Wyndham, Coste, Smith article on NIST study

[egalicontrarian]

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/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_030714.pdf

Here is AE911's account of an event where the work was presented in poster form:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/898-ethics-symposium-meets-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/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6893463

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

 

[JayUtah]

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?

 

[egalicontrarian]

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."

 

[JSanderO]

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.

 

[GlennB]

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.

 

[egalicontrarian]

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]

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.

 

[beachnut]

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/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_030714.pdf

How could anyone read the BS without laughing?

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_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...

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?

 

[JayUtah]

Is that a joke?

No.

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."

It's just one among many quality controls in scholarly work...

Why is NIST suddenly subject to "scholarly" conventions?

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?

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]

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.

 

[DGM]

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.

 

[egalicontrarian]

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.

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"?

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.

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]

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.

 

[DGM]

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?

 

[egalicontrarian]

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]

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.

 

[DGM]

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?

 

[egalicontrarian]

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.

 

[DGM]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

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?"