1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some have suggested that the concerns raised over the official explanation of the collapse of WTC7 warrant a new investigation.

    What would that look like?

    Should it be be NIST again? How exactly do you think NIST should proceed? Or if not them, who? How should they proceed? Should they be banned from using computers? Or only use open-source software and data? What do you think should happen? You want a new independent investigation, let's say you have $100 million. How do you proceed?
     
  2. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    It would start by getting the input data for NIST's computer models that it has been hiding and use that to check if they have been drylabbed.

    No need for millions more dollars of public money to be spent in the first instance, just the need for the data that the public has already paid for.

    Once scientific transparency is achieved with respect to the models NIST has already made, public accountability can be established and the investigation would proceed from there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Why all this focus on the computer simulations? To my understanding most of them were approximative and made to simulate several likely scenarios, or to test the outcome of various factors such as damage and heat.
    Like these simulations for example: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909256 (NIST site is currently offline though.)

    It's not like NIST based their conclusion solely on the computer models anyway. There are of course quite a lot of physical observational evidence presented by NIST that support the computer models anyway.
    And to suggest that not releasing computer models to the public equals NIST not being "scientifically transparent" ignores the fact that NIST is quite transparent with quite a lot of other material and methods used in the investigation and people involved.

    But let's not let this become off topic now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    What is the reason given for not making critical information public, and who could possibly find selective release of this data acceptable?

    If I am under investigation can I be "quite transparent" with some facts and "not transparent" with other facts? I don't think so.

    The closer one looks at any part of this the more questions arise. And the more it stinks of coverup and deception.
    (I don't mean to be "off topic"-how else to ask the question?)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd greatly prefer they release the data.

    But let's say they release the data, and it looks reasonable, then what?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Well, as a new investigation appears to pander to the CT community, I think they should produce some computer models of how the building(s) were rigged for explosives, which they have not yet done, how the charges survived the fires, and how they were initiated. Obviously the whole explosive thing is my hobby horse...

    Explosives aside, the A&E people should be included and write some real papers - a kind of put up to shut up - as this whole personal incredulity and 'Im just asking questions" is a bit tedious.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Seems like if they were to seriously consider the explosive demolition hypothesis, then they should do some practical experiments with some nano thermite.

    I suspect though it would be hard to get justification for such a thing. I wonder why AE911 does not fund such tests. How much can a big girder and some nano-thermite cost?

    I think any actual new investigation would look very similar to the current one, but maybe with better models. All the existing work on the spread of the fires and the observed sequence of collapse seems pretty solid.

    I wonder if having the models and software in the public domain would actually stop the arguing? There's still an awful lot of unknowns that need to be input, and that will become what is argued over.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I'm not sure it would settle many arguments, with the Diana case being an example: Investigated (how?) many times, yet the Diana-ists still think it was Phil the Greek. I was being a bit cheeky with my first suggestion as Im sure it would never satisfy those that just know the truth and dismiss anything else as NWO lies...

    If experiments were done with Thermite, I imagine the truthers would say it was the wrong thermite/temperature/quantity/steel etc... Then the goalposts would shift to corrosive liquids or something....
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. qed

    qed Senior Member

    If the report were published (or publishable) in a peer reviewed engineering journal I would take it at its word regardless of its outcome. Then the only way to argue against the report would be via further journal publication.

    I see no need to consider an alternative hypothesis (thermite, etc) unless no other scientific explanation can be established.

    I see such a report making predictions. In this case, these would be civil engineering recommendations to prevent this happening to buildings again.

    The report would need to explain why the building fell, why it fell rapidly, and why it fell "into its footprint".
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2013
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not sure how you could "publish" several thousand pages in a peer reviewed journal? What would that entail? And why would you take it at its word? Do you take Bazant's paper "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" at its word because it was published in the Journal of Engineering mechanics?

    And there are recommendations that came out of the report.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Like any big engineering publication: published summary with all details available online.

    I would first check the reputation rating of the journal. If it is low I would reject it (it would mean real journals have rejected it). I would then see if there are any peer reviewed counter-arguments. If there are none, then yes I would take it at its word.

    Just scanning the document I think there are predictions (not my field)

     
  12. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I've had a brief scan of www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/466.pdf.

    Now there is science in a language I can read.

    These guys propose a way of distinguishing the official theory from the conspiracy. On their initial data set the official seems more likely. They propose a more sensitive experiment 'with millisecond accuracy'.

