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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



It was suppossedly 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.


He's only parroting what NIST said..
In fact that's all they ever do..
No original thoughts..




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



No original thoughts..


Original thoughts are great....if you're writing a fictional novel. You writing fiction?

No probable cause to search for explosives, thermite, nukes, energy beams or whatever "original thoughts" you or anyone else may have regarding the events of 9/11/2001.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   


Original thoughts are great....if you're writing a fictional novel. You writing fiction?

Their whole line is based on fiction. Explosives – Beams – Missiles – Holograms

It’s like a killers mother. “My little Billy was a good boy. Here never hurt anybody.” They refuse to see the obvious and continue to live in their fantasy world.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
If the NIST was so confident of its enquiry, why then did it take numerous attempts under the FOIA plus a lawsuit against their none compliance to the FOIA requests before they released anything they used in that inquiry, to James Gourley. The material did not belong to the NIST, and they should have returned it to the original owners after the enquiry was, (after revision) completed. Their behaviour only served to create even more suspicion after the David Chandler debacle.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   


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


Short answer - No. Still may be some paid off government goons like hooper around though.

The movie '9/11 blueprint for truth' performs a clear, excellent analysis of the NIST report and other available evidence that was not used in the report. Most primary school kids would be able to understand it, not like the mountain of madness, secrecy and no clear answers contained in the NIST report. A copy can be found here video.google.com...#

Hooper, the writing is on the wall with this wikileaks uprising. Really, what kind of America do you want?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 

If the NIST was so confident of its enquiry, why then did it take numerous attempts under the FOIA plus a lawsuit against their none compliance to the FOIA requests before they released anything they used in that inquiry.

My thoughts exactly. It has to be said, they don't seem particularly forthcoming when it comes to handing over anything they have used in order to reach the determinations in their investigation which in my opinion automatically renders all of their putative scientific data and evidence suspect. NIST's computer models constituting the basic substance of evidence for a fire-induced collapse cannot even be checked independently since they have resisted subjecting them to such testing and have bypassed FOIA's under the incredulous pretension that it may inadvertently 'jeopardize public safety'. I don't think NIST's report or models would hold up against a genuine, disinterested peer-reviewer which is why I think they are so unwilling to hand over anything for independent scrutiny and I think that fact places NIST's report beyond the scope and jurisdiction of real science in the same realm as religion and political ideology. Until NIST's models can be checked and verified by outsiders for their claimed veracity they remain merely imaginative speculation. I suspect the only reason they even went about manufacturing computer models in the first place is because they did not have the necessary evidence at hand to make their case compelling.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


]quote]Their whole line is based on fiction. Explosives – Beams – Missiles – Holograms
I haven't seen anything except explosives mentioned in this thread except by you guys..
You all parrot the same lines..
Seems you all have the same teacher..



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
NIST's 9/11 reports are not scientific papers requiring "peer review" in the usual sense. Any more than you would expect an NTSB report about an aircraft crash to be "peer reviewed ".

However, that aside, I suppose that NIST's "peers" in relation to those reports would be the relevant professional associations around the world. In the US that would be the American Society of Civil Engineers ( about 120,000 strong ) and in my country the Institute of Civil Engineers. Every developed country having its equivalent.

Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I downloaded the NIST report 3+ years ago. I burned it to DVD. I noticed it is getting harder to find on the internet than it used to be.

But I did not know what dead load and live load were originally. The trouble with many professions is that they are full of jargon that mean very specific things to people in the field but the are Greek to anyone else. And then people outside the field get them wrong. I have had someone tell me that furniture was dead load.

The NIST report mentions in 3 places the total amount of steel in the buildings. It says "roughly 200,000 tons". They mean for both buildings but it isn't necessarily easy to tell from the wording. But NOWHERE in the report do the specify the TOTAL FOR THE CONCRETE. But in this rather peculiar sub-report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings they admit that in order to analyze the impact the distribution of weight in the tower must be known. But then they didn't do it.

But we have to put up with these silly rationalizations for believing nonsense.


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.


