It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



I went back to the other thread...didn't get as much hooplah as I imagined it would.

NIST actually hushed people during these meetings? I would like to find some other sources for this... and more info. Interesting.

Let me add that papers that have been out in the public that attempt to show CD or thermite have been pretty much debunked. I am not aware of one that hasn't been. If you Griff or anyone knows of one, please send me a link.

Thank you




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I think the point we (skeptics) are trying to make is that if Steven Jones writes a paper to explain a hypothisis, it would not be appropriate for Jim Fetzer, Judy Woods, and Alex Jones to be the ones to review it.



So, why is it appropriate for NIST to do the same? I don't get it?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Let me add that papers that have been out in the public that attempt to show CD or thermite have been pretty much debunked.


Yes because of them lacking key evidence. Since they don't have the resources (i.e. the structural documents and the physical data) to do it. NIST does but is still having a heck of a time trying to convince alot that their hypothesis is true. And won't release the resources for an independent peer review. I wonder why it's so difficult for them to achieve this?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
But, if you recall, throughout NIST's investigation they held several meetings with scientists, engineers, and even citizens all outside of the NIST organization to give updates and analyisis to thier current findings.


So, these people were suppossed to dispute what NIST has found before any report is published? How were they to know what to dispute?


These people were encouraged to give their input, and I believe some changes were made.If you would like, I can try to find some sources for you.


Yes, I would like. Please let me know how they were held, who was invited, how they were invited etc. Because I get e-mails from ASCE, SEI etc. and I don't remember anything mentioned.

It would be like me writting a paper that hasn't been published yet, having a symposium to dispute my paper, not inviting anyone or telling them about it, and then when no one shows, calling it a victory as an undisputed paper.

That is not in any way shape or form the way peer review works.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Wouldn't the hearings allow a "type" of review? I don't want to go back and forth. I wasnt at any of them, I don't know what went on during these hearings...nor would i probably understand them.

True that they do not have the privilage to the evidence that NIST has... then their papers are pure specualtion? correct?

So, lack of evidence allows you to cry foul? It was the government?It was bombs? Thermite? nukes?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

So, lack of evidence allows you to cry foul?

whenever we go to war waving a banner w/lack of evidence, yes.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

So, lack of evidence allows you to cry foul?


I don't think anyone of us actually calls foul solely on a lack of evidence. Captain Obvious must know he's taking what Griff said the wrong way but I guess if you don't have anything to respond with, you just make something up.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wouldn't the hearings allow a "type" of review? I don't want to go back and forth. I wasnt at any of them, I don't know what went on during these hearings...nor would i probably understand them.


I don't know. I don't know how they were set up. But, you do keep saying that they had them and that people had their chance. Now you even admit that you have no idea if they did or not. That is my point. We need to stop jumping to conclusions (both sides) before knowing the whole story.


True that they do not have the privilage to the evidence that NIST has... then their papers are pure specualtion? correct?


Yes and no. If NIST was able to come to their conclusions by watching videos of the collapse, why can't others?


So, lack of evidence allows you to cry foul? It was the government?It was bombs? Thermite? nukes?


No. It's the witholding of the evidence, not the lack of it. If it exists and is being witheld, then something's amiss in my book. Usually people who have nothing to hide don't hide. Look at all the people saying with the patriot act "I do nothing wrong, so why should I care". Same should be with our government (who work for us BTW). If they have nothing to hide, why hide? That's what makes us so suppicious, not the lack of evidence.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I don't know. I don't know how they were set up. But, you do keep saying that they had them and that people had their chance. Now you even admit that you have no idea if they did or not. That is my point. We need to stop jumping to conclusions (both sides) before knowing the whole story.


No, i admitted I dont not know how they were handled. Even the Dr. that is pissed off at NIST and wants another investigation said that there were hearings. (although he wasnt happy with them) I do have a transcript of part of one, but it only has Willie Rodgequez being interviewed.


Yes and no. If NIST was able to come to their conclusions by watching videos of the collapse, why can't others?


Then can and have...havent they? And their claims have all been shot down by others in their fields.

Griff...say you came up with a hypothisis based on the evidence you have gathered. (not only on 911) but anything... being an engineer, wouldn't you want to have a few of your reers look at it...and check it for errors... and if it was ok...would you try to submit it for a formal review?



No. It's the witholding of the evidence, not the lack of it. If it exists and is being witheld, then something's amiss in my book. Usually people who have nothing to hide don't hide. Look at all the people saying with the patriot act "I do nothing wrong, so why should I care". Same should be with our government (who work for us BTW). If they have nothing to hide, why hide? That's what makes us so suppicious, not the lack of evidence.


Id like to know if any of this evidence was available at the hearings...but agreeded, if all the evidence was available, it would shut SOME people up. Yo uwould still have your group that claims its doctored evidence.
(like Dr. Griffin with the newly released NORAD tapes)



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
(like Dr. Griffin with the newly released NORAD tapes)


I haven't heard this yet. Is that David Ray Griffin?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Yes i belive so Griff... im hoping there isnt a relation!!



