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: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


So what is his name? I am interested in actual studies, not so much in random opinions.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I would have to ask his permission to forward that information. I am not sure what the situation is in Germany, but in America and some European countries who are in Afghanistan and Iraq under ISAF speaking out against the official conspiracy theory can bring a fast end to your academic career. I am sure you have better access to educated people in your area, who are willing to answer all your questions better than I ever could. As for studies on what exactly? There is a thread where yet another group of scientists produced a study or paper about Nanothermite at the WTC towers. Maybe the paper is avaiable online.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Calling me a lier and then unable to produce is bad sports. Your sentence " Dont ask me what he specialized in though." isn't making it any better. So you don't actually know an expert that agrees with your interpretation of the videos?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I wasnt aware I was supposed to produce anything. "Dont ask me what he specialized in" was in referrence to the engineer my friend in Aachen talked to. So you were just looking to nail me for something. Are you interested in the truth, or are you looking to "win"? Do you realize that your arguments are getting rather petty and litigious? I asked an architect in my area. I dont see why you cant do the same. And I dont see why you think we need to do battle on here. What are you hoping to achieve?
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
NIST held a technical briefing where qualified people could ask questions. It is priceless!

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I don't know if the report has been peer reviewed, but based on this, I imagine it might encounter difficulties.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


It was open for peer review, but just a couple of days, not even enough time to read through it. Nobody came forward, so it was deemed case close.

However the NIST report is NOT a scientific paper. It is merely a public explanation, a report if you will, that produces an explanation to the events we whitnessed. I am not aware it makes the claim to be scientific or conculsive in any way, therefore an article published in a peer review magazine holds more weight at this point. The NIST report is just food for thought.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Alfie1
As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.


And yet you take NIST's computer animation of WTC 7 as fact? Either you can or you can't. Take your pick, but to play each side is disengenious IMO.


This is a disappointing comment from a structural engineer that has questions about the report, for it is obvious that you never read the report on 7 with any comprehension.

The collapse models of 7 weren't done cuz they believed they could visually recreate the actual collapse. They were done with the sole purpose in mind to determine whether a collapse with damage from 1's collapse would look different than a collapse without it. There are 2 series of diagrams on 7's collapse. They are clearly marked "with damage" and "without damage".

I question your professional qualifications, sir.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


When you make an argument from authority, you indeed need to reveal who this authority is. I am interested in the truth, that is why I try to pressure you so much. But you are unable to show studies and sources on which you base your opinion. Your bottom line is to look for it myself. Realize that your opinion as you present it has nothing to do with truth, but everything with belief.

I don't need to contact experts for their opinion. That is because experts publish their work through a peer review process, where it is dissected by other experts. That gives the information a high probability of containing a valid hypothesis, aka "truth".



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by wcitizen
 


It was open for peer review, but just a couple of days, not even enough time to read through it. Nobody came forward, so it was deemed case close.

However the NIST report is NOT a scientific paper. It is merely a public explanation, a report if you will, that produces an explanation to the events we whitnessed. I am not aware it makes the claim to be scientific or conculsive in any way, therefore an article published in a peer review magazine holds more weight at this point. The NIST report is just food for thought.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Yes I agree with you. I posted the video because even in the short time it was open for public scrutiny a physics teacher was able to disprove some of the 'scienficit fact' and 'scientific method' used. This suggests to me that a proper peer review would be likely to find more anomalies.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well there is not too much peer reviewed material on the subject. Again somehow you feel we are doing battle here and that either one of us needs to win. If you think you have all the info you need, what are you bickering about with me then? I told you how I got my info. You could do the same and see what you are told then we can see what you are told and if it matches up.

The NIST report was not peer reviewed it does not even make the claim to be a scientific paper.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The NIST and ASCE reports are out there. Free for the asking. The NIST reports list all the contributors and their qualifications. Find "peers" of those people, prepare a review and publish. Whats the big deal? Could it be that there are no real peers out there of the people who prepared the reports who feel a need to critique the reports?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


It was open only a limited time for peer review. Then it was published. There are plenty of engineers and architects who found many many faults with the report.

