New Investigation

reply to post by FDNY343


Thats right they withheld many steps on how they achieved their results.

reply to post by FDNY343

Do you have another, more complete account/theory that matches the known facts and events of the day?

The presentation "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" video.google.com...# examines a lot of the inconsistencies between the official story and the available evidence. It focus more on how the buildings fell with a scientifically backed, open peer review approach. It was put together with the backing of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", www.ae911truth.org... . It does present a very strong account from what is known about that day and the subsequent clean up. Compared to the NIST report it is a lot more transparent, definitive and reputable in the conclusions. As for why, the debates are still on going and highlights the need for a new investigation.

reply to post by kwakakev


Again with the peer review. Are you contending that the video was "peer reviewed"? How was the review conducted? Who conducted the review? What standards did they apply? How was the peerage determined?

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Thats right they withheld many steps on how they achieved their results.

Who? NIST or the 911 CR?

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Do you have another, more complete account/theory that matches the known facts and events of the day?

The presentation "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" video.google.com...# examines a lot of the inconsistencies between the official story and the available evidence. It focus more on how the buildings fell with a scientifically backed, open peer review approach. It was put together with the backing of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", www.ae911truth.org... . It does present a very strong account from what is known about that day and the subsequent clean up. Compared to the NIST report it is a lot more transparent, definitive and reputable in the conclusions. As for why, the debates are still on going and highlights the need for a new investigation.

edit on 20-1-2011 by kwakakev because: added link to video

Your video "911 Blueprint for Truth" is crap. I've seen it, i've listened to it. It quotemines eyewitness accounts, and asks more questions than gives answers.

Like I said on page one. If you (The TM collectively) want a new investigation, do it. Nobody is stopping you. You (again, the TM collectively) fund it, you organize it, and you publish the findings. I will gladly look at it.

reply to post by hooper

What does peer review mean to you?

Peer review is when a collection of scientist in a specific filed get together to check the work of another colleague.

When is it applicable?

Peer review is generally performed on papers that are written for scientific periodicals. It is also used on large projects to double check that the right calculations and conclusions have been performed to avoid costly mistakes.

How do you determine peerage?

This is generally self regulated within the industry. It takes at least one other knowledgeable person to check the work that has been performed. On larger periodicals there is generally a board consisting of a few members to review the papers that have been submitted to look for mistakes and determine if the work and results are correct and suitable for publication.

What are the results of a proper peer review?

Peer review is one of the processes to help maintain the integrity and high standards of the science community.

reply to post by kwakakev


Thats interesting.

So basically you think "peer review" means that something has been double checked and is correct? And therefore, if a statement can be said to have been "peer reviewed" then you believe that is the same as saying that it is correct in its conclusion or outcomes?

Can you consider that peer review does not necessarily comment on a proposition's conclusion but simply maintains that the work has been approached in a scholarly, ethical and professional manner? That the imprimatur of "peer review" is a not a declaration of correctness but an expression only of professionalism?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Cassius666
For starters the 911 comission report

Why would the 9/11 CR be "peer-reviewed"? It's a political report on the events that lead up to September 11th. How COULD you peer-review that?

Exactly. The 9/11 commission didn't just sit in a room and make up some story up on their own. They held an inquiry to listen to many, many, MANY witnesses to piece together the puzzle, and as already shown, witnesses like Ted Olson can't even discuss a telephone conversation he had with his wife Barbara without a bunch of paranoid conspiracy idiots accusing him of lying to cover up the murder of his wife, or worse, making up ridiculous claims that Barbara was alive and arrested in Europe while carrying millions in Italian Lira. What possible kind of peer review could anyone possibly do that the conspiracy peopel would find credible?

Moreover, many witnesses won't be able to be cross referenced, such as German intelligence agents reporting that Mohammed Atta was hooking up with Al Qaida agents while in Hamburg, becuase for one, the agents are from Germany and aren't subject to US subpoenas, and for another, Germany doesn't want their agents identified because they have their own immigration problems. Who here believes the conspiracy people won't interpret this as a sign of a coverup in knee jerk instinct like they do everything else, raise your hands.

Let's face it, these trusters aren't looking for an investigation becuase they genuinely have unanswered questions. They're demanding an investigation becuase they're looking for excuses to keep their conspiracy stories alive, the same way they keep insisting they want to see the Pentagon video even though they're the only ones claiming any more usable video even exists to begin with. Even if they did get another investigation, they wouldn't accept that one any more than they did any of the prior ones.

reply to post by hooper

So basically you think "peer review" means that something has been double checked and is correct?

Yes. That is one of the prime aims of the process. Debates to get to the point and reason in matters is also common.

And therefore, if a statement can be said to have been "peer reviewed" then you believe that is the same as saying that it is correct in its conclusion or outcomes?

Yes, as correct as those involved in the peer reviewed can be. Science is a learning process and mistakes are sill made due to many reasons.

