ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , John Wyndham , nist , Wayne Coste

Reply
Old 2nd November 2014, 01:33 PM   #1
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Wyndham, Coste, Smith article on NIST study

Has anyone here discussed a recent article by J.D. Wynham et al written for an ethics forum on the NIST study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers? Here is the paper:

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf

Here is AE911's account of an event where the work was presented in poster form:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affilia...-911truth.html

The paper is also on the IEEE site itself, but it can't be accessed that way without an account:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login...mber%3D6893463

And here's the Wiki on the organization that sponsored the event and has the article on their site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...nics_Engineers

EDIT: For JayUtah's sake below, here is a Wikipedia section on the history of peer review, that super controversial process that helps but obviously doesn't settle the question of the overall quality of scholarly work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History

Last edited by egalicontrarian; 2nd November 2014 at 02:07 PM.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 01:45 PM   #2
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
It seems to repeat the standard AE911T accusations against NIST and then raise the issue of peer review for NIST findings.

Can you show me any statutory need or history of such a requirement?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:02 PM   #3
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Can you show me any statutory need or history of such a requirement?
Is that a joke? Who would be in a position to create a "statutory need" for peer review? God? It's just one among many quality controls in scholarly work - prima facie, it counts in favor of a work that has it, and against a work that doesn't. As for the "history" of the requirement, I don't get it - is there something more specific you're wondering beyond what's on, say, Wikipedia?

Anyway, I take it that your answer to my question is, "No, no one has discussed this article here."
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:06 PM   #4
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Clearly the guys will cite the same arguments... and of course claim they've never had a proper official hearing. Virtually all of them have been demolished on various internet forums over more than a decade.

I personally believe that NIST got the causes correct, but I am not convinced their initiation presentation makes sense and their tests and models don't seem to match real world. I don't think this was a fraud. I don't think Ms B committed a fraud with his papers publish after the event supposedly explaining what happened. Why he failed to produce a better fitting to real world model is a mystery. Truth guys assume it's all part of the cover up of a false flag inside job CD. Surely it could be sort of incompetence... (if they got it wrong) or simply the complexity of the problem left them many options, they chose ones and ran with them. Assuming that there were other explanations which fit better... and were not CD... why not look into those? It seems as if there are several mechanisms to get the tops to release their mass with it being a CD. They went with sagging truss pull in and like so many were not inclined to abandon it.
No guys.. FEMA did not state there was a 1,200' diameter debrisfield around EACH tower... Don't make stuff up.

Hard to make sense of this. But fraud is a mighty big claim.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 2nd November 2014 at 02:10 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:14 PM   #5
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,295
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Is that a joke? Who would be in a position to create a "statutory need" for peer review? God? It's just one among many quality controls in scholarly work ....
The NIST report was not a scholarly work in that sense. Formal peer review is no more appropriate in its case than in, say, an investigative report about a plane crash.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:15 PM   #6
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Clearly the guys will cite the same arguments... and of course claim they've never had a proper official hearing. Virtually all of them have been demolished on various internet forums over more than a decade.
"Clearly" - meaning you haven't read the article and are presuming?

"the guys will ... claim they've never had a proper official hearing" - have they?

"demolished on various internet forums" - as far as I can tell, every claim ever made by anyone has been demolished on an internet forum according to someone.

So I take it the answer is, "No, this article has not been discussed here."

One of the main points of interest about this article from a lay perspective is that it was accepted into an apparently respectable scholarly forum. So it seems to me like addressing this kind of article would be more worth debunkers time than, say, addressing works that haven't been accepted into apparently respectable non-truther scholarly forums.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:17 PM   #7
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The NIST report was not a scholarly work in that sense. Formal peer review is no more appropriate in its case than in, say, an investigative report about a plane crash.
Not sure I disagree, but what's the "sense" you have in mind, and why would it not be "appropriate" to establish a peer review process for this kind of investigation? At the very least, it would prevent (perhaps misguided) accusations on the basis of a lack of peer review.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:22 PM   #8
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Has anyone here discussed a recent article by J.D. Wynham et al written for an ethics forum on the NIST study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers? Here is the paper:

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf
How could anyone read the BS without laughing?

