It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 hooper
You have some evidence that computer simulations are included? Besides your own specualtion?
We work with scientists in other NIST laboratories to develop computer simulation and analysis of magnetic systems. Model verification is achieved by comparison against experiment and by development of standard problems.
There should be some kind of review of their laboratrory procedures (which includes computer simulations). Have you seen one?
Originally posted by hooper
You have some evidence that computer simulations are included? Besides your own specualtion?
The NIST computer model for cement hydration is the best in the field, and it has been widely used in academia and industry.
Originally posted by Nutter
But, then why is Dr. Quintiere calling for it to be peer reviewed?
I'd take his opinion over anyone on this forum or jref.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Because he believes that NIST was too conservative with their fire/fuel loads.
His opinion is that plane impacts and fire brought down the buildings.
He is sure of it. He is positive of it. He has zero doubts.
He calls truthers nuts.
And IIRC, he has produced a paper that concurs with NIST.
Now what?
Should we conduct a peer review of Quintere's peer review request to make sure that he is following good procedures?
Originally posted by Nutter
How can he produce a paper that concurs with NIST while at the same time asking for a review because he thinks they got it wrong?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're confused. He doesn't think they got the report wrong.
He concurs with NIST, insomuch as he agrees 100% that plane impacts and fire damage resulted in their collapse.
A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.
Originally posted by hooper
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.
First of all, what is nefarious about "mundane information", all I did is ask if Debunkers or Official 9/11 story supporters have a problem with the fact NIST is not releasing the collapse models due to the possibility it may "jeopardize public safety", which by the way you dodged.
Secondly, your explanation for why they are not releasing it is a classic, you sound like a politician there. Especially how you tie it all together with the last sentence, we are still talking about a computer model here right?
Originally posted by Nutter
BTW. If Quintiere is correct and NIST is wrong, how does that change the codes propossed by NIST?
That is why there should not be this veil of secrecy.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You tell me.
You're convinced that Quintiere disagrees with NIST. Now tell us all what those changes would be.
Originally posted by Nutter
Thickness of fireproofing for one. Not the width of emergency exits.
How about a code saying that long span beams need to be extra fire proofed
or else they will globally collapse your building at free fall and near free fall speeds?
The codes that NIST came up with are bogus when considering a structural collapse. Why not change codes that really matter rather than having a new fire exit and wider exit stairs?
Remember that I myself am a foresics engineer
If I did that, the insurance companies that I work for would get rid of my ass pronto.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PersonalChoice
First of all, what is nefarious about "mundane information", all I did is ask if Debunkers or Official 9/11 story supporters have a problem with the fact NIST is not releasing the collapse models due to the possibility it may "jeopardize public safety", which by the way you dodged.
Dodge? How so? I laid it out quite clearly. Releasing information that was gathered confidentially will inhibit others in the future from providing critical information for other investigations thus jeopardizing public safety by compromising future investigations.
Secondly, your explanation for why they are not releasing it is a classic, you sound like a politician there. Especially how you tie it all together with the last sentence, we are still talking about a computer model here right?
Same reason.
You expect NIST to conduct its own peer review? Where are all the "peers" like architects and engineers for truth? Shouldn't they be conducting a peer review? And I don't accept the excuse that they can't because all the information has not been released, that's just a dodge. They can review all the released information. There's tons of it? I would take up the issue of "peer review" with them.
You must be confused. There are several peer-reviewed papers that deal with the NIST study.