9-11 Experiment: Who Wants to Be A Part of It?

reply to post by PHIXER2


Sign yourself up!

Here is my plan...

1) we enlist people to do FOIA requests like yourself that relay the official information to the designated party where...
2) parties will agree on their honor to read the information and pull apart the information that supports the other side (meaning if Weedwacker joins he find the info that supports pilots for truth, Turbofan reads his information and finds the info that supports the OS)
3) parties will cull the information and present the good stuff without opinion
4) we enlist people from both sides to put a weight of 1-10 on the information in regards to significance
5) anything 6+ goes onto a list for a second pass
6) the "second pass list" then goes to back to the people in opposite; Weedwacker takes those points that support the OS, Turbofan takes those that support Pilot's for truth and then expounds upon them in a case presentation
7) then we ask the peanut gallery to judge

How's that? Any suggestions how to do it better?

Originally posted by A Fortiori
How's that? Any suggestions how to do it better?

How about sending the data that comes back from the request to all parties and let them see if they can tear it apart.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Btw, scientific and academic communities? Individuals of an academic background and/or scientific background have weighed in. You are exaggerating.

No, the commenter was not exaggerating. There is a huge, long list of scientific and academic communities that have opined in very specific ways and with very specific data that have been quoted and set forth in these and other fora in support of what actually happened. The below organizations, universities, professional associations, etc. have all been called "government shills" or worse. The Troother community ignores these submissions, preferring rather to stick to their *own* concoction of lunatic soup.

A very partial list of the aforementioned organizations:

The FBI

NIST

NTSB

Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer during the design and
construction

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Fire Protection, International Code Council

The Pentagon Building Performance Report, American Society of Civil Engineers Books

School of Engineering and Electronics, University of Edinburgh

National Fire Protection Association Journal

Northwestern Univ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Federal Emergency Management Agency

NASA Ames Research Center and Langley Research Center.

Purdue University Rosen Center for Advanced Computing

The Chief Engineer, a professional organization comprised of men and
women in leadership positions within the field of power engineering and real estate asset management.

Vibrationdata.com, a consulting and educational services organization in acoustics, shock and vibration, signal processing, dynamic data acquisition and analysis modal testing and finite element analysis.

Implosionworld.com, an independent corporation consisting of documenting construction/demolition sites and projects.

Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

George Washington University

Worcester Polytechnic Institute School of Materials Science and Engineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Structural Engineers Association of Utah

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM)

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers

If you are serious about this little "experiment" of yours, and I doubt you are based on your response to the referenced poster above and your statement that only "individuals" have weighed in, I would recommend a strict and academic-based approach to whatever data or information you accept. Peer-reviewed material, in a legitimate industry/academic journal or forum should be the minimum criteria - not some hodgepodge of amateur internet google warriors claiming to be experts in areas they are clearly not in. Your bias will show even brighter if you do not demand a strong academic/professional environment.

reply to post by trebor451


Trebor,

here is my deal, I will stand corrected and be glad to if someone hands me the official document from all of those academic institutions stating that they concur as a faculty, not an individual from that department, but as a faculty.

I will gladly stand corrected and I mean that. You don't know me, but ask others that do. I love experiments and will abide by my own terms.

BTW, I looked up some of those:

Purdue's department created a simulator. Check for supporting the OS.
MIT as a University has no position, individual professors have taken stands on both sides. Does not support OS or CT
GW houses the National Security archive housing 9-11 data, some of which has studies associated, but I do not find an "official position" of the school in support. Does not support OS or CT as a University
Columbia's Earth Laboratory studied it as far as the seismic observations Still checking.

See, I'm willing.

I am not sure you even know my position.

I think a bunch of hijackers flew planes into buildings. How far off mark are you on that one?

EDIT: I'm going to admit that I am "doing it again". I don't want to argue. If you think I am a 9-11 "truther" give me a good juicy but of pro-OS evidence and make me come up with the positive points about it because by my own rules I cannot shoot it down.

The goal is to see if we can all really be open-minded even if it hurts.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by PHIXER2
I have a background in aviation and law enforcement.

1. Crew Chief, US. Air Force.

2. Federal Police officer for the DoD.

3. Have access to many government an professional research sites.

Wait a minute. You previously said you were an NSA Analyst. Did you get demoted?

Would you prefer that i find the quoteS?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat


Hi there. You just made an OT post. The topic is the experiment, so...please use the space to say that you would not wish to be a part of it.

Thank you!



If you would like to we are only interested in people really trying to step out of their boundaries and take on a topic they don't necessarily subscribe to.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Reheat

 

Hi there. You just made an OT post. The topic is the experiment, so...please use the space to say that you would not wish to be a part of it.

Thank you!

I was merely attempting to subtly point out one of the significant problems of your suggestion. Apparently you didn't get it.

It will never work satisfactorily. With your academic credentials you ought to already know that.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Reheat

 

Hi there. You just made an OT post. The topic is the experiment, so...please use the space to say that you would not wish to be a part of it.

Thank you!

