Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Options
2456711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    The collapse sequence itself can hold many clues as to what happened ..so yes you can suggest different scenarios

    Give an example of a scenario
    And my answer is going to be the same. Fire bringing wtc7 down the way it did is Impossible, The fact no answer is yet provided doesn't mean you have to fall back to the most unlikely scenario

    Is impossible to you personally.
    The study/report that is completed by Hulsey is going to be peer reviewed ...

    That's because it's largely challenging a portion of the engineering methodology
    Like proper scientific research should be ... Unlike the NIST report

    Again, to repeat, the NIST report was an investigation. Can't really peer review an investigation. The information was made public so experts, groups, etc can examine it.
    Yeah just look at smoke and fire ... thats proper investigation :rolleyes:

    Personal incredulity.

    The NIST investigation took years and involved countless experts, as well as external assistance from structural engineering groups, fire protection engineers and steel construction experts

    They had access to 10's of thousands of documents, hundreds of witnesses

    Parts of the report itself have been challenged, but the actual findings (e.g. that WTC 7 fell due to unchecked fires) have not been challenged by any recognised groups of experts, engineers, etc
    And to date only investigation done into wtc7 lacks all the scientific parameters ...and yet you choose to belief it

    These are your personal beliefs and incredulity

    In 2002, there was a FEMA investigation
    In 2003 there was an investigation by Asif Usmani (a professor of engineering and 2 others) - who determined the buildings fell due to fire

    There was still demand from families, experts, etc for a more indepth investigation, which led to the NIST

    An investigation that had to be revised over and over when pointed out to its flaws by joe public

    here another one

    “A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when
    its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The
    bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the
    girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5
    in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.”
    NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008

    NIST changed the 5.5 to 6.25 inches when it was
    shown that the seat was actually 12 inches wide."

    No report is infallible as mentioned many times. So far nothing has changed the findings of the report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    I did not mention thermite nor is that discussed here Its about NIST and how they reach their conclusion and their flawed approach

    Perfectly explained here

    https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk?t=19m25s

    This is all addressed quite clearly on the NIST FAQ
    13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

    Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

    In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

    For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

    14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

    NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

    To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

    It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
    Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
    Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is all addressed quite clearly on the NIST FAQ
    In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

    Really ? .... I mean really?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Basic skepticism and a long history of following types like them in the creationism movement.

    I don't understand why you trust them.

    Now again, do you believe that the thermite explanation is possible?
    Yes or no, please.

    Slow handklap

    Unless not properly investigated I'm not ruling out anything

    The only skeptic here is me....

    Trust has nothing to do with it ... science has


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Give an example of a scenario



    Is impossible to you personally.



    That's because it's largely challenging a portion of the engineering methodology



    Again, to repeat, the NIST report was an investigation. Can't really peer review an investigation. The information was made public so experts, groups, etc can examine it.



    Personal incredulity.

    The NIST investigation took years and involved countless experts, as well as external assistance from structural engineering groups, fire protection engineers and steel construction experts

    They had access to 10's of thousands of documents, hundreds of witnesses

    Parts of the report itself have been challenged, but the actual findings (e.g. that WTC 7 fell due to unchecked fires) have not been challenged by any recognised groups of experts, engineers, etc



    These are your personal beliefs and incredulity

    In 2002, there was a FEMA investigation
    In 2003 there was an investigation by Asif Usmani (a professor of engineering and 2 others) - who determined the buildings fell due to fire

    There was still demand from families, experts, etc for a more indepth investigation, which led to the NIST




    No report is infallible as mentioned many times. So far nothing has changed the findings of the report.

    You make it look I made this all up personally

    I base an opinion on information out there

    And the reason you gave for why NIST doesn't need to be peer reviewed is BS (you probably know that as well)

    All that was asked was the data/parameters etc used that lead to their conclusion as to how the building fell ...That all of a sudden was a matter of public safety ... You cannot make it up ... Which lead of course to a situation where it was very difficult to check their findings, which lead to speculation ...finally the funding was there for a comprehensive peer reviewed study which surprise surprise showed NIST was flawed

    So no its not me personally who have an issue


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Slow handklap

    Unless not properly investigated I'm not ruling out anything

    The only skeptic here is me....

