Recommend me a great 9/11 online documentary. What is the very best 9/11 documentary?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

even lead NIST needing to fill in huge gaps with an to this date classified computer simulation, Because the data used is a possible threat to national security if released ..... keep being gullible guys

But that model was peer reviewed in a well respected journal.

seannash

King Mob wrote: »

The problem Cheerful has is that he thinks that "peers" means anyone and everyone.
In reality the journal would send the paper and out to people in the field that it knows will be able to verify and check. They do no tell the authors of the paper who these peers are to keep in impartial and don't advertise who was part of the review process.
These reviewers would have been given all the information they needed to conduct their review. The problem cheerful has is that he doesn't grasp the difference between "releasing to the public" and "releasing at all."

So that would make it perfectly logical to conclude that as its been published in a journal it followed the normal peer review process.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Can you show me where they were able to use (computer model) data provided by NIST in relation to the collapse ?

It's in the paper.

This question is a lame empty pointless one you are trying to use as an excuse to reject a paper that has been published and peer reviewed.

Do you believe that this journal is now part of the conspiracy?
Are you now somehow more qualified to review it than any of the experts in the journal?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

The problem Cheerful has is that he thinks that "peers" means anyone and everyone.
In reality the journal would send the paper and out to people in the field that it knows will be able to verify and check. They do no tell the authors of the paper who these peers are to keep in impartial and don't advertise who was part of the review process.
These reviewers would have been given all the information they needed to conduct their review. The problem cheerful has is that he doesn't grasp the difference between "releasing to the public" and "releasing at all."

Jesus Christ you guys are hard work and you guys really believe what are you saying?

I even posted a peer review guideline from their own website. Are you just going to ignore that?

Are just going to ignore the NIST stated openly in a public statement they withheld their results?

You claim what you like the facts are no independent people have verified NIST work full stop no debate end of story.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, no.
It's a peer reviewed paper that was submitted to Journal of Structural Engineering, a well respected journal with robust peer review process.
It appeared in Volume 138 Issue 1 - January 2012, which you seem to have missed when you read it. This information was buried deep in the very top of the page I'm sure you opened.

It is not a "report submitted by the NIST". That is a lie you made up.

Uhh ... Could you tell me who the Authors are working for ?

And then explain to me how this can be called a peer reviewed study in regards to NIST findings ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Why is it necessary to have an alternative theory to refute flawed research ?

Because the building fell somehow

You are personally asserting that it's "flawed". That's your subjective view, not that of any recognised investigation, investigative body or any body of experts in the world

Again, back to the internet person vs overwhelming consensus of experts and investigators

If the first investigation was done properly maybe evidence for an alternative would still be there .. instead possible evidence was quickly disposed of which even lead NIST needing to fill in huge gaps with an to this date classified computer simulation, Because the data used is a possible threat to national security if released ..... keep being gullible guys

Again, according to you. You don't have any credible counter-theory (which is already a red flag). Considering the only people I've come across who attack the NIST are loons and conspiracy nuts then it's fair to understand that you aren't in the best position

That's in comparison to more than one investigation, held hundreds of experts, with the evidence that found the building fell due to fire

Random internet person vs multiple investigations

Therefore I asked you earlier

1. If you are an expert, highlight your findings to the NIST I am sure if you have ground-breaking info they will want to know

2. If you are a lay-person who doesn't grasp certain things, then go to engineering/architectural forums for more indepth expertise on the matter (I've heard some of these forums have banned discussion of the subject because of all the loons and cranks who come in)

Can you show me where they were able to use (computer model) data provided by NIST in relation to the collapse ?

Why?

I've read in several places that they decided not to release the software because they believe it would have been abused by conspiracy theorists. Judging by the false information and conspiracy crap on the internet - not a bad call

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's in the paper.

Where ?

Just trying to get you to come of your high horse and actually provide a bit more then a simple abstract

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are just going to ignore the NIST stated openly in a public statement they withheld their results?
.

Again, you have issues with reading comprehension.
I don't believe your interpretation of that letter, assuming you haven't just tweaked it, isn't accurate.

Even still, that letter does not imply that they would not release the information as part of a study or part of the peer review process. You have no proof that they withheld this information from the journal or the reviewers beyond your poor reading skills about one out of context letter.

And again, your objection only comes from you scouring over the website for an excuse only after you incorrectly claimed that the NIST did the peer review itself.