I was merely attempting to subtly point out one of the significant problems of your suggestion. Apparently you didn't get it.

It will never work satisfactorily. With your academic credentials you ought to already know that.

But with my idealist credentials I would like to give it a try, do you at least understand that? I would like to see people that don't agree try to at least see the other side with fresh eyes.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I understand what you are attempting. It will never work here. Your major problem is that (at minimum) over % 75 of the posters here are experts at NOTHING. Do you really expect to accomplish more than the normal day to day hogwash with that kind of participation?

You have examples already.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I will gladly stand corrected and I mean that.

Good. Then you won't mind these brief corrections.

Purdue's department created a simulator.

I have said before that specificity is the very soul of credibility. Purdue University's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing did not create a "simulator". They created a "simulation" of the impact of the AA11, or as they call it a "state-of-the-art animated visualization". A "simulation" is a method of implementing a model over a specific period of time, and a model is a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process. I would wager that Purdue's simulation is just a (sarcasm on) tad (sarcasm off) more professional and science-based than anything that has come out of Turbofan and his merry gang of flyboys.

Having Troothers pull and use comments and observations out of context is one of their favorite pastimes. "It sounded like explosions" becomes "Explosions took place". "It flew like a fighter jet" becomes "It was a fighter jet". Specificity, indeed, begets credibility.

The models and simulations in question here are very technical, very precise computer algorithms subject to robust, technical and analytical verification and validation standards established by competent professionals in the field in question. These standards are to ensure that whatever data comes out of the simulations is usable and an accurate representation of the real world.

Errors do occur in this process, primarily through corner/cost-cutting, poor management or simply ineptitude. The most egregious of these is probably the European Space Agency's maiden launch of their Ariane 5 launch vehicle in June of 1996. The same inertial reference system (SRI, using the French acronym) for the smaller Ariane 4 rocket was used on the new Ariane 5 design, however this data was not verified properly in the new vehicle but was nonetheless accepted as valid. As a result, the Ariane 5 mission profile was not simulated correctly or properly. The Ariane 4 SRI data caused the Ariane 5 boosters to go into full deflection 39 seconds into launch, and voila...instant €7 bil loss and honking big explosion.

Not to belabor the point, but another high-profile failure involved NASA's Mars Polar Orbiter. Verification and validation of the simulation data between the enroute navigation team and the orbit-insertion navigation team was either improperly executed or not executed at all. Turns out the two teams used different units of measurement for the mission. Data using metric units collided with data using English units of measurement, resulting in the orbiter attempting to enter orbit far too deep into the Mars atmosphere to be successful. Improper verification and validation of and the failure to detect errors within ground-based computer models of how small thruster firings on the spacecraft were predicted and then carried out was the primary causal factor.

MIT as a University has no position, individual professors have taken stands on both sides.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Mathematics highlighted and reprinted (online) a paper written by Northwestern University's Zdenek P. Bazant and graduate assistant Yong Zhou discussing probably physical reasons for the collapse - specifically the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature.

The aforementioned paper was also published online with the University of Illinois Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.

The point being I doubt MIT or Northwestern or U of Illinois would publish such a document, specifically a paper that argues for or sets forth a specific rationale for the collapse, unless they felt it was academically sound and from an acknowledged scientific/academic source. Extrapolate from that point as you will regarding "MIT, as a University, has no position".

The rest of your thread boils down to an altruistic, rose-colored and almost comical attempt at debating these issues. When you accept or tout Turbofan and his ilk as qualified, competent representatives of the aeronautical/aviation world, your credibility assumes the same as his and his leader, Balsamo, which is below absolute zero.

If this "experiment" were to have *any* validity or worth, you need to set some basic standards for participation, and grabbing amateur Internet google warriors from an obscure discussion fora such as this only cries out for ridicule.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451


Very well said Trebor. She ought to be getting the point by now. There have already been several totally unqualified volunteers for a something scientific? More like a continued comedy hour accompanied by music from Monty Python!

reply to post by trebor451


Trebor, I agree.

Okay?

The fact is the thread quickly turned into a snark fest and I jumped into "counter hyperbole" mode. Then when you said "jump" I did a quick search and that ran counter purpose to this thread. I won't do that again either.

What I did was not indicative of what I would like us to do. I want us to take our time and not resort to our petty crap as usual.

Give me something to research and I will do a good job. I won't rush because that is not my way.

I will surprise you with how objective I can be when it isn't a snarkfest and is a "project".

Now, if someone wants to try let's try and all surprise each other. If you won't want to try then please do me the respect of not Off Topic posting on this. This is about a serious attempt at investigating outside our level of comfort.

reply to post by A Fortiori



Oh, I'd be interested!
To follow the developments of such a thread, that is (I am not all that much - or at all - into the 9/11 thing itself).

But for the time being, what I find most interesting of all is that this thread got one flag and a few replies so far...

I don't think this is likely to change; but I'll be damned if I let a call to reason (and actual, personal fact-finding) go unheard.





[edit on 25-12-2009 by Vanitas]