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


www.911blogger.com...

this blog deals with Griffin and links to the MP3 of his denial of the authenticity of the NORAD tapes. (Dylan Avery disagrees with him)

www.911podcasts.com...

The NORAD tapes appear to show that there wasnt a stand down order...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
im hoping there isnt a relation!!



Never heard of him other than from here. It's a pretty common Irish name though. Plenty of us around.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Who can say what has or hasn't been tampered with now? Thanks for the link.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Thats when we make up our own minds. You (we) can beleive what we want. 6 years... sure you could doctor a boat load of evidence. Does it have to take 6 years? This is the government..with NANO THERMITE! and other funky gadgets...I'm sure they could have had the tapes done in a couple weeks after collecting them.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
No they aren't. It takes more than simply a credential. How many of them have a legitimate peer revieweed paper that proves that same point?


How many have peer reviewed NIST?

A big whopping NONE.

What did you say in another thread? Let's see.


Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
First of all, it's an issue of structural engineering


No it's not. What about structural engineering makes it the primary field for dynamic (moving) bodies in a system, or the effects of fire on steel (metallurgy)? I've actually been in strength of materials classes, etc., they don't learn what you seem to think they learn. You aren't even qualified to know who an expert would be here.


yes it IS an engineering issue. You have to take into account eh whole structure and how it works, which is what structural engineers do. The structural engineers disagree with the guy who studies optics. They have far more experience than him. It seems like you are simply upset because you really want to believe that what the guy is saying is correct because it fits your beliefs.



Emphasis mine. Funny how it's all an engineering issue when it suits you but when I show you many engineers who disagree, you hand wave them away as if they didn't have the credentials. Who's being biassed? I don't know, but to me it doesn't look like BsBray.


NIST *IS* peer reviewed. The whole point is to have many engineers and scientists all checking each others work because if one person did it, they could be making a mistake. Nist had over 200 engineers working on it all checking each others data. They also had open hearings to discuss the findings so any outside engineers could examine the findings and provide input. The papers have been released to the public so that every engineer in the world can review them and they can bring up issues if they find any.

And stop saying this has nothing to do with structural engineering. You know that is 100% false. And you showing me experienced engineers? You mean the physicist who studied optics? Seriously? The fact that he doesn't have the appropriate experience is not what discredits him, but his research does.

One of the problems with the truth side is using credentials and ONLY credentials (obviously just a generalization that doesn't include everyone).



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

NIST *IS* peer reviewed.

please show me a link. the report isnt complete so it cant possibly have a peer review.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

NIST *IS* peer reviewed.

please show me a link. the report isnt complete so it cant possibly have a peer review.


It's the WTC 7 report that isn't complete. I am referring to just the report on WTC 1 & 2. This is based on a report that isn't finished cannot be claimed to be reviewed as well as it can't be accused of not being reviewed either since it's not done.

The reason one could argue that it technically isn't peer reviewed is because it's an unusual situation. Normally a person writes a paper, then peers review it to make sure there aren't mistakes or that the author is correct. With NIST you had over 200 working on the project who are peers. And the bottom line is it simply establishes it as recognized and accepted by the general engineering community (it would be impossible to get everyone to agree on any one thing).

And there are legit engineers who raise issues. This guy just isn't one of them. He is using faulty arguments to try and attack someone else's work. And he contradicts himself such as in his rant on Occam's razor in which unbeknownst to him he demonstrates how he indeed uses that method.

To not question the findings would be wrong. But to blindly accept someone else's findings ONLY because it attempts to contradict it is more wrong. Some people on the thread stated that his findings conclusively prove NIST wrong. But they don't. And any one who studies these Things (unlike me) can easily see this. So why are some people so certain it conclusively proves NIST wrong? Because a bunch of equations look impressive and it tells them what they want to hear. If the guy actually made credible arugments and calculations, he could have them published under the scrutiny of the engineering community (and not a specific group of supposed engineers who have a specific agenda of trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job).



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

What is a scholarly or peer reviewed journal?
Scholarly and professional journals feature articles written by researchers and practitioners in a particular subject area. The authors often have particular specialties. Peer groups of researchers, scholars and professionals within a specific discipline are the audience for scholarly literature.
Peer review is a well-accepted indicator of quality scholarship. It is the process by which an author's peers read a paper submitted for publication. A number of recognized researchers in the field will evaluate a manuscript and recommend its publication, revision, or rejection. Articles accepted for publication through a peer review process implicitly meet the discipline's expected standards of expertise.
Articles in some scholarly and professional journals are not peer-reviewed, but are selected by an editor or board. Standards of scholarship in such journals are often equal or comparable to those of peer-reviewed publications, although this is not always the case.

this is not the case with any 'official' 911 report, sorry. if i am mistaken, please correct me by showing me the peer review.

Source



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You're right. Snoopy is full of it. If the NIST report could stand on it's own, they would have included ALL data to be reviewed. Since it is lacking, it is NOT a peer reviewed report.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join