Science without math is garbage, NIST.

Point blank, the NIST report was released without showing the work. A computer simulation was used to arrive at their conclusion but not released with the report itself. If it were college paper, it would receive an F. If it were grant work, the grant would be canceled.

Like so much information regarding 911, the FOIA has been denied.

So what I want to know to the supporters, is how do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?

reply to post by jprophet420

So what I want to know to the supporters, is how do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?

The supporters do not need trust, they have the government telling them the way it is, that seems to be enough.

Why go into details when they know without figuring things out! Its the fairy tale of the Official Story, nothing within the story is connected to reality.

Your right the NIST report would have been trash bin immediately.

So...
... if I go to the insurance agency and show pictures of a car hitting mine, causing mine to burst into flames and burn...
... I need to provide the mathematical basis upon which an impact creates a situation where the combination of an external fuel source being brought into close proximity to another fuel source...
... and the energy of impact, possibly aided by combustion occuring somewhere within or on the structure of impactor at the moment of impact...
... that may be a possible source of sufficient energy to initiate combustion within the my vehicle?

I suppose you also want supercomputers to model car accidents, each and every one of them? It's possible, no... absolutely inevitible... thermite will be found on every car: iron, aluminum oxide....

Defendant- "My car was side-swiped by the plaintiff's car. The traffic lights were obviously in my favor ... ."

Plaintiff- "Molecular spectroscopy has proven that elements comprising 'thermite' have been found within the remains of the defendant's vehicle: an early 80's DeLorean. That vehicle has, and was built with, components made of aluminium and stainless steel which OBVIOUSLY is made from iron, carbon and other things they won't tell us. Therefore, the plaintiff moves to have this case dismissed as it is patently obvious that the defendant's vehicle would've caught fire and burned ... anyhow."

[edit on 6/12/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by theability


Your right the NIST report would have been trash bin immediately.

How many pages of the NIST report did you read and comprehend? Please go to NCSTAR 1-2 5.4.2 and explain to me about the bolted connection modeling.

Perhaps you can shed some light on NCSTAR 1-6C? 3.1.2 mentions the concrete stress/strain relationship. Those equations are a little over my level of expertise.

Thank you!

reply to post by Six Sigma

How many pages of the NIST report did you read and comprehend? Please go to NCSTAR 1-2 5.4.2 and explain to me about the bolted connection modeling.

Now first of all, they do not include the modeling information to REPRODUCE RESULTS, which is needed in scientific method.

Funny how again the OS pushers like was brought up in the OP don't care about the facts, they have been told that this is the way and so be it!

Perhaps you can shed some light on NCSTAR 1-6C? 3.1.2 mentions the concrete stress/strain relationship. Those equations are a little over my level of expertise.

See the part I added italics, now how can you say that NIST is telling the truth when you don't even know the equations???

My god you say for me to read and comprehend the NIST report then you CLEARLY state you can't undestand it?

My god very sad sigma.

Sigma, thanks for proving the thread correct!

Have a great day!



[edit on 12-6-2010 by theability]

reply to post by theability


Please help Six Sigma and myself out and explain those equations.

Originally posted by theability
See the part I added italics, now how can you say that NIST is telling the truth when you don't even know the equations???

I never said they did. RE-read my post and please assist me.

My god you say for me to read and comprehend the NIST report then you CLEARLY state you can't undestand it?

No, i didn't. You said it would go in the trash bin...so I assumed YOU did understand it all. So, can you please go to the two sections I mentioned in my post and assist me with the equations.

Thank you!



[edit on 12-6-2010 by Six Sigma]

reply to post by Alfie1

Please help Six Sigma and myself out and explain those equations.

Why do I have to follow your orders? Another attempt to derail a thread.

The point of this thread is to show the fact that OS pushers have no clue about what is said in reports.

It was never stated by me that I would explain anything. Was it?

The issue was that models used by NIST are not supplied, that ss it.

NOT Ability is to explain everything.

More attempts to ignore the OP in a thread by the OS pushers.

reply to post by Six Sigma

I never said they did. RE-read my post and please assist me.

Why do I need to assist you?

No, i didn't. You said it would go in the trash bin...so I assumed YOU did understand it all. So, can you please go to the two sections I mentioned in my post and assist me with the equations.

How in do you get from me saying a paper without supplying the right information and calculations and going into the trash bin, is now a statement by me that I have to explain equations??

You people twist everything you can, its sickness! You can't even for one second read and answer something, without derailing everything.

Wow again, DERAILING THREADS, the only recourse for the Official story!



