September 11th: The History of 9/11

[Jerry_B]

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)

How can you tell the difference between the sound of explosions and the sound of structural joints snapping?

And if squibs were going off further up the towers, why place demo charges in their bases?

 

[Jerry_B]

What have you got against websites?

Nothing at all - but in this case, the professionals who advocate the demolition theory should also publish their findings in the relevant peer journals so that they're exposed to peer review.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh good, so you are interested in seeing the evidence and any investigations into the theory presented.

I look forward to any peer reviews as well.

 

[Analogue Boy]

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)

How can you tell the difference between the sound of explosions and the sound of structural joints snapping?

And if squibs were going off further up the towers, why place demo charges in their bases?

Because the large charges in the base set the whole thing up for collapse.
Angular cutting charges slice at an angle through the main girders, effectively fractionally 'walking' the structure to one side.

 

[waitew]

What have you got against websites?

Nothing at all - but in this case, the professionals who advocate the demolition theory should also publish their findings in the relevant peer journals so that they're exposed to peer review.

Excellent!Now when to you suppose the NIST will do the same?Such as releasing for peer review the vizualisations for the computer animated collapse modelling they tell us they did?Or perhaps the construction documents?Or since they inexplicably decided NOT to test for explosive residue perhaps they could give access to what little steel they have spirited away so that 'peers' indepedent of the Bush administration could conduct their own tests?!I thought not.Perhaps you should apply the same standards equally.

 

[Jerry_B]

The NIST report is open to peer review, if anyone can find find fault with it and is sufficiently qualified to publish their findings in any relevant journals. Strange that none of the pro-demolition theorists have done this - they instead have gone for the 'put it on the intrnet' option, which is hardly the same thing. After all, if their theories are so convincing, they should offer them up for peer review. That's a no brainer. The fact that they have not done so thus far is odd, if the demolition theory holds so much weight.

 

[Analis]

The NIST conclusions have not been criticized only on the internet. Their reasoning is full of logical fallacies. Such as this one: at each study, the temperatures of the fires decrease. First 1500°C, then 1100°C, then 800°C, then a mere 300-500°C. Yet the result remains the same: collapse follows! I read an account of their last report: they keep on saying that the softening of the steel caused the collapse. Exactly like at the beginning when the temperatures were supposed to be above 1000°C. But with this new range, it can't work anymore. We are faced with a moribund theory which refuses to die.

 

[Jerry_B]

Well, if that's true, any persons qualified to make such claims should do so in the relevant peer journals. Posting stuff on the internet is useless in comparison. The various counterclaims have to be assessed in a valid way, otherwise they are simply opinions - and on the internet, opinions are a dime a dozen.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Well, if that's true, any persons qualified to make such claims should do so in the relevant peer journals. Posting stuff on the internet is useless in comparison. The various counterclaims have to be assessed in a valid way, otherwise they are simply opinions - and on the internet, opinions are a dime a dozen.

So your problem is not one of a counter argument to the claims made by industry professionals in the relevant field but a general mistrust of the medium in which it is presented?

That would also rule out a future TV documentary on the subject with the current climate of lying telly. Ditto a movie on claims of bias. Books can be self published on any subject as can a DVD.

 

[Timble2]

So your problem is not one of a counter argument to the claims made by industry professionals in the relevant field but a general mistrust of the medium in which it is presented?

.

But most of the one's on the net aren't industry professionals in a relevant field, they're anyone who happened to get a degree in some field or other like the supposed MIT engineer on the other thread, who's engineering qualifications had nothing to do with structural engineering.


The problem with the web is that a lot of the "information" is vanity publishing in spades. At least with a mainstream TV documentary or film you've got to convince some other people that the case is worth presenting.

Self-published books and DVDs are possible, but a hell of a lot more expensive than a website.

 

[Jerry_B]

So your problem is not one of a counter argument to the claims made by industry professionals in the relevant field but a general mistrust of the medium in which it is presented?

My 'problem' is that those who are pro-demo theory who are also professionals don't seek peer review for their work, but instead think that it's sufficient simply to post stuff on the internet. I can't see why anyone could think that's a good idea. What the theories need are the backing of people who know their stuff, and who publish their findings via peer-reviewed media. It's simply not enough to put in on the net - for their theories to hold any water is has to be peer-reviewed. If the pro-demo camp aren't willing to do that, then one has to wonder why. Surely, if their theories are based on solid enough arguments, reasoning, calculation, etc. then there should be no problem at all with seeking to have that peer reviewed? If the conspiracy camp has finally found enough people with the right credentials to back their case, the first things they should do is get those people to publish their findings for peer-review. That really shouldn't be a problem for them.