Couple this with your utter ignorance of how peer review works...

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I even posted a peer review guideline from their own website. Are you just going to ignore that?

Are just going to ignore the NIST stated openly in a public statement they withheld their results?

Can I just ask, you quoted peer review guidelines from the Journals website. So these are the guidelines that they ask the NIST to follow when they submit a report to them to have reviewed an published. They need to make the files accessible to them, not the general public. This is my understanding of it


The second part is NIST stating they will withhold the results from the general public. It is not stating it withheld them from the Journal. If they did they would not have been published.
I think this is what they mean.
If not I'll happily admit I have that wrong. It seems like you've combined two different statements directed at two different groups and concluded they withheld the results from the peer review.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because the building fell somehow

It's only "flawed" research according to you personally.

Incorrect .. also confirmed by people who have more knowledge on the subject then you and I will ever have

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you - some random person from the internet. You don't have any credible counter-theory (which is already a red flag). Considering the only people I've come across who attack the NIST are loons and conspiracy nuts then it's fair to understand that you aren't in the best position

Maybe try and read past the loons

I don't have to provide anything... no alternative, nothing to refute flawed research, its the line spouted by skeptics to try and shut down debate

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why?

I've read in several places that they decided not to release the software because they believe it would have been abused by conspiracy theorists. Judging by the false information and conspiracy crap on the internet - not a bad call

You are wrong about the reason ..... at least try to keep the impression you are actually serious

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Uhh ... Could you tell me who the Authors are working for ?

No. Why is it relevant?

weisses wrote: »

And then explain to me how this can be called a peer reviewed study in regards to NIST findings ?

Because it's about the NISTs findings and that it was peer reviewed.
I really don't understand what this question is asking.

weisses wrote: »

Where ?

In the paper.
If you are curious about it, read the paper.

Again, why do I need to point it out to you?
You're not an expert. You aren't going to be able to point out a flaw that they missed.

weisses wrote: »

Just trying to get you to come of your high horse and actually provide a bit more then a simple abstract

Again, you and your friends claimed this paper didn't exist.
But it does. It's a peer reviewed paper of the NIST's findings. The abstract is enough.
You are now desperately scrambling to find an excuse to ignore it.

The problem is that you've painted yourself into a corner and you can't just dismiss the journal as part of the conspiracy like you want to do.

Do you think this paper wasn't peer reviewed? If so, why?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Incorrect .. also confirmed by people who have more knowledge on the subject then you and I will ever have

Very misleading. Cranks, conspiracy theorists and isolated "experts" don't automatically outweigh the investigators and hundreds of experts who worked on the report, nor the findings, the science, evidence and facts presented

They don't have an explanation as to how the building fell.

Their efforts so far have failed and have been criticised by actual recognised bodies of experts

One of the self-appointed conspiracy groups paid $300k to an expert to produce a report which was due early this year. The final report is still delayed. After that it will be subject to peer review.

Apart from your personal incredulity (and misunderstanding) and that of conspiracy theorists, loons (like Alex Jones), conspiracy groups (like AE911), and isolated experts - that is the only pending challenge to the NIST

Don't try to pretend your opinion comes from anything but conspiracy theorists, cranks and personal incredulity

I don't have to provide anything... no alternative, nothing to refute flawed research, its the line spouted by skeptics to try and shut down debate

Then your approach to this is (strangely) inconsistent. That's why I suspect personal dogma might be clouding your objectivity or rationale on the issue

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you have issues with reading comprehension.
I don't believe your interpretation of that letter, assuming you haven't just tweaked it, isn't accurate.

Even still, that letter does not imply that they would not release the information as part of a study or part of the peer review process. You have no proof that they withheld this information from the journal or the reviewers beyond your poor reading skills about one out of context letter.

And again, your objection only comes from you scouring over the website for an excuse only after you incorrectly claimed that the NIST did the peer review itself.

Couple this with your utter ignorance of how peer review works...

You calling me a liar and not the first time. NIST has never released its results to be verified independently. You then claim differently. You don't have anything to substantiate that claim:rolleyes:

And this stage i think it's pointless talking to you. You don't address anything about the conspiracy itself.

You have got shown clear evidence NIST collapse model does match the actual collapse. Ignored by you. Any evidence supporting the WTC7 conspiracy is ignored, well this not a debate. When you actually start debating the subject we talk again.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You calling me a liar and not the first time.