[edit on 12-6-2010 by theability]

All I know, is according to NIST NCSTAR 1-7 8.3.1, If your skyscraper catches on fire, total collapse is eminent. You better exit the building at lightning speed.




Note:J/K

[edit on 12-6-2010 by PersonalChoice]

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Please help Six Sigma and myself out and explain those equations.

Why do I have to follow your orders? Another attempt to derail a thread.

The point of this thread is to show the fact that OS pushers have no clue about what is said in reports.

It was never stated by me that I would explain anything. Was it?

I think the obvious point they're making and you are either dancing wildly to deflect or it's whooshing over your head, is that you're asking for math, models, simulation parameters and the like, whilst saying that there is no math in the NIST report (some of which they pointed out).

Moreover, I'm expecting you not to be able to do the math yourself, which is the other point they're making, which raises the question, if you are unable to do the math, why bother asking for it? You wouldn't be able to either verify the solution nor would you be able to comment cogently on the methodology used.

Nor is it a thread derailment, no matter how large a typeface you use. You're demanding mathematical proofs, and stating that no math was shown in the NIST report (an untruth), yet like my dog and that car in the road, you wouldn't know what to do with it if you got it.

reply to post by Bedlam

I think the obvious point they're making and you are either dancing wildly to deflect or it's whooshing over your head, is that you're asking for math, models, simulation parameters and the like, whilst saying that there is no math in the NIST report (some of which they pointed out).

The thread isn't about me!

Nor is it a thread derailment, no matter how large a typeface you use. You're demanding mathematical proofs, and stating that no math was shown in the NIST report (an untruth), yet like my dog and that car in the road, you wouldn't know what to do with it if you got it.

The thread isn't about me!

How hard is this for people to understand?




[edit on 12-6-2010 by theability]

Interestingly, it seems you can download NISTs Fire Dynamics Simulator and Smokeview for your own use. That's what was used to do the WTC simulations, and at first glance it looks like a butt-standard Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics simulator. We've got more complex ones here for doing other sorts of modeling.

I also see a number of scholarly pubs describing the methodology used in the analysis.

What I don't see are the exact models, starting parameters and the like, which they likely spent quite a lot of time on. It also took months to run. I'm not sure they're NOT available, they may be unavailable to YOU.

That's not that unusual either. If I went to the author of a document such as this demanding the release of the raw data of some analysis so that I could prove death beams or whatnot were the real answer, I'd expect to be blown off, because it opens the guy up to endless support/defense against guys like YOU who don't understand the math, the software, or the methodology.


edit: clarification


[edit on 12-6-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam

I'd expect to be blown off, because it opens the guy up to endless support/defense against guys like YOU who don't understand the math, the software, or the methodology.

First and foremost I owe nothing to you, This thread isn't about me to prove anything.

Assume I understand nothing all you wish, but to underestimate is your own fault.

Last the point of the thread again in scientific method, one must include the models for other to use, so that same results can be achieved.

Hard to do when NIST won't supply the information. Even in FOIA.

How can you believe the results of the findings, if we can't reproduce the results?

NIST has admitted that there fairy tale is not scientific. Read the last line in this article and see that NIST has removed the claim that they are acting in accordance with ' physical principles'...which of course means the Laws of Physics.

NIST, by removing that caveat, is saying that their version of events cannot be considered scientifically reliable due to not adhering to the Laws of Physics.

If their version cannot be considered reliable from a scientific basis, then why should anyone believe them? it is insane that the media never points this out; if one good reporter could get thru the bosses and get a real story on the air, we could see Cheney and his gang off to the Hauge for war crimes trials and hanging, purge the intel agencies of all top brass responsible for helping the coverup by inaction, and take our nation back before the traitors make it impossible to resist.

The NIST was a sham, a coverup...they will not defend their work, will not debate it, and had to cheat computer programs to the degree of lunacy to make their fable work at all. They were told what happened and to find a way to prove it. they failed to do so but the language is so technical that most people shy away from the subject.

This nation is in deep epril from within, and soon we will see such outrages that only an outraged populace will be able to save us. the people who did 9-11 think that it was worth it for the future gains...collateral damage is acceptable for them...as long as it is US doing the dying. Lets give it back to them in spades.



www.globalresearch.ca...

Quote from article:

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.



So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”



Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”



The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.



If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened.



That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.”



But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”



Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found.



NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]



NOT consistent with physical principles...thats NIST for you.

Originally posted by theability

First and foremost I owe nothing to you, This thread isn't about me to prove anything.