    Trust has nothing to do with it ... science has
    It does though. You are simply trusting them because you prefer their conclusion.

    You have no other reason to and every reason to distrust them, which you ignore.

    And you can't really pretend to be on science's side if you are going to entertain the possibility that Space lasers might have possibly taken down a building because it wasn't ruled out...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Really ? .... I mean really?
    Yes really. There are no videos that contain any explosions in WTC7, never mind the dozens that a demolition requires.

    Can you point to one?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Really ? .... I mean really?

    A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise

    However nothing on the level of demolition blasts were heard or recorded

    A part of that video which tries to make that claim can be explained here

    This is what demolitions sound like

    You described that video as being a perfect explanation. A perfect explanation of what exactly? what are you suggesting?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise
    It also bares pointing out that these reports come from people all around the site at different points of the day and over the site of the attack. All of them refer to single explosions rather than the groups of explosions like in actual demolitions. And they are spread out throughout the day rather than in rapid succession and immediately before the collapse of the building.

    If there were demolition style explosions, then there would be some recordings of it somewhere, but there's not.

    If WTC7 was taken down by an explosive, then there would be a noticeable sound before the penthouse collapsed into the building. There is not.

    Explosives can be ruled out and put on the same pile as space lasers, based on those alone.
    Unless we are going to assume silent explosives which would be lower down in the pile from space lasers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We may joke about space lasers, but there is virtually as much evidence for them as demolition

    No explosions, residue, det cords, cuts to the metal, no physical evidence of any sort, no whistle-blowers, leaks, suspects, leads


    So we have to move to the hypothetical, which gets even more absurd. Why covertly demolish a prominent 47 story building on the day of the attacks in full sight of the world's media and thousands of witnesses? what does it achieve, except to act extraordinary risk onto an already risky inside job.

    Some have speculated it was to destroy something inside the building - the same building they supposedly spent weeks clandestinely rigging, wiring and cutting for demo, why not just destroy whatever it was then?

    How did all the detonation equipment survive and "work" after a 7 hour unchecked fire? what if the fire was put out and the firemen discovered all the detonation preparation (or any of the hundreds of people and staff who were using the building on a daily basis prior)?

    What if the planes had missed their targets, the building would be rigged, they would "unrig" it? Why make it so ridiculously over-the-top difficult and risky for themselves?

    No supporting evidence, no physical evidence and highly implausible even on a hypothetical level


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It does though. You are simply trusting them because you prefer their conclusion.

    You have no other reason to and every reason to distrust them, which you ignore.

    And you can't really pretend to be on science's side if you are going to entertain the possibility that Space lasers might have possibly taken down a building because it wasn't ruled out...

    Stop trolling


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes really. There are no videos that contain any explosions in WTC7, never mind the dozens that a demolition requires.

    Can you point to one?

    That is not the quote I responded to
    In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

    Are you saying in all the videos no explosions were heard and there are no videos with witnesses reporting explosions ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A handful of people (out of thousands of witnesses) claim to have heard loud bangs. Some probably did; lifts falling down shafts, transformers exploding, multiple buildings on fire and debris falling can create significant noise

    That is a ridiculous claim ... did these thousands of witnesses got interviewed in regards to explosions ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    We may joke about space lasers, but there is virtually as much evidence for them as demolition

    No explosions, residue, det cords, cuts to the metal, no physical evidence of any sort, no whistle-blowers, leaks, suspects, leads


    So we have to move to the hypothetical, which gets even more absurd. Why covertly demolish a prominent 47 story building on the day of the attacks in full sight of the world's media and thousands of witnesses? what does it achieve, except to act extraordinary risk onto an already risky inside job.

