NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Back to the original matter of this thread. In the NIST letter NIST rejects the less severe damage scenario and rejects the request to publish the model's results under these conditions based on two facts:

1. The model did not have debris exiting the opposite side of the building of the impact.

2. The model did not result in the building collapsing due to the damage.

But in the same letter NIST states that NONE of the models were able to get the landing gear out the opposite side of the building (while also repeating as they did in the report that matching photographic and video evidence was a key parameter to validating the quality of the model). When you take this into account, the only differentiating factor between the less severe damage model and the more severe damage model is that the building collapsed in the latter but wouldn't in the former, you are left with the confession from NIST that they chose the model(s) to publish based on an a priori conclusion that the impact damage and fire damage alone is what brought down the building.

For all intents and purposes, this letter alone - with no other discussion on myriad sites, by myriad groups, with conspiracy theories or without, with agendas or without, nullifies any value of the NIST results published to date. They confessed publicly and in writing they fixed the results and any signatory on the report should be brought before the applicable state board to have any engineering licenses revoked - immediately. Because not only did they violate the code of ethics for sound scientific methods and engineering practices - they have admitted to stacked report at the cost of the taxpayers' funds.

They have admitted to be charlatans and thieves.

Originally posted by Valhall
Thank you for quoting the relevant section of the NIST report. I believe when you're able to review my posts in this thread you'll see that's exactly what I said a couple of times.

The impact, and FAE of the fuel, along with a small percent of jet fuel that did not get consumed in the initial blast INITIATED a fire that was then fueled for the duration by the contents of the building which would have been office materials and finish out materials.

That's the third time I've said that.

I consider that as your retraction of your statement: "You are in violent contradiction to the NIST report."

No - you should consider that as a thank you for presenting the proof that the statement

"a conflagration fueled by 24,000 gallons of jet fuel"

is errant.

I simply can't believe you can't think through this simple process.

reply to post by seanm


Once again my funny friend you resort to obfuscation and semantics to avoid answering the questions NIST has even refused to answer.

For the sake of being a good sport I will respond to your question on Dr.Quintiere.

It really does not matter what Dr.Quintiere said or what he thinks because as Valhall pointed out this most recent letter published by NIST and the subject of this thread is prima-facie evidence that NIST has no answers or evidence to the cause of the collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7.

So if the official government story AKA the NIST report cant answer the question as to how the towers collapsed then how is some country pumpkin going to be able to determine how the towers collapsed?



[edit on 26-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Update on the NIST letter.

The original requesters have sent NIST another letter.

www.911proof.com...

Originally posted by seanm
I've spent 5 1/2 years debunking the 9/11 Denial Movement. You'll note that I stick to facts and evidence rather than denying their existence.

The difference is that Val has actually been to school and knows her stuff. Wherever you've been, you apparently haven't picked up much technical knowledge. 5 and a half years of wasted time if you ask me, if you can't even calculate KE, or don't understand how it's calculated. You have to know how to do it. Linking to something/someone else just shows you have to rely on authority, you don't know this stuff yourself. Same with telling us to read NIST or etc. Someone else has already pointed out, a lot of us are already very familiar with the various things they did in the process of writing their report. We have a problem with it. Because you don't understand the problem, you can't possibly understand how to respond to us to ease our concerns. It has nothing to do with "debunking" because, again, you don't know what you're talking about. You only have links and a strong personal feeling, I wouldn't even call it an opinion.

You don't pick up much valuable experience back-and-forth stupidly like this on the Internet. You can do it 5 more years -- 10 more years -- you aren't learning anything at all, and we know that you don't know what you're talking about. Throw down $100 or so and take a physics class, you'll learn more in a semester than you have this whole 5 years I bet. Calculating KE from PE implies the acceleration of gravity and therefore free-fall.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Does anyone know of a site/group who has been archiving the versions of the NIST report over time? Now that we have NIST confessing they are going to remove a critical phrase from the report, I am extremely disheartened by the thought they have basically been scrubbing these documents of statements causing contention all along. I believe they have already made critical rewrites in the NCSTAR 1-6 which describes the modes of failure on structural components.

