Reply With Quote
How many sections are there in the report please?
Responding to everything with a question is fun!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
Could you tell us what Chapter 3.3 of the report had to do with?
Straight from the NIST, please.
How many sections are there in the report please?
Responding to everything with a question is fun!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
You are not answering the question.
Neither are you....
There are five chapters.
Definition
Definition of point:A goal or objective is a projected computation of affairs that a person or a system plans or intends to achieve—a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development. Many people endeavor to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.
Is it possible to respond to something that is not your overall point or goal in a report?15. An objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is worth reaching or achieving:
I did not ask how many chapters.
Each chapter has several sections. You may count them all if you like.
One of them is section three of chapter 3 (provided I have the nomenclature correct).
What is the le of the section?
I'll answer for you since you are being so butthurt about it.
It's called Hypothetical Blast Scenarios.
It's only a couple of pages in the 83 page report, but it is in the report.
Straight from NIST.
Why is it so important to you?
What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?
Sure it is and it was clearly not the point of the investigation. 97% of the report had nothing to do with it.
They clearly outlined what the goal was:
You do not care that they failed at their goal because you are not an insurer or builder, remember?Goals:
To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.
To serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
Improved tools, guidance for industry and safety officials;
Revisions to codes, standards, and practices; and
Improved public safety.
I am not butthurt. i refuse to play your game. I just know your methodology.
I do like how you are claiming that I am butthurt ever since I said it in reference to you yesterday. Get your own material, chump.
Like I said you do not know how modeling works. Heres a hint: unknown variables(read: speculation) had to be accounted for in their models.
Their assumptions (read:speculations) were wrong thus the model did not reflect what happened.
Nor should it have.
You'll notice I said "in part."
3% is a part.
Stop being so butthurt and I will stop saying you are butthurt.You do not care that they failed at their goal because you are not an insurer or builder, remember?
I am not butthurt. i refuse to play your game. I just know your methodology.
I do like how you are claiming that I am butthurt ever since I said it in reference to you yesterday. Get your own material, chump.
These are very simple question I am asking of you:
Why is it so important to you?
What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?
You say it's important to you. Tell us why.
You imply they didn't use all the best information available. Tell us what they should have used.
Well, you were too butthurt to simply quote a section le "straight from the NIST" when you had no problem doing so before. I won't expect you to answer the simple questions above.
Because you are butthurt.
Who said that there needed to be additional variables? I never did. It very well could have been wrong measurements on the variables they did use.
Thats immaterial because either way its still wrong.
What difference does the import I put on something make? Is it suddenly going to make their model work. Is it somehow going to change their stated goals or make less than 98% of the report have nothing to do with conspiracy theories?
I did not not answer the question because I was upset. I did not answer it because it was a red herring designed to try and misrepresent the truth. Like I said, I know your methodology.
Should only builders and insurers be concerned about the validity of the NIST 1A report?
You didn't answer the questions:
Why is it so important to you?
What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?
And I'll add another since you brought it up:
Which measurements used by the NIST were wrong?
Quit being so butthurt and answer the questions.
Wow, you do get upset when people do not answer your questions. This is funny.
I responded to your questions. Address the responses.
Heres another response to your latest red herring argument presented as a question:
I never said any particular variables were wrong. I do not need to know the specific variable to know that the model was bad. We can get into a discussion of holisitc and reductionist analysis if you want but its going to have to wait until tomorrow. Or later today rather.
Pose a question worth answering in the context of the discussion and I will answer it. I am not your pet monkey.
Your responses were butthurt and evasive. Consider them addressed.
So you basically have nothing.Heres another response to your latest red herring argument presented as a question:
I never said any particular variables were wrong. I do not need to know the specific variable to know that the model was bad. We can get into a discussion of holisitc and reductionist analysis if you want but its going to have to wait until tomorrow. Or later today rather.
That's cool.
These questions are completely in the context of this discussion. The thread is about 9/11 research and what we think of it. If you don't want to discuss it, don't post in the thread.Pose a question worth answering in the context of the discussion and I will answer it. I am not your pet monkey.
Quit being butthurt and upset and just answer them.
Why is it so important to you?
What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?
Which measurements used by the NIST were wrong? (I'm not talking about anything they had to guess about).
The non-binding building code recommendations aren't important to me for the reasons I stated.
I know of no information available to the NIST that they did not use. You implied there is. It's up to you to tell us what it is.
I know of no actual measurements that they got wrong. Of course they had to speculate about many variables, but that just sends us back to the first question you are too upset and butthurt to answer.
I'd like to discuss holistic and reductionist analysis(es).
What is the best theory/model you have seen? or are they all equally ty to you because ANY theory is now valid?
I went back in and read the report.
They did know about the airflow within the building, but that was not central to knowing how/why it collapsed to my understanding.
They did know about the fuel distribution, and provided several diagrams both of the deisel fuel, and several reasonable guesses about the amount of combustible material per square unit area of office material.
Your assertions contradict that of the NIST, if one actually reads the report.
Since I have no reason to think that you have topical expertise on the subject, I am forced to take the people at the NIST at their word.
They appear to have considered the things you claimed they didn’t know, and reached some reasonable assuptions to fill in the holes.
They admitted that they didn’t have all the data, but, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, they were "able to gather sufficient evidence and do entation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations."
I think the only logical conclusion would be to discard your assertions as meritless, unless you can provide some solid evidence to support them, that would cause me to assign your claims more weight than theirs.
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
(edit)
I realize that might sound harsh, but I say it with no acrimony whatsoever.
I simply think you are wrong. I am willing to give your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, but you have given me nothing to really hang my hat on.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-26-2010 at 12:39 PM.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to discard all the expert testimony, physical evidence, and simply convict, because YOU KNOW THEY DID IT.
I wouldn't doubt it ....... they put out some 9/11 Commission Report and leave a bunch of out. Why? To save ink? To save paper? You need a reason to go to war and people profit from war. I don't trust the government. We all know they're shady as .
"shady" doesn't really encompass the willingness to actively kill tens of thousands of your own citizens, and the ability to keep the secret, something our government is really bad at.
What a crock....the American government has become very skilled at keeping secrets and poor people have been dying so rich people could control people and resources since man created fire...
Do enting another incredible 911 Terrorist / Pentagon link...
Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1AUdIQg15An Al Qaeda leader who is one of the most wanted men in the world was invited for lunch at the Pentagon in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a new report has claimed.
New do ents have been obtained which apparently detail how Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities.
Fox News claim to have acquired do ents that state that Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.
Another incredible coincidink?
From Wiki:
WikiFBI agents have identified Anwar al-Awlaki as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator.[1][2] Al-Awlaki's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and Faisal Shahzad, charged in the 2010 Times Square attempted bombing. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Awlaki's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.[3][4][5][6]
Al-Awlaki’s recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.[7] Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Awlaki and quoted him on his Myspace page.[8] In addition to his website, al-Awlaki had a Facebook fan page[9] with a substantial percentage of "fans" from the U.S., many of whom were high school students.[10]
In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, warned that al-Awlaki "targets U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."[11][12] Responding to Allen, Al-Awlaki wrote on his website in December 2008: "I would challenge him to come up with just one such lecture where I encourage 'terrorist attacks'".[13]
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