    Some have speculated it was to destroy something inside the building - the same building they supposedly spent weeks clandestinely rigging, wiring and cutting for demo, why not just destroy whatever it was then?

    How did all the detonation equipment survive and "work" after a 7 hour unchecked fire? what if the fire was put out and the firemen discovered all the detonation preparation (or any of the hundreds of people and staff who were using the building on a daily basis prior)?

    What if the planes had missed their targets, the building would be rigged, they would "unrig" it? Why make it so ridiculously over-the-top difficult and risky for themselves?

    No supporting evidence, no physical evidence and highly implausible even on a hypothetical level

    And now there is a report out ruling out a fire induced collapse, A report that is gonna be peer reviewed ..... A report ruled out by KM before he even looked at it ...:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Stop trolling
    I'm not trolling. I'm just tired of chasing down answers to simple questions you're unwilling to answer.

    Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

    Yes or no please.
    weisses wrote: »
    Are you saying in all the videos no explosions were heard and there are no videos with witnesses reporting explosions ?
    There are no explosions in any videos at all.
    There are no explosions in any videos when there absolutely would be explosions if they were used to start the collapse.

    All witness reports are 1. Explainable without explosives and 2. are inconsistent with what would have been heard if it was an explosive demolition.

    Do you believe that there were demolition charges used?
    If so, how do you explain the lack of any sounds of explosions immediately before the collapse?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    That is a ridiculous claim ... did these thousands of witnesses got interviewed in regards to explosions ?

    There were thousands of witnesses. The footage in the video you provided when the building fell showed many people still in the area. There multiple TV crews, many recording live. The NIST interviewed around 1,000 people and reviewed 7,000 pieces of footage

    A handful of people reported hearing loud bangs or what they thought were explosions

    Out of the over 100 witnesses to the Pentagon airliner crash, a handful of witnesses saw what they thought was a small corporate jet hit

    Out of the over 503 interviews (recorded) with firefighters, several thought they heard explosions or saw flashes

    Transformers exploding, lifts crashing down shafts, large pieces of debris hitting the ground, explosions within the fire itself, the diesel tanks in WTC 7, witnesses testimony being mistaken, selectively used or twisted out of context

    At no point in any of that was anything approaching demolition explosions recorded or caught on any visual or audio device. There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever that there were demolition explosions by witnesses. The sounds of a demolition are extremely clear as demonstrated by the video I posted.

    Can you answer the question I asked?
    And now there is a report out ruling out a fire induced collapse, A report that is gonna be peer reviewed ..... A report ruled out by KM before he even looked at it ...

    It doesn't rule anything out yet because it's not final. It is also delayed. As posted earlier people who have already looked at interim (not final) results have pointed out what they believe are several flaws and miscalculations already - but have commented that we need to wait until the final version is produced


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not trolling. I'm just tired of chasing down answers to simple questions you're unwilling to answer.

    Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

    Yes or no please.

    Yes you are trolling



    King Mob wrote: »
    There are no explosions in any videos at all.
    There are no explosions in any videos when there absolutely would be explosions if they were used to start the collapse.

    All witness reports are 1. Explainable without explosives and 2. are inconsistent with what would have been heard if it was an explosive demolition.

    Do you believe that there were demolition charges used?
    If so, how do you explain the lack of any sounds of explosions immediately before the collapse?

    I am focusing on the report that shows fire could not have caused this nice symmetrical collapse

    All other possible causes are speculation, because they have not been properly investigated ....


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were thousands of witnesses.

    Did these thousands of witnesses stated they heard no explosion ?