I'm hoping some one has been copying the report to safe places because if not - we're doomed...the very data will be lost to us as these people remove the DATA that conflicts with their failure MODEL each time the contradicting data is pointed out by some one. I fear it has already been happening.

Originally posted by Valhall
I believe they have already made critical rewrites in the NCSTAR 1-6 which describes the modes of failure on structural components.

They changed their FAQ sheet too. I remember when it came out, it didn't contain anything about testing the steel. Now it does. I would have thought that would have been a critical aspect of an "investigation" to include in your FAQ to begin with?

[edit on 10/27/2007 by Griff]

Personally I feel that this letter/thread may be the single most important discussion that has taken place concerning the "issues" some of us have with the methodology and accuracy of the NIST reports. I feel it unfortunate that the title of the thread is misleading. First, because it will tend to make people reject the entire thread and not delve further into the issue. Second, because what NIST has admitted is actually far more important than what the title reflects.

I am requesting to the OP of this thread to consider requesting a title change to the thread. Would you please consider retitling since the title is actually not true?

something like "NIST Admits to Rejecting Scenarios that won't match their assumptions" or something like that.

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall,
First off thanks for all your contributions. Just curious. Do you interpret all of the inaccuracies and obfuscations of the NIST report merely as incompetence?

There is a report I read about an anonymous insider at NIST complaining about the politicization of the organization. How all results must be filtered through unqualified political appointees and how the politics trump science.

I am very uncomfortable with the fact that any expert must put their reputation and job on the line if they come to any conclusion that does not agree with the apriori assumption. Seems to me this would poison the atmosphere of true scientific inquiry.

Hi Leo,

Thank you for your kind words. They came at a time when they were greatly needed - I assure you.

I try not to speculate on the intent behind these actions. I haven't a clue whether the half-assed analysis was because of politics, money, incompetence or just a lack of caring. I believe we've moved from incompetence/unacceptable performance to covering tracks now though. When you are removing statements from an official report because you simply don't want to be bothered by the questions those statements could raise, you are now covering your tracks and modifying findings based solely on personal desire - not engineering judgment or data.

I will be leaving ATS now. More and more my relationship to Springer has caused less and less freedom of speech here in a variety of ways - from the staff mistaking my statements on certain topics, to how the members take my statements as seemingly having more value or impact relative to the board than they actually have (in fact, i'm probably the least empowered member on this board due to my relationship with Springer. I have for quite some time avoided debates, moderator roles, even FSME roles). This is not a new trend, but seems to be a worsening trend. I left ATS for over a half year and came back hoping that things would have improved - but such is not the case. I am tired of the problems that trend continues to cause me in my attempts to "merely be a member", and quite frankly how it detracts from my ability to "enjoy my ATS experience".

Most likely this post will be cleansed, but before it is I want to say something to whomever does catch it in it's entirety:

I wish all of you who have been so doggedly committed to trying to choke the truth out of NIST the best of luck in your efforts. I think this letter is a major step toward being able to formalize the indictment against them. While I have ranged from being adversarial to cooperative with many of you on issues surrounding 9/11, and transitioned between those two stances with several of you, and while there are some of you who have theories I cannot accept for my own, I have great respect for your commitment to this effort and I consider it an honor to have been thought of as a colleague to you.

Thank you for the knowledge you have shared and will continue to share. And thanks for helping me grow as a person....and for being models on how important it is to put your voice where your convictions are for the sake of the good of the greater.

And sit back and enjoy this moment for pete's sake - no one will ever be able to seriously say your concerns about the NIST report are unfounded!

Kindest Regards,
Val.

Why quit posting because of a few idiots. I always enjoy reading your posts.

reply to post by Valhall


Don't give up man, just look at it as a temporary issue that can be dealt with. Your knowledge and opinions are greatly appreciated and cause many of us to do our homework, the more we have people like yourself the more we can get some intelligent debate and it makes the experience of others much more rich.

