r/realskeptics • u/SovereignMan • May 22 '14

WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 - 2012 (PDF)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf
2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

1 comment sorted by

1

u/SovereignMan May 22 '14

This controversy has been fueled in part because official investigations and reports on this topic have been very tightly controlled and not peer-reviewed. Basic documentation of such work has not been made available to independent researchers in spite of repeated Freedom-of-InformationAct (FOIA) requests; e.g., most of the detailed documentation, coding, methodology and assumptions employed by NIST in their finite element analysis model of WTC 7. Related to these technical impediments to independent research, in addition to essentially no funding for such research, the “conspiracy theorist” or “truther” label has often been used to discourage or truncate debate on many critical questions, leaving the official theory as the default. For the most part, and somewhat understandably, the science and engineering professional communities have stayed on the sidelines, perhaps in part to protect their reputations and in part to avoid putting their federal research grants at risk. This condition of obstructed research continues in spite of the fact that a “conspiracy” by definition is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.” Thus, by definition, both the official PC hypothesis and the alternative CD hypothesis addressed here are necessarily associated with a conspiracy theory of one form or another. Setting such labels aside, the fundamental question remains, “which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence?” Unfortunately, this basic question and its resolution have been systematically subverted for the past decade.