The thread is "science without math is garbage" not "I want to carp about a model I heard someone couldn't get". But I digress.

Assume I understand nothing all you wish, but to underestimate is your own fault.

Actually, if you understood calculus II, you ought to be able to at least pick through the methodology paper I posted a link to, it's not tensor analysis. But you haven't commented on any of the math at all, either in the NIST documents which do in fact have math in, or in the links. It's a fair guess you can't read it. If you can, perhaps you'll enlighten us on why the stated methodology is flawed.

Last the point of the thread again in scientific method, one must include the models for other to use, so that same results can be achieved.

Hard to do when NIST won't supply the information. Even in FOIA.

Not so much. If you've read many scholarly papers, I will again assume you haven't based on comments, then you'll know that they rarely publish raw data. They're not generally cookbooks for replication. What is published is methodology, and they have done so, including giving YOU, for FREE, the software tools that they utilized.

Now, if you warrant it, many authors of such papers will provide the data, just not to any Tom Dick or Harry that comes along, because it can become a real life-sucking mistake to do so, which is essentially guaranteed in this case.

Further, how do YOU know that it can't be obtained? Who told you? What was the result to the FOIA? Not what the truther guy said it was, was an EXACT copy of the response posted? How was the request phrased? Have YOU tried it?

I can FOIA any number of US labs (Sandia, LANL etc) for data I won't ever receive - they've got a legal bar preventing it. FOIA denials generally have a stated reason for denial. What was it? They pretty much have to say why.

Originally posted by richierich
The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.

Yet, interestingly, you don't see the lower portion of the building vanish. Nor is it obvious that the windows and/or facade fly off. It doesn't take but a whiff of overpressure to blow windows out, yet you don't see this on the lower part of the building.

BTW, did you admit that the report is full of data, tables, and mathematical formulae? It looked like that.

Also, I ran across the "free fall from time x to y" statement about 30 seconds into looking for the flame simulation models, it's not like it's hidden.

reply to post by Bedlam

Actually, if you understood calculus II, you ought to be able to at least pick through the methodology paper I posted a link to, it's not tensor analysis. But you haven't commented on any of the math at all, either in the NIST documents which do in fact have math in, or in the links. It's a fair guess you can't read it. If you can, perhaps you'll enlighten us on why the stated methodology is flawed.

Are personal attacks at someones character suppose to make you sound intelligent?

The above is proof of the very essence of what is wrong with this whole thread. Instead of actually using the thread as a discussion you resort to saying:

It's a fair guess you can't read it.

Again is that what ATS is about personally attacks? If someone was to resort to such measures its likely that is the only means in which to ruse response. Its fair to say, your unwise, forth being if you are wise, you'd sure find other ways to express and discuss idealogy and issues on ATS.

Yet again someone who supports the OS using tactics that single the person instead of the thread.

Oh BTW from the OP and the models:

Point blank, the NIST report was released without showing the work. A computer simulation was used to arrive at their conclusion but not released with the report itself. If it were college paper, it would receive an F. If it were grant work, the grant would be canceled.

Call me what you wish, but again you have proven the point.

Thanks have a great day!

If:-

... Science less mathematics = Garbage

Then

.. Science = Garbage plus mathematics

Originally posted by abecedarian
So...
... if I go to the insurance agency and show pictures of a car hitting mine, causing mine to burst into flames and burn...
... I need to provide the mathematical basis upon which an impact creates a situation where the combination of an external fuel source being brought into close proximity to another fuel source...
... and the energy of impact, possibly aided by combustion occuring somewhere within or on the structure of impactor at the moment of impact...
... that may be a possible source of sufficient energy to initiate combustion within the my vehicle?

I suppose you also want supercomputers to model car accidents, each and every one of them? It's possible, no... absolutely inevitible... thermite will be found on every car: iron, aluminum oxide....

Defendant- "My car was side-swiped by the plaintiff's car. The traffic lights were obviously in my favor ... ."

Plaintiff- "Molecular spectroscopy has proven that elements comprising 'thermite' have been found within the remains of the defendant's vehicle: an early 80's DeLorean. That vehicle has, and was built with, components made of aluminium and stainless steel which OBVIOUSLY is made from iron, carbon and other things they won't tell us. Therefore, the plaintiff moves to have this case dismissed as it is patently obvious that the defendant's vehicle would've caught fire and burned ... anyhow."

[edit on 6/12/2010 by abecedarian]

No. But if your car gets hit by neighbor A's car and neighbor B"s car is on the claim, you certainly do.


So even though I'm all for sarcasm, it only "works" if you get the analogy correct.