What is near the speed of sound? The plane that hit the south tower was about 200 mph below the speed of sound. That is closer to the speed of sound than it was to zero velocity but is it near mach 1? But it sounds SO impressive in an argument.

And what does FILLED WITH TONS of jet fuel really mean? Wouldn't it have to be a tanker and not a passenger liner to be filled with fuel? It only had 10,000 gallons which is 34 tons although the plane could take 25,000 gallons. So it was only 40% full of what it could hold. But the people that want to promote the idea that the planes could destroy the buildings employ a lot of emotionally loaded and exaggerated terminology to make their case.

www.youtube.com...

But we don't get a simple table of 232 numbers that could specify the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each level of the towers. Shouldn't the NIST have been able to fit that in 10,000 pages in 3 years?

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



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by kwakakev
 

If the NIST was so confident of its enquiry, why then did it take numerous attempts under the FOIA plus a lawsuit against their none compliance to the FOIA requests before they released anything they used in that inquiry.

My thoughts exactly. It has to be said, they don't seem particularly forthcoming when it comes to handing over anything they have used in order to reach the determinations in their investigation which in my opinion automatically renders all of their putative scientific data and evidence suspect. NIST's computer models constituting the basic substance of evidence for a fire-induced collapse cannot even be checked independently since they have resisted subjecting them to such testing and have bypassed FOIA's under the incredulous pretension that it may inadvertently 'jeopardize public safety'. I don't think NIST's report or models would hold up against a genuine, disinterested peer-reviewer which is why I think they are so unwilling to hand over anything for independent scrutiny and I think that fact places NIST's report beyond the scope and jurisdiction of real science in the same realm as religion and political ideology. Until NIST's models can be checked and verified by outsiders for their claimed veracity they remain merely imaginative speculation. I suspect the only reason they even went about manufacturing computer models in the first place is because they did not have the necessary evidence at hand to make their case compelling.

Hi Nathan,
I think you meant to reply to me. No matter, there is also the oft used rationale by some posters, as well as NIST that there was no need by the NIST to include explosives in their investigation, since it was 'planes that brought down all the buildings, or ultimately so. That does not wash in any shape or form as to be the rationale, as it was a known terrorist attack, was it not. It should have behoven them to look at the possibility that explosives might have been used on the ground in the first instance, never mind in the revision.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Actually much of that fiction has been debunked by truthers in the same fashion they took on the OS, not by believers.

How are explosives fiction? Did you not see WTC 1 and 2 explode floor by floor?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.


As others have repeatedly pointed out, and you no doubt are already aware, NIST did not "show their work" when it came to their computer models and other critical areas where numerous variables from structural data would be required, they never published the full structural documentations for any of the 3 buildings and neither did anyone else (making it impossible for the general public to do accurate analyses, and requiring assumptions to be made of structural components) and there are members of the ASCE and other organizations who have went public with professional criticisms of the report even without access to the full data used by the authors of the report. All of which you dismiss out of hand, with one bigoted word: "truther." Congratulations on already having made your mind up before ever coming to these discussions. NIST's report still proved nothing.
edit on 15-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
"What is near the speed of sound? The plane that hit the south tower was about 200 mph below the speed of sound. That is closer to the speed of sound than it was to zero velocity but is it near mach 1? But it sounds SO impressive in an argument.

And what does FILLED WITH TONS of jet fuel really mean? Wouldn't it have to be a tanker and not a passenger liner to be filled with fuel? It only had 10,000 gallons which is 34 tons although the plane could take 25,000 gallons. So it was only 40% full of what it could hold. But the people that want to promote the idea that the planes could destroy the buildings employ a lot of emotionally loaded and exaggerated terminology to make their case."

C'mon...leave the guy alone. He's obviously practicing writing the next great "fictional novel" with "original thoughts". I also like the way he avoids mentioning the fact that those Towers were designed to handle multiple airline strikes from a Boeing 707. Only people with insidious agendas present information in such a deceitful and underhanded way.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.


