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.

 

Question to all Debunkers and/or Official 9/11 story supporters.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



Have you seen a peer review of the WTC report? I haven't. That is why I ask.


You expect NIST to conduct its own peer review? Where are all the "peers" like architects and engineers for truth? Shouldn't they be conducting a peer review? And I don't accept the excuse that they can't because all the information has not been released, that's just a dodge. They can review all the released information. There's tons of it? I would take up the issue of "peer review" with them.


There should be some kind of review of their laboratrory procedures (which includes computer simulations). Have you seen one?


You have some evidence that computer simulations are included? Besides your own specualtion?




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You have some evidence that computer simulations are included? Besides your own specualtion?



We work with scientists in other NIST laboratories to develop computer simulation and analysis of magnetic systems. Model verification is achieved by comparison against experiment and by development of standard problems.


nrc58.nas.edu...

Computer simulation is part of a laboratory procedure.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



There should be some kind of review of their laboratrory procedures (which includes computer simulations). Have you seen one?


Take your pick:

www.nist.gov...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You have some evidence that computer simulations are included? Besides your own specualtion?


Did you even peruse your own links?


The NIST computer model for cement hydration is the best in the field, and it has been widely used in academia and industry.


www.nist.gov...

If computer modeling wasn't a part of the peer review process, then why is it included in the 2008 assessment?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

But, then why is Dr. Quintiere calling for it to be peer reviewed?


Because he believes that NIST was too conservative with their fire/fuel loads.



I'd take his opinion over anyone on this forum or jref.



His opinion is that plane impacts and fire brought down the buildings.

He is sure of it. He is positive of it. He has zero doubts. He calls truthers nuts.

And IIRC, he has produced a paper that concurs with NIST.

Now what?

Should we conduct a peer review of Quintere's peer review request to make sure that he is following good procedures?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Because he believes that NIST was too conservative with their fire/fuel loads.


Which makes their report questionable none-the-less.



His opinion is that plane impacts and fire brought down the buildings.


I don't discount his opinion because I agree that it is possible. And even probably the most likely cause.


He is sure of it. He is positive of it. He has zero doubts.


Good for him. He could be incorrect though as he doesn't have all the information. I'm not saying he is incorrect, but he could be.


He calls truthers nuts.


So. I call a lot of people nuts. Does this make it so?


And IIRC, he has produced a paper that concurs with NIST.

Now what?

Should we conduct a peer review of Quintere's peer review request to make sure that he is following good procedures?


How can he produce a paper that concurs with NIST while at the same time asking for a review because he thinks they got it wrong?

And yes. His work should be peer reviewed also.

When we stop reviewing someone's work just because we percieve them as an expert is when our scientific world will become like a school yard with anyone saying "nah, nah, nah...prove me wrong, but I'll give you no information to do so". It's just not the way the scientific world works.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


BTW. If Quintiere is correct and NIST is wrong, how does that change the codes propossed by NIST? Which affects us all.

That is why there should not be this veil of secrecy. Because these decisions will affect us all.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

How can he produce a paper that concurs with NIST while at the same time asking for a review because he thinks they got it wrong?




You're confused. He doesn't think they got the report wrong.

He concurs with NIST, insomuch as he agrees 100% that plane impacts and fire damage resulted in their collapse.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

"But Jim Quintiere of the University of Maryland, College Park, thinks the thickness of the surviving fire insulation, rather than the destruction of insulation during the impacts, explains why the towers collapsed when they did.

The south tower was the first to fall even though it was hit after the north tower. The insulation on its burning floors was only half as thick"



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're confused. He doesn't think they got the report wrong.

He concurs with NIST, insomuch as he agrees 100% that plane impacts and fire damage resulted in their collapse.


But NIST was to find the cause of collapse, not whether it was an inside job or not. So, the fact that Dr. Quintiere is questioning their report shows that he thinks they got it (the collapse initiation) incorrect in so far as how it happened.

That's like saying Newton and Einstein agreed with each other in their theory of gravity because all things fall down.


A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.


en.wikipedia.org...

Just because the end result is the same does not make the entire body of their work equal.

Same with NIST and Dr. Quintiere.

And since you guys don't think a peer review is neccessary:

I have proven through my own computer simulations that WTC 7 should have stood for 80 hours.

You believe me without any verification right?

Then why do you just believe NIST?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Edman I realized long ago that you are far too emotionally involved with 9/11 to ever look at it in a unbiased way.

Still your post is typical of the Debunker response tactic..ignore the question, change the subject, attack Truthers and then attack the poster. Not to mention painting anyone with doubts or questions about any aspect of 9/11 as a full blown terrorist sympathizer Truther.

You also imply that it's impossible for some genuinely interested scientist to do a FOIA for the above mentioned information. It is not at all impossible, and the privileged "qualified researchers at universities" as you so eloquently put it, should not be the only people to have acsess to the above mentioned information.

Your comments in regards to this are exactly why it is possible for people in the government to abuse their positions. We're not talking about the autopsy photos from 9/11 here or even any victim related evidence, this is just the model they used to come to the conclusions they did about 9/11.

As I said before, seemingly mundane information, that you would think NIST would have released with their report or put on their website. This has nothing to do with how they made it. By denying it to the public, it sends the wrong message.

You also didn't bother to answer the question...which is par for the course I guess(even though I already knew your answer.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


As nefarious as you may make this sound, the explanation is probably quite simple. First, you must understand that this is not the first nor is it going to be the last investigation that is conducted by the NIST. In order to properly pursue future investigations and make appropriate recommendations, NGO's and persons must feel comfortable suppling information to the NIST. If the NIST start's to release information gathered under those conditions then it may jeopardize future investigations which would affect public safety.




First of all, what is nefarious about "mundane information", all I did is ask if Debunkers or Official 9/11 story supporters have a problem with the fact NIST is not releasing the collapse models due to the possibility it may "jeopardize public safety", which by the way you dodged.

Secondly, your explanation for why they are not releasing it is a classic, you sound like a politician there. Especially how you tie it all together with the last sentence, we are still talking about a computer model here right?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Thanks for actually answering the question TOS, I basically agree with everything you said.

Except that last sentence, I don't think it has anything to do with being "predisposed to that mindset", we're talking about a highly charged public debate about a event that played out right in front of everyone. It was a attack on the public, and NIST was told to investigate this event and tell us what happened.

Why would the computer model all of a sudden become a danger to the public?

The only mind set you need to be predisposed to is that of your average American citizen wanting transparency on a public event. If they had used another reason as to why they couldn't release the information I probably wouldn't have even paid attention and chalked it up to any other typically denied FOIA request.

But to say that all of a sudden the information has somehow become a danger to the public and therefore they will not release a computer model, is at the least inflammatory.





So I suppose the problem is really one of bias amongst those predisposed to that mindset.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



First of all, what is nefarious about "mundane information", all I did is ask if Debunkers or Official 9/11 story supporters have a problem with the fact NIST is not releasing the collapse models due to the possibility it may "jeopardize public safety", which by the way you dodged.


Dodge? How so? I laid it out quite clearly. Releasing information that was gathered confidentially will inhibit others in the future from providing critical information for other investigations thus jeopardizing public safety by compromising future investigations.


Secondly, your explanation for why they are not releasing it is a classic, you sound like a politician there. Especially how you tie it all together with the last sentence, we are still talking about a computer model here right?


Same reason.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

BTW. If Quintiere is correct and NIST is wrong, how does that change the codes propossed by NIST?


You tell me.

You're convinced that Quintiere disagrees with NIST. Now tell us all what those changes would be.


That is why there should not be this veil of secrecy.


There isn't.

You provided evidence that NIST is in fact peer reviewed, hence, zero secrecy. You also stated that you would accept the findings that the peer review is honest, and have no reason to doubt their findings.

So again I'll point out that if you're honest about trusting the guv appointed peer review board, that also means that you trust them to reveal any faults in their reports/methods.

To make an appeal about secrecy indicates that you really DON'T trust the peer review board, but are merely saying that to make yourself sound more reasonable about your quest for seeing a peer review, or structural documentation.

You cannot say, and maintain any personal integrity, that you would trust a guv appointed review board, and then turn around and say that just because you have not personally seen the results, they are keeping "secrets".

Your statement MUST be revised. You decide how.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You tell me.

You're convinced that Quintiere disagrees with NIST. Now tell us all what those changes would be.


Thickness of fireproofing for one. Not the width of emergency exits.

For another. How about a code saying that long span beams need to be extra fire proofed or else they will globally collapse your building at free fall and near free fall speeds?

What about that code?

The codes that NIST came up with are bogus when considering a structural collapse. Why not change codes that really matter rather than having a new fire exit and wider exit stairs?

Remember that I myself am a foresics engineer.....meaning I deal with structural failures on a day to day basis. And from EVERYTHING I have ever learned about forensic engineering does not equal disposing of evidence and being silent about your findings. That IS NOT the way forensic engineering works.

Unless you believe that I have a computer simulation that proves that WTC 7 should have stood 80 hours in a fully engulfed fire? Do you without being able to see my data?