If on the other hand your feeling something else, try and step back and see if there is another way without leaving.

thnks

VALHALL, rest that name in peace.
I will remember it with a smile and a proverbial hug.

and quite frankly how it detracts from my ability to "enjoy my ATS experience".

As I figured out already, the by far best choice in your position thus is, to start all over again, with a fresh member name, and no public acknowledgements of your relationships at this board, ever anymore.

So, welcome back soon, I've seen already a few new members with an engineering background, I'll recognize over time the professionalism, careful reasoning and as we saw here, the obvious "short fuse with drama queens".

Edit: Couldn't resist, Беларуская мова :
Да пабачэньня!
Da pabachen'nya!

Убачымся!
Ubachymsia!

Усяго найлепшага!
Usiaho naylepshaha!

[edit on 28/10/07 by LaBTop]

All I have to say is, Thermate. An incendiary that burns at extreme temperatures, easily being able to melt steel in a little over 2 seconds. A thermate reaction is extremely distinguishable and identifiable. Watch for yourself, first video is of a controlled Thermate reaction, and the second is of the WTC, and draw conclusions for yourself.


Controlled Thermite test
www.youtube.com...

WTC
www.youtube.com...

Also, www.journalof911studies.com...

Thermate would not account for the claims of melted steel for three months (ignoring the argument that there is nothing to substantiate molten steel). Also not to mention that the collapse occurred at the point o impact and any charges set up would have been destroyed from the impact. And ignoring the many many other problems with such a claim or lack of any evidence beyond exploiting people's lack of understanding of how demolitions work and hoping to mislead them by simply saying they looked similar.

I just had a long talk with my husband who assures me that I don't have to allow the neurotic behavior that has been trying to drive me from this board have victory.

From now on I'll tell them to speak to my husband.

I have a ghost thread I have to keep updated and I'm not going to be prevented from doing it.

*stop with the thermate *

reply to post by Valhall


I am glad logic prevailed over emotion!

Your contributions to ATS are immeasurable, I realized this several years ago when I first started lurking.

I have come to realize from being on ATS that both you and your husband are compassionate and intelligent people and to lose one half of the equation do to ego or philosophical differences from other members or staff would be a tragedy to all concerned and especially to ATS and its community.

Originally posted by Valhall
*stop with the thermate

*

Why? I still feel it's a viable mechanism for collapse initiation. Not an entire controlled demolition worth but initiation. But, that's just my opinion and of course I could be mistaken.

I still see that denial reigns supreme amongst you 9/11 Deniers here. I personally think Valhall should know better than to make a statement, get called on it, then deny, incredibly, what NIST actually said and concluded.

It is perfectly ridiculous for those here to deny that two top sections of WTC 1 and 2, representing 40,000 tons and 110,000 tons neither existed or began to each fall as a single piece of mass, nor possessing any kinetic energy. This is the height of stupidity.

Then we have etshrtslr who, never wanting to answer a question or address a refutation of his points, demands answers to his questions. Having asked a question about statements made by one Dr. Quintiere, when given the actual facts of Qunitiere's statements, etshrtslr must once again change the subject.

Your denial of facts and evidence is simply incredible but it is a good example of the pathology of Denial. This thread will qualify for inclusion in future psychology textbooks, and, if nothing else, will be laughed at for years for the imperviousness of the 9/11 Denial Movement to reason.

Keep it up, and uou will end up like Kevin Barrett did recently:

www.youtube.com...

Here is some excellent reading on denial, self-deception, and critical thinking. Take advantage of it and learn to reason:

“Attacking Faulty Reasoning”, by T. Edward Damer, ISBN: 0-534-55133-5

"How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life", by Thomas Gilovich , ISBN: 0029117062

“Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide”, by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, ISBN: 0-415-24017-4

“Why People Believe Weird Things”, by Michael Shermer, ISBN: 0-8050-7089-3

“Denying The Holocaust”, by Deborah Lipstadt, ISBN: 0-452-27274-2

“Denying History”, by Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman, ISBN: 0-520-23469-3