As others have repeatedly pointed out, and you no doubt are already aware, NIST did not "show their work" when it came to their computer models and other critical areas where numerous variables from structural data would be required, they never published the full structural documentations for any of the 3 buildings and neither did anyone else (making it impossible for the general public to do accurate analyses, and requiring assumptions to be made of structural components) and there are members of the ASCE and other organizations who have went public with professional criticisms of the report even without access to the full data used by the authors of the report. All of which you dismiss out of hand, with one bigoted word: "truther." Congratulations on already having made your mind up before ever coming to these discussions. NIST's report still proved nothing.
edit on 15-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.

Now truthers, on the other hand, although mostly unqualified to offer an opinion, keep saying things like only explosives could have brought them down, virtual free-fall speed, dustification , only an OS sheep could believe it etc.etc.

What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community. If it is so plain and obvious to truthers that jetliners and fire could not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and that fire could not bring down WTC 7, why can't the qualified see it ?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.

Now truthers, on the other hand, although mostly unqualified to offer an opinion, keep saying things like only explosives could have brought them down, virtual free-fall speed, dustification , only an OS sheep could believe it etc.etc.

What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community. If it is so plain and obvious to truthers that jetliners and fire could not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and that fire could not bring down WTC 7, why can't the qualified see it ?


Many qualified people have questioned the OS..
As for NIST, how can you review it when they only really released the conclusions without the workings?
I hear they are still fighting FOIA claims..
Is that true??



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
C'mon...leave the guy alone. He's obviously practicing writing the next great "fictional novel" with "original thoughts". I also like the way he avoids mentioning the fact that those Towers were designed to handle multiple airline strikes from a Boeing 707. Only people with insidious agendas present information in such a deceitful and underhanded way.


Leave him alone! Why?

How do we resolve this without this without stomping on the idiotic propagandistic cockroaches?

psik



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.


As others have repeatedly pointed out, and you no doubt are already aware, NIST did not "show their work" when it came to their computer models and other critical areas where numerous variables from structural data would be required, they never published the full structural documentations for any of the 3 buildings and neither did anyone else (making it impossible for the general public to do accurate analyses, and requiring assumptions to be made of structural components) and there are members of the ASCE and other organizations who have went public with professional criticisms of the report even without access to the full data used by the authors of the report. All of which you dismiss out of hand, with one bigoted word: "truther." Congratulations on already having made your mind up before ever coming to these discussions. NIST's report still proved nothing.
edit on 15-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.

Now truthers, on the other hand, although mostly unqualified to offer an opinion, keep saying things like only explosives could have brought them down, virtual free-fall speed, dustification , only an OS sheep could believe it etc.etc.

What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community. If it is so plain and obvious to truthers that jetliners and fire could not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and that fire could not bring down WTC 7, why can't the qualified see it ?


Alfie,
What you say is simply not true. Every gamut of the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission has been discussed by various experts, that's why 9/11 architects for truth brought out the 14 points of agreement seen here,

911blogger.com...

The NIST report is itself in places contradictory to what was observed, like the molten metal falling down, NIST agrees that it was NOT molton aluminium as it is not expected to ignite in a normal fire condition,,,so what was it? noone as yet knows, but we have all seen it, so it is a anomaly not dealt with.

NIST did not deal with the FEMA discovery of sulphated steel columns at ground zero, some were full of holes, there is no NIST explanation of that because those high temperatures, (as in enough to melt steel) are not in the NIST scenario. Again, a anomaly not dealt with.
NIST does not deal with the molten metal flow seen at ground zero in the aftermath, their spokesman actually denies seeing any when he was at ground zero, you can understand why he said that, when molten metal is not part of the NIST scenario. These are things that should have been dealt with by NIST, but they didn't. Stupid really. This guy, Mark Basile deserves a listen to,

www.youtube.com...#!
He is basically saying for everyone to go and do as he has done, and then make up your own mind.
edit on 16-12-2010 by smurfy because: Add link.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You seem to be missing my point. There has been much discussion in the worldwide civil engineering community about NIST's 9/11 reports but it has centered on adequacy of fire-proofing, evacuation of high-rises etc. Not the probable root causes of collapse.