Nope. And probably not the last time either. You lie a lot.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And this stage i think it's pointless talking to you. You don't address anything about the conspiracy itself.

No, I just don't bite on anything of the dozens of factoids you spew out to avoid talking about a topic when you've been backed into a corner.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No. Why is it relevant?

Authors are working for NIST for starters

King Mob wrote: »

In the paper.
If you are curious about it, read the paper

I dont have 85 dollar ... so if you would be so kind to copy paste relevant sections ....unless you didn't read it yourself of course

Again, why do I need to point it out to you?
You're not an expert. You aren't going to be able to point out a flaw that they missed.

I dont have 85 dollar ... so if you would be so kind to copy paste relevant sections ....unless you didn't read it yourself of course

You are no expert either yet you think you are able to point out there are no flaws

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you and your friends claimed this paper didn't exist.

I did no such thing ..... sorry to disappoint

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Very misleading. Cranks, conspiracy theorists and isolated "experts" don't automatically outweigh the investigators and hundreds of experts who worked on the report, nor the findings, the science, evidence and facts presented

They don't have an explanation as to how the building fell.

Their efforts so far have failed and have been criticised by actual recognised bodies of experts

One of the self-appointed conspiracy groups paid $300k to an expert to produce a report which was due early this year. The final report is still delayed. After that it will be subject to peer review.

Apart from your personal incredulity (and misunderstanding) and that of conspiracy theorists, loons (like Alex Jones), conspiracy groups (like AE911), and isolated experts - that is the only pending challenge to the NIST

Don't try to pretend your opinion comes from anything but conspiracy theorists, cranks and personal incredulity



Then your approach to this is (strangely) inconsistent. That's why I suspect personal dogma might be clouding your objectivity or rationale on the issue

Sorry but I leave the waffle above for your account


Conclusion is that you are apparently incapable in having an adult discussion about this, seeing as you have to refer to people who disagree as loons ....

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

One of the self-appointed conspiracy groups paid $300k to an expert to produce a report which was due early this year. The final report is still delayed. After that it will be subject to peer review.

"Peer review" with heavy inverted commas.
The peers being hand picked by the authors and it being published in their own journal.

But meanwhile the Journal of Structural Engineering's method of peer review is just too untrustworthy!

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

Where ?

Just trying to get you to come of your high horse and actually provide a bit more then a simple abstract

Don't bother these people are delusional they will drag you into whataboutery debates about nothing.

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You calling me a liar and not the first time. NIST has never released its results to be verified independently. You then claim differently. You don't have anything to substantiate that claim:rolleyes:

Can I ask you to address the two posts I made about this and how the peer review process works and it should help with the independently reviewed part.
I'm not claiming you are ignoring my posts, just trying to show you I offered an explanation to the remark it wasn't verified independently

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

"Peer review" with heavy inverted commas.
The peers being hand picked by the authors and it being published in their own journal.

But meanwhile the Journal of Structural Engineering's method of peer review is just too untrustworthy!

From the researchers

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Can you provide a source where it states The peers being hand picked

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Authors are working for NIST for starters

One of the authors is. They sneakily say that on the top of the page. Excellent investigating there.

However, the journal does not work for the NIST. Nor would the reviewers who are doing the peer reviewing. They avoid such a thing to maintain impartiality.

If you think that the reviewers did work for the NIST, evidence please.
Otherwise, the idea is dismissed.

weisses wrote: »

I dont have 85 dollar ... so if you would be so kind to copy paste relevant sections ....unless you didn't read it yourself of course

I never said I read it, nor implied I did.
Again, what relevance does this request have other than a half hearted attempt to find an excuse to dismiss a peer reviewed paper.

What specifically are you looking for in the paper?

Also, aren't you the one who believes that you're onto a vast global conspiracy? Surely that means that you're looking for some kinda evidence to help against them? But you can't be bothered to pay $85 to do that?
Bit lazy no?

weisses wrote: »

You are no expert either yet you think you are able to point out there are no flaws

No flaws that a team of experts at a well respected journal caught.

weisses wrote: »

I did no such thing ..... sorry to disappoint

Ya did though...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105243126&postcount=14

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

From the researchers



Can you provide a source where it states The peers being hand picked

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105290154&postcount=59

And releasing the report to the public is not peer review by any means. It's the opposite of peer review...

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

One of the self-appointed conspiracy groups paid $300k to an expert to produce a report which was due early this year. The final report is still delayed. After that it will be subject to peer review.