 

[Analogue Boy]

So until they do submit their findings to a respected peer magazine or other periodical and then there is the counter-argument and the rebuff to that etc, their opinions are not worth commenting on?

In that case, surely this thread ends here.

 

[Jerry_B]

It's not that - it's just that if the conspiracy theorists are seeking legitmacy for the claims and perhaps have the backing on various learned persons, those persons should publish their findings for peer review. That would be a big plus for the theorists, as at least it would get the ball rolling. We can only dissect their findings to a certain extent - what's really needed is peer review. That would sort out the wheat from the chaff, and we'd thus be able to tell whether the theories hold any weight. So it seems to me that those in the conspiracy camp should encourage said learned persons to publish for peer review. As I said, puting stuff on the internet isn't enough, especially in a professional sense.

 

[Analogue Boy]

So I gather this website isn't going to make it into your 'favourites' then?

As part of the "11th of every month" events around the country yesterday, Richard Gage, AIA gave a one-hour presentation on WTC7 to roughly 40 architects and staff members at a large office in the SF Bay Area. It's not an easy thing to bring such a hot potato into an office of conservative building professionals, but that's exactly what Richard did yesterday, delivering a confident, scaled down version of his 2-hour presentation to over half of the firm's staff...

When asked if anyone still believed that WTC7 was destroyed by fire, no one raised a hand or contested his thesis about the building's demise. Most expressed eagerness to see his follow-up talk on WTC 1 and 2 later in the month - to be held on 6/12/07 at the East Bay Chapter of the AIA in Oakland at 12:00noon. Richard provided handouts and free copies of 911 Mysteries for people to take home after the presentation.

 

[Jerry_B]

So why hasn't Gage published his findings for peer review? And would the architects at the talk he gave be fully able to evaluate his findings? There's more to it than just architecture

The simple fact of the matter is that the alleged evidence has to be scrutinised by peer review if said evidence is being presented by those with the relevant professional background. As I've said, why none seem to have done this far strikes me as being somewhat odd.

 

[Analogue Boy]

It is not worth pursuing this line of argument if you are not prepared to look at or comment on the site because you disagree with the way a view is presented.

I don't mind an attempt to kill the message but it starts to ring a bit hollow when you first of all bring witness testimony into question as they are not experts in the relevant field and then when experts do give an opinion, you question the medium they choose to make their case.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I don't think anyone has doubted that there are people who are technically qualified to speak on the nuts and bolts of the WTC collapse. The point here is that we have to know to what extent their views are typical of anyone with that expertise. Personally I'm not suitably qualified to offer a valid opinion on such matters and nor are the majority of the posters on this forum. However, surely the peers of those professionals making such claims are? In which case why have they not been submitted to them for review?

To some degree I, and I suspect many others, contract out my views on the complicated technical aspects of the collapse to those who have expertise in this field in much the same way I would with a doctor if I were ill or an employment lawyer if I was in dispute with my employer. Personally, it's not enough for me that a minority view is expressed in an area in which I lack expertise just as it would be if 2 or 3 percent of environmental scientists claim that climate change is not man-made, for example. A peer review in which some idea of the overall opinion of any given profession could be gauged would go a long way to altering that opinion. It's what a professionals, confident of their view, would do in such circumstances particularly if they were on such an important crusade to enlighten the world on such an important issue.

 

[Jerry_B]

It is not worth pursuing this line of argument if you are not prepared to look at or comment on the site because you disagree with the way a view is presented.

I don't mind an attempt to kill the message but it starts to ring a bit hollow when you first of all bring witness testimony into question as they are not experts in the relevant field and then when experts do give an opinion, you question the medium they choose to make their case.

I think you've misunderstood my point. If these people which to put their views across via the internet, fine. But professionally-speaking they must also put their findings to peer review if they want other professionals in their field to evlauate those findings. That is a normal process and they should have no qualms about submitting their work for such scrutiny. There is a proper professional proceedure, and simply posting stuff on the internet is not part of that process. So IMHO non-professionals in the pro-conspiracy camp should do everything possible to encourage the professionals to publish their findings for peer-review. The advantage of this is that, should their findings contain any substance once it goes through the review process, that can only strengthen the case for the conspiracy. If instead they chose to stay on the periphery and not seek to legitimise their work via peer review, one has to wonder if - as professionals - they're 100% willing to stand by their work. Failing to do even this basic process is, as I've said, somewhat odd.