    Does anyone know if the proposed experiment has been conducted and published?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    If AE produced computer models showing how explosives brought the building down but refused to release the input data for them, would you consider them to be as credible as the NIST models? If not, why not? Your position on the NIST models could easily appear hypocritical.

    If you believe enough information is now in the public domain for AE to produce computer models similar in detail to those produced by NIST, what part of the NIST models do you think can reasonably be hidden from independent examination and verification by reason of public safety?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member

    Further investigation will only lead to more questions and more conspiracy theories being spun out of the new conclusions/findings. The explanations and new findings will no doubt be spurn at if it doesn't pacify the CTs' position. It'd pretty much be like when a little toddler discovers the word 'why'? It is a never ending conundrum of 'why' after 'why' until you realise you are not getting anywhere even though you've offered several answers to the several 'whys'. Sometimes, it saves time and energy to end the 'why?' with a 'because I said so!'.

    On a serious note, some of the CTs out there are way too outlandish for a new investigation to make a difference no matter how reasonable the conclusions might be. That will just be a waste of resources.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  16. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Nope. In this case it's just wanting the evidence for an extraordinary claim.
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But what should be in a new investigation, in your opinion?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    You don't begin a new investigation by ignoring an earlier investigation, even if the reason you're having a new investigation is because the earlier investigation was discredited :)

    A new investigation starts with the hidden data from the NIST model. As you've said, it might check out...
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Then what?
     
  20. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Well, if the data checks out, nothing much. Some people will still wonder how fire can really be said to have caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did.

    But if the data shows [further] signs of drylabbing, then the investigation should obviously be into NIST itself.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Let's stick to the topic please.
     
  22. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Just to confirm the alarm at WTC7 actually did get put on test, meaning that zones could not be tracked, here is an extract of the relevant printout
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  23. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    The theories which have not been proven are those stating that fire brought down WTC7. This is an alleged unprecedented event, even in Shyam Sunder's (NIST lead investigator) own words. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, and that has not been provided in NISTs report about WTC7.
     
  24. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    And as I said before, all that is required in the first instance here is the release of data that has already been paid for, so that basic things like scientific verification can become possible.
     
  25. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member


    Claims - extraordinary or not require proof. The proof does not have to be extraordinary. I am not at all sure why you reject the fire explanation - if you could explain that would be helpful.
     
  26. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Sure, when you apply the equation for linear thermal expansion to the floor beams to the northeast of column 79, they can expand to 4-63 - 4.75 inches and NIST claim that the girder spanning columns 44 and 79 would have to 'walk' 6.5 inches to fail. You can also see stiffener plates in structural drawing frankel 9114, this means that the required 'walk' distance would actually be in the region of 9 inches. NISTs hypothesis does not stand the scrutiny of the scientific method. I made a brief video as regards these 2 plates here.

    There is a thread about it here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-15
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  27. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    One problem that I am finding with this style of forum is that when threads insist on strict adherence to the heading it inhibits the introduction of evidence leading to the point that is to be made. As Jazzy frequently states, there was much going on that day and attention should be given to that interaction rather than total focus on one small detail.

    But when a thread title is 'What would a new investigation look like' that leaves no room to discuss the old one. I would suggest that any discussion of the events that day or subsequent analysis of all past reports made as a result of previous investigations must be made in other threads.

    To address the heading directly then I would suggest that first of all a new investigative team must comprise independent engineers and experts in all disciplines. Suggested names for those posts to be submitted and agreed by all parties with an interest in them being impartial and independent. Subpeana powers for anyone ( and that means anyone ) to be called to testify under oath. Input to items to be considered for inclusion in the agenda to be accepted from anyone - layman or expert alike. Funding allocated on a similar scale to that granted to look into Clinton's dress soiling escapade. Release of all data requested by that team. A hearing granted to all who wish to testify or submit evidence that they consider relevent.

    No doubt others will be able to suggest more powers but those are to start the discussion here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I think that the family members, who were after all the ones who got us the initial investigation, and in so many cases are upset with the outcome of it, MUST have a part to play in any new investigation. NIST have proven themselves to be incompetent in areas such as reading engineering drawings, so should be excluded. Maybe a team from outside America would be the most sensible choice?
     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  30. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    The NIST investigation could not even find a few thousand dollars to conduct chemical analysis of residue, Landru, which is what is demanded by fire investigation manuals (and wholly reasonably so in the event of destruction of such magnitude, wouldn't you agree?).

