This is what is known (if you are a peer) as peer review.

Yes, and it was reviewing the first official report.

I think this site is a good one with lots of good information. It where I found this "peer review." Here is the home page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

It has lots of information. I have not read it, just some of it..

Their Mission:

9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)

If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.

We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

What this report has is lots of unsupported unwarranted speculation.
The purportedly scientific papers are not presented for criticism.
They supposedly try to analyze some tiny dust particles which could
have come from anywhere while they ignore video evidence of the
planes hitting the buildings! Then, they don't even present their
actual detailed analysis of their supposed evidence!



What this report does not have is any proof or evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Al-Qaida was involved in these terrorist
attacks.

SELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION


Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.


$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

FOR SLOWHAND AND METALWING:

TO BE CLEAR:

The link I provided was a peer review yes.

It was a critical peer review of the original article written and published by ASCE (mentioned by Metalwing) which meant to explain the reason the Trade center towers collapsed.

Metalwing, Before you made your remarks, did you actually read it?

So many people jump to conclusions, they don't take the time to study both sides of this issue. So, yes, this is a peer review of the original article. It criticized the original SIMPLIFIED report.

This is what Metalwing had stated:


I replied, with this:



"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent."

I asked Metalwing:

Would you happen to know where I might look at these peer reviews??


I got no answer, so I posted the link to THIS PEER REVIEW of the article mentioned BY METALWING.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html

I am still waiting to see if Metalwing has another peer review.
This one shoots a lot of holes in the original report in ASCE that Metalwing mentioned.

He responded with the post below with his criticism of "this guy" and I'm not even sure what guy he is talking about, but I think he is talking about the original report in ASCE.

His response:



Now, to be clear, the original article published by the ASCE that Mettalwing brought up in the first place By Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou, can be seen in PDF format at this address:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

If you are a "peer" look that over and see if you see any flaws.

I would not have even posted links to the peer review of the original article had Metalwing not mentioned it in the first place.

How he thinks it makes his point is beyond me, as I got the peer review from a website that criticizes the original report.

Slowhand, as for your remarks,

I don't think you know what you are talking about and I don't believe you are an expert on anything.

Slowhand:
This peer review was not meant to address who was or was not responsible for 9-11, so your taunting response is just ridiculous and irrelevant.

Metalwing: You told me I shouldn't quote an article I don't understand. Why do you think I don't understand the article? That is an assumption. It is you who don't understand what I am posting.

Besides, I posted it to get your take on it but it looks like you didn't even read it. You just skimmed over it and made a few unqualified demeaning remarks with your personal opinions about what I 'don't understand.' I understand a lot more than you think.

As I said before the person reviewing it is not listed on the artile. His name or title is not listed. If he isn't a Civil and Structural Engineer he isn't a peer. I would think if he believed in his work he would list his name and title.

That is my fault. While the article did not have this information, the website did. Here is who wrote the peer review. It was probably mostly Jim Hoffman. I also posted a link to the home page of the sight previously if you are interested in any more of their research.

I am still waiting for any other peer reviews of the original article that Metalwing said there 'must be many of them.." Okay... where?



http://911research.wtc7.net


Who We Are

9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

Here is another peer review:

http://www.911-strike.com/demolition-pro-con.htm

Metalwing you mentioned this---



But who exactly are you talking about?

More Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed

the beautiful truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye4N8EH3dog

So it doesn't address the question alright.

I was not taunting you. You just view it that way when anyone
points our that your emperor's have no clothes!

None of the articles that any of the truthers such as yourself
have given have even the tiniest shred of evidence. On the other
had the Popular Mechanics analysis and similar are loaded with
extremely good evidence as to how and why and who...

But all y'all just refuse to believe the clear scientific
evidence and instead just fantasize about a conspiracy which
has no factual support....

So it is amusing.

Evidence of what? I am posting information. I personally don't have in my hands any evidence of anything. (Most of the real evidence was destroyed, carted off and sold as scrap.) Larry Silverstein couldn't wait to get more money from the destruction of the towers. I guess 500 million wasn't enough for the greedy bastard.

He carted off the scrap metal and sold it before investigators could even examine it. That's just wrong. And very suspicious. And very greedy.

Nothing was carted off until the investigation was done.

The author. His basic assumption is flawed as is pointed out by the colored comments ... and as I pointed out ... and as I have pointed out in several threads about this subject over the past couple of threads while you and others post ridiculous theories about explosives, etc.

The trusses failed first, as would be expected, which caused the columns to fail. The paper you mention is harping about the columns could have failed on their own, which is true, but really doesn't have anything to do with why the building actually fell.

The heat from the burning jet fuel was easily adequate to bring the building down if the jet itself had done no impact damage. However, in the original report, the ASCE concluded that the combination of impact and heat caused the failure.

The paper also goes on to explain how inadequate this framing system is under this type of fire. Go back and read my mingle posts on this subject and you will see I said the same thing.

But all you really want to do is to try to prove absurd conspiracy theories and insult anyone who actually understands what happened, so why bother?

