Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[squirrelp]

It's a magazine. It publishes opinions, not peer reviewed science. In fact the editors of said organ have issued this statement regarding that very article:

Forthcoming Letters to the Editor should be interesting.

2hats, The next issue is in: there are two such letters, this is one of them:

Thoughts from a former NIST employee

I was a member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997- 2011. I initially joined the High Performance Systems and Services Division and later became a member of what was, at the time, the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the Information Technology Laboratory. My fellow NIST employees were among the finest and most intelligent people with whom I have ever worked.

I did not contribute to the NIST WTC investigation or reports. But in August of this year, I began to read some of those reports. As I then watched several documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious. First, I was furious with myself. How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before? Second, I was furious with NIST.

The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations.

The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.

I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don't add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add. What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years at NIST.

First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided. For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent that outweighs the competing need for accountability?

Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting. The remainder of the explanation is a perfunctory statement that total collapse is inevitable and obvious. It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office. There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts of their research?

Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning. The level of interest in "15 years later" is a good example.

Due to the nature of communication in today's world, that awareness may increase approximately exponentially. Why not NIST blow the whistle on itself now while there is still time?

Truth is where our healing lies.

Peter Michael Ketcham, USA

EPN 47-5&6

 

[mikey mikey]

This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello" and then comment on the thread title: This seems to be a narrative put forward by an allaiance of so-called "moderate" Labour members and MPs and the once-left "liberal" press like The Graund and Indie. Even the Mirror.

Not to mention the sites meant to give a voice to Labour like Left Foot Forward, Labour List and other (once-upon-a-time) Left-leaning journals like The New Statesman.

It is increasingly clear to me that a genuinely Left-wing Labour leader is considered Public Enemy Number One by both Tory and Labour "moderate" alike. It suggests that while the tories were in post-referndum disarray, the Blairite factions like Progress and Labour First made a trucewith the Conservatives in order to stage the coup. One had the spotlight taken off their internal power-struggles and the other got the full cooperation of the press across the full political spectrum.

 

[Santino]

This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello"

Hello

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello" and then comment on the thread title: This seems to be a narrative put forward by an allaiance of so-called "moderate" Labour members and MPs and the once-left "liberal" press like The Graund and Indie. Even the Mirror.

Not to mention the sites meant to give a voice to Labour like Left Foot Forward, Labour List and other (once-upon-a-time) Left-leaning journals like The New Statesman.

It is increasingly clear to me that a genuinely Left-wing Labour leader is considered Public Enemy Number One by both Tory and Labour "moderate" alike. It suggests that while the tories were in post-referndum disarray, the Blairite factions like Progress and Labour First made a trucewith the Conservatives in order to stage the coup. One had the spotlight taken off their internal power-struggles and the other got the full cooperation of the press across the full political spectrum.

If only you'd been here in June we could have saved 467 pages.

 

[mikey mikey]

Yeah, I confess i didn't read all 4000+posts!

Anyway, I thought I would start with my 2 cents.

 

[Santino]

I said HELLO

 

[two sheds]

No need to shout

 

[mikey mikey]

Hello Santino. Sorry, work keeps interfering with my forum life.

Apologies!

 

[DaveCinzano]

If only you'd been here in June we could have saved 467 pages.

Let's not cry over spilt milk, we just need to get him onto climate change STAT

 

[2hats]

2hats, The next issue is in: there are two such letters, this is one of them: ...

As pointed out in the same issue there are multiple, independent (ie not NIST), professional analyses carried out by reputable bodies (eg here from MIT's engineering department but also from engineering dept.'s outside of the US) using different methods (energy balance, finite element analysis, conservation of momentum, etc) and they all broadly agree with the NIST analysis as to the general mode and progression of the failure.

BTW, apparently the fellow who wrote the letter you quote is an iPhone developer who worked for NIST as a mathematical data visualisation programmer, neither worked on the WTC investigation nor has any training in such and has no professional background in engineering or physics (according to his own LinkedIn profile).

 

[Cid]

This is my first post on this forum

Yeah, course it is...

The Graund

 

[killer b]

Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing

 

[classicdish]

Urban Dictionary: grauniad

 

[two sheds]

Bad experiences of Markymark wot dunnit.

 

[Cid]

Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing

Technically, yes.

 

[squirrelp]

As pointed out in the same issue there are multiple, independent (ie not NIST), professional analyses carried out by reputable bodies (eg here from MIT's engineering department but also from engineering dept.'s outside of the US) using different methods (energy balance, finite element analysis, conservation of momentum, etc) and they all broadly agree with the NIST analysis as to the general mode and progression of the failure.

BTW, apparently the fellow who wrote the letter you quote is an iPhone developer who worked for NIST as a mathematical data visualisation programmer, neither worked on the WTC investigation nor has any training in such and has no professional background in engineering or physics (according to his own LinkedIn profile).