Can you consider that peer review does not necessarily comment on a proposition's conclusion but simply maintains that the work has been approached in a scholarly, ethical and professional manner?

In principle yes, but this can be a touchy subject in some peer reviewed circles. There are some indications that certain periodicals will favour the conclusions drawn compared to the scholarly, ethical and professional manner undertaken. In the long term, these biased conclusions will give the periodical involved a bad reputation as further evidence is compiled and competing view points debated across the scientific community. In a perfect world scholarly, ethical and professional manner is what is valued.

That the imprimatur of "peer review" is a not a declaration of correctness but an expression only of professionalism?

Yes. Science is a leaning process and there is still much that is unknown about his world. Science has made great progress from its early beginnings and a vast body of understanding has grown. The scientific method is in a search for the proven truths about our world. While science is a very strong tool, other aspects of society including the political and military sectors can influence the outcomes at times.

reply to post by kwakakev


Are there any definitions, works, or processes that may not be subject to peer review?

For instance, many here are demanding that the NIST reports be peer reviewed. The NIST was charged by the US government with determining and illuminating the performance of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001.

Describe the peer review process in that case. Whom should the NIST have submitted the report to prior to publication?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
You talk pork
Building 7 was a controlled demolition, lets apply some critical thinking.

Why have we never seen any real footage of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Because it didn't happen that's why. What with mysteriously disappearing black boxes, magical passports, you wonder why people ask questions.

You talk nonsense, try taking your head out of your botty before it's too late. Either you are blind or you serve another agenda.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
Couldn't agree with you more, Fire Marshall Bill. The solution IS simple: release ALL the video from the Pentagon and surrounding areas. That would satisfy all concerned. Does one eat crow with mint sauce?

First off, I have no idea who this "Fire Marshall Bill" is. Maybe you can clarify? Thanks.

Secondly, you're welcome to contact the businesses surrounding the Pentagon and ask for their footage. it's theirs, not the DoD's. The DoD has no legal basis to release private property.

As far as the Pentagon footage is concerned, here are a few reasons you wont get it.

1- The building is highly controlled. There is a reason for that. You know, national security and all. If footage is realease, it can be used to determine the location and capabilities of the cameras. This is bad.

2- It is my understanding that not every camera is recorded. Some are. Some are not. You have proof they are all recorded? Please show it.

There is a reason some things are classified. Did you know that a submarines grocery bill is classified? Why is that? We all know submariners have to eat at some point, right? You release their food bill, and you can extrapolate how long they will be on patrol. This is HIGHLY classified. Even the paint manufacturer for the floor paint is classified. Strange eh?

Fire Marshal Bill, is a character that Jim Carrey, played on SNL. I agree the Pentagon is highly controlled and the most secure buildings, probably in the western world. My point is, if it IS that secure and controlled, how did a Boeing 757 even get close enough to the Pentagon without being shot down. Enter, safe in the bunker, Dick Head Cheney and his stand down order.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
You talk pork
Building 7 was a controlled demolition, lets apply some critical thinking.

Ok, lets do that.

What explosive is silent?
What explosive is above to go off 3 hours before the collapse begins?
What explosive leaves absolutely NO trace whatsoever? (Thermite is not an explosive. It is an incendiary)

Explosions were heard all over GZ. Agreed. However, there are plenty of things that go boom in a fire. Can you conclusively rule those sources out? No, of course not.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

Why have we never seen any real footage of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Because something traveling at ~733 FPS is going to be difficult to capture on film. Especially when the security camera from the parking garage area shoots at (IIRC) 30 frames per minute (or 1 frame every other second)

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

Because it didn't happen that's why.

So, all the pieces of Flt. 77 were planted? DNA? Personal effects? All planted? What caused the explosion?

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
What with mysteriously disappearing black boxes,

Not suprising at all when you consider the amount of energy that was exertd on the BB in NYC. Not to mention the days of fire, and the pulverization it would have undergone in the collapse.

The ones in DC and PA were recovered. FDR from 77 was analyzed, as was 93. Flt. 77's CVR was damaged, and was not useable. Flt. 93's was useable, and (IIRC) most was released.

You do understand that the CVR and FDR are not indestructable, right?

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
magical passports,

Not hardly. Many other pieces of personal effects were found from the plane. Sorry if you think passports are magical.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
you wonder why people ask questions.

Nope, I have my own theory as to why Truthers ask questions.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
You talk nonsense, try taking your head out of your botty before it's too late. Either you are blind or you serve another agenda.

Same can go for you.

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
Fire Marshal Bill, is a character that Jim Carrey, played on SNL.

Oh, so a weak attempt at an insult. How......unsuprising.

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
I agree the Pentagon is highly controlled and the most secure buildings, probably in the western world.

Wonderful. Glad we can agree.

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
My point is, if it IS that secure and controlled, how did a Boeing 757 even get close enough to the Pentagon without being shot down.

