Reply #22: Best estimates [View All]

My argument is that NIST should use its best estimates, especially for the things it can objectively verify. It didn't. It seems that when NIST input its best estimtes the towers didn't fall down, so it altered its estimates to make the towers unstable in the models. This is cheating. There is a good argument for using a case-based approach, but such an aproach is only valid when applied to "unknowables" such as the distribution of combustibles from the plane, the degree of rubblization of combustibles in the towers, etc. It shouldn't be applied to knowables like the angles the planes hit, their speed, the amount of combustibles in the towers, etc.

If NIST had come out and said, "We don't really know why the towers fell over, they're really complex and we just can't figure it out based on the extermely small amount of evidence we have. How the hell are we supposed to estimate fire temperatures based on photos and videos?" then I'd respect them. They didn't, their conclusions are bullshit and their methodology is duplicitous.

How can they justify altering the plane speeds? They were determined using the video analysis. You can find my post on the plane speeds here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53659