Last time I checked research costs money (correct me if Im wrong)

The conclusions being delayed is not necessary a bad thing, if you want to be thorough specially when its presented for peer review .... NIST could learn a thing or two

On a side note you do realize that interference from your so called loons forced NIST to keep revising their final report because of its flaws ... Funny that all these experts who had no issue with NIST didn't see that

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Sorry but I leave the waffle above for your account


Conclusion is that you are apparently incapable in having an adult discussion about this, seeing as you have to refer to people who disagree as loons ....

Deflection

Avoiding the points that you can't or won't address for obvious reasons

If you genuinely discovered issues with the report, then you would be able to address the above

I refer to people like Alex Jones as a loon. He supports 911 conspiracy theories, which you are alluding to. But you use that term as a crux to skip away from the difficult questions which highlight your bizarre and nonsensical approach to this subject

A building fell down. You can't care what caused it to fall, you just personally assert it can't have fallen down according to the findings multiple investigations and the consensus of hundreds of experts on the issue

And it appears that you aren't an expert on it, and that you don't want to approach or seek answers from them on your queries

It's an extraordinary level of delusion

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And it appears that you aren't an expert on it, and that you don't want to approach or seek answers from them on your queries

It's an extraordinary level of delusion

It's not important what happened, just that it was a conspiracy.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105290154&postcount=59

And releasing the report to the public is not peer review by any means. It's the opposite of peer review...

That data is older then the website of the university

Its released for public review .... Whats wrong with that ? You have great faith in that truther forum, Im sure they will try to discredit its report

And Mick West is gas ... he needs to be corrected all the time and when people keep disagreeing he bannes them from his forum ....Nice chap

Cheerful Spring

seannash wrote: »

Can I ask you to address the two posts I made about this and how the peer review process works and it should help with the independently reviewed part.
I'm not claiming you are ignoring my posts, just trying to show you I offered an explanation to the remark it wasn't verified independently

ASCE published a NIST technical paper belonging to them. They are just reviewing the paper submitted and this paper does not contain structural calculations and results. We know this because NIST stated they will not release their findings to the public.

For example just one of many. If you can't see the data NIST used to measure calculate the walk-off distance of the girder at column 79 how can you verify this actually occurred independently? You cant, end of story.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Its released for public review .... Whats wrong with that ?

So you don't understand peer review either...

If they release it for "public review" then what's to stop them for making mistakes or outright fabricating stuff?

Do you think conspiracy theorists will accept any criticism of it?
Do you think that no one would just blindly believe it?

There's no reason why they would want to "publicly review" it if they want it to be unbiased and free of error.
And we know it's not going to be unbiased as I've pointed out before, they've started with a predetermined conclusion, which is the opposite of science.

So why should I trust this method of review, but then distrusted the reviews conducted by a respected journal?

Do you think that the paper I posted was not peer reviewed properly?
If so, why?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

One of the authors is. They sneakily say that on the top of the page. Excellent investigating there.

2 are

King Mob wrote: »

However, the journal does not work for the NIST. Nor would the reviewers who are doing the peer reviewing. They avoid such a thing to maintain impartiality.

If you think that the reviewers did work for the NIST, evidence please.
Otherwise, the idea is dismissed.

2 authors dealing with an apparently peer reviewed study are working for NIST and you have no issue with that .... :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

I never said I read it, nor implied I did.
Again, what relevance does this request have other than a half hearted attempt to find an excuse to dismiss a peer reviewed paper.

What specifically are you looking for in the paper?

Uhhh you claimed

But that model was peer reviewed in a well respected journal.

I asked to show me where ... Now you are saying You didnt read it and that Im no expert so I shouldn't bother .... Ohh it keeps getting better by every post

King Mob wrote: »

Also, aren't you the one who believes that you're onto a vast global conspiracy? Surely that means that you're looking for some kinda evidence to help against them? But you can't be bothered to pay $85 to do that?
Bit lazy no?

Uhh no ... I only said I didn't have 85 dollar I also didn't bring up an report I could not be arsed to read ... I think that was you

Now who is lazy

King Mob wrote: »

Ya did though...
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105243126&postcount=14

Uhh actually not ... Can you point out in that post the reference to this paper not existing ? ..... specially because today is the first time I saw it

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

paper does not contain structural calculations and results.

That's a big old lie.