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf

It is pure BS, who are they trying to fool with this dumbed down tripe?

Can anyone find or explain anything of merit in the paper? The paper authors are upset their CD fantasy is ignored for real science.
The authors have no clue what engineering is.
Proof...
Quote:
NIST’s model did not proceed past the point where initiation of collapse
This is proof the paper is BS. They can't understand why, which makes them idiots.

What did I miss? It would be hard to miss the BS in the paper?
Why would anyone want to read a paper motivated by delusions on 911?

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd November 2014 at 02:29 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 02:31 PM   #9
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Is that a joke?
No.

Quote:
Who would be in a position to create a "statutory need" for peer review?
The people who wrote the statutes that created NIST, gave it its mission, dictated how it should operate, and placed limits on what it could and could not do.

If a few authors are going to suddenly dictate how a certain organization should have behaved, it seems that the applicability of those dictates should have a stronger basis than, "Because we think so."

Quote:
It's just one among many quality controls in scholarly work...
Why is NIST suddenly subject to "scholarly" conventions?

Quote:
As for the "history" of the requirement, I don't get it - is there something more specific you're wondering...
Yes. Is there any history of requiring any other governmental advisory bodies or investigative agencies to subject themselves to peer review? Or did this only start being a problem when conspiracy theorists found themselves consistently ignored by the mainstream?

Quote:
Anyway, I take it that your answer to my question is, "No, no one has discussed this article here."
You can take my answer as I wrote it. I have no idea if it's been discussed, but that's my discussion of it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 03:01 PM   #10
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
At the very least, it would prevent (perhaps misguided) accusations on the basis of a lack of peer review.
Peer review of accusations would be more effective toward that end.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 03:10 PM   #11
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Not sure I disagree, but what's the "sense" you have in mind, and why would it not be "appropriate" to establish a peer review process for this kind of investigation? At the very least, it would prevent (perhaps misguided) accusations on the basis of a lack of peer review.
To who? Was the NIST study meant to explain the events to laymen? I've never seen an argument presented toward the NIST reports by people that would not be considered "laymen" (that questioned the conclusions as a whole).

You need to be more specific.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:14 PM   #12
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The people who wrote the statutes that created NIST, gave it its mission, dictated how it should operate, and placed limits on what it could and could not do.
I see. But now you're point is only relevant if the article somehow presupposes that NIST requires peer-review of itself.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If a few authors are going to suddenly dictate how a certain organization should have behaved, it seems that the applicability of those dictates should have a stronger basis than, "Because we think so."
So just to be clear: you've read the article I linked to, and your honest interpretation of that article's argument is: "NIST should have had its study peer-reviewed, because we think so"?

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why is NIST suddenly subject to "scholarly" conventions?
Why the scare quotes? In any case, according to you, the answer to your question in the article is, "Because we think so." That's your interpretation of the article's argument.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Is there any history of requiring any other governmental advisory bodies or investigative agencies to subject themselves to peer review? Or did this only start being a problem when conspiracy theorists found themselves consistently ignored by the mainstream?
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that governmental investigative agencies have never subjected their investigative work to peer review. How would this affect the argument of the paper, even as you've construed it?
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:16 PM   #13
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Peer review of accusations would be more effective toward that end.
I certainly agree that peer-review is one of many quality-control mechanisms that could be placed on accusations against agencies like NIST.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:19 PM   #14
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
I certainly agree that peer-review is one of many quality-control mechanisms that could be placed on accusations against agencies like NIST.
Would you agree to the same toward their critics? How about Dick Gage and his group?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:23 PM   #15
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
To who? Was the NIST study meant to explain the events to laymen? I've never seen an argument presented toward the NIST reports by people that would not be considered "laymen" (that questioned the conclusions as a whole). You need to be more specific.
Work like the article I cited above, which was accepted into a forum by an otherwise apparently respectable scientific institution, is partly motivated by the argument that scholars independent of the NIST investigation itself did not perform a process of peer review. Such arguments would be undercut in advance by voluntarily receiving peer review.