I think you are missing the point that, rather than the possibly expected flurry of letters from scientists addressing and correcting flaws in the published article, we have two letters of which one is a NIST employee questioning his former employer.

I don't believe you are correct either. As I understand it the NIST model did not consider the progression of the failure - it simply modelled a scenario up to the start of the collapse. The NIST model is not, I believe, peer-reviewed.

I very much doubt the studies you quote actually confirm the NIST model either combined or singly.

There has been a full investigation going on by a team from the University of Alaska: they are going to be finished in May 2017, but they have already reached the conclusion that the NIST model is absolutely impossible.

During an interview at the Justice In Focus Symposium, Hulsey said that the team has already investigated the theory that fire caused the building’s collapse. “It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.”

When their study concludes in April 2017, Hulsey and his team will allow a panel of experts to analyze the data and submit the study to peer-reviewed journals. The researchers are promising a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse,” and will post every step of their scientific process on WTC7Evaluation.org. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students.

Perhaps also significant is the comment from the editor of europhysicsnews:

The scientific method is a hard discipline that leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow because defying common sense. We scientists should avoid the tendency to search for and see only evidence that confirms which we already believe. Luckily, peer-reviewing of published scientific studies is not only the best way to check their validity but also the best way to foster progress and innovation. This holds true, even if absolute certainty does not exist as we move towards the frontiers of knowledge.

EPN 47-5&6

 

[mikey mikey]

Yeah, course it is...

I assure you it is. It's not my first political forum, though.

I've been on various forums for over a decade and my last one was dailymailwatch.co.uk

I had the same name but one of the mods there is a staunch Blairite as are quite a few posters and they feel that they are able to abuse any non-moderate with impunity. Meanwhile the "Trots/entryists/cultists" have been driven off or banned for no reason.

Bit like they tried to do during the lead up to the last leadership election.

Nice to meet you Cid.

 

[classicdish]

squirrelp

Can you remind me what the relevance of 9/11 WTC is to Jeremy Corbyn and/or this thread?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

No more 9/11 please. It's been said before.

 

[DotCommunist]

he is suspected to have been seen parachuting out of the second plane at the last minute there tho- fucker didn't even get his beard singed

 

[Cid]

I assure you it is. It's not my first political forum, though.

I've been on various forums for over a decade and my last one was dailymailwatch.co.uk

I had the same name but one of the mods there is a staunch Blairite as are quite a few posters and they feel that they are able to abuse any non-moderate with impunity. Meanwhile the "Trots/entryists/cultists" have been driven off or banned for no reason.

Bit like they tried to do during the lead up to the last leadership election.

Nice to meet you Cid.

Alright, sorry - we just get a lot of returners here and suspicions can be a bit high (particularly when you've been drinking on a school night ).

 

[two sheds]

Alright, sorry - we just get a lot of returners here and suspicions can be a bit high (particularly when you've been drinking on a school night ).

How do you know he'd been drinking on a school night






/scarpers

 

[Nine Bob Note]

Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing

Continued...

 

[J Ed]

Wasn't sure really where to put this and it doesn't deserve its own thread, so I will write it here in the absence of somewhere better

I was listening to some of this lecture The New Minority: white working class politics in an era of immigration and inequality - Public lectures and events

I do not recommend it, it is very patronising and anthropological and has a very heavy emphasis on the sort of weird anthropological Ace Ventura: Pet Detective take that some academics seem to have decided on now for the British (and American) working-class but what I did find interesting was Stephen Kinnock's participation in it.

The stuff he says is really interesting, it shows how radically political discourse, if (as with May etc) nothing else, has changed. He talks very critically about neoliberalism which he identifies by that name but only in very generalised terms, and he fails to make any actual specific critiques of it beyond immigration. Is this what the right of the Labour Party are going to do now?

 

[hipipol]

He is a sort of modern day Erasmus - purveyor of a humanist understanding in the face of massive walls of prejudice and likely to be as successful as the original
It is essential someone makes the point
It is also essential someone impinges on the general consciousness in order to lead it to congruent thought
He is unlikely to achieve that
End of the road on which tangent?

 

[Cid]

He is a sort of modern day Erasmus - purveyor of a humanist understanding in the face of massive walls of prejudice and likely to be as successful as the original
It is essential someone makes the point
It is also essential someone impinges on the general consciousness in order to lead it to congruent thought
He is unlikely to achieve that
End of the road on which tangent?

Stephen Kinnock?

 

[Orang Utan]

WTF?

 

[mauvais]

Cos that's worked so well for the French.

 

[Pickman's model]

please use the snipping tool or otherwise get a screengrab

 

[hash tag]

I see Corbyn has chosen not to attend todays vote in the Commons on war criminal Bliar, instead choosing to do constituency stuff. Another no win situation.

Parliament's effort to punish Blair for the Iraq war puts Corbyn in a lose-lose situation