    And as I said to KM. The discussion is about the report stating fires did not bring down building 7
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It doesn't rule anything out yet because it's not final. It is also delayed. As posted earlier people who have already looked at interim (not final) results have pointed out what they believe are several flaws and miscalculations already - but have commented that we need to wait until the final version is produced

    Thats why its so important the research is open and available for review

    Unlike the NIST report ...Which is verifiable proven to be flawed even without large portions not being available for review

    Why am I the only one here taking a critical approach ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes you are trolling
    I'm not trolling. I'm just answer simple direct questions.
    If you were honest and directly answered them, then we could move on.

    Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

    Yes or no please.
    weisses wrote: »
    I am focusing on the report that shows fire could not have caused this nice symmetrical collapse

    All other possible causes are speculation, because they have not been properly investigated ....
    But again, even if your objections to the actual story held and your report was in anyway worth while, then we are still left with the fact that a fire is the only possible explanation.
    Even if the NISTs explanation is totally and utterly wrong, there is no other possible explanation.

    Thermite and explosives can be ruled out for the exact same reasons as space lasers or magic as explanations.

    If you were applying your "skepticism" fairly, then you would be equally declaring these explanations as possible as you claim the fire explanation could be. But you don't because you want to keep those explanations plausible to fit your preferred narrative of a conspiracy.

    So yea, if it's not fire, or explosives or space lasers: what was it?

    And please stop claiming it's a symmetric collapse. You know it's not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    However nothing on the level of demolition blasts were heard or recorded

    A part of that video which tries to make that claim can be explained here

    A quote from the OP in that thread regarding his "analysis"
    I would like for drommelsboef to explain why he thinks I "failed miserably".
    First, I did not fail - I made a mistake and corrected it myself.

    So you use this kind of people to prove a point and having issues with CT'ers at the same time .... terrific


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not trolling. I'm just answer simple direct questions.
    If you were honest and directly answered them, then we could move on.

    Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

    Yes or no please.

    your first response to this discussion was this one
    King Mob wrote: »
    What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

    Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

    Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?

    It is not what I was discussing at all ... the only reference was why NIST ruled it out .. they looked at fires and how the building collapsed.

    This discussion is about the report that investigated wtc7 and came to the conclusion fire couldn't have done that

    If you are Implying I must believe space lasers as well by not answering your OT questions then yes you are trolling or at least incapable of having an adult discussion regarding this
    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, even if your objections to the actual story held and your report was in anyway worth while, then we are still left with the fact that a fire is the only possible explanation.
    Even if the NISTs explanation is totally and utterly wrong, there is no other possible explanation.

    Why ? it has all the markers of controlled demolition ... If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck

    Problem with NIST is the fact they did not properly investigated other possibilities
    King Mob wrote: »
    Thermite and explosives can be ruled out for the exact same reasons as space lasers or magic as explanations.

    No .. the first two cannot be ruled out simply because it was not properly investigated
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you were applying your "skepticism" fairly, then you would be equally declaring these explanations as possible as you claim the fire explanation could be. But you don't because you want to keep those explanations plausible to fit your preferred narrative of a conspiracy.

    So yea, if it's not fire, or explosives or space lasers: what was it?

    Only thing that is thoroughly investigated and ruled out is fire ... If the new reports stands the scrutiny of review
    King Mob wrote: »
    And please stop claiming it's a symmetric collapse. You know it's not.

    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    your first response to this discussion was this one

    It is not what I was discussing at all ... the only reference was why NIST ruled it out .. they looked at fires and how the building collapsed.

    This discussion is about the report that investigated wtc7 and came to the conclusion fire couldn't have done that

    If you are Implying I must believe space lasers as well by not answering your OT questions then yes you are trolling or at least incapable of having an adult discussion regarding this
    The point you are missing and avoiding by not answering these questions is that there is no other possible explanations.
    I could have elaborated on this if you had just answered directly.
    weisses wrote: »
    Why ? it has all the markers of controlled demolition ... If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck
    Except the lack of any explosions immediately preceding the collapse.
    And that it would have been done in secret.
    And that it would have been done during intense fires.
    And it only superficially fell like a controlled demolition if you ignore certain aspects.

    There are no markers of in being a controlled demolition.