You do not understand this topic, the meaning of these papers, or the science behind them adequately to discuss them intelligently.

A simple search will give you the peer review process of the ASCE.

A course in time dependent thermal shear modulus modification to fireproofed building systems would be helpful... if it existed. Old engineers and material scientists usually model the imagined or tested systems on finite element to get the p-deltas necessary for instability. The process from start to failure and the whys are known as failure mode analysis so the key failure points can be identified. In the case of the twin towers, the key failure points were the steel trusses ability to resist heat... not the columns as discussed in the paper you posted as the trusses caused the columns to fail.

Yeah, Jb.



Even a socialist like me knows that much.

The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything. 3
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.

Highly Sensitive Garbage

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.

Ninety-nine percent of the drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was dismissed. 6
Shielding Investigators From the Evidence

According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.

Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
Hugo Nue Schnitzer's Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ
FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:
Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Fate of Some Steel Revealed Years Later


The base of one of the Twin Towers' massive core columns stored in a hanger at JFK Airport is shown in the film Up From Zero.
Given that the removal and recycling of World Trade Center seel continued over the objections of victims' families and others seeking a genuine investigation, revelations, years later, that some of Twin Towers' steel parts were preserved comes as something of a surprise. Many of the heaviest steel pieces from the Twin Towers are stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport. These include some of the base sections of the Towers' massive core columns and 13 of the 153 steel trees from the bases of the Towers' perimeter walls. 7 Some of these pieces are shown in the film Up From Zero.

The hangar, which reportedly holds one five-hundredth of the "total debris field", is off-limits to the public. 8 Scott Huston, president of the Graystone Society, is attempting to obtain three of the steel trees for the National Iron & Steel Heritage Museum in Coatesville, PA. 9

The discovery of the existence of intact pieces of the Twin Towers' columns would appear to be good news for independent investigators who would like to test samples of steel. However, the locations of these pieces within the towers suggests a reason they were allowed to be preserved. The large core column sections stood on the Towers' foundations, seven stories below street level, and the perimeter column trees were from the lobby level, just above street level. Only these lower sections of the Towers were spared the blasting that shredded the steel frames down to about their fourth stories. This is evident from the facts that 18 people survived in the lower reaches of the North Tower's core, and fragments of the perimeter walls of each Tower remained standing.

Although it was believed that the last structrural steel remains had been removed from the site in May of 2003, in January of 2007, several large steel pieces were recovered in excavations of the site, below a road created during the cleanup operation. The excavation, which was commissioned to discover human remains, had already yielded nearly 300 bones. Two steel remains were described as columns, measuring about 18 feet long and weighing perhaps 60 tons, and three connected steel columns from the perimeter walls. The steel beams had apparently been buried during the cleanup operation, perhaps to stabalize the ground. Also discovered at the opposite side of the WTC site was a column which "appeared to be burned at one end", according to a person "with knowledge of the discovery". 10

Recycled WTC Steel Used in US Warship

News stories in 2006 reported that 24 tons of steel from the World Trade Center was being used to manufacture a warship named the U.S.S. New York by Northrop Grumman in a shipyard on the banks of the Mississippi. 11 12

The author of the article is Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant? and and Yong Zhou.

--

He is the one who wrote the "official report" that you mentioned in the first place --and that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press 9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01

The title is: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple
Analysis.

If this is not the ASCE article you were referring to, then please provide a link to the right one.

Because if this is the official ASCE article then you are in agreement with me.

There is something wrong with this report. I'm not a structural engineer and I read it, and I can see that there is something wrong with it.



I agree.
Well, that's your official report you were talking about. If I am wrong, then please provide a link to the official ASCE article you were referring to.



I gave you a link to the official article printed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, and that is the only one I know about.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf



That is a ridiculous personal assumption about me, and it is not true.

How have I insulted anyone? I don't believe anyone on this dating site actually understands what happened.



And you think you do?

You don't seem to understand that this article that you are so critical of IS the official ASCE report as far as I can tell and find.

If it isn't and if you have actually read the official report please provide your link. This one is the only one all I could find. And you are criticizing it yourself.

"His basic assumption is flawed as is pointed out by the colored comments

I agree. The colored comments were written by the investigators you are so dead set on trying to call them "nuts."

I'm glad you agree with the nuts.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf



I haven't had any luck except for the links I provided here.





Good go tell that to FEMA and the government. I agree!

Here is another copy with PICTURES!

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

I think you are right and the trusses failed first.....

--Because of the demolition explosions.

People who are so fired up and mad about alternate theories about what happened on 9-11 react with such an attitude that they cannot be reasoned with. They don't even want to listen.

They just appear to want to believe that our government has everything under control and they haven't done anything at all wrong. Even if an investigation team had them dead to rights people don't want to listen.

I am saying that there is something wrong. There is something wrong here. I am not trying to prove some nutty bogus disinformation conspiracy theory. I am trying to tell people that there is something wrong. You should not plug your ears and cover your eyes. The government is not going to be there for you when you need them the most.

Open your eyes and look around. That is all I am saying.