIA? Please start your support thread for explosions associated with WTC7. Looks like you are off topic for this thread and lost.

[sheeplesnshills]

It's always hilarious when truthers object to being called truthers.

Especially as the usual name they use for anyone who disagrees with them is Sheeple or Shill!
I think the Truther doth protest too much:mad:

[RedIbis]

I take it then that I did not in fact apply derogatory labels or any other such incivility to any forum members, which would (if I had done so) be conduct not becoming a moderator of these forums. That is a great relief.

I am, however, mortified to learn that RedIbis does not regard my response concerning the meaning of impulse management (that is to say, my association of "impulse management" with "impulse control," as in "poor impulse control" as a phrase sometimes used to describe people who act unwisely on impulse, such as the Truther who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon) to be either clever or correct. I shall strive to do better.

Being something of a nerd, I also associate the word "impulse" with "impulse power" which propels spaceships lacking warp drive capabilities in the Star Trek universe. Presumably such a system would require control mechanisms, hence "impulse management" might refer to a portion of the engineering systems of a future spaceship, such as those that will never be invented or built if Truthers ever succeed in their efforts to suppress all scientific and engineering expertise in favor of their own uninformed judgments, as they already do in all venues they control.

Am I getting warmer?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Not really. I gave you the context in which the phrase was used in post #29.

[Myriad]

God you're wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Ships with warp drives still travel under "impulse power" for their sub-light propulsion.

Ugh!


I knew that. (But we more often see it used by the capital ships when the warp drive is out of commission, which is technically "lacking warp drive capability" at least temporarily.)

(Actually, to me impulse power always seemed to be a more advanced technology than warp drives. Warp drives presumably take advantage of some kind of space warping loophole in the laws of physics. But impulse power works in normal space-time and yet can propel huge ships with enormous accelerations with no noticeable emission of reaction mass. As impressive as warp drive is, it's impulse engines that could give you things like efficient hovercars and levitated cities. Note that Zefram Cochrane's starship prototype went directly from rockets to warp drive, confirming that impulse engines are probably technically more advanced.)

Not really. I gave you the context in which the phrase was used in post #29.


Really? Wow. And here it is post 96, and you still haven't gotten to your point. When you do manage to have an impulse to do so, let us know, okay?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ElMondoHummus]

(Actually, to me impulse power always seemed to be a more advanced technology than warp drives. Warp drives presumably take advantage of some kind of space warping loophole in the laws of physics. But impulse power works in normal space-time and yet can propel huge ships with enormous accelerations with no noticeable emission of reaction mass. As impressive as warp drive is, it's impulse engines that could give you things like efficient hovercars and levitated cities. Note that Zefram Cochrane's starship prototype went directly from rockets to warp drive, confirming that impulse engines are probably technically more advanced.)

Good God... we just got outgeeked by Myriad. :boggled:

I feel the need to turn in my Trekkie-nerd credentials now. :(

[R.Mackey]

Except he's wrong.

The Romulans developed advanced impulse drive (tactically competitive to that of the Federation), but not warp drive, despite being in contact with the Federation. Warp drive is presented as a parallel or superior technology. This is from Episode #14 of TOS ("Balance of Terror") and is therefore as canon as it gets.

For confirmation, look to the SS Botany Bay of "Space Seed," found adrift roughly 40 light years from Earth after 271 years of travel, yet it was built in the 1990's. This vessel clearly had nothing approximating warp drive, but it did have high sublight capability of some sort.

Which one between warp drive and impulse is more useful, that's a more difficult question.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I like turtles.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I believe that in the novelization of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", Gene Roddenberry himself described the impulse drive as being a fusion rocket engine. Rather than hydrogen and oxygen burning chemically, hydrogen alone was caused to fuse and then dumped out the back to provide thrust. Similar to a conventional rocket.

I'm going purely by memory though and do not have a copy of the novel handy.

[Hokulele]

Stop. Hammer time.

http://www.omega.com/pptst/IH101.html

[Arus808]

I like turtles.


better than dramatic prairie dog

[Dave Rogers]

Not really. I gave you the context in which the phrase was used in post #29.

And I explained why it was a stupid question in post #62. Please feel free to ignore that response and concentrate on irrelevancies, though; I'm sure that'll be a much more productive way to bring about a new investigation.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

I believe that in the novelization of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", Gene Roddenberry himself described the impulse drive as being a fusion rocket engine. Rather than hydrogen and oxygen burning chemically, hydrogen alone was caused to fuse and then dumped out the back to provide thrust. Similar to a conventional rocket.

I'm going purely by memory though and do not have a copy of the novel handy.

Except, according to Lawrence Krauss, fusion doesn't provide nearly enough power to get a starship to even half light speed.

In fact, he showed that matter-antimatter reactions weren't even enough.