You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #138: I don't think it is ... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
AlienSpaceBat Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. I don't think it is ...
I am also willing to give and take re the NIST report. As I said above, it's huge and the great majority of it is unobjectionable.

I have tried to look at the comments. What I get is

Service Unavailable - DNS failure


The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later.

Reference #11.cbc14752.1136060413.6bb88bc

Looks like big brother is monitoring my IP address ! :) :yoiks:

The point is, though, that on this one germane issue, NIST didn't prove their case.

They produced no evidence of the collapse mechanism, but showed what they deduced happened by means of their software model. I've gone on at length about how they pushed this beyond its reasonable limits in order to show a collapse.

Remember - their systems showed the towers would not collapse when they put in the best estimates of relevant data.

What Arup say on this is that the model can't be right - If the circumstances were as NIST say, their calculations would have been dwarfed by a factor that NIST didn't even consider ...! This is not an endorsement of the NIST collapse hypothesis ! Its a statement that if NISTs model was anywhere near reality a collapse would have happened for a different reason.

The data to recalculate this, and the vital details of the model, are not being disclosed by NIST. Neither have they produced visualisations of the process, or allowed anyone else to have a go at doing so ...

These are the reasons why this element of the report is not in any way conclusive of the collapse mechanism. That, of course, doesn't mean in itself that the towers were demolished.

It does mean though, that the NIST collapse analysis is not anywhere near to an authoritative case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC