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.

 

Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Not having expertise in the related fields in order to understand the NIST report I relied on the opinion of people who do and here in Germany at my university and a friends university I found nobody willing to put his good name under that report. In fact it has been dismissed as pseudoscience.

Now that is just a small sample. What about peer review from other experts in Germany, China, India, Italy, Scandinavia, you get the idea. Does the NIST report withstand scrutinity from experts not under the NIST umbrella?




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Does the NIST report withstand scrutinity from experts not under the NIST umbrella?


How would you test for this? Seriously, what kind of answer would satisfy you? Not what answer, but what form of an answer are you looking for?

I mean, I can tell you the obvious, such as the fact that the reports have been out there for years, easily accessible and not one serious agency or organization has taken any substantial issue with the reports in so far as cause and effect of the collapse of the Towers and Building #7 is concerned. There may be some issues regarding their recommendations regarding future design and safety, but that is all I am awar of.

By serious agency or organization I am generally refering to agencies and organizations that existed prior to 9/11/2001, not the pseudo website based "organizations" that have popped up to propagate conspiracy theories.

For instance, I consider the American Society of Civil Engineers to be a serious organization, and not Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Also, the NIST was really not privy to any "special information" or super secret computer technology. The construction details of the buildings were well known or knowable, the events involved aren't exactly top secret. Anyone or any group is more than welcome to run their own calculations and offer a report and none has been forthcoming to date. I think that speaks volumes.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Whoops what happens if there are members of the American Society of Civil Engineers on the 911 truth petition?

does that make them more credible, or ASCE less credible??? hmm ?

www2.ae911truth.org...

www2.ae911truth.org...
edit on 14-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by hooper
 


Whoops what happens if there are members of the American Society of Civil Engineers on the 911 truth petition?

does that make them more credible, or ASCE less credible??? hmm ?


I am sure there are also members of ASCE in prison also. Doesn't mean anything.

Its what the ASCE does as a group or organization. Also, as stated above anyone is more than welcome to produce their own report.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by hooper
 


Whoops what happens if there are members of the American Society of Civil Engineers on the 911 truth petition?

does that make them more credible, or ASCE less credible??? hmm ?


I am sure there are also members of ASCE in prison also. Doesn't mean anything.

Its what the ASCE does as a group or organization. Also, as stated above anyone is more than welcome to produce their own report.


Just the answer i expected thanks



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Also, the NIST was really not privy to any "special information" or super secret computer technology. The construction details of the buildings were well known or knowable, the events involved aren't exactly top secret. Anyone or any group is more than welcome to run their own calculations and offer a report and none has been forthcoming to date. I think that speaks volumes.


Not only that, NIST also relied on eyewitness testimony of people who were physically there. One of the people they interviewed is the same person I keep referencing- Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden- as his eyewitness account that the fires were burning out of control and the three story tall bulge in the side of the structure are critical clues as to what happened.

These college kids who fancy they know everything about everything...and then turn around and admit they don't understand what the NIST report on WTC 7 even says...are necessarily going to need to either refute what the eyewitnesses say, or, provide an alternative scenario that explains the eyewitness accounts better than the NIST report does. As of right now, all their alternative scenarios of secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, armies of secret gov't agents everywhere, etc are are obviously just foolishness they're making up off the tops of their heads as they go along so the credibility of their complaints is, needless to say, sorely limited.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


You're welcome.

I am pretty sure you want to think that if anybody that may have a degree in some form of engineering, agrees with your conspiracy, then that means that the conspiracy has been thoroughly vetted and now enjoys an engineeing pedigree. That's not how it works.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Dave if you understand what the NIST report says you better have the necessary education in the related fields or I have a hard time taking you seriously. I am certain you THINK that you understand the NIST report however.

