What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I don't want to ban you. I want you to move on from repeating your sole point, (NIST did not test for accelerants or explosives, therefore it's unscientific, hence invalidates the investigation). We get it. We have heard you say it probably over a hundred times. We understand your point. We disagree with it. The disagreement has been explained. You keep repeating the same thing over and over.
Please try to be actually constructive. Next time I ban you it will be for a year.
MikeC
Closed Account
Yep - entirely - I was just addressing the issue of "equal funding from us and them" and govt funding as a philosophical issue rather than a concrete proposal.
Grieves
Senior Member
At least as much as the piece of shit Nick Cage movie. I seriously don't know how defenders of the Commission can look themselves in the mirror knowing what a forcibly half-assed job was done... or how the directors of the commission itself can declare it a failure, and people can say with a straight face "Yeah.. well I disagree."
It think you are confusing the 9/11 commission report with the WTC7 collapse report.
It's an easy mistake. They both smell the same.
qed
Senior Member
NIST may find the results of the following useful.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/nios-bpr091713.php
Beyond peer review: NIST and 5 journals find a way to manage errors in research data
Traditional peer review is not enough to ensure data quality amid the recent boom in scientific research findings, according to results of a 10-year collaboration between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and five technical journals.
...
NIST developed a new online tool (NIST ThermoLit) that allows researchers to generate a literature report containing relevant references retrieved from a NIST database. Researchers can combine this capability with an older experiment planning system (NIST ThermoPlan) at both the conceptualization and publication stages of their work. If the submitted paper passes a journal's peer review, NIST generates a report noting any inconsistencies between the new experimental data and critically evaluated data based on past research. Data are extracted from the submitted paper and validated by NIST's expert software system for data evaluation (NIST ThermoData Engine).
Similar threads