As for who is a layperson, a plausible working definition would be anyone who doesn't have a graduate degree in a field the content of which overlaps one or more fields at work in the NIST report itself.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:24 PM   #16
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Would you agree to the same toward their critics? How about Dick Gage and his group?
Absolutely. For the record, I am not actually a truther. I think that truther success in peer-reviewed publishing is roughly proportional to the lessening of truther content in the argument of their works. Also, I've noticed that truther laypeople are surprisingly resistant to seeking out guidance and mentorship from experts independent of the truther/non-truther dispute.

That being said, truthers are understandably partly motivated by the unfortunate absence of truther arguments being addressed by actual researchers in scholarly forums.

Last edited by egalicontrarian; 2nd November 2014 at 04:25 PM.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:28 PM   #17
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
The problem is "truther" have no argument outside of claiming "they" are wrong.

Maybe if they actually had a theory (or a narrative past "you're wrong"), they would be seen as credible. Are you aware of a "truther" theory that has any factual backing?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:31 PM   #18
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The problem is "truther" have no argument outside of claiming "they" are wrong.

Maybe if they actually had a theory (or a narrative past "you're wrong"), they would be seen as credible. Are you aware of a "truther" theory that has any factual backing?
Giving an argument for why someone else is wrong is a perfectly fine argument to give in a scholarly article, even if it doesn't satisfy someone on an internet forum. All I'm saying is that refusal to address these arguments (perhaps out of a fear of "legitimizing" them) actually legitimizes them further.

As for "factual backing," I'm not competent to evaluate the technical, engineering aspects of trutherism. Everything I've seen that's properly evaluable by me - e.g. arguments about who benefited from 9/11 - is either pure speculation or weak forms of circumstantial reasoning.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:36 PM   #19
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Giving an argument for why someone else is wrong is a perfectly fine argument to give in a scholarly article, even if it doesn't satisfy someone on an internet forum. All I'm saying is that refusal to address these arguments (perhaps out of a fear of "legitimizing" them) actually legitimizes them further.

As for "factual backing," I'm not competent to evaluate the technical, engineering aspects of trutherism. Everything I've seen that's properly evaluable by me - e.g. arguments about who benefited from 9/11 - is either pure speculation or weak forms of circumstantial reasoning.
After 13 years? "Truthers" have done nothing but question. AE has 5000 engineers and they want someone to do a study? No one is that stupid as to think they want their "questions" to be answered.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:45 PM   #20
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
I see. But now you're point is only relevant if the article somehow presupposes that NIST requires peer-review of itself.
My point is that NIST's mission and methods are prescribed by the law, as are the uses to which NIST findings may lawfully be put. How would such things as peer review fit into that?

I'm not opposed to a discussion of how ethically to conduct a public investigation, either here or at IEEE. However when I read this article I came away thinking this was just another attempt by disgruntled conspiracy theorists to argue that NIST acted irresponsibly to rush to a predetermined conclusion. Since that's the drum those authors have been banging for many, many years, I have to question whether this ploy is really the best way to talk about ethics in public investigations.

Quote:
Why the scare quotes?
They're not scare quotes. You invoked the word; I merely quoted you. My question invites you to fit NIST into whatever you intended by it.

