9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by jfj123

My concern is that you won't understand it. You see, I've asked you questions in the past and you've made claims of expertise such as in construction then you've made comments that someone with construction knowledge would not make.

Set aside your fears and just plunge on in. If what you state can be validated by logical, objective science, I will understand it very well. If not, well, few if any, will understand, even if you and a possible few do understand your explanation.

Please take all the time you think you need. Perfectly understandable intense review is needed on such a long report.

umm, no, he was quoted as a reference. not as someone who was reviewing the paper.

(This post ended up at the bottom of the previous page and will likely be missed. It's worth posting again.)

ADMIN REMINDER

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

I'm certain the participants of this thread have noticed the bright yellow pulsing link at the top and bottom of the page, which leads to the announcement linked above.

The heat is getting a bit high in some areas of this thread. Please take into consideration the intent of the announcement above, and in general, our desire for civil decorum here on AboveTopSecret.com. Productive debate rarely happens within a disagreeable context... and this topic deserves a productive debate. Please find a method for disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Thank you.







.

Originally posted by Valhall

No one is ever obligated to prove why they have chosen to accept or reject something. The only time proof is required is when you shove your belief down another's throat and act as though they are flaming idiots for not accepting your beliefs as their own.

Not when it is their opinion. But they best keep in mind if they chose not to respond to apecific topic questions asked by their opposition, they should not be addressing nor demanding their oppostion to do what they will not do themselves. Do you agree?

Originally posted by OrionStars
But they best keep in mind if they chose not to respond to apecific topic questions asked by their opposition, they should not be addressing nor demanding their oppostion to do what they will not do themselves.

It would be best to keep in mind that we prefer our members to focus efforts on the topic of a thread, not how to discuss the topic, or who is involved in the discussion.

Please, discuss the issue at hand, not each other.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

My concern is that you won't understand it. You see, I've asked you questions in the past and you've made claims of expertise such as in construction then you've made comments that someone with construction knowledge would not make.

Set aside your fears and just plunge on in. If what you state can be validated by logical, objective science, I will understand it very well.

You've stated this in the past yet it's still a problem.

If not, well, few if any, will understand, even if you and a possible few do understand your explanation.

I must admit, you are supremely confident in your intelligence in that you are claiming you are smarter then most people.

Please take all the time you think you need. Perfectly understandable intense review is needed on such a long report.

I wouldn't mind spending the time if I genuinely thought you would engage in a productive discussion. I haven't seen that happen yet. You have a tendency to snipe at everyone who doesn't believe exactly what you tell them to. If you can set aside your attitude, I would be happy to discuss any subject you like in depth. Since my time is valuable, until we can come to an agreement where civility is a priority, I won't spend a lot of time researching to answer your questions.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
umm, no, he was quoted as a reference. not as someone who was reviewing the paper.

For someone using so many references, he forgot to include this - footnotes. If you look at the top of the report, that thesis was given to peer reviewers at MIT, among them Thomas Eagar.

There is no sense doing a bibliography when not citing from those listed references to support thesis. Those cites have to be footnoted. There are none in what is labeled a master's thesis. There are only 43 pages in what is labeled master's thesis in structural engineering?

reply to post by jfj123


In reviewing everything you have written, since I asked my topic questions, it is clear you have no intentions of explaining what science NIST personnal used, to convince you they are correct and others are wrong. At this point, I have no other choice, but to consider you are accepting NIST report at face value. You have given me nothing to say otherwise through, at the very least, your last 5 posts.

At the same time, and until you present valid science as requested, I respectfully request you do not request I prove anything either. Can we agree on that?

Okay, now that that's over, can we get back to you explaining this "molecular destruction" of the inside of the building? Because I didn't ever see you explain that statement. And I can't quite understand what you mean by it.

reply to post by OrionStars

Something tells me that the NIST practices quite a bit of science at either one of their two laboratories. (Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo) What exactly is the problem with NIST? Is it simply because they are on the government payroll? NASA is on the government payroll and yet they produce some of the most advanced science in the world. How many nations have a space shuttle or a space station? You can't draw a connection to the government and decide that that alone is reason to doubt the science the organization produces.

reply to post by dbates


I certainly can agree with part of what you post. However, my questions are still these:

Why do some people find NIST personnel believable, when others just as qualified, or possibly moreso, in the same science fields NIST personnel engage, are not considered believable by the same some people?