    Further, this is completely incompatible with the other notion of thermite as you cannot claim that it's exactly like a typical demolition yet it uses material and technique that is never used for demolition.

    So do you rule out thermite as a possibility? You can't entertain both.
    weisses wrote: »
    Problem with NIST is the fact they did not properly investigated other possibilities

    No .. the first two cannot be ruled out simply because it was not properly investigated
    So why can you rule out the space laser explanation?
    Please be specific.
    weisses wrote: »
    Only thing that is thoroughly investigated and ruled out is fire ... If the new reports stands the scrutiny of review
    You've not shown any reason to think that is does, it will or that it would be fairly and rigourously reviewed.
    weisses wrote: »
    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you
    Did the building tilt?
    Was there a kink in it as it fell?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Did these thousands of witnesses stated they heard no explosion ?

    I don't know whether this is genuine or an attempt to be obtuse

    Several people (and fire fighters) reported hearing loud bangs and explosions.

    1. Are you suggesting the source of those noises were demolition charges? and what is your rationale behind?

    2. Are you suggesting you believe that WTC 7 could have been blown up by demolition charges?

    3. Do you think the Twin Towers were blown up with demolition charges?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you

    Lack of understanding of a subject is not a valid argument against it

    Likewise a refusal to accept information. The info is freely available online from multiple credible sources. Questions and explanations can be asked and sought from structural engineering forums, physics forums, etc. There are skeptic resources that go to great lengths and depths to debunk and explain almost every tiny detail of these types of events


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Lack of understanding of a subject is not a valid argument against it

    Likewise a refusal to accept information. The info is freely available online from multiple credible sources. Questions and explanations can be asked and sought from structural engineering forums, physics forums, etc. There are skeptic resources that go to great lengths and depths to debunk and explain almost every tiny detail of these types of events
    From that link I found this thread with a great summary of the issues with the study in question:
    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

    And it highlighted this interesting tidbit:
    Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (a group that thinks that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives) approached Dr. Leroy Hulsey (a professor at University of Alaska, Fairbanks) in 2013 to:
    Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.
    Source: http://archive.is/ZR9S5 and https://web.archive.org/web/20150330080428/www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015
    (Emphasis mine)
    So it seems like they set out to fund a study that had a pre-determined conclusion in mind.
    That kind of undercuts Wiesses' "they're being scientific" canard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It also lead to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

    Which in turn lead to this:
    First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

    So there you go. The NIST report was peer reviewed.

    I think the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been telling fibs...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »

    And it highlighted this interesting tidbit:
    (Emphasis mine)
    So it seems like they set out to fund a study that had a pre-determined conclusion in mind.
    That kind of undercuts Wiesses' "they're being scientific" canard.

    Absolutely - and I mentioned that earlier in the thread

    The original
    Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.

    The new
    WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Another little nugget of fun:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4#post-204853
    Hulsey no longer talks about having the paper published in a peer reviewed engineering journal; instead, the focus is now on a "peer review panel," which, per the project website, seems likely to be comprised of people who applied to participate in such panel via the website and who were then hand picked by Hulsey.

    That's not peer review by any possible definition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And as a final little tidbit in case anyone was being impressed by the argument from Authority of them having a real life professor doing this study:

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19#post-211332
    So, Dr. Hulsey, a university professor, established the main background facts regarding his study from two anonymous conspiracy theory blogs and, in fact, plagiarized those blogs without attribution. And this is all while he was claiming he was reading as little as possible about the event in order to maintain a neutral, scientific view. Hmmmmmmmm...

    And him not knowing how Kelvin work:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-17#post-211233


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Another little nugget of fun:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4#post-204853



    That's not peer review by any possible definition.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And as a final little tidbit in case anyone was being impressed by the argument from Authority of them having a real life professor doing this study:

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19#post-211332



    And him not knowing how Kelvin work:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-17#post-211233


    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again


Advertisement