Quote:
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that governmental investigative agencies have never subjected their investigative work to peer review. How would this affect the argument of the paper, even as you've construed it?
"Why now?"
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:48 PM   #21
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
After 13 years? "Truthers" have done nothing but question. AE has 5000 engineers and they want someone to do a study? No one is that stupid as to think they want their "questions" to be answered.
The increase in signatures, plus polling data of Americans' views on the subject, plus the occasional article, video, and book on the subject, is enough to make it worthwhile (again, for non-truther purposes) for actual scholars to address whatever arguments exist, in serious academic forums. The absence of that kind of engagement - again, probably due to fear of legitimizing trutherism - actually serves to legitimize it more.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 04:52 PM   #22
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
The increase in signatures, plus polling data of Americans' views on the subject, plus the occasional article, video, and book on the subject, is enough to make it worthwhile (again, for non-truther purposes) for actual scholars to address whatever arguments exist, in serious academic forums. The absence of that kind of engagement - again, probably due to fear of legitimizing trutherism - actually serves to legitimize it more.
Nope. Their signatures can only go up. Unless you ask to be removed you are a supporter for life. You need do nothing past a one time act.

Why can't they do a independent investigation? That's what they claim they want. Nothing's stopping them.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 05:09 PM   #23
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Work like the article I cited above, which was accepted into a forum by an otherwise apparently respectable scientific institution...
...to which I respond, "Poor IEEE; they have no idea the hornet's nest they've stepped into."

Quote:
...is partly motivated by the argument that scholars independent of the NIST investigation itself did not perform a process of peer review.
That begs the question that such a process was appropriate here. The motivation is heavily tainted by the notion that those raising this issue here and now have based an entire revenue model for the past several years on claiming that NIST has been guilty of malfeasance in one way or another. It's hard to believe that such a narrowly-focused group is now suddenly interested in the general idea of ethics in public investigations for the good of all humankind.

I say "Poor IEEE" because I'm reasonably certain having had their paper accepted by a respectable professional organization -- albeit in only the context of a philosophical discussion -- will embolden these authors to claim that the allegations of fact that they make in the paper are now endorsed by IEEE. I consider this little more than a sneaky ploy by AE911T to silence their critics by publishing a highly softened version of their well-known principal fundraising claims.

Quote:
Such arguments would be undercut in advance by voluntarily receiving peer review.
Well, yes, in the sense that all criticism -- well- or ill-founded -- would be forestalled by caving in to the critics in advance. It's like saying I could undercut my neighbor's complaint that I don't take his trash to the curb when I take mine out, by just taking out his trash like he wants.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 05:09 PM   #24
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,603
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
The increase in signatures, plus polling data of Americans' views on the subject, plus the occasional article, video, and book on the subject, is enough to make it worthwhile (again, for non-truther purposes) for actual scholars to address whatever arguments exist, in serious academic forums. The absence of that kind of engagement - again, probably due to fear of legitimizing trutherism - actually serves to legitimize it more.
Why don't AE911T and Scientists For, Firemen For, Patriots For, etc.... take the money they raise for Quixotic causes like the NYCCAN'T initiatives and fund their own study? They've raised loads of money that seems to wind up in various pockets or paying for flights and hotel rooms (and by "they" I mean ALL the voices that have been crying for their new investigation, not just AE911T). Put all that together and give Georgia Tech a half-million grant and get their engineering department on it.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 05:22 PM   #25
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Nope. Their signatures can only go up. Unless you ask to be removed you are a supporter for life. You need do nothing past a one time act.
And keep in mind that one of the other posters here spot-checked the list of signatories (MOE 30%) and found that none of the people he talked to (and he couldn't reach some by means of the contact information they had given) could define AE911T's principal claims or describe its activities. None had been contacted by the organization to provide any actual professional assistance or advice.

The claim that some 2,100 qualified professionals endorse the claims made by AE911T's principal activists, in whatever forum, is highly dubious. It's apparent that the AE911T leadership merely cites the sum total of their registration rolls to create the illusion that their concerns are widely felt in the industry.

And by "the industry" I have to mention a caveat. While IEEE is deeply respected in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science, they do not represent structural engineers or the building profession as a whole. They are as apt as anyone to discuss how a specialized investigation should be conducted, but they are generally not the appropriate organization to judge whether NIST's investigation covered the appropriate bases.

