Two Chandler questions... Models and no NISTPeer-review

[Panoply_Prefect]

I've got two questions reg. Chandlers videos on the internet that I can't make out any answers to.

First, in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related

Chandler claims (at about 7.11) that NIST wont release its computer models. I remember when the NIST WTC1&2 report was released, truthers claimed that those models weren't released either, thus NIST must have something to hide. I sent in a FOIA for them, but got the answer it would cost something around 2,500 dollars. That was a bit much for me.

One person got the SAP2000 reference models though, for $58:

http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

I thus wonder if Chandler is correct this time, eg has anyone, truther or not, tried to get the models, either by just asking or by filing a FOIA?

Second question which I have thought of, but never looked up the answer: There is often a lot of talk about peer-review and that truthers should get their papers thru that process (pushing poor Jones into buying a peer-review just to get the label). This truther asked me why NISTs reports doesn't get peer-reviewed. I actually don't know. Anyone else know?

 

[The Big Dog]

Second question which I have thought of, but never looked up the answer: There is often a lot of talk about peer-review and that truthers should get their papers thru that process (pushing poor Jones into buying a peer-review just to get the label). This truther asked me why NISTs reports doesn't get peer-reviewed. I actually don't know. Anyone else know?

Well the NIST reports were "peer reviewed." It was opened up for a period of public comment. Here are the comments on WTC 7. http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/

Gage spent his comment wasting everybody's time, as usual.

eta: "I remember when the NIST WTC1&2 report was released, truthers claimed that those models weren't released either, thus NIST must have something to hide. I sent in a FOIA for them, but got the answer it would cost something around 2,500 dollars. That was a bit much for me."

I thus wonder if Chandler is correct this time, eg has anyone, truther or not, tried to get the models, either by just asking or by filing a FOIA?"

Well it seems to me that you tried to get the models by filing a FOIA. Tell Chandler to write the check.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Well the NIST reports were "peer reviewed." It was opened up for a period of public comment. Here are the comments on WTC 7. http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/

Gage spent his comment wasting everybody's time, as usual.

eta: "I remember when the NIST WTC1&2 report was released, truthers claimed that those models weren't released either, thus NIST must have something to hide. I sent in a FOIA for them, but got the answer it would cost something around 2,500 dollars. That was a bit much for me."

I thus wonder if Chandler is correct this time, eg has anyone, truther or not, tried to get the models, either by just asking or by filing a FOIA?"

Well it seems to me that you tried to get the models by filing a FOIA. Tell Chandler to write the check.

Ah yes, but that was the WTC1 & 2 models. I always wondered why the truthers never bothered collecting the fee neccessary, but I assumed that Avery (who was in fad at that time) always could use an extra plasma-TV.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if Chandler just claimed that NIST wont release their WTC7 models, because they were not handed out with the report. Until I see the refusal letter from NIST, or the denied FOIA, I will assume this is the case, since it was the case with the WTC1&2 report.

I know he reads these forums from time to time, so if you read this, I'd love to get your comment...


Regaring peer-review: Being open for comments isn't actually peer-review. I speculated that the NIST reports are regarded as government reports and as such not really expected to be handled in the same way as say university papers.

But I don't know.

 

[lapman]

Have any other NIST investigations been through peer-review?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Have any other NIST investigations been through peer-review?

Not sure, but their site lists some of one of their labs publications:

http://www.mel.nist.gov/msidstaff/libes/publication_listing.html#peer


This pdf states that:

To ensure high quality, accurate published information for all NIST authored manuscripts, NIST follows a stringent peer review process before releasing any technical material for publication. All official findings must be approved whether published by NIST, a professional society, or a commercial publisher.

and

The peer review system consists of an Editorial Review Board (ERB) at each NIST location. The Washington Editorial Review Board (WERB) is employed at headquarters and the Boulder Editorial Review Board (BERB) is employed at the Colorado campus. Each Board is composed of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and 30 member reviewers from the Laboratories.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Hmmm, according to this pdf, from NIST, the first report were planned to go through peer-review as described in my post above.

Technical Findings and Recommendations: preparation of interim and final reports; peer
review by established NIST Editorial Review Board; augmented NIST review to include senior management and legal; review of key reports by Federal Advisory Committee; finalize and disseminate via published reports, web, and media.

 

[T.A.M.]

IIRC, did someone not show that the model data was available, but it had to be paid for, or some such thing.

Some where on this site, there is some detail about the model availability.

TAM

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

IIRC, did someone not show that the model data was available, but it had to be paid for, or some such thing.

Some where on this site, there is some detail about the model availability.

