And by calling them idiots, that is me being kind in the spirit of the season
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
The complete text of the final WTC 7 report, and a video describing the WTC 7 investigation findings are available on the NIST website.
Oh noes, now what, insane people?Â
more animalsÂ
Yes, there’s nothing like a group of experts who come together to extensively study and research a highly technical issue and then publish an in-depth report (much like the IPCC’s report).
But then again the “Truthers” don’t really care about the evidence.
I’ll have to look into this as soon as I finish the reinstall of bookmarks and passwords on Firefox. Did a complete reinstall and lost everything.
It is great when scientists, rather then beaurocrats with an agenda, do a scientific investigation looking for answer, rather then suppport.
That sucks, Mike. Been there, had that happen to me.
check this site out for pinups from WW11.
http://www.skylighters.org/photos/pinups.html
it’s so good maybe you can use it on Pirate’s Cove. A link is what I mean. I think.
Teach said: It is great when scientists, rather then beaurocrats with an agenda, do a scientific investigation looking for answer, rather then suppport.
The IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature. The IPCC reports are written by teams of authors from all over the world who are recognized experts in their field. Experts from more than 130 countries contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.
The technical reports (not the Summary for Policy Makers which is what you are referring to) derive their credibility from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors†who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.