Quote:
Why can't they do a independent investigation? That's what they claim they want. Nothing's stopping them.
They've said they want a new investigation, but they won't raise or give money to conduct one. They say they'll invoke "the Europeans" to do one, but they never did. They also threaten a lawsuit to compel NIST to acquiesce to their demands, but chickened out.

I see this attempt to wedge themselves into an industry-conducted discussion of ethics as little more than the next attempt to seek legitimacy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 05:35 PM   #26
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,777
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
The increase in signatures...
...is to me insignificant if only a few of the top echelon have any idea what's going on. I am a member of a number of professional organizations that pertain to my work, and they all work very, very differently than AE911T. Since a major effort of AE911T is the recruiting of new signatories and fundraising, I don't consider success along that front to be anything other than self-serving.

Quote:
...plus polling data of Americans' views on the subject, plus the occasional article, video, and book on the subject, is enough to make it worthwhile (again, for non-truther purposes) for actual scholars to address whatever arguments exist, in serious academic forums.
In my opinion, what makes an academic forum serious is precisely its ability to overlook such ephemeral vicissitudes as public opinion polls and period attempts to resurrect baseless debates.

Quote:
The absence of that kind of engagement - again, probably due to fear of legitimizing trutherism - actually serves to legitimize it more.
Legitimize it in whose esteem?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 06:02 PM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
...
That being said, truthers are understandably partly motivated by the unfortunate absence of truther arguments being addressed by actual researchers in scholarly forums.
That is due to no valid "truther arguments".

Peer Review? How many people were involved in producing NIST reports. How many paper have than many peers on one paper?

The paper was not accepted by IEEE. The paper was included in the event, and IEEE does not endorse the BS. AE911T did an end run to present at IEEE, which only makes the authors look like nuts on this issue with their peers.

The paper is a joke. The paper is quote mined 911 truth "tag lines", and BS.

Quote:
"Independent scientists subsequently found red-gray chips containing unreacted nano-thermite in the powder" http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf
Why would a paper include lies from 911 truth liars? The paper was BS, wrong, the paper is a lie.


Quote:
It is true iron sphere were found, but they are found in fires from jet fuel and office contents. RJ Lee explains the iron spheres are from stuff burnt in the WTC which contain iron. Thus the paper exposes the authors ignorance as they lie about 911 so they can back in thermite. It is fraud.


Then comes the BS statement of all time, taking a 911 truth tag line, " No other high-rise steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed though some have been completely engulfed in fire for many hours", in a paper they mean to be taken seriously? What does this mean? They continue with...

Quote:
" NISTís unwarranted assumptions and misrepresentations for the Twin Towers violate professional ethical standards as well as sound scientific principles."
The unwarranted assumption are actually the authors' BS opinions, they offer nothing to back up their speculation.

The authors expose they are idiots, using the tag line from 911 truth's failed fantasy... " through the path of greatest resistance". Are the authors engineers, or nuts?
Who can find the path of least resistance rule in physics for a collapsing building, or perhaps a linebacker coming in to tackle a halfback, or better yet, why we are all bulletproof, the bullet takes the path of least resistance, glancing off of us into the air.


Quote:
" The verticality of the collapses of the Towers through the path of greatest resistance indicates simultaneous destruction of all of the core columns and perimeter columns."
The CT authors plagiarize from a movement of nuts, and play the "path of greatest resistance card. How dumbed down can a paper get. How did IEEE mess up and accept these idiots paper? Where is the "path of least resistance" rule found? In the minds of 911 truth followers and three silly authors who are 911 truth engineer nuts.

?
Quote:
The public has come to expect that analyses would depend on peer review to verify the soundness of a scientific work and ensure that the conclusions are the result of a consistent, transparent and ethical process. This is especially important in reporting on an event with such major consequences as that of September 11, 2001.
NIST offers drafts for all to review, unlike 911 truth which puts out papers which are not peer reviewed, but reviewed in house by other failed nuts in 911 truth. NIST beats peer review, anyone can comment, and those comments are there for all to see; whereas 911 truth censors facts and evidence, and only presents BS.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_faqs.cfm

Did 911 truth let their papers be reviewed by the Public before spreading lies?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tg-feb1204.cfm
What, """Hold Public Meeting on WTC Investigation in NYC""", wow, did 911 truth do this for their work?
How many times did NIST offer up meetings and reviews to everyone?
Peer review? The paper was fraud...
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf
This paper is BS, nonsense, which is 911 truth's only product.

