Sunday, December 24, 2006

Bermas Complains that the NIST Report is too Long

Well this explains why he wasn't able to answer Mark Roberts' question during their debate. A caller on Bermas' radio show asks why people aren't getting people to look into the NIST report, rather than posting videos on You Tube:

Caller: The thing is, if you load that up, which you can do as we talk. You can see a photograph of all the papers, almost a meter high. The final report, it cost $16 million and took them 3 years to deliver the final report. During the interim 3 year period, they provided a series of reports to the Congress and the public. They got a DVD we should and could acquire quite easily. And then I contend what we need to do is look at the drawings and illustrations that are going to be in that report. For example, what we want to look at are the elevation drawings for the structural framing system of building 7. I could help anybody understand why we haven't been told the whole truth. Because that was intended progressive collapse in my opinion, and we can establish that as a fact if we actually look at the facts. But so far everyones is focused on going on You Tube or playing Oprah on the talkshows. And fools suggesting call your congressman.

Bermas: Well I don't think that we should necessarily... you know... calling congresspeople is going to work, but we could be applying pressure in different ways. Well you know, well obviously, but I think the You Tube thing is great and I agree, but this is rather new, but who is going to go over it? I guess Steven Jones has the time, Kevin Ryan will have the time. But how long is this? This is 10,000 pages or more. It's got to be more right?

Later on Bermas does actually suggest that a call be put out to structural engineers to look over the reports. Gee, ya think?


At 24 December, 2006 12:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity

At 24 December, 2006 12:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Testimony of Sally Regenhard, Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Campaign:

In totality however, while some very valuable results were achieved, the overall mode
and findings of the investigation was not what I had hoped for. I had certain hopes regarding
NIST & the investigation, but I and others were disillusioned regarding what NIST was willing and
able to do. I had hoped for more specific and comprehensive recommendations that could easily
be translated into code reform and change, but this is not the case. The recommendations are
very general and lack specifics. I feel that the vagueness of the language was influenced by
political correctness and a general reluctance or inability to "investigate", use subpoena power,
"lay blame", or even point out the deadly mistakes of 9/11 in the WTC.

At 24 December, 2006 12:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ASCE/SEI reserves judgment because the whole NIST argument for progressive collapse is hooey:

However, also with respect to Recommendation #1, the ASCE/SEI reserves judgment
on whether and how to develop standardized software to evaluate the susceptibility of a
particular structural system to progressive collapse. Not all buildings are at risk of being
exposed to the type of events commonly associated with initiating progressive collapse.

At 24 December, 2006 13:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Glenn P. Corbett:

Although NIST has done quit a bit of work and has amassed many thousands of pages
of useful research, I feel that the investigation has fallen far short of what is needed.

At 24 December, 2006 13:19, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg, you link to fact-free drivel written by a know-nothing. Why doesn't that demonstrate that your house of cards has collapsed? Seriously, an ignoramus pretends that the 200-plus researchers at NIST fail to notice or deliberately ignore "scientific impossibilities." Why is making a horse's ass of yourself preferable to throwing in the towel. The fantasy movement has hit rock bottom.

At 24 December, 2006 13:20, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 24 December, 2006 13:21, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, bg, your ignorance is on display again. The NIST report specifically rejects the progressive collapse theory. Oops!

At 24 December, 2006 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has NIST ever been corrupted by political influence? Proof that it was during the Clinton Administration:

For unspecified reasons, NIST has chosen to abdicate its FIPS
procedures and, without seeking public suggestion, to proceed
directly with this unorthodox classified FIPS approach.

At 24 December, 2006 13:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...


It is your understanding that is lacking. NIST specifically call for, as one of its recommendations:

on Page 46, study of Prevention of Progressive collapse and check marked that it was related to WTC on 9/11.

It can't be spelled out any more clearly.

And, this is why the expert from ASCE, took a pass.

At 24 December, 2006 14:47, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

These dumb assholes would bad mouth the NIST report no matter how many pages it has. Why? Because it does not go along with their conspiratorial horseshit.

Maybe if the book came with its own set of crayons, the Troothers would be satisfied. But I doubt it.

At 24 December, 2006 15:15, Blogger Pat said...

Yes, Simon, that is the problem with even the calls for a new investigation; if it concludes 9-11 was done by 19 pissed-off Muslims, the Deniers will denounce it once again.

At 24 December, 2006 16:00, Blogger MarkyX said...

bg, Glenn agrees that fire bought down the towers and NOT explosives. He even stated this in the Penn and Teller episode on 9/11 where he was interviewed.

At 24 December, 2006 16:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MarkyX said...

bg, Glenn agrees that fire bought down the towers and NOT explosives. He even stated this in the Penn and Teller episode on 9/11 where he was interviewed.

I don't doubt your claims. The post here was about the NIST reports, no I was commenting on-topic with anything and everything I can to show that the argument (about the perfect accuracy and appropriateness of the report) is not a slam dunk.

What Sally Regenhard said gives a huge support to my concerns (which are, at a minimum, that issues that should have been tackled were avoided.)

I would contend that the FBI had more of the burden to investigate many of the issues about the WTC events rather than NIST. The appropriate action by NIST on WTC7, at a minimum, would be to refer the mater to the FBI or perform a joint investigation.

At 24 December, 2006 18:48, Blogger Alex said...

Solid scientific proof that BG is a retarded spammer

At 24 December, 2006 18:57, Blogger pomeroo said...

You can't con us, bg. The game is almost over.

"NIST’s findings do not support
the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."


At 24 December, 2006 20:18, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

ASCE/SEI reserves judgment because the whole NIST argument for progressive collapse is hooey

...except...the quoted section you stick in immediately following this contradicts that statement utterly, and the content of the document states quite clearly that progressive collapse is a definitive risk for some structures which needs further scrutiny.

The document itself enumerates a number of promising aspects of the NIST research and agrees with (and is 'encouraged' by) the bulk of its recommendations, while acknowledging that further research, elaboration and discussion is necessary and that its recommendations can't simply be accepted cold turkey by the scientific community (which is to be expected and is precisely how all science works). I'm vaguely surprised that you'd seriously post such an upbeat response to the NIST research, and can only imagine you lack familiarity with reports by scientific bodies, simlpy pulling out a bit you bizarrely seem to believe is congruent with your prejudices.

It's so cracking I'll actually link it again.

At 24 December, 2006 20:26, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Haha, I also recommend the full testimony by Professor Corbett. Good God bg, I'm beginning to suspect that the problem lies with you not reading your sources, rather than being incapable of understanding them.

At 24 December, 2006 21:14, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Good Job Alex!
I laugh everytime I see you link that!

At 25 December, 2006 11:23, Blogger CHF said...

What morons.

Every report should be written so THEY understand it.

As if NIST should be thinking of twoofers more than, say, engineers.

At 25 December, 2006 19:49, Blogger Alex said...

Thanks Dylan. I laugh every time I see him post yet another piece of spam right after I post that. He obviously didn't understand the statement intrinsic to my link.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home