Question to all Debunkers and/or Official 9/11 story supporters.

Do you have a problem with the fact that NIST refuses to release the information stated below(their model used to come to their conclusions about WTC7 and the Towers) on the grounds that it "might jeopardize public safety?

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety.

Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

~ Patrick Gallagher

Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

cryptome.org...



There is a thread here www.abovetopsecret.com... in the forum by WTFHUH that is already dead in the water, slowly making it's way out of site. Yet the resident debunker crew post constantly, carry on arguments with everyone, in almost every thread, but not a single one wants to weigh in on why NIST is not releasing information, seemingly mundane information, that(you would think) would no doubt bolster the Debunkers arsenal.

This is my main problem with Debunkers, they have this drive to constantly argue for the governments theory of what happened yet they never concede that there is a problem anywhere. They ignore information like this in hopes that it just goes away, ultimately assisting any potential wrong doing connected with 9/11.

It seems that you've already answered your own question.

But if you want my answer - and I would stress that I am most definitely not loyal to the US government - then yes, I do find that slightly troubling, but only in the most general sense that I usually find government secrecy undesirable.

I don't think it suggests anything particularly suspicious. Indeed it's only suspect if you've decided, in the face of all the evidence, that there is definitely a conspiracy. So I suppose the problem is really one of bias amongst those predisposed to that mindset.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Do you have a problem with the fact that NIST refuses to release the information stated below(their model used to come to their conclusions about WTC7 and the Towers) on the grounds that it "might jeopardize public safety?

NIST is of course using blatant doublespeak here. It is the failure to release the models that jeopardizes public safety because it deprives architects and engineers of data that could enhance the safety of future building designs.

It is not only the data listed that NIST has failed to provide. It has also failed to provide computer visualisations of the collapse based on its models, which means that its study cannot be subjected to proper peer review.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

Do you have a problem with the fact that NIST refuses to release the information stated below(their model used to come to their conclusions about WTC7 and the Towers) on the grounds that it "might jeopardize public safety?

NIST will release their data and methodology to qualified researchers
at universities and engineering concerns

Obtaining raw data is an expnsive time intentsive process making
scientists very reluctant to part with their data and then only to
highly qualified researchers .

They will not release their data to random conspiracy nuts on the internet

Making angry conspiracy posts on the internet does not qulaify as research

Since you probably fall in the later category NIST will not all proabality
release it to you

Originally posted by winston_jones

It is the failure to release the models that jeopardizes public safety because it deprives architects and engineers of data that could enhance the safety of future building designs.

NIST has made code change reccommendations that cover this.

which means that its study cannot be subjected to proper peer review.

Please supply an example of:

1- any other report going through a peer review process
2- an explanation of why it is logical for a report to go through a peer review, when the peer review process and publication is intended for scholarly papers.
3- an example of the level of background info given to a peer review board that you require from NIST.

i think its a crock that they would withhold any information and it seems to me to be some kind of coverup, great thread man

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
1- any other report going through a peer review process

Washington, DC – In the days following the Gulf oil spill, President Obama requested that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a 30-day review of the offshore drilling program in the United States and issue a report with recommendations. This report was to be “peer reviewed” by a team of seven engineers recommended by the National Academy of Engineering.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org...< br />

2- an explanation of why it is logical for a report to go through a peer review, when the peer review process and publication is intended for scholarly papers.

Scholarly papers are where peer review is necessary.

Scholarly journals are also called academic, peer-reviewed, or refereed journals. (Strictly speaking, peer-reviewed (also called refereed) journals refer only to those scholarly journals that submit articles to several other scholars, experts, or academics (peers) in the field for review and comment. These reviewers must agree that the article represents properly conducted original research or writing before it can be published.)

www.library.cornell.edu...

Without peer review, it is just an opinion journal.

3- an example of the level of background info given to a peer review board that you require from NIST.

All of NIST's data.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter

Washington, DC – In the days following the Gulf oil spill, President Obama requested that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a 30-day review of the offshore drilling program in the United States and issue a report with recommendations. This report was to be “peer reviewed” by a team of seven engineers recommended by the National Academy of Engineering.

This scenario would be acceptable.

Let the guv select a reputable bunch of engineers and let them have access to the data that every truther believes should be publicly available.

Would you accept that?

Scholarly papers are where peer review is necessary.

So you agree with me?

All of NIST's data.

Word salad.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Let the guv select a reputable bunch of engineers and let them have access to the data that every truther believes should be publicly available.

Would you accept that?

Yes. I would accept that.