Did I say BS... reading their tripe is worse that water-boarding ( i can hold my breath over 2 minutes, have to work on my acting dead... as in "I'm not as good as I once was, but I am... " )

Now, how do i get NFL Network video to be smooth while typing out BS about BS. poor Payton

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd November 2014 at 06:27 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 06:27 PM   #28
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Has anyone here discussed a recent article by J.D. Wynham et al written for an ethics forum on the NIST study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers? Here is the paper:

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf

Here is AE911's account of an event where the work was presented in poster form:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affilia...-911truth.html

The paper is also on the IEEE site itself, but it can't be accessed that way without an account:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login...mber%3D6893463

And here's the Wiki on the organization that sponsored the event and has the article on their site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...nics_Engineers

EDIT: For JayUtah's sake below, here is a Wikipedia section on the history of peer review, that super controversial process that helps but obviously doesn't settle the question of the overall quality of scholarly work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History
Thatís nice.


A paper on philosophy submitted by a physicist and two electrical engineers on their structural and fire engineering opinions.


I couldn't read their paper. Did it condemn the ethics of Gage and Jones, Harritt and their false claims?
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 06:30 PM   #29
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Thatís nice.


A paper on philosophy submitted by a physicist and two electrical engineers on their structural and fire engineering opinions.


I couldn't read their paper. Did it condemn the ethics of Gage and Jones, Harritt and their false claims?
Save some brain cells. The paper is a quote mining, cherry picking festival of 911 truth tag lines to form BS - authored by three 911 truth members.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 06:35 PM   #30
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 645
There was a review period where any of the NIST reports could be reviewed, and anyone, and I do mean anyone could submit comments.

Over 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports addressing 9/11. These individuals represent the best of the best in engineering, architecture, fire life safety, etc. Much better than the liars, con-artists, idiots and insane conspiracy theorists who make up the 9/11 truth movement.
__________________
ďI donít look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.Ē Lord Postsettle

Last edited by MileHighMadness; 2nd November 2014 at 06:36 PM.
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 06:39 PM   #31
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
I certainly agree that peer-review is one of many quality-control mechanisms that could be placed on accusations against agencies like NIST.
What are you talking about? Did you study NIST, and the process they go through before publishing reports? Did you study NISTs Goals? The paper in the OP is BS, and fraud.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_faqs.cfm

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...c_meetings.cfm
Do peer reviewed papers go through this kind of process? See the fraud in the paper yet?

Was the OP a way to give something to do during NFL Network/games commercials?

911 truth 13 years of failure, now in the 14th year of fraud. Can you find the "path of least resistance law"? Where do 911 truth nuts get that?

In a collaborative effort, John D. Wyndham of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and Wayne Coste and Michael Smith, both members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - spread lies. The are peers in spreading lies.

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd November 2014 at 06:48 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2014, 07:35 PM   #32
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,483
Talking Proposed experiment in least resistance

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The authors expose they are idiots, using the tag line from 911 truth's failed fantasy... " through the path of greatest resistance". Are the authors engineers, or nuts?
Who can find the path of least resistance rule in physics for a collapsing building, or perhaps a linebacker coming in to tackle a halfback, or better yet, why we are all bulletproof, the bullet takes the path of least resistance, glancing off of us into the air.
There is, of course, no such thing as "The Law of the Path of Least Resistance". If there were, avalanches or tsunamis couldn't destroy buildings, and rivers couldn't have distributaries. There is, in kinematics, the Principle of Least Action, which would actually be violated if avalanches or tsunamis did go around buildings instead of ripping them apart.