Well has the NIST report been peer reviewd across the world, the way the moonlanding has been peer reviewd, or almost any other scientific discovery/breakthrough. Its common practice. The people who looked into the NIST report I know of said it does not add up, none of it and that the approach was all wrong to begin with IE, instead of properly looking for the cause, they started with the cause and fabricated their explanation around it and the explanation does not hold up as far as I have been told. That was from a couple of professors who looked into the NIST report waaay before I approached them, because their students in related fields were of course curious to discuss something related to their field which has such world wide attention.

The way things look right now the people who believe in the OS believe in special magic and bigfoot and have a fascination for tinfoil hats.

Well a couple of professors at 2 German universieites is a small sample. What do other experts across the world say? Agencies that are not an American National anything? Do they say the report is serious sound and scientific or do they confirm what I have been told, that it is pretty much pseudoscience?
edit on 14-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by hooper
 


Dave if you understand what the NIST report says you better have the necessary education in the related fields or I have a hard time taking you seriously. I am certain you THINK that you understand the NIST report however.


How much "necessary education" does it require to accept the eyewitness accounts of a firefighter who was physically there? Deputy chief Hayden said the fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7, which to me, gives the NIST explanation of fire induced structural failure at least some credibility. I am pointing out that for you to refute the NIST report, you are refuting the eyewitness accounts NIST used to create their report.

I recall you previously said that you do not believe firefighters would be able to determine when/if fires were burning out of control, and that only professionals in construction have the ability to notice a three story tall bulge in the side of a building, but I myself cannot be so myopic.


Well has the NIST report been peer reviewd across the world, the way the moonlanding has been peer reviewd, or almost any other scientific discovery/breakthrough. Its common practice. The people who looked into the NIST report I know of said it does not add up, none of it and that the approach was all wrong to begin with IE, instead of properly looking for the cause, they started with the cause and fabricated their explanation around it and the explanation does not hold up as far as I have been told. That was from a couple of professors who looked into the NIST report waaay before I approached them, because their students in related fields were of course curious to discuss something related to their field which has such world wide attention.


Professors of what, precisely? I don't know what's going on in Germany, but HERE, the bulk of the professors who disagree with the NIST and FEMA reports are in areas completely unrelated to what they're claiming they have expertise on. One professor is a teacher of religious studies, another professor is/was a teacher of economics, the professor who did the chemical analysis on the WTC dust wasn;t a chemist, but nuclear fusion, and of course, it was a professor of materials engineering who introduced the whole "lasers from outer space" comedy of errors. If you're blindly accepting the word of a professor exclusively on the grounds that being a professor means they're an expert in everything then I have to tell you I do not share your viewpoint. I've worked in a university for five years and I've learned first hand that professors can be every bit as much of a moron as anyone else. This is becuase knowledge and wisdom are NOT the same thing.


The way things look right now the people who believe in the OS believe in special magic and bigfoot and have a fascination for tinfoil hats.


Before you continue with this absurd analogy, do you even know what the term "tin foil hat" means? Your statements don't make a lick of sense in the context you're using it.


Well a couple of professors at 2 German universieites is a small sample. What do other experts across the world say?


I don't know. Why don't you go ask them?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I never doubted the accounts of the firefighters who said fires in building 7 were burning out of control. I think that is pretty obvious. The NIST report is full of numbers and formulas. You would need an extensive education to review the NIST report, or you just accept what is written there as truth. You chose to rely on an biased and dependent source alone.

Professor for architecture obviously. I heard many people who challegened the official report in America had their careers cut short if their salary or position could be touched by a national agency, such as a tax supported univsersity. That is an clear indication of silencing dissent and debate. However thats just something I heard.

If something gets peer reviewed you do not have to go around and ask. I dont have to go around the universities of the world and ask people with education in related fields if they think the moonlanding took place. I cant think of any group of experts on a large scale who side with the moonhauxers. Has the NIST report been peer reviewd in a similiar way yes or no?

The fact still remains that a minority is supporting the official story and that minority is biased and dependent on top of that.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Your wasting your time, talking to a shill. One eyewitness testimony trumps all the hundreds of others everyone knows that. lol



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Well I am not calling the firefighter a liar either. I have no doubt that there were indeed fires burning in WTC 7.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Rescuer 1: "It's blowin' boy. Did you hear that?"
Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon."

Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
"We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."


killtown.blogspot.com...

no wonder NIST tried to hide these vidoes and they aren't in the report

2010 NIST 9/11 Footage Leaks Ignored..., page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...
GZ Rescuer: ‘WTC 7 about to blow up’ ...
....Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
killtown.blogspot.com...



edit on 14-12-2010 by Danbones because: fixed quote

edit on 14-12-2010 by Danbones because: fixed link

edit on 14-12-2010 by Danbones because: fixed quote



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Well has the NIST report been peer reviewd across the world, the way the moonlanding has been peer reviewd, or almost any other scientific discovery/breakthrough. Its common practice.

OK, first not everything is "peer reviewed" as a matter of course. Peer review serves a very specific purpose. Not every engineering report is poured over by every engineer and a
or
given. If you keep running into all these professionals that keep telling you the report is crap then ask them two questions:
1) What and how are you qualified?
2) Have you prepared a detailed response accordingly?
I am not aware of any "peer review" regarding the moonlanding(s). Probably because there really aren't any.

The people who looked into the NIST report I know of said it does not add up, none of it and that the approach was all wrong to begin with IE, instead of properly looking for the cause, they started with the cause and fabricated their explanation around it and the explanation does not hold up as far as I have been told.

"Looked into"? What exactly does that mean? Did they run the calculations? Did they construct their own failure analysis models? As for the cause. Here's the story - two of the world's largest buildings collapsed catastrophically on the same day. Prior to the collapse both buildings had been struck by large commercial jet passenger planes going close to the speed of sound and containing large amounts of very flammable jet fuel. Thats kind of cause and effect.

That was from a couple of professors who looked into the NIST report waaay before I approached them, because their students in related fields were of course curious to discuss something related to their field which has such world wide attention.

Again with the looked into. What does that mean? If I recall correctly the reports are close to 10,000 pages, not something you casually look into.

The way things look right now the people who believe in the OS believe in special magic and bigfoot and have a fascination for tinfoil hats.

I'm sorry, believing that a building can collapse because a 100 ton plane traveling near the speed of sound filled with tons of jet fuel is not exactly the same as believing in magic.

Well a couple of professors at 2 German universieites is a small sample.

I don't think that even qualifies as a sample

What do other experts across the world say?

What, in your mind qualifies someone as an expert?

Agencies that are not an American National anything?

As far as I know no internationally recogonized agency has ever taken substantial issue with the report regarding the plane crash as being the core cause of the collapse.

Do they say the report is serious sound and scientific or do they confirm what I have been told, that it is pretty much pseudoscience?

They really don't say anything to the contrary. Now you are more than welcome to attach anything you want to their "silence", I am sure you will.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   


No evidence of explosions nist says.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Is your evidence of explosives "there was a lot of dust"? This is why the NIST, and not you, was engaged to do the report.

Ever seen a rock slide? How about a forest fire? Sandstorm?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Your saying you could not hear explosions on that video? (first ones start at 11 seconds) lol and the camera man also says explosions are happening. Oh wait thats diesel tanks exploding thats right.


edit on 14-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


My fault, not listening - at work. Besides the point.

Explosives are not the only cause of loud sudden noises.

Do you have any videos of actual explosives in the buildings exploding? Not flashes, or sudden noises or bright lights, or someone saying the word explosion. Real videos of actual explosives?

No?

Then we are pretty much left with either the plane crashes, space beams, super secret nano thermite painted structural steel or nukes.

I'm going with the plane thing. How about you?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


lol you guys are great. where you workin? nist?


P.S. why are all your posts in the 911 section for the most part? seems like you're only here and spend lots of time just pushing the OS to people who ask questions. Kinda boring to be doing for free huh? lol
edit on 14-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


No, National Security Agency. Information Assurance.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join