Reply With Quote
We can do better than this
The NIST predecisional WTC7 Report part1 of 5
We can do better than this
I am an assistant district attorney for bexar county and I think the government lied about 9-11.
The NIST model is crap. It just so happens to be the best out there so people like the chump can turn around and parrot, "do you have another theory?" over and over again.
They changed the model at the eleventh hour and had had to switch it several times before that.
In fairness tow things need to be considered. Engineering projects are already beholden to financiers but compounding that was all the political pressure. You can bet your ass that they were pressure towards a particular finding right wrong or indifferent. They had to come put with something and they did. Happens all the time. Thank god this time no one tried to drive the product.
Additionally, there is absolutely no way that NIST had all of the data they would need to make a reliable model. Its not like they could inspect the building beforehand and its not like they would have been able to determine what the conditions were like inside the building with a high degree of accuracy. Thats not a shortcoming on NISTs part it does not make them incompetent. Its just the nature of the beast.
At the end of the day all they did was come up with something so politicians and people like Chump can sit there and feel 'good.'
This is not to say that the general mechanism for the fall(s) they had was wrong but when you have to make that many assumptions on that many variables - they could not even know how many variables they needed to consider- then you have an exceedingly difficult task.
I think its very justified to want a better explanation than the one the American public has been provided. I think NIST deserved more time too.
It does not matter because there is no way that anyone is going to have both the money and access to the information that would be required to make another theory that is worth a .
No joke^
Looks like you got told yet again chump, what's your third go to government report?
So both of you are saying you will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.
Thank you.
Finally.
You guys done told yourselves.
I like to object to government reports because there is a hole in my life and it makes me feel important. Plus, I like sticking it to the man.
:shakes fist angerly:
damn yall trust the federals, when theyve ed UP EVERYTHING
everything, make a list of all the the federals have gotten wrong, ed up, lied to us about and totally bloadded the american people over but not 9/11, because all you have to do is read the commission report, errrr. the NIST, wait... trust chumpdumper
I will prove it is not a controlled demolition when you prove it is NOT magic purple ponies.
Prove it!
Thousands of pictures and hours of close up video footage.
Actual data on stress, heat tolerance, and other physical aspects of the steel and structure.
Blueprints
Access to people who built it, both construction, engineers, and the architects themselves.
They went so far as to simulate the fires in a lab, and gathered data on that.
With all this, you assert that there is "absolutely no way" they had enough data to make a reliable model?
How much data do you think they were missing in order to make a "reliable model" to your satisfaction?
Taking that last question a step further, do you think it would have shown a controlled demolition?
I guess you missed the part where I said the NIST model is . The models do not match observations. Thats just you taking out of context.
is it somewhat compelling? Sure but so are climate models and they only somewhat mimic observation and clearly need to be improved.
Whats funny is how butthurt petulant you get in all of this. I am not saying anything one way or another in terms of what did happen but what I am saying is that the NIST report is hardly exclusionary.
And do you really have to talk like an inbred?
You say this as if you have the expertise and first hand knowledge of the evidence to be able to determine the validity of the model.
Have you examined all of the raw data that the NIST group looked at?
What is your particular expertise in fire and collapse simulation?
And in all of that the model does not match observation.
They do not know fuel distribution. They do not know about air flow in the interior of the building. They have no specific information on the damage done by the falling debris etc.
I am not syaing that they did not do the best with what they had. I am not saying that they were not going down the right path. What I am saying is the the NIST report was a rush job due to immense political pressure.
Where is you r expertise and first hand knowledge? That works both ways.
This is ad hominem and I am not getting into my personal life.
My reading of the report is that they modeled fuel, air flow, and debris.
I won't ask you to prove a negative, but your understanding does not match mine.
I will for the 99th time go back into the report and supporting data, and my memory of such things is generally good, so I think I will be able to find that information.
I have no doubt they were rushed. But, I take them at their word when they said, essentially, "we are fairly sure it happened like this".
Give us something else to believe, mookie.
Tell us what you think really happened on 9/11.
So you are saying no one will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.
Thank you.
And thanks also for the ad hominem, hypocrite.
Uh-oh. Chump's butthurt. I do not base my argument on saying you were butthurt. I just said it was funny because it is. No argument, no fallacy.
Do you think that the NIST models are accurate representations of observed facts?
You did not answer my questions. I will get to precisely why they are not ad hominem in a second.
I have no expertise in fires or building collapses.
I have no first hand knowledge of the raw data they used, other than my reading of the NIST report and the supporting addenda.
Ad hominem would be to claim that you are wrong because of something, in this case you are not an expert, and you have not examined the raw data.
In most cases that is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
However, in the case where one has to make a judgment call as to who to believe when we are presented with conflicting assertions, we MUST consider cir stances and expertise WHEN THAT EXPERTISE DIRECTLY APPLIES TO THE CLAIM.
In this case, we have a group of hundreds of people, many with PhD's directly appropriate to the question and who did study the data firsthand, who assert:
Their model is sufficient.On the other hand, I have you, who probably does not have an applicable PhD or specific access to data, claiming:
Their data is sufficient.
Thier model "is ".
Their data is insufficient.
Who, then, should I, the non-expert, believe is more likely to be correct?
Sure, you are using insults to try to undermine my position.
Ad hominem.
I think they are good faith efforts made with the best information available at the time. There probably isn't and won't be any new information available, so unless truthers give me something else to believe using the same information, I'll believe their explanation.Do you think that the NIST models are accurate representations of observed facts?
Do you have another theory that you believe given all the known information?
Let's hear it now.
Don't get upset and start hurling more insults if you don't have an alternate theory. No one else has one.
This does cut the other way as well.
I have no doubt, and fully agree, they were rushed.
They also have motive to assert that their conclusions were better than they actually were.
This would tend to undermine their assertions, and increase the likelihood you are correct, Fuzzy.
If they really wanted to lie about how good their data/model was, I would be ill-equipped to detect that.
That said, we logically have to assume people are telling the truth. I will have to take them at their word, especially when I have no evidence to the contrary.
I understand they modelled it. They had to. What I am saying is that you could not have done a full spectrum analysis off the video footage. What I am saying is that those huge chunks of steel, concrete, aluminum etc hit the building and the complete nature and extent of the damage could not be known with precision. You cannot see through walls.
You have to make assumptions at that point. I have seen the stuff where they postulate for example how the planes momentum would have pushed fuel to the central columns and the like but they are postulations not observations.
There models were getting better. Of course they should feel good about the directions they were going but fairly certain is a long way from definitive. They were cut short and that was wrong.
I just think the American public was done a major disservice. The
Fairly certain is close to definitive, especially when you get that much brainpower and expertise on a subject together.
That was easy.
You did not answer the question. Do you think it was accurate representation of observed facts. Telling us something else you think it is does not answer the question. Yes or no I believe is the proper answer. Qualifications of course are expected.
An alternate theory has no bearing on what I am saying. I do not have to come up with an alternate theory to say that the NIST report is inadequate.
Say you say you are not butthurt. You do not have to claim that you are happy or any other particular to prove that you are not butthurt.
I realize you think your question is somehow thoroughgoing in terms of the discussion as much as you parrot it but you suck at the socratic method. That last one IS an ad hominem.
Oh and look up ad hominem. You have to link the personal observation to an argument. Me saying that is funny is nothing like an actual ad hominem where for example I say you are going to argue a particular way because you are butthurt.
It is funny. If I thought you actually knew anyone who died that day I might care but I just think its funny.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