Look at how you are compartmentalizing what discussions have been taking place and which apparently haven't. I can't believe that you seriously think that no one in engineering circles has been discussing the technical reasons the towers did or did not collapse, especially in regards to the NIST report's hypothesis. The internet is flooded with these discussions taking place between engineers too, much moreso than it is with discussions of whether or not there was adequate fireproofing, which is something else the NIST report didn't actually proof but only speculated on with a lack of data.

What you are doing is bigoted. You have already dismissed all "truthers" and everything you think "they" believe, so that you don't even consider them human beings anymore, it seems. When "they" (including engineers) have discussions, you've just shown that you totally ignore them, as if they count for nothing. You totally discount all of it and say "oh well they've only been talking about fireproofing." When people use sayings like, "so-and-so has their head stuck in the sand," this is what they mean, because you are turning a 100% blind eye to discussions that you yourself are even involved in just because you don't want to think there is any legitimacy to them.

I know you can't justify dismissing out-of-hand anything "truther" engineers say, because you can't actually dismiss with any reason what they are saying. So why do you pretend they aren't saying anything, that no one is raising any questions? Would it be because it would be too emotionally devastating to admit as much to yourself, so you have to keep marginalizing the whole issue, and pretending that fireproofing adequacy is some bigger debate when it comes to the WTC? I've been watching these discussions for almost 10 years and I know for a certain fact that the fireproofing discussions are not even the tip of the iceberg even within engineering communities as to what happened at the WTC on 9/11.


What I am pointing out is that the uneducated shock, horror, expressions of the truthers have not been at all mirrored in the qualified worldwide engineering community


I think the real problem is that no matter how many engineers and other relevant professionals dispute what happened on 9/11, you are always going to tell yourself, "well if there was anything to it, there would be MORE people disputing it." No matter how many people dispute it, you will always tell yourself that. And that is your excuse to not think any more about it. But I will tell you something else. It doesn't matter how many people are disputing something. Popular opinion has never been accepted as any sort of rigorous scientific evidence, of anything except what popular opinion happens to be. Popular opinion in the past has consisted of the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There is nothing to it.

I will ask you again, what in the NIST report convinced you that we have anything remotely approaching proof of why the WTC towers came down like they did, with all the testimonies of explosions, with all of the debris being hurled outside of the footprints in direct contradiction to a "pancake" mechanism, and all that other good stuff? What in the NIST report was so damned conclusive that you have to dismiss everything we say out of hand, every day, until the day you die, no thinking necessary, except for your next witty response to someone you don't know on the internet? All I want to see is what evidence YOU have that you think justifies this unshakable opinion you have.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1Perhaps therefore, anyone suggesting that NIST's reports could not withstand " peer review " could direct me to a professional engineering association anywhere in the developed world which is in dispute with the NIST's main findings about the collapses.


Exactly, that is why 9/11 is a GLOBAL Psychological and Educational problem.

In a few months the Empire State Building will be 80 years old. The transistor had not even been invented when that building was designed but now you can buy a $100 computer in a drugstore that is competition for a 1980 mainframe.

A hell of a lot of professionals have made themselves look stupid by tolerating this crap. So we have to wonder why they can't demand info as simple is the distributions of steel and concrete when the way it had to be distributed is plain to see.

www.youtube.com...

Nearly that entire structure is dead load. Because it gets narrower toward the top it doesn't have nearly the wind load problem that the WTC towers had. But EVERYBODY is supposed to believe the top of the north tower could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds. This is not about peer review. This is about the certified experts in relatively antiquated knowledge trying to convince other people that they are completely stupid and should TRUST THE EXPERTS.

www.youtube.com...

The problem is that there is such a large percentage of dummies that will think what they are told.

psik
.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually as a Civil/Structural/Forensics Engineer, I can say with confidence that once collapse initiation started, there was nothing to stop it. So, that part of the OS I can truelly believe. It's collapse initiation that I have a question about (I would have said a "problem with", but, there ARE things that the common person doesn't realize that could have happened). My question is: If the NIST is so sure, then why are they hiding information?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join