New Investigation

reply to post by hooper

So you're arguing that in the peer review process the subject of the review can be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise?

Yes. This is what science is about, making a hypothesis and then proving or disproving it. Evidence needs to be collected, analysed and conclusions drawn. Everything should be questioned and anything that does not make sense or is not correct withdrawn or fixed.

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?

This is what has been done at www.ae911truth.org... and a different explanation for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 has been formulated. In the interest of science a review of the work performed by NIST has been requested to check their methodology and foundations for their conclusions drawn, but has been declined by NIST.

Isn't that why the review is conducted by peers in the first place?

Yes. But we come back to the way political and military interference can hamper science in its search for the truth. Science does have strengths, but money and guns also has its strengths.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
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."

Michael Moore is the guy who invented the whole process of journalistic sleight of hand that Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin are using...but that's besides the point. I looked up this supposed "fancy flying" everyone is mentioning and it turns out the maneuver is nothign more than flying in a circle. I shouldn't have to point out that flying in a circle is the second thing they teach student pilots after "flying in a straight line".

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,

No you don't. *We* understand the power of corrupt government and we know corrupt gov'ts are retarded and screw up everything they touch. *You* are imagining the power of an omnipotent gov't, and a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels could hardly pull off the most complex and convoluted conspiracy in all of written human history with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act as you want to believe they did.

Sheesh, dude, Bush couldn't even out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
It wasn't possible for those pilots, with their limited training to perform those maneuvers though was it?

No, it was possible. They all were licensed commercial pilots.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
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."

Confiscate? Not quite. That would involve a supena. Now, collect would be a better word.

Why did they collect the footage? It's called evidence. To see if there was any additional information that could be gathered from the tapes.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

Critical thinking friend. People ask questions because the questions are obvious.

First off, let's get this straight. I am not your friend. Sorry.

People (read: Truthers) ask questions because they have been suckered by Gage, Balsamo, et al. into believing a certain thing.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
You want to believe the "official story" that is up to you. However i understand the power of corrupt Government, i understand history.

Good for you.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen

If you're still in doubt,

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

Off topic, and has nothing to do with anything I have said at all. You have no idea of my opinion of the war in Iraq. But hey, keep jumping to conclusions. It's good excercise.

Originally posted 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.

Have you or anyone else from the TM filed a petition for Judicial Review? Why or why not?

reply to post by kwakakev

Yes. This is what science is about, making a hypothesis and then proving or disproving it. Evidence needs to be collected, analysed and conclusions drawn. Everything should be questioned and anything that does not make sense or is not correct withdrawn or fixed.

I think you've got the scientific method kind of mixed up there. The first step is not to form a hypothesis.

The first step is to make an observation. Then you may construct a hypothesis to explain the observed. Then you design an experiment to test the hypothesis and observe the results. Repeat the experiment, confirm the results. Draw a conclusion, then communicate the results.

You can not conduct an experiment and then determine that the results "don't make sense" and simply withdraw them.

And no, not everything is questioned in the peer review process. If a scientist, a member of the community that is conducting the review, relays that he/she conducted an interview and got the following responses the reviewers do not assume they are lying just because they do not have the interviewers original notes in their hands. That is what is refered to as professionalism. Not to say that it has never been the case, however, if that level of doubt were to permeate the process then nothing would ever be published or promoted. It generally all works out eventually. If a principle is proposed based on faulty or fabricated data then eventaully work based on the principle will fail and failure analysis will, more often than not, find out the fault.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Bush couldn't even out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him.

Agreed. His incompetence was an outstanding quality and government are generally pretty bad at keeping secrets. His family company still make good profits from the oil and his younger brother Marvin was in charge of security at the towers and airport involved. The FBI was unable to find any decent evidence to suspect Osama Bin Laden and the other evidence does point to an inside job. Parts within the military and a few other private sectors becomes the next prime suspect. They are much better at keeping secrets, had the resources and access with better precision and discipline in performing attacks. For exactly who done what is still being debated among the internet and does need a strong investigation to uncover.

Originally posted by kwakakev
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.

Do exactly what you are doing- ask questions and try to see how the five trillion individual pirces of information all come together. However, this is NOT what the conspiracy movement is doing- they instead are looking at the answers they're given and coming up with excuses for why they shouldn't accept it. Simply browse the other threads here and you'll see for yourself how people are accusing Ted Olson of lying to cover up the murder of his wife. They do this NOT becuase they have any tangible evicence thereof, but entirely because they don't want to believe it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Don't even get me started on the delusions the "lasers from outer space" and the "no planes" crowd are pushing out

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.

