The NIST report, the governments offical scientific investigation into the collapse of the twin towers is not peer reviewed, therefore can not be accepted as scientifically valid.
112 2017-02-22 by [deleted]
Where's the outrage?
http://www.consensus911.org/references-evidence-based/
The new pearl harbor
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
Edit: "Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief or the editorial board) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research. "
16 comments
n/a immobilecorn 2017-02-22
Still can't believe people believe the collapses were legit, it's like they've never even played jenga
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
Haha exactly. Even life long scientific professionals are willing to forget everything they've ever learned on this one day in particular. It really just goes to show how horrible public education really is. 10% mass of a building can not pile drive through the other 90% with gravity alone. Other factors HAD to be at play it's really that simple.
n/a thepipesarecall 2017-02-22
Actually it totally can. It shows how horrible your own engineering and material science education is. But here, without getting too complex for you, I'll lay it out.
The temperatures in the building were very hot. Steel gets softer when it gets this hot, and isn't as strong as it was. Any structures made of steel can't do what they were supposed to, and the building goes down.
n/a NIST_Report 2017-02-22
The 300,000 model analysis at the University of Alaska Fairbanks proves otherwise.
For 2 years, Dr. J Leroy Hulsey (Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department) and two Ph.D. research assistants have been working on a finite element model of WTC7: www.WTC7Evaluation.org
The University's preliminary findings are discussed during this American Society of Civil Engineers presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKN4qilUOfs
Some of the professionals who helped support this research, along side the University of Alaska Fairbanks:
David Topete, MSCE, S.E., Structural Engineer
Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer
Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc.
n/a thepipesarecall 2017-02-22
Oh sure, let me just trust an account made specifically to spread disinformation to uneducated people.
Do you realize how stupid you sound trying to prop up the veracity of your claim by stating the model it uses cost $300k?
n/a NIST_Report 2017-02-22
The University's preliminary findings are discussed during this American Society of Civil Engineers presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKN4qilUOfs
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
Wait your actually saying that the steel throughout the entire building became too hot to keep its integrity?? From what amounted to office fires on a few floors,the heat became so intense that the entire structure below was compromised....my friend, you are the one who needs a better understanding of materials science....
n/a thepipesarecall 2017-02-22
No, but what I am saying is that losing the load capacity on even one floor would be enough to level the building from the sheer amount of mass being held above that one floor.
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
What about the majority of the uncompromised mass of the structurally redundant building below? How could the top 10ish% crush 90ish% as if there was zero resistance from gravity alone. Skyscrapers are designed specifically to withstand the force of the building above it from gravity as well as force of the wind ( which is many many times higher than the plane crash) it makes no sense that the top part of the building did not. But the floors below and either destroy itself on an equal mass of floors below or fall off to the side. Which if you watch closely one of the towers started leaning to the side...what was left to crush the building?? Point is it fell through the entire path of most resistance of a structure specifically designed to withstand the gravitational force of the structure above from gravity, and it was built to withstand at least 3 times the force that it actually held...aka structural redundancy.
n/a p8107 2017-02-22
Yeah... every steel beam failed at exactly the same time and it collapsed into its own footprint. You realize for the collapse to happen like it did this is what would have had to happen? If any structural supports of the building failed at different times, even less then a minute later, the building would have tipped over.
But it gets better! Not 1 but 3 buildings perfectly collapsed into their own footprints that day. It's like lightning striking the same place 3 times in a row.
n/a commiefishcrotch 2017-02-22
Isn't it also true that NIST won't release their model they used, to explain the collapse. Seems they know it's bullshit, if they don't make it publicly known.
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
For building 7 yes, you are correct. Not sure if they did computer models for the twin towers but the one they did for building 7 would be laughable if not for the implications.
n/a williamsates 2017-02-22
Partial NIST models for WTC 2 and WTC 1 showing necessary displacement for them to collapse like they did.
https://vid.me/RrEf
https://vid.me/rSBk
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
You're kidding I hope...how does that even come close to explaining symmetrical collapse with only asymmetric damage? How does that explain how that top portion crushed the rest of the building with a structural redundancy of of at least three times the load without coming to a rest after the equal and opposite reaction of hitting the floors below. Never even losing speed....how does that explain how it crushed through the entire path of most resistance with gravity alone?? It doesn't and it can not. The structure below was uncompromised and designed to resist gravity...
n/a williamsates 2017-02-22
They don't. They are attempts to model what would be necessary for the top of the buildings to fall like they did.
I mean look at WTC 2 collapse:
https://vid.me/FZEc
Clear evidence of explosion on the North West side, the building leans way over, and still manages to fall into its own footprint.
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
I apologize I thought you were using those to defend the official story. You are spot on about tower two starting to fall off to the side, it makes no sense how the rest was crushed. I thought you meant those models explain how that happened. Again apologize in just anxious for a debate haha.
n/a NIST_Report 2017-02-22
/u/Nat_Gandhi Hello! Did you know there's a $300,000 model analysis being conducted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks regarding this issue? For 2 years, Dr. J Leroy Hulsey (Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department) and two Ph.D. research assistants have been working on a finite element model of WTC7: www.WTC7Evaluation.org
The University's preliminary findings are discussed during this American Society of Civil Engineers presentation.
Just this past month, a former NIST employee of 14 years made his first public appearance speaking out against the official report with Dr. Hulsey: https://youtu.be/Pb2NOBbD88c?t=2m46s
NIST still refuses to release model data for peer review.
The University of Alaska Fairbanks plans on informing NIST of its flawed report in May.
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
That is all very encouraging! Thank you!
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
For building 7 yes, you are correct. Not sure if they did computer models for the twin towers but the one they did for building 7 would be laughable if not for the implications.
n/a Nat_Gandhi 2017-02-22
That is all very encouraging! Thank you!
n/a williamsates 2017-02-22
Partial NIST models for WTC 2 and WTC 1 showing necessary displacement for them to collapse like they did.
https://vid.me/RrEf
https://vid.me/rSBk