On what do they base their reasons for convinction in NIST being more realiable, than other peers not working at NIST or any other US bureacratic agency/department?

What do they use for criteria in making their assessment of the people they consider more reliable than others?

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, now that that's over, can we get back to you explaining this "molecular destruction" of the inside of the building? Because I didn't ever see you explain that statement. And I can't quite understand what you mean by it.

I have already done that in several other discussions, which can be easily researched by anyone chosing to do so. Some of the discussions are separate and labeled as discussions on DEW and/or radioactivity. They still appear on the first page of topics.

reply to post by OrionStars

It's hard to say without a specific instance. Maybe when there's a conflict they tend to believe and go with the larger and more well funded NIST. So speaking of laying the evidence on the table (the subject), what would be a good example of a difference between NIST and others?

Im going to concede the student paper written, because it wouldnt do me any good to explain just who actually did review the young man's paper. However, still does not address any of the rest of the professors, engineers etc... who have stated that the collapse of all three buildings that day were as a result of the damage sustained and the fires.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by OrionStars

 

It's hard to say without a specific instance. Maybe when there's a conflict they tend to believe and go with the larger and more well funded NIST. So speaking of laying the evidence on the table (the subject), what would be a good example of a difference between NIST and others?

It's a moot distracting point. It doesn't matter who does the work if the work stands up to review for proper scientific approach, methodology and interpretation of data.

So to get off into this argument with him is to allow him to take this thread to yet multiple more pages of distraction away from what the OP requested - which was evidence from the two sides.

It really doesn't matter what label is placed on the people who are doing the work - NIST is as good as anyone else if they do the work properly. The problem I personally have with them is that they did not do the work properly...and they took my tax dollars to boot. But my problems don't lie in whether they are a government agency or not.


[edit on 1-29-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im going to concede the student paper written, because it wouldnt do me any good to explain just who actually did review the young man's paper. However, still does not address any of the rest of the professors, engineers etc... who have stated that the collapse of all three buildings that day were as a result of the damage sustained and the fires.

I don't think you should concede so readily. While I'm not overly impressed with the paper, I don't believe some one can pitch out a totally unsubstantiated paranoid speculation and use it as grounds for discrediting some one else's work.

The paper is another data point - our opinions of the work will be another issue.

It would be easier to move on and use any of the dozens of other experts who say the same things, rather than stick with anything connected to the name that some are fixated on.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Why do some people find NIST personnel believable, when others just as qualified, or possibly moreso, in the same science fields NIST personnel engage, are not considered believable by the same some people?

Why find ANYTHING believable? Honestly a big part of your ammo in your war against the establishment is you question the validity of everything as your last resort, and then demand further proof in some form that can be expressed to your satisfaction through the forums here.

We all know this is an impossible tasks that no matter what come forward it doesn’t get your seal of approval. My biggest question is if you are after the truth then why do you discredit everything that isn’t stove piped down the path of your person scenario?

We can say that there has been 1000s of posts on this subject and we are all just rehashing what has already been said 10 different ways, we have seen the same old truther proof over and over again and it still doesn’t sway us.

One needs to ask why, and the answer is because it doesn’t even live up to your demands that always seem to be placed on those that see the official report as factual in the physical aspect of it all. Now to talk about who was behind 9/11 is a totally different subject and many of us on different ends might find common ground, but to continually review the same old crap that amounts to 10 times less credibility than the official facts is a waste of time.

I think the Ops title should read REAL proof that has not been seen a million times.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by OrionStars

 

It's hard to say without a specific instance. Maybe when there's a conflict they tend to believe and go with the larger and more well funded NIST. So speaking of laying the evidence on the table (the subject), what would be a good example of a difference between NIST and others?