 

[Anonymous]

So why hasn't Gage published his findings for peer review? And would the architects at the talk he gave be fully able to evaluate his findings? There's more to it than just architecture

The simple fact of the matter is that the alleged evidence has to be scrutinised by peer review if said evidence is being presented by those with the relevant professional background. As I've said, why none seem to have done this far strikes me as being somewhat odd.

:lol:

More to it than just architecture? :lol:

Nice one Jerry.

I was just thinking, who would publish such theories for peer review? Would anybody touch it with a barge pole?

The internet, for all it´s faults, is a *democratic medium by which many people including peers with internet access can get access to such theories and then openly question them.

Not a bad thing, I mean, there are forums for this kind of thing - perhaps peer forums?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I was just thinking, who would publish such theories for peer review? Would anybody touch it with a barge pole?

The internet, for all it´s faults, is a *democratic medium by which many people including peers with internet access can get access to such theories and then openly question them.

Not a bad thing, I mean, there are forums for this kind of thing - perhaps peer forums?

Unfortunately the internet is a vast place. It's very difficult for laypeople such as ourselves to gauge how representative it is of most within a profession.

 

[Jerry_B]

More to it that just architecture?

Nice one Jerry.

Well, there is more to this subject than just architecture, after all.

I was just thinking, who would publish such theories for peer review? Would anybody touch it with a barge pole?

Have any of the pro-conspiracy professionals even tried? How many are actually qualified in the correct specific areas to be viable for peer-review?

The internet, for all it´s faults, is a *democratic medium by which many people including peers with internet access can get access to such theories and then openly question them.

Not a bad thing, I mean, there are forums for this kind of thing - perhaps peer forums?

The established standard for professional peer review is through publication - and not simply posting one's work on the internet. If you're willing to publish it on-line, there should be no problem also publishing via the established process. This process is, after all, what the professionals should be used to as part of their work.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree, who publishes them and who handles the process?

Who approves the articles for publication?

Who approves their decisions? How much is it worth to publish a theory the government does not want you to publish for peer review?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I agree, who publishes them and who handles the process?

Who approves the articles for publication?

Who approves their decisions? How much is it worth to publish a theory the government does not want you to publish for peer review?

But which governments will stop you? America is not the only country with professionals in this area or the only one which does peer reviews.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, and how many of those publications from those countries criticising the US official theory would actually get submitted for peer review or even be taken seriously, bearing in mind how much it is worth?

Scientists can be discretited and ostricised for not toeing the line, I suppose others are subject to the same peer pressures etc. Not a conspiracy there per se, just politics.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Yes, and how many of those publications from those countries criticising the US official theory would actually get submitted for peer review or even be taken seriously, bearing in mind how much it is worth?

Scientists can be discretited and ostricised for not toeing the line, I suppose others are subject to the same peer pressures etc. Not a conspiracy there per se, just politics.

Well perhaps the litmus test would be if they actually tried to submit the findings for peer review. Besides, I think we can overestimate the extent to which other countries like France or Germany will suppress evidence on behalf of the US government. The run-up to the Iraq war would suggest that they're not entirely subdued. Also if it's the case that there is such fear of being ostracised and discredited then we'd have to ask why there are professionals coming forward to propose these theories.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Ted and Jerry.

I completely understand your points about peer review and can see that the evidence these professional architects and engineers have come up with should be put under wider scrutiny.

As yet, they have not done so for reasons I do not know. It may be financial on their part. It may be a case of symapthy fatigue and a perception that the US just wants to put this behind them and move on. It could be that there still is a stigma attached to any professional that puts a counter theory across.

We must also wonder how far the internet has gone in leading them to question the official report.


The point is that you have both been asking for professionals in the field to stand up and be counted and give their reasons why they think WTC7 was a controlled demolition and what the repercussions are for the collapse of the towers. Now when they do come forward, instead of discussing the evidence they've provided, you adopt the smoke and mirrors approach of killing the message by criticising the air it travels through.

I would be surprised if we had someone with EXACTLY the right qualifications regarding this extremely rare scenario, if such a person should exist, and I'm not sure about the evidence myself which is why I'm interested in the arguments rather than denigrating the players. (How many consultants and experts FOR the official theory had or would benefit financially from Government contracts for example?)