Not that I even think NIST is being neffarious. Just that to be a proper engineering report (one that has a lot of clout in changing already established codes of engineering) it should be peer reviewed from someone other than NIST.

One engineer I would recommend is Dr. Quintiere. A former Fire Engineer for NIST themselves. He even thinks that NIST rushed the job.

And I agree with him. NOT that NIST is covering up for some kind of controlled demolition. Which is what I agree with also.

So, you can see that I am not an "inside job" truther. Just someone who is looking for the truth. Hell, my belief is it would be too much of a project to be kept secret this long if it was an inside job.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


As nefarious as you may make this sound, the explanation is probably quite simple. First, you must understand that this is not the first nor is it going to be the last investigation that is conducted by the NIST. In order to properly pursue future investigations and make appropriate recommendations, NGO's and persons must feel comfortable suppling information to the NIST. If the NIST start's to release information gathered under those conditions then it may jeopardize future investigations which would affect public safety.

Originally posted by Nutter

Just that to be a proper engineering report (one that has a lot of clout in changing already established codes of engineering) it should be peer reviewed from someone other than NIST.

A proper engineering report *should* be peer reviewed?

Where'd you get that idea?

I'd agree that it's better. But should? I don't see the connection.

reply to post by Nutter

Scholarly papers are where peer review is necessary

Except that this is not someone's Doctoral thesis. This is a government investigation of a major event. This is their conclusion. Information was contributed, but conditionally. This is not a release for "peer review", it is not a final exam, it is not a letter to the editor.

If you do not like the report, the means and method, or the conclusions anyone is more than welcome to conduct their own investigation.

reply to post by hooper


Excellent point.

But when a truther's world starts and ends on 9/11 issues, they never understand these types of points.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
A proper engineering report *should* be peer reviewed?

Where'd you get that idea?

I'd agree that it's better. But should? I don't see the connection.

Maybe this will help?

www.er.doe.gov/bes/rc99099.pdf

NIST uses both internal and external peer review to evaluate the
effectiveness of its programs. Internal peer review, including program
reviews by upper management, is used extensively in all programs.
External peer review is used principally to evaluate the technical quality of
the Measurement and Standards Laboratories’ programs.

Each year since 1959, the National Research Council, an advisory group
within the National Academy of Sciences, has coordinated an external
peer review of NIST laboratory programs by members of industry and
academia. Currently, about 150 scientists and engineers assess the
technical quality of NIST’s laboratory programs through the Council’s Board
on Assessment of NIST Programs. Panel members visit NIST both
individually and in groups, meeting with laboratory management and staff
to discuss planned, on-going, and completed programs to determine the
technical quality and relevance of the laboratory programs.

I'd like to read the NRC's assesment of their peer review of NIST's WTC report. Have you seen it?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by hooper
Except that this is not someone's Doctoral thesis. This is a government investigation of a major event. This is their conclusion. Information was contributed, but conditionally. This is not a release for "peer review", it is not a final exam, it is not a letter to the editor.

Then why is it federally mandatory for NIST to have a peer review?

NIST occasionally conducts congressionally earmarked projects that are
not separately reviewed.

These projects can involve
intellectual property owned by the private companies and are protected by
law from disclosure by NIST. The nonproprietary NIST contribution is
subject to the same internal review as all projects and is not excluded
from the scope of the annual assessment.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Nutter]

So posting links that show NIST to be peer reviewed is support for your objection that NIST is NOT peer reviewed?

How's that work?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Have you seen a peer review of the WTC report? I haven't. That is why I ask.

There should be some kind of review of their laboratrory procedures (which includes computer simulations). Have you seen one?

Originally posted by Nutter

There should be some kind of review of their laboratrory procedures (which includes computer simulations). Have you seen one?

Your link says that they do just that.

That you nor I have seen it is irrelevant.

You said you would accept a peer review from a guv appointed board. then provided evidence that this in fact happens.

So where do we go from here?

There was a peer review that found nothing wrong with their methods, but we haven't seen it. Why is this a problem?

If you accept that a guv review board is honest, then NOT seeing it for yourself is not cause for suspicion, nor doubt.

Doubt and suspicion can only enter the equation if one DOESN'T believe that the review board would be honest, and WOULDN'T let it be known that there are problems with the report.

reply to post by Nutter

Then why is it federally mandatory for NIST to have a peer review?

You are confusing its day to day labaratory practises and programs with the investigation. Try again.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I'll agree.

But, then why is Dr. Quintiere calling for it to be peer reviewed? Is he a "truther"? Is he a "looney conspiracy nut"?

Or maybe he sees a report that was rushed and doesn't agree with it?

I'd take his opinion over anyone on this forum or jref.