Since this was presented at an electrical engineers society meeting, I'd like to see the authors try this experiment in "least resistance": Attach a large wire between two electrical poles, split the wire lengthwise, then cut one of the two strands. Hold the ends of the cut strand in either hand while a 10,000 Volt potential is applied to the poles. One should be perfectly safe: Won't all the current go through the other strand, taking the path of least resistance?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 01:18 AM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,143
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The people who wrote the statutes that created NIST, gave it its mission, dictated how it should operate, and placed limits on what it could and could not do.
Perhaps egalicontrarian should be advised that some people around here use words in their accepted conventional meaning.
"Statutory" means "based on a statute", with a "statute" being "a formal written enactment of a legislative authority".

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why is NIST suddenly subject to "scholarly" conventions?
... Is there any history of requiring any other governmental advisory bodies or investigative agencies to subject themselves to peer review? ...
What JayUtah is asking for here is precedence. A "Precedent" is "a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts". Which other, previous and comparable engineering investigation carried out by a US statutory agency can truthers cite where the need for scholarly peer review was extablished by a court, or at least one was done on the assumption that it was a requirement, regardless of statute?


In short: When truthers claim, and go to court with the claim, that NIST was under a legal obligation to have their report peer reviewed similar to the way scholarly works are in academia, then they must either point to the relevant passage in NIST's statute or other formal, written law pertaining to NIST, or cite some relevant [/b]legal precedent[/b]. One or both of these two, or you simply don't have a case.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 02:04 AM   #34
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,143
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...
The claim that some 2,100 qualified professionals endorse the claims made by AE911T's principal activists, in whatever forum, is highly dubious. It's apparent that the AE911T leadership merely cites the sum total of their registration rolls to create the illusion that their concerns are widely felt in the industry.
...
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
[The increase of signatures] ...is to me insignificant if only a few of the top echelon have any idea what's going on.
A few additional comments:

1. The (2300 by now) "qualified professionals" aren't all actually qualified to assess these kinds of building collapses. Take out all the electrical, environmental, sanitary engineers. Take out all the architects who never worked on high rises.

2. Their number isn't as high as it looks. The represent under 0.1% of all Professional Engineers in the USA, for example. The incidence of some kinds of serious mental illnesses, including cognitive disablilities, runs higher than that. Much larger percentages of architects and engineers certainly believe in young earth creationism, alien visitations or various brands of charlatanery.

3. They don't all actually support AE's claims. Example: I once did a search for the word "footprint" in the personal statements of the signers. About half of those who mention that word claim that the twin towers fell "into their footprints", or similar language to that effect - a claim diametrically opposed to what AE911T states! AE says that the twins' debris was flung and spread far too far to be explained by gravity! They use the "footprint" claim (falsely, by the way) on WTC 7 only.

4. They have been campaigning and spending money for over seven years now. Attended the AIA convention several times. You'd think that every arcitect and every engineer in the country should by now have been exposed to their arguments several times by now. Either AE did not target the professionals (i.e.: I am not aware of any paid advertising in professional journals - why not?), or >99.9% of the professionals simply aren't persuaded. That puts into perspective the numbers.

5. If the 2300 really were so much convinced, shouldn't they talk to their peers and ask those to sign up as well? There should be some organic growth evident in the number of signatures, but there isn't. Present signatories should convince peers, and the more signatories there are, the more peers they should convince, no? The bitter truth is that, during the last four years, their annual growth rate has hovered between 11 and 14%, which can be interpreted as "each existing signatory manages to convince one other A or E to sign once every 7 to 9 years". Since of course many new signers got their clues from AE911T directly, this means their signers base simply isn't spreading the news, they simply do not convince peers. They either don't care, or they are not convincing!