I am sure far more would come forward if it wouldnt be out of fear to have their academic careers ruined. An fact many 911 deniers like to ignore.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Actually, it was never really open for "peer review". The report was not published in an existing scientific, engineering or techincal journal wherein "peers", that is persons with similar backgrounds, interest and experiences, are asked to consider whether or not the paper is worthy of publication and consideration. Peer review does not necessarily determine whether or not the subject of paper is true or false, but whether or not the material has been prepared in a professional manner, adhering to the basic accepted principles of scientific method and the ethical standards of the particular community being addressed.

The NIST report was prepared at the behest of the United States government for public release not for submission in any journal.

Anyone out there that can be considered a peer of the contributors is more than welcome to prepare a critical companion or response report. To date, no serious critique has been forthcoming.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


"Winning" for me would be you providing scientific studies that support your position. As long as you are only stating opinions without sources to back them up, we both lose.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well like I said. I asked people I trust on the matter. Feel free to do the same. If you want to you can share what you have been told. Get in contact with AE911truth.org, maybe somebody is avaiable, see what they tell you, put that toegether with the NIST report and go from there. Or ask somebody at your local university if you have that access.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Also if the pancacking floors are the explanation for air being forced out of walls and windows, I wuld be really curious what causes the puffs of smoke several floors below the point of collapse.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Anyone seen this? Thoughts?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Great question Cassius


Gotta love the rhetoric from the usual suspects - eye witnesses obviously can't be trusted unless they support the official story.

Meanwhile the standard debunker's response is "Show me the peer-reviewed journal article as evidence" yet the NIST report is seen as an infallable document when it hasn't even been peer-reviewed.

Pot, meet kettle



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
This may have been dead for a few years now, but I couldn't find a more fitting thread. And the comments so far have been quite illustrative of the open nature of the discussion here. So I just want to give my 2 cents... I think it's still a very valid question, and should not be put aside although 13 years have passed.

I have no engineering background whatsoever, but I believe in most fields there is some kind of intuition that everyone has of how things should behave. My background is in law, and when a layman tells me a certain court decision cannot be right by his gut feeling, there's usually something to it.

That's how I think about the WTC coming down as it did. From what I understand, every floor was capable of holding up several times its weight, 3-5 times is mentioned regularly, and that sounds right. So when the 100th floor had the weight of 15 floor above it, it should have carried at least 40 floors and still be stable. But that means that say the 15th floor was able to carry at least another 300 floors. And when I look at the tower coming down, much of it is clearly seen blowing off to the sides. This fits very well with the end result (there's an aerial view afterwards showing most of the debris scattered around at least 9 times outside the footprint). So when much of the stuff has not even touched the lower part of the building, and when it had reached say the 50th floor, there couldn't have been more than a few floors worth of material hitting it. And that's already at a point where the columns are much stronger than in the top 20 floors. It seems like I'm asked to believe a small car could hit and crush a 40-ton truck. And the buildings were not even designed to do anything else than keep standing there.

Also as I see it and understand the structure, there was really nothing like a floor in the WTC. Of course they had floors to walk on, but it seems the buildings were not really built on a floor-to-floor-basis, but were more like a 3d-net of steel beams, and the core columns were each at least spanning several floors, and also the outside columns were 2-3 floors long. So the floors were more like interwoven with the rest of the structure. Could this really allow for some kind of pancaking effect as discussed earlier?!

What I get the least is why Nist has done a collapse simulation of WTC7, but not of the towers. The wtc7 analysis as I understand was already highly suspicious because they didn't release the data. But someone said that demolition firms have computer programs to simulate the collapse beforehand. It should be possible to put all this data in a computer model and try to bring down the towers that way. Intuitively I would bet my right hand that it would never come down the way it did, without explosives.

So given the implicitness of the downward progression and the almost exact way they fell down - at least just seeing the result would not enable one to conclude any difference in the collapse itself - it should be possible with some simulator to produce any kind of similarity to the real example.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: diggsta

a simulation like one of these: www.youtube.com...

certainly much simplified, but if there was no fatal design flaw in those towers, it should be easier to collapse a cheap computer model than a massive physical structure. And none of those simulations can do that.
edit on 29-5-2014 by diggsta because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join