If I did that, the insurance companies that I work for would get rid of my ass pronto.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Thickness of fireproofing for one. Not the width of emergency exits.


Why?

Is it your opinion that the goal should be to make buildings fire proof, or to allow people to get out before it collapses?

You realize, of course that there is zero requirement for this....


How about a code saying that long span beams need to be extra fire proofed


IIRC, NIST reccommended against using long span floor beams with assymmetrical framing in any more designs.

I also remember something about a reccommendation about since 7's connections were not designed with thermal expansion in mind, that this be a part of any future process.

there's also a statementabout full frame design or something similar.

These are such old topics, though, I forget all of the particulars. Thx for dragging me back to 2006.


or else they will globally collapse your building at free fall and near free fall speeds?


Is there a problem with that? Or do you have another time to suggest as more likely? Are you basing your apparent incredulity on anything other than incredulity? Remember, you don't have any structural docs, so it can't be from a thorough investigation.

More than likely, it's just your incredulity.


The codes that NIST came up with are bogus when considering a structural collapse. Why not change codes that really matter rather than having a new fire exit and wider exit stairs?


Cuz unlike you, I am aware that NIST doesn't make codes. They make reccommendations, and it is up to the regulating body that governs the area that you build in to incorporate those code recs.

I'm also aware, unlike you, that it is ludicrous to suggest to builders to design their buildings to resist progressive collapse. Only guv buildings have that requirement, IIRC.


Remember that I myself am a foresics engineer


I doubt that very seriously.


If I did that, the insurance companies that I work for would get rid of my ass pronto.


IMHO, they should do that anyways.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



First of all, what is nefarious about "mundane information", all I did is ask if Debunkers or Official 9/11 story supporters have a problem with the fact NIST is not releasing the collapse models due to the possibility it may "jeopardize public safety", which by the way you dodged.


Dodge? How so? I laid it out quite clearly. Releasing information that was gathered confidentially will inhibit others in the future from providing critical information for other investigations thus jeopardizing public safety by compromising future investigations.


Secondly, your explanation for why they are not releasing it is a classic, you sound like a politician there. Especially how you tie it all together with the last sentence, we are still talking about a computer model here right?


Same reason.





What are you talking about "information gathered confidentially will inhibit others from providing information in the future" about what, computer models depicting fire induced collapses???

Your argument is illogical and ridiculous, we're not talking about intelligence, or agency trade craft, we're talking about a computer model right now.

So your saying that we will have a group of engineers and computer code guys that may not participate in the next 9/11 investigation b/c NIST released one of their computer models from the first 9/11 investigation? Huh? Am I missing something here?

I highly doubt that there was any expectation of secrecy, from any one involved with the NIST's investigations into the collapses on 9/11. In fact I would think it would be the exact opposite, the expectation of those involved would be that everyone and there brother would be scouring over their work regarding the events of 9/11. In hopes of learning why this happened and preventing this tragedy from ever happening again.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



You expect NIST to conduct its own peer review? Where are all the "peers" like architects and engineers for truth? Shouldn't they be conducting a peer review? And I don't accept the excuse that they can't because all the information has not been released, that's just a dodge. They can review all the released information. There's tons of it? I would take up the issue of "peer review" with them.


You must be confused. There are several peer-reviewed papers that deal with the NIST study.

Here are just two.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

It's not AE911Truth (unless the authors are affiliated, I don't know) but they are certainly qualified.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 





You must be confused. There are several peer-reviewed papers that deal with the NIST study.


Peer Reviewed?

Graame Mc Queen ?

What doews he supposedly teach? Or yes Peace Studies. Not architecture, structural design, fire protection or any other revelant discipline.

Love one of the other authors - Anoyomous. No way to determine the
level of competemce

The Journal Of 911 Studies is a joke , It is a vanity publication by such
leading loons as "Box Boy" Gage, Thermite Jones, Water Boy Ryan and ever other fool to give a patina of respectability to their otherewise insane
theories.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
NIST hasn't released their findings on WTC 7 because, they state,
"...for reasons of public safety."

This means they consider this information unsafe for release to the
general public.

The only conclusion that's feasible is that this report contains information
usable to effect the destruction of other buildings, and as such, this
information is classified from public exposure so that it doesn't fall into
the wrong hands.

It is simple...NIST finds it irresponsible to release information that could
benefit terrorists.

However implausible it may be that a terror organization could use
this information to start fires at key structural points in a building
to effect its demolition, this is the tacit implication.

If anyone could add to the possible reasons for NIST's decision
to classify their research in this regard, I would be very interested.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join