TAM

Are you sure that was about WTC7? I know the models for the first report is available, if you are prepared to pay for it.

 

[T.A.M.]

oh...for WTC7...yah not sure. The question is, has anyone written NIST for the WTC7 models, and if so what was the response?

TAM

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

The question is, has anyone written NIST for the WTC7 models, and if so what was the response?

TAM

Exactly. I'd bet on "no". And as always, the one making the claim, in this case Chandler, is the one to prove the claim.

 

[BigAl]

I've got two questions reg. Chandlers videos on the internet that I can't make out any answers to.

First, in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related

Chandler claims (at about 7.11) that NIST wont release its computer models. I remember when the NIST WTC1&2 report was released, truthers claimed that those models weren't released either, thus NIST must have something to hide. I sent in a FOIA for them, but got the answer it would cost something around 2,500 dollars. That was a bit much for me.

One person got the SAP2000 reference models though, for $58:

I have this link in my bookmarks

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-sap2000-model

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I have this link in my bookmarks

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-sap2000-model

Taken from above link : " It should be noted here that the NIST study did not include a full collapse analysis."

Does this mean that NIST was able to computer model the buildings, but didn't model the collapse? Could someone provide clarification as to what specific computer modeling was done for WTC 1 & 2?

 

[Justin39640]

Taken from above link : " It should be noted here that the NIST study did not include a full collapse analysis."

Does this mean that NIST was able to computer model the buildings, but didn't model the collapse? Could someone provide clarification as to what specific computer modeling was done for WTC 1 & 2?

the NIST was tasked with finding out WHY the towers collapsed
not to generate a complete model of the collapse mechanism

(research)

 

[R.Mackey]

Second question which I have thought of, but never looked up the answer: There is often a lot of talk about peer-review and that truthers should get their papers thru that process (pushing poor Jones into buying a peer-review just to get the label). This truther asked me why NISTs reports doesn't get peer-reviewed. I actually don't know. Anyone else know?

As you know, you can't submit the NCSTAR to the same kind of peer-review as you would a six-page article on structural engineering. It's just too massive, and journals tend not to publish things that the Government is already paying to publish. There is also the issue that literally hundreds of experts contributed to the NCSTAR, so odds are your hand-selected peer reviewers may already be involved.

What was done instead, as others have noted parts of, was three-fold:

1. Contracted independent validation of models and findings. NIST would frequently hire a second team to review results of a given problem to make sure results made sense. You can see some of these awards here.

2. Held an open comment period, along with Q&A sessions and feedback to academic and industrial participants. This is about the best one can do in this situation -- throw it open for comments and see what you get. I want to emphasize, however, that it was more rigorous than it may seem. They did not just declare a time period between the draft and final reports. They took the time to catalogue and review each and every written response they got, even the completely idiotic ravings from the Truth Movement. See them all here here for WTC 7.

3. Sponsored a special conference to solicit competing ideas from other researchers and industry. This overlaps the request for corrections described above, but motivates an actual face-to-face meeting of concerned researchers rather than just dealing with them one at a time through the mail. NIST presented its work, other observers presented theirs, just like a normal, reviewed conference.​

That's about as good as it's going to get.

It just can't be done like a normal paper. The NCSTAR would make up approximately 1,000 individual subject papers in a dizzying array of subjects -- code compliance, system engineering, structural engineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering, fluid mechanics, simulation, visualization, video analysis, combustion and fire science, physics, fracture and impact mechanics, library sciences, human factors and performance, destructive evaluation, coatings and composites, analytic chemistry, environmental sciences, meteorology, seismology...

So, what did they fail to do? There are some bugs in the reports, to be sure, but overall the process and the product is pretty solid.

 

[The Big Dog]

Taken from above link : " It should be noted here that the NIST study did not include a full collapse analysis."

Does this mean that NIST was able to computer model the buildings, but didn't model the collapse? Could someone provide clarification as to what specific computer modeling was done for WTC 1 & 2?

I believe that there are several threads from 2006 addressing this. Feel free to use the search function.

 

[Baylor]

Regaring peer-review: Being open for comments isn't actually peer-review. I speculated that the NIST reports are regarded as government reports and as such not really expected to be handled in the same way as say university papers.

But I don't know.

NIST did have a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal explaining the methodology and main findings of their report. Obviously much more condensed than the original report, but they nonetheless had their findings peer-reviewed. There are many parts, but here's the one I have readily available.

Assessment of the structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part V: Forensic Photographic Evidence of Tower Collapse Initiation and Progression.
T. Foecke, S.W. Banovic, F.W Gayle (NIST Metallurgy Division)
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
Volume 6(5) October 2006