I notice that most if not all of the contradictions are uncorroborated claims being made on the conspiracy movement side. One example thereof is the infamous Dylan Avery interview with Barry Jennings where he claimed he saw the north tower after the explosions in WTC 7. Not a single other person among the 100,000 people in Manhattan can back up his claim there was such a massive explosion in WTC 7 before the north tower fell, not even the two people who were trapped in WTC 7 with him, so the answer to where the contradiction is comign from is self evident.

If you have a specific case in mind, please enlighten me.

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.

All right fair enough. Give me an example of said unanswered question and I'l see if it's already been answered. Granted, there are still many unanswered questions...namely the BIG unanswered question of why Mohammed Atta dis this to begin with......but regardless of how its answered it still doesn't disprove the fact that 9/11 was the result of a foreign terrorist attack.

By the sheer amount of information being posted here that I know you weren't aware of, it should be self evident that there are answers out there, it's just that you weren't told what they are.

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.

I really wish it were that simple, but the persistance of the "moon landing was staged" hoaxers shows that a sexy sounding lie always beats out a boring sounding truth.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Agreed. His incompetence was an outstanding quality and government are generally pretty bad at keeping secrets. His family company still make good profits from the oil and his younger brother Marvin was in charge of security at the towers and airport involved. The FBI was unable to find any decent evidence to suspect Osama Bin Laden and the other evidence does point to an inside job. Parts within the military and a few other private sectors becomes the next prime suspect. They are much better at keeping secrets, had the resources and access with better precision and discipline in performing attacks. For exactly who done what is still being debated among the internet and does need a strong investigation to uncover.

A) Marvin Bush was neve rin charge of security. He was a chairman of the board of the company that owned the company who maintained security. They lost the contract to another company shortly after the 1993 bombing.

B) The FBI couldn't find any DIRECT evidence to OBL. They have INDIRECT evidence from financial records and the admission of OBL's lieutenant Khalid Sheick Mohammed, plus a laptop they siezed when they grabbed the guy. He's about to be put on public trial and from what I heard, he's intending to use it as a soapbox to gripe against the west so you'll shortly have all the proof you'll need.

C) The constant discovery of Soviet spies in every level of gov't throughout the decades shows that the military doesn't have any extraordinary methods of keeping secrets either. It was a ring of Soviet spies that gave the Russians the atomic bomb to begin with.

reply to post by FDNY343


There have been a few different Judicial Reviews attempted www.ae911truth.org... . Most of them have failed and need to read the article for why.

the International Center for 9/11 Studies successfully sued NIST under FOIA, forcing the release of documents and other records used by NIST in preparation of its reports that purported to explain the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

In May 2009 this attempt was made with some videos and other data released. The data released can be found at 911datasets.org... . A peer reviewed analysis of the work performed by NIST "The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7" www2.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, with the amount of information out there about this we could be playing tennis all night. I know WT7 did not fall all by its self or from the damage sustained when the other towers collapsed, it has the same regular pattern as every other building demolition. Many other people know this as well. Something stinks really bad and this thread is about a new investigation, not the actual investigation. I think our debates have indicated there are valid grounds for a new investigation so it can sort through all these claims and counter claims and determine just what happened.

reply to post by hooper


I was being general in my answers. It is good to see that you know something about the scientific process. Peer review is meant to support it. It questions how the data was collected, was the proper guidelines implemented, was there something wrong in the methodology used. It tries to maintain the integrity in the data, not dismiss it because the results do not fit some preconceived notion. It is good you are applying some common sense to what is questioned, some are more important than others.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave, with the amount of information out there about this we could be playing tennis all night. I know WT7 did not fall all by its self or from the damage sustained when the other towers collapsed, it has the same regular pattern as every other building demolition. Many other people know this as well. Something stinks really bad and this thread is about a new investigation, not the actual investigation. I think our debates have indicated there are valid grounds for a new investigation so it can sort through all these claims and counter claims and determine just what happened.

My intention isn't to play tennis. My intention is to give you the information the con artists behind all the conspiracy mongoring aren't telling you so you can make an honest informed opinion on your own, such as a NYFD firefighter reporting that the out of control fires were causing bulges in the side of WTC 7 and that by 2:00 he knew right away from the condition of the building that it was going to fall, or such as the NYPD helicopter pilot flying eye level to the impact area of the WTC reporting the support columns were glowing red from the fires and they looked like they were about to collapse. Were you ever even told that Mohammed Atta's girlfriend testified that he was so sociopathic that he dismembered her kittens after an argument?

So tell me, regardless of where you're getting your information from, did you even know that even a NY firefighter knew the building was going to fall simply by looking at how bad the condition of the building was? Now that you know this, the suspiciousness of the collapse doesn't sound as suspicious as it did before, does it?