That is possible. However, I will give examples of what I have observed and studied:

For one example, NIST had to force the issue with fire to force a truss to lose stability. That becomes unreliable science and resorts to pseudo-science. No one had any idea of the amount of thermal energy existing inside either tower. However, anyone, qualified testing steel, is well aware that jet fuel spends more time burning off carbon and other impurities, than heating structural steel to the point of compromise. When NIST agreed fire was at least part of the cause of collapse, if the personnel was qualified, they had to know they were not being fully truthful in reporting. Science cannot be validated on assumption or lack of truth. There is true or false. No gray areas except in hypothesis, but nonexistent in theory or law.

NIST and FEMA had no independent peer view. Their reports cannot legitimately be considered scientific without independent peer review. All peers must be able to gain the same results most logically determined, from what they could not see actually happening. Scientists have many firm life occurrence precendents, on what should logically happen under the same or near same circumstances. Other peers were not allowed any of what was left of the physical evidence to evaluate and test themselves. That also serves to invalidate NIST and FEMA reports.

Peer review reading and testing is mandatory anytime any scientist has hypothesis not already validated to be theory by other peers. It is not as if we are nothing but a massive group of ordinary laypersons, in disagreement with the Bush administration. There are more than a few qualified professionals in disagreement with the "official" reports. They are considered by some, with no qualified basis of opinion, to be unqualified. I do not understand why. The same some consistently refuse to validly explain why.

As far as qualified people in their fields being considered unqualified, without valid justifications stated, by some but not others:

Dr. Judy Wood
Dr. Stephen Jones
John Lear
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Vets for 9/11 Truth
If more are needed, I can certainly make a long list of qualified people not proved to be unqualified.

All considered unqualified without valid justification as to why. Valid justification is not, "Well, he's a liar. Everybody knows that.", or some other invalid same type commentary permeating far too many of these discussions.

The GAO assessed US bureaucracy peer review in departments and agencies . The following website are their findings. :

www.gao.gov...

Science agencies must devise assessment strategies that are appropriate to the nature of
scientific processes and to the enabling role of fundamental science in support of over-arching national goals...[the strategies] should be designed to...respond to surprises, pursue detours, and revise program agendas in response to new scientific information and technical opportunities essential to the future well-being of all our people.”

All the agencies that we contacted identified policies, orders, or other
internal guidance regarding the conduct of peer review. Some of these
policies are legislatively mandated. For example, the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 requires the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to peer review Department-funded research.6
The law also requires grantees to arrange for a peer review of special
grants mandated by the Congress. Overall, we found that eight
agencies—the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the
Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Federal Aviation
Administration—have laws or regulations that require peer review of
competitively selected grant proposals.

Peer Review Practices
Vary

The peer review practices differ among and within federal research
agencies in two ways. First, agencies use peer review in varying degrees to assess the merit of research at different stages in the research process,
including selecting research projects for funding; monitoring in-progress
research; and evaluating research products prior to publication. Second,
the implementation of the peer review process varies. The following
highlights the extent to which agencies use peer review and some of the
various ways they implement peer review. Appendixes I through XII
provide descriptions of the agencies’ peer review practices, to the extent
that peer review is used, for each of the 12 agencies included in our
review.

Reviews of Research
Proposals

All the agencies conduct peer reviews to help determine which
competitive research proposals to fund. All 12 agencies also use peer
review to help determine funding for at least a portion of their other
research, including peer reviews of the agencies’ intramural or internal
research proposals or plans. The agencies use a combination of external
and internal reviewers with subject matter expertise. However, Federal
6P.L. 105-185, (June 23, 1998).

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-99 Federal Research
B-280706

Aviation Administration officials said that their peer reviewers are
primarily agency employees who are not involved in the project but have
the required subject matter expertise. The agencies conduct the peer reviews by mail, panels or committees

wtc.nist.gov...

If the above is not what people consider validation, could they please kindly explain exactly what they do consider validation? Thank you.



Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1/29/2008 by Cuhail]