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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Something 'dave said doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought any nuclear scientist is required to know about chemistry, it sort of goes with the territory.
edit on 14-12-2010 by smurfy because: text error.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Something 'dave said doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought any nuclear scientist is required to know about chemistry, it sort of goes with the territory.
edit on 14-12-2010 by smurfy because: text error.

They probably have a general knowledge of chemistry, but their expertise and all of their training is in the narrow field of nuclear physics.

It's the same as an electrical engineer having a general idea of how stuff works, but he wouldn't be hired for a job as a construction engineer.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


a couple rag heads with box cutter did 911?

no national security
is right
we would prefer some national security
that why we pay our taxes



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


my step brother is a civil engineer who made it in the nuclear industry working at a generating station
engineers don't specialize till well into university
geeez


What Fields of Study Use Chemistry?

You could use chemistry in most fields, but it's commonly seen in the sciences and in medicine. Chemists, physicists, biologists, and engineers study chemistry. Doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physical therapists, and veterinarians all take chemistry courses. the list is extensive

chemistry.about.com...



How to become a Nuclear Engineer
Typical United States training necessitates college preparation for mathematics training in calculus, physics, and chemistry. Undergraduate work includes groundwork in the mechanics and dynamics of particle motion, thermodynamics, computer programming, college-level physics and chemistry, and differential training. Specialization study happens midway through undergraduate school. Fluid mechanics, reactor mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermal hydraulics, linear circuits, radiation effects, and neutron transport are just some classes one can expect in upper class work.

www.mypursuit.com...




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

edit on 14-12-2010 by Danbones because: add quote and link



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by smurfy
Something 'dave said doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought any nuclear scientist is required to know about chemistry, it sort of goes with the territory.
edit on 14-12-2010 by smurfy because: text error.

They probably have a general knowledge of chemistry, but their expertise and all of their training is in the narrow field of nuclear physics.

It's the same as an electrical engineer having a general idea of how stuff works, but he wouldn't be hired for a job as a construction engineer.


Well,
there are specialized fields alright, but they have to get there first.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
If anyone thinks the NIST report could withstand peer review, just show me what exactly they proved (in the technical sense of the word) and what methods they used to establish this proof.

Out of years of asking this no one has been able to show a damned thing. The question just degenerates into sarcasm, empty rhetorical questioning and off-topic accusations.

If you don't have links and page numbers of the NIST report ready to show what they proved and how they proved it, don't even bother responding.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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?


Umm. That is not how an investigation goes. Except for the biggest thing to ever happen to and in the US.

How can you sit there and say the videos aren't real explosives without further testing?

You remind me of contractors that see a cool spot in a thermal image and scream "water intrusion" to the home owner without using a moisture meter to verify there really was water.

Question hooper: Did NIST do any testing to find explosive residue or not?

BTW, I will not respond to you until you have answered the question, so your normal tactics will need to change while debating with me.


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



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



Question hooper: Did NIST do any testing to find explosive residue or not?


No. There was no reason to, there was nothing that would indicate the use of explosives, or thermite, or space beams or anything other than the plane impacting the building and the subsquent fire and damage. Nothing,



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No. There was no reason to, there was nothing that would indicate the use of explosives, or thermite, or space beams or anything other than the plane impacting the building and the subsquent fire and damage. Nothing,


Loud explosions is not "nothing". Whether cans of lysol or not. But NIST didn't care to find out. What a joke of an investigation.

I tell you now. I am a forensics engineer. I know the protocol to do investigations. Leaving evidence (destroying evidence) and not testing is not part of it.

The government totally failed us on that day as an investigation was hindered from day one. Whether purposely or not is still up in the air. What is not up in the air is that the investigation was sloppy, nonprofessional, and in most cases (like you just pointed out) not even attempted. Utter failure by NIST et al.

The white house even admits that the investigation sucked:


"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.


www.house.gov...

edit on 15-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


You're wasting your time. All this guy does is sit in the 911 forums and parrot the OS over and over like good ole dave. Why wouldn't the government pay a couple people to troll the biggest conspiracy site on the web?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
untill hooper shows us his published peer reviewd opinion
it means NOTHING
by his own logic


and that goes for all the OS Beleivers
now that they have trounced on S. Jones and Nano thermite like they have
we get to apply the SAME Illogic to EVERYTHING they write

can you spell ooooopsi
edit on 15-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



Loud explosions is not "nothing".


Sorry, hearing loud sudden noises before, during and after one of the worlds largest buildings collapses is nothing. If there had been no sound, that would seem odd. No cause to test for explosives outside of conspiracy fantasies.

The remains of the buildings were examined during the writing of the report. Saying otherwise is lying. The scene of the collapse was not treated immeadiately as a crime scene because there was an ongoing search for survivors, that trumps any forensic protocols anytime and anywhere.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
untill hooper shows us his published peer reviewd opinion
it means NOTHING
by his own logic


and that goes for all the OS Beleivers
now that they have trounced on S. Jones and Nano thermite like they have
we get to apply the SAME Illogic to EVERYTHING they write

can you spell ooooopsi
edit on 15-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Be my guest. Find real peers of the persons who prepared the NIST report and have at it, page by page. Please tell me when you're done. Love to see the finished product. Mind you, peers - not just any Tom, Dick or Harry with an engineering or architecture degree. Peers, equals, persons who by education, training and experinece are qualified to speak on the many subjects in the report. And not some 3 paragraph essay about how they distrust the government, but a real review. Been waiting to see that for years. Still nothing - I wonder why?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The scene of the collapse was not treated immeadiately as a crime scene because there was an ongoing search for survivors, that trumps any forensic protocols anytime and anywhere.


You don't need to cart away the steel and recycle it to look for survivors.



"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues.


www.house.gov...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, hearing loud sudden noises before, during and after one of the worlds largest buildings collapses is nothing.


Please quote a forensics engineering handbook where it states that after a collapse where loud bangs are heard (and even called explosions by eyewitnesses) that no one needs to test for explosive residue. Please. I dare you to find it.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Be my guest. Find real peers of the persons who prepared the NIST report and have at it, page by page. Please tell me when you're done. Love to see the finished product. Mind you, peers - not just any Tom, Dick or Harry with an engineering or architecture degree. Peers, equals, persons who by education, training and experinece are qualified to speak on the many subjects in the report. And not some 3 paragraph essay about how they distrust the government, but a real review. Been waiting to see that for years. Still nothing - I wonder why?



wow
my, how the shoe is on the other foot now


I'm going to quote that when any one of you howls for peer review

edit on 15-12-2010 by Danbones because: fixed quote



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



The remains of the buildings were examined during the writing of the report. Saying otherwise is lying. The scene of the collapse was not treated immeadiately as a crime scene because there was an ongoing search for survivors, that trumps any forensic protocols anytime and anywhere.


The report was written months later..
Did they go to china to check the steel?


You should watch your mates respond..They ignore the tough questions rather than make silly replies..



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


To peer review a report all data must be freely given. Has NIST done this yet? Where is their computer model data that they refuse to hand out?

Obviously you have no clue how to peer review something.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



No. There was no reason to, there was nothing that would indicate the use of explosives, or thermite, or space beams or anything other than the plane impacting the building and the subsquent fire and damage. Nothing,


The only 3 skyscrapers EVER to fall..WTC7 due to fire....

I would think the investigation would have looked at ALL possibilities, regardless of how probable..



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I would think the investigation would have looked at ALL possibilities, regardless of how probable..



It was supposedly a terrorist attack. Terrorists use bombs a lot. They even did at the same place in '93. But, according to hooper, the use of explosives was not probable. I really don't get the logic of the shills and their supporters.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join