You do see the point I'm making, I hope.

reply to post by FDNY343

Now you resort to using the term truthers! Hysterical really considering the website you choose to spend your time on. Those pilots were not capable of flying those aircraft, maybe you think you know better than the flight school attendant who advised them to leave but i beg to differ, stating that they did not have the skills to be pilots of even single engined aircraft. Go put your had back in the sand. Ignorance is bliss after all.

You chose to swallow the official story 100% that is up to you, I personally do not. The questions are blatant.
Get back to me when you manage to rustle up some evidence that supports the official theory because so far there has been diddly squat.

No wonder the world is going to ruin with blind parrots like you on board X

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Were you ever even told that Mohammed Atta's girlfriend testified that he was so sociopathic that he dismembered her kittens after an argument?

No, I do know there are a lot of sad things that happen at times.

NY firefighter knew the building was going to fall simply by looking at how bad the condition of the building was?

I saw the whole thing on tv, lots of people knew it was going to collapse including the reporters and the owner of the building.

Now that you know this, the suspiciousness of the collapse doesn't sound as suspicious as it did before, does it?

I did not come to the position of questioning the official story lightly. To even conceive that such an event could have been self inflicted rips out your heart and shatters it into a million little pieces. It means that there is so much wrong with the world you do not know where to start. Unfortunately when looking at the facts it is the only thing that makes sense. After having time to assess the situation I can only start one step at a time.

reply to post by kwakakev


Look at the way Building 7 collapses for Christ's sake!

This is like living in the twilight zone.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Who mentioned anything about Bush?

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I saw the whole thing on tv, lots of people knew it was going to collapse including the reporters and the owner of the building.

So do you then concur that the main reason the collapse sounds suspicious is becuase conspiracy mongers like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are intentionally manipulating their presentations to make it sound more suspicious than it really is?

I did not come to the position of questioning the official story lightly. To even conceive that such an event could have been self inflicted rips out your heart and shatters it into a million little pieces. It means that there is so much wrong with the world you do not know where to start. Unfortunately when looking at the facts it is the only thing that makes sense. After having time to assess the situation I can only start one step at a time.

...which leads me back to the original question- where are you getting your facts from? Is it from the original sources like the NYFD firefighters, NYPD helicopter pilots, and people who knew Mohammed Atta, or are you getting it from characters like Dylan Avery or Alex Jones?

Here's a first step to consider- after the 9/11 attack, the US gave its intelligence showing it was an Al Qaida attack to our NATO allies, and after comparing it to what their own intelligence agencies were reporting, they found it credible enough to invoke article V for the first time in history. It's the whole reason why their armies are in Afghanistan along with ours. How do you explain this, becuase I can certainly explain why Dylan Avery and Alex Jones wouldn't have told you that.

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Who mentioned anything about Bush?

All your fellow conspiracy theorists, actually. Why do you people make so much ado about Marvin Bush and WTC security if Bush had nothing to do with the conspriacy?

reply to post by kwakakev

Peer review is meant to support it. It questions how the data was collected....

Not really. This is the "peer" part of the peer review. Like I said, they assume the author is not lying. Not that lying is impossible, but that level of scrutiny would hobble the system to the point of paralysis.

was the proper guidelines implemented, was there something wrong in the methodology used. It tries to maintain the integrity in the data, not dismiss it because the results do not fit some preconceived notion. It is good you are applying some common sense to what is questioned, some are more important than others.

I really don't follow your point here. But I generally think you may have some misconceptions about the purpose of peer review vs. community feedback. The purpose of peer review, in the case of publication, is to get important information and ideas to the community that have been past through at least some level of intellectual filter. A lot of what I think you are refering to is the work the community does with the published material after publication. Peer review basically tells the rest of the community "here - this material is worthy of your time".

Thats where there is the disconnect with regard to material like the NIST report and 9/11 commission report comes from. Some have and still are trying to equate "peer reviewed" with "tested and confirmed" hoping to make the argument of inverse association that since the government's publications were not subject to "peer review" they are therefore untested and wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
Please describe a "new investigation".

I don't want a new investigation. I wanted a thorough, non-biased investigation to start with.

Who,

Volunteers that are not on any pay roll.

what,

If you have to ask what to investigate, then I have no help for you.

where,

Laboratories, offices, in the field?

how long,

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

how funded,

That's a tricky one. Maybe Silverstein can let go of one his billions that he made?

how much power would be invested in the investigators.

Full forensic power.

Maybe even some clue as to the agenda.

A truelly independant investigation would have no agenda.

Would they be invested with subpeona power?

Why not? NIST was.

Who would provide oversight?

Peer review.

Accountability?

The global stage.

What circumstances, situations or history would preclude one from being empanelled?

I'm sure in your mind (and the other 3 resident debunkers here) that being a "truther" would disqualify a person, while having a vested interest wouldn't (NIST).