Because it's incredibly close to the end of a runway? You do realize that Regan Intl. is within sight of the Pentagon, right? Let me guess, you actually believe missle batteries are installed in the Pentagon?

Originally posted by gr82m8okdok
Enter, safe in the bunker, Dick Head Cheney and his stand down order.

No proof of a stand down order. "Does the order still stand?" means nothing without some context.

reply to post by FDNY343


It wasn't possible for those pilots, with their limited training to perform those maneuvers though was it? Even Michale moore covered this. There is no way flight 77 performed those maneuvers. Further, why did the FBI confiscate those security cameras if there was "nothing to see."

Critical thinking friend. People ask questions because the questions are obvious. You want to believe the "official story" that is up to you. However i understand the power of corrupt Government, i understand history.
If you're still in doubt,

just keep telling yourself that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

They held an inquiry to listen to many, many, MANY witnesses to piece together the puzzle...

What are we suppose to do when the picture presented has many holes, inconsistencies and questions remaining? A lot of people have died and been injured over this. It is unacceptable to accept a poor attempt with such a serious matter.

What possible kind of peer review could anyone possibly do that the conspiracy peopel would find credible?

I acknowledge that is it impractical to have every witness cross examined by the community. However there is a large body of witness statements with many contradictions and different pieces of the puzzle. There is already much review going on throughout the Internet with these and other pieces of evidence.

It is getting on 10 years since the event with many leads fading away and getting lost. There is still a lot that is available and many questions that are yet to be answered. A transparent and decent attempt to get to the truth is what people will find credible, where the hard questions have been asked and a picture where the pieces do fit.

They're demanding an investigation becuase they're looking for excuses to keep their conspiracy stories alive.

If this was some fairy tail it would have died of a long time ago and left in the category with those who think the earth is flat. This strikes at the heart of the decline going on in America, the corruption is getting out of control and unless America sorts its mess out it could be looking at a status of a 3rd world nation as the economy crumbles. Just because your head is in the sand does not mean your ass is safe.

reply to post by hooper

Are there any definitions, works, or processes that may not be subject to peer review?

Different organisations have different processes, reasons like confidentiality or resources do limit the amount of peer reviewed work undertaken. Peer review is a self regulating process, generally the more people that have looked over and checked a work the more reliable it is.

For instance, many here are demanding that the NIST reports be peer reviewed. The NIST was charged by the US government with determining and illuminating the performance of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. Describe the peer review process in that case. Whom should the NIST have submitted the report to prior to publication?

The problem with NIST is that they have not released their computer modelling data, only the results to the community. This means that the community is unable to verify that the modelling data used is based on sound engineering principles or has been fudged to get the answer they wanted.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You talk pork
Building 7 was a controlled demolition, lets apply some critical thinking.

No it wasn't. You want to believe it was a controlled demolition, but the pattern of the collapse fits no controlled demolition on the face of the planet. For one thing, there were no flashes nor pyroclastic emissions, and second, the interior of the building collapsed first before the outer shell of the building did. That doesn't even include the eyewitness accounts of the blatant damage the fires were inflicting on WTC 7.

Why have we never seen any real footage of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

...becuase it's only the conspiracy camp who's claiming any more usable footage exists to begin with. What benefit will it be to you to see video of a bunch of people in the parking lot looking at something off camera?

Because it didn't happen that's why. What with mysteriously disappearing black boxes, magical passports, you wonder why people ask questions.

No, I'm not wondering why you people are asking questions, and in fact I already know why you people are asking questions. Most of your questions have already been answered but it's simply the case you don't know it- these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately pushing out drivel and getting people all paranoid over shadows for their own financial gain so you're not going to get your answers from con artists like Dylan Avery or Alex Jones.

You talk nonsense, try taking your head out of your botty before it's too late. Either you are blind or you serve another agenda.

I shouldn't need to tell you that your use of make believe to support previous make believe isn't proof. It's circular logic in that you're simply repeating the same accusation in different terms in a false attempt to get it to prove itself. If you need to resort to playing games like this to keep your conspiracy stories alive then it's a de fact admission that your conspiracy claims have no credibility.

My new investigation would be as follows:
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would take a trip to the Russian or Chinese equivalent of Gitmo.
They would be treated to lashings of sodium pentathol and then hopefully we could get some honest answers about what, if any, involvement they had.

Failing that, an answer to why two of those guys refused to go under oath to the 911 comission, why they insisted upon being interviewed together and why the questions they were asked were pre-approved beforehand.

reply to post by kwakakev

The problem with NIST is that they have not released their computer modelling data, only the results to the community. This means that the community is unable to verify that the modelling data used is based on sound engineering principles or has been fudged to get the answer they wanted.

So you're arguing that in the peer review process the subject of the review can be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise? If there are fast and certain "sound engineering principles" shouldn't the reviewers be capable of applying these universal principles themselves to the data and compare the results? Isn't that why the review is conducted by peers in the first place?