6. Seven years of AE petition of course means that a significant number of signers still listed must have died in the meantime, or changed their minds. This further reduces the already low percentage of the professional communities that support the woo.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 02:45 AM   #35
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,295
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
.....
6. Seven years of AE petition of course means that a significant number of signers still listed must have died in the meantime, or changed their minds. This further reduces the already low percentage of the professional communities that support the woo.
I suspect that a mandatory yearly renewal of those signatures would see the number plummet into the 3-figure zone, if that.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 06:57 AM   #36
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Has anyone here discussed a recent article by J.D. Wynham et al written for an ethics forum on the NIST study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers? Here is the paper:

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org...per_030714.pdf

Here is AE911's account of an event where the work was presented in poster form:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affilia...-911truth.html

The paper is also on the IEEE site itself, but it can't be accessed that way without an account:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login...mber%3D6893463

And here's the Wiki on the organization that sponsored the event and has the article on their site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...nics_Engineers

EDIT: For JayUtah's sake below, here is a Wikipedia section on the history of peer review, that super controversial process that helps but obviously doesn't settle the question of the overall quality of scholarly work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History
Its been decades since I belonged to IEEE and read Spectrum. Can you give us a sense of the reaction of the general membership, letters to the editor?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 06:59 AM   #37
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Work like the article I cited above, which was accepted into a forum by an otherwise apparently respectable scientific institution, is partly motivated by the argument that scholars independent of the NIST investigation itself did not perform a process of peer review. Such arguments would be undercut in advance by voluntarily receiving peer review.
First, the criteria for being allowed to present a poster generally are not stringent. There may be something interesting about the associated paper, but the fact that it was "accepted into a forum" in this sense isn't it.

Second, it is far from obvious that 9/11 Truth writing is partly motivated by an argument about peer review. It seems to me that 9/11 Truth's interest in peer review is largely rhetorical. (Even in this paper, it receives cursory attention beyond the abstract. Bluntly, construed as a summary of the paper, the abstract is incompetent.) It isn't as if 9/11 Truth is known for deferring to the authority of peer-reviewed literature.

Third and related, it is risky to attempt to "undercut" the procedural arguments of people who don't actually care about procedure. As others have noted, NIST had a very extensive review process. It is naive to suppose that the authors' insinuations about "criminal negligence" and "research misconduct," and their assertion of a "high level of ethical failure," would have been withheld if only NIST had designated some Peer Reviewers.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 07:03 AM   #38
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
A few additional comments:

1. The (2300 by now) "qualified professionals" aren't all actually qualified to assess these kinds of building collapses. Take out all the electrical, environmental, sanitary engineers. Take out all the architects who never worked on high rises.
.
Do that with IEEE and you have........
It is telling that this paper manages to get into Spectrum(I assume that's still the name of the publication) but cannot get into a structural engineering journal.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 07:09 AM   #39
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Why don't AE911T and Scientists For, Firemen For, Patriots For, etc.... take the money they raise for Quixotic causes like the NYCCAN'T initiatives and fund their own study? They've raised loads of money that seems to wind up in various pockets or paying for flights and hotel rooms (and by "they" I mean ALL the voices that have been crying for their new investigation, not just AE911T). Put all that together and give Georgia Tech a half-million grant and get their engineering department on it.
A question oft posed by many a debunker.
As I have put it "If only there were an organization of competent engineers who could do the research required to produce and run a series of FEA on at least one of these three structures. If only there were organizations consisting of well paid professionals willing to part with $1000 each to fund such research, professionals such as lawyers, engineers, architects and pilots. If only these conditions existed we could have an independent investigation"

What is truly mind boggling is that truthers seem to want the government to fund an 'independent investigation' because they do not accept the investigation previously funded by the government.

Its like telling Monsanto that they should fund an independent research of Round-Up resistant canola because you don't accept the research that Monasnto already funded a university agriculture school to do.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 3rd November 2014 at 07:13 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2014, 07:09 AM   #40
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
To who? Was the NIST study meant to explain the events to laymen? I've never seen an argument presented toward the NIST reports by people that would not be considered "laymen" (that questioned the conclusions as a whole).

You need to be more specific.
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat made a few minor corrections to what they saw as areas of the NIST Report that had room for improvement, while supporting NIST's generel conclusions.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.