These industry professionals - with the right qualifications - are making odd internet noises about the collapses but we must remember this is just a part of a tragedy that saw a series of strange coincidences, peculiar meetings and all manner of strangeness in protocol. Which is why some people are just a little bit suspicious.

 

[Jerry_B]

The point is that you have both been asking for professionals in the field to stand up and be counted and give their reasons why they think WTC7 was a controlled demolition and what the repercussions are for the collapse of the towers. Now when they do come forward, instead of discussing the evidence they've provided, you adopt the smoke and mirrors approach of killing the message by criticising the air it travels through.

The point is, we can only discuss what they say so far, and perhaps not at all in any qualified sense, especially WRT what their peers may think of their findings. If these ideas are out there on the internet, that's all fine and dandy. However, for their work to achieve anything in real terms, they must have it peer reviewed. That's really the only way any of us will be able to tell fully if their ideas/theories are valid in terms of their professional stance and what their profession considers as valid. Put simply, the internet is nothing more than a basic poster for their ideas - what really matters in the long run is peer review.

I would be surprised if we had someone with EXACTLY the right qualifications regarding this extremely rare scenario, if such a person should exist, and I'm not sure about the evidence myself which is why I'm interested in the arguments rather than denigrating the players. (How many consultants and experts FOR the official theory had or would benefit financially from Government contracts for example?)

Arguments are fine and dandy too. But in a wider sense, the arguments put forward for the conspiracy by those with the correct professional qualifications will only hold any weight - and allow us all to see their actual validity - if they're put forward for peer review. As I've said, the conspiracy camp really needs to push this forward, as do the professionals who side with them. It really is a no-brainer, and has to be done. Otherwise, there is really no actual point to making a big deal out of those qualified professionals who have sided with the conspiracists. Sure, it might be interesting, but we have no real way of telling whether their claims are actually valid (or just their personal opinions) until they are put through the peer review process.

These industry professionals - with the right qualifications - are making odd internet noises about the collapses but we must remember this is just a part of a tragedy that saw a series of strange coincidences, peculiar meetings and all manner of strangeness in protocol. Which is why some people are just a little bit suspicious.

Well, the debate is partly if things were truly strange in any way, or whether some people are saying it's strange for any given reason(s). Professionals or not, there could still be errors in perception. That said, if professionals have tangible data and theories, peer review would very much help to sort out whether anything actually is strange or not.

 

[rynner2]

And which would be a suitable journal to submit a 'peer-reviewable' paper to?

AFAIK, architecture is not a science, although the engineering of large structures does involve a lot of hard science.

Any experts out there who can suggest a suitable scientific journal to which such a paper could be submitted?

Since 9/11 was a one-off (well, two-off) event, it can hardly be discussed in normal scientific terms of theory and experiment. Experts could argue back and forth about the relevence of computer simulations (for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert ), but that seems unlikely to get us any nearer to a consensus opinion on 'the truth'.

It's a pity a lot of the material evidence was disposed of so rapidly, so the normal processes of forensic investigation now seem impossible to pursue.

Which, of course, is one of the central planks of the various conspiracy theories...!

Absence of disproof is not evidence of proof, or indeed, vice-versa! 8)

 

[Jerry_B]

And which would be a suitable journal to submit a 'peer-reviewable' paper to?

AFAIK, architecture is not a science, although the engineering of large structures does involve a lot of hard science.

Any experts out there who can suggest a suitable scientific journal to which such a paper could be submitted?

The relevant areas are covered by various sciences and disciplines. For example, one paper which addresses certain areas of the demolition theory has been covered over at the BBC website recently.

Since 9/11 was a one-off (well, two-off) event, it can hardly be discussed in normal scientific terms of theory and experiment. Experts could argue back and forth about the relevence of computer simulations (for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert ), but that seems unlikely to get us any nearer to a consensus opinion on 'the truth'.

The processes involved and the sciences involved are understood in various aspects. Putting togther how all of these factors acted on the day is part of the process. If the conspiracy-based professionals have data, etc. which adds to that, they should seek to have it reviewed by their peers. The fact that it was a unqiue event does not exclude it from the scrutiny of various branches of science.

 

[Analogue Boy]

So what you're saying Jerry is that you haven't the relevant experience to disprove the allegations of a demolition theory? Yet you've used several threads and loads of posts countering evidence that has been put in front of you.

Where have you been getting your information that supports the official line all this time?