    However there were millions available to produce a dodgy computer sim that cannot be defended from the obvious allegation it was drylabbed because NIST will not allow it to be checked.

    You may be satisfied by the NIST faq on the question but I would suggest that shows a lack of curiosity on your part as well as a failure to respect the importance of the scientific method in forensic fire investigation.

    As with its response to the thermite question, NIST claims to have followed the scientific method with respect to NFPA921, but this does not amount to a meaningful claim: it is a banal contradiction that I would challenge you to decipher if you accept it.

    You surely know what assumption makes.

    Edit: therefore, of course, a new investigation would follow NFPA921 as closely as is possible under the circumstances, as Chief Nigro would surely have expected in the first place.
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Do you have some organizations in mind?
     
  32. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    They didn't test because they couldn't identify the WTC 7 steel. How would any organization do the test now?
     
  33. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    There was steel, as I'm sure you know, and the fact it is not mentioned in the report is another factor that undermines its veracity. The FEMA study in fact implies there was once a lot of WTC 7 steel, as well as the steel that was tested in 2002; however, I have no doubt you would cast doubt on its provenance or relevance now.

    But since this thread is about how a new investigation would look, I think it would obviously require testing residue for signatures of accelerants, as that's what NFPA921 demands should have been done in the first place.

    Or would you assert that there is no residue of any kind of credible provenance today, and just shrug the demands of the scientific method off at this stage?

    "My brother Jeb said this wuz a done deal."
     
  34. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The NIST FAQ explains pretty well why they could not id any steel. You have been shown this many times. I am satisfied with their explanation. You are not. Do you have any evidence that any steel from WTC 7 exists to be tested and is identifiable as WTC 7 steel? Can you answer without snark?
     
  35. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    As I said, I expected you to cast doubt on the provenance of the wtc7 steel that was tested in 2002. So do you think FEMA was testing steel from somewhere else?

    And what part of the scientific method do you think NIST was following by ignoring the requirements of NFPA921 to test for accelerants?
     
  36. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    I don't know what/how FEMA id'd the steel or if they kept it afterwards. NIST explained the NFPA921 as has been explained on MB many times such as here.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  37. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    As I said, I would challenge you to decipher the meaning of NIST's contradictory claim to have followed the scientific method without following the clear and reasonable requirements of NFPA921, as NFPA921 is nothing more then a codification of the scientific method in forensic fire investigation -- if you accept it.

    Since you clearly do accept it, I challenge to to explain the meaning of this explanation of NIST's that you accept. Just claiming to have followed the scientific method is meaningless. It's just a claim. So what do to think NIST's reasoning here, by which it could ignore NFPa921, actually was?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    As they used to say in Parliament during Prime Minister's Question Time I refer my honorable friend to the reply I gave some moments ago. Or you can look at the 45 posts dealing with that here. This topic has been done to death.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  39. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    A respectable investigation would allow for the thorough questioning of the Bush administration and those officials responsible for protecting the nation as of Sept. 11th without the unconscionable protections from honesty demanded by them at the time. A respectable investigation would seek to ascertain what specific failures allowed the event to take place, what specific parties were responsible for those failures, and would thoroughly investigate those parties to make absolute certain, before taking whatever punitive or legal action is called for, that they were in error/neglect and not in collusion. A respectable investigation would ascertain the chain of command where the decision to destroy the WTC 7 evidence was involved, and thoroughly question those individuals who made the call as to their motivations, while holding them responsible at least for the obstruction of justice regardless of their response. A respectable investigation would invest time and resources into ascertaining precisely who funded the attacks, and who if anyone assisted the hijackers in entering the United States, as opposed to concluding these issues of 'are little real practical significance'. A respectable investigation would explore the previous inexplicably cancelled efforts to track the 'insider trading' which took place on 9/11, and resume such efforts with the identification of individuals in mind. Once identified, those individuals should be questioned as to how and why they predictively bet against those companies to be wounded in the attacks. First and foremost, a respectable investigation would address the concerns of those suspicious of the nature of the unprecedented and baffling triple-collapse seriously, investigating every possible impetus for such an uncanny event instead of concocting, apparently with great difficulty and a number of errors/omissions, plausible scenarios which fit the explanation composed long before any examination of the evidence had commenced.
    I could go on like this for a while, but might as well leave it at that for now.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sorry, I meant a WTC7 Collapse Investigation. I'll update the title accordingly