From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of the current content of this article appears to come from NIST's official site. Particularly: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/strengthen_economy_safety.htm. --LostLeviathan 17:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's another example of blatant copy-pasting: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/homeland.htm Chiros Sunrider 11:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 9/11 report is finished 2 public domain source 3 What is the meaning of this? 4 NIST and ANSI 5 Discussion of NIST and Peer Review 6 Advertisement

[edit] 9/11 report is finished

Yes, the article does need to be updated. I work just down the hall in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory and the 9/11 team recently packed up their stuff and moved out. I was thinking the article could use a picture of some building on the campus. Due to security concerns cameras aren't allowed in many places on campus but it is allowed to take pictures of the Administration Building, so I'll try to bring my camera and get a pic for this page. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] public domain source

I'm pretty certain about this, but can anyone confirm that publications of NIST are public domain, as it is a federal agency? Specifically, I'd like to incorporate some topics from their Engineering Statistics Handbook at [1] Thanks, Btyner 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the meaning of this?

"Oyster Tissue (SRM 1566b, $540, 25 g)" ???

That means that Standard Reference Material 1566b is oyster tissue, and is sold for $540 per 25g. --Alynna 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NIST and ANSI

What is the division of labor between the American National Standards Institute and the NIST -- how do they avoid generating 2 conflicting standards for the same thing?

[edit] Discussion of NIST and Peer Review

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan Travb (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."

This after Mongo had told us his personal definition of 'peer-reviewed'. A term he uses to remove things he doesn't like and promote things he does. Mongo thinks something is peer-reviewed if a lot of people wrote it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is the "crazy personal definition of 'peer reviewed'" you are mentioning? "Mongo thinks something is peer reviewed if lots of people wrote it?. No, I think something is peer reviewed if it stands up to cross examination from outside parties, and no authoritative figures or entities have claimed that the findings of NIST have any flaws in their reports that are of any merit to speak of.--MONGO 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you still maintain that definition. No. It isn't peer reviewed if lots of people have read it either. Peer review is a complex process involving anonymous reviewers and taking place before publication. The NIST report was not peer reviewed and its authors don't claim it was. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And what entity of any substance challeges the findings...that is the point...no one of any credibility has refuted the NIST findings...if someone does, then so be it. Sorry you think I am a haggard soul...let me know what I can do to make you think differently of me. I don't want to be thought of as a dumb American or a haggard soul.--MONGO 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue in that discussion. You were pushing the incorrect claim that NIST was peer-reviewed. As for the "credibility" of someone questioning NIST, there of course isn't anyone and never could be. This is because as soon as someone questions NIST, by your definition, they lose credibility, because they then become a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is circular logic at its finest. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well surely there must be some respected entity that would question the NIST findings...do you completely dismiss the findings of several thousand contributors to not be essentially comparable to a normal peer-review process? If the facts were off, don't you think that the potential for financial gain (or for the sake of "honesty") would be sufficient to ensure at least a small handful of these collaborative contibutors would come forward and provide proof that there was a government coverup of sorts? You do know that federal employees in the U.S. are rarely rich I imagine. Is there any reputable entity that has refuted the findings of NIST? Are you also saying that the numerous engineers who have agreed with the findings of the NIST reports have not by stating their agreement performed a peer review?--MONGO 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that. They were deceived by BAD science made by NIST with much help of govermnent. You might want to read critiqe of NIST by Kevin Ryan and decide if it makes sense... you might want to check how many scientists are members of Scholar for 9/11 Truth.... but you probably won't. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of separate issues here. First, true or not, the NIST document simply wasn't peer-reviewed. And no-one claims it was. I think it isn't even common for official government reports to be peer-reviewed. Certainly I can't think of any. That is just a fact, and is a separate issue from whether NIST was good science or not.

As for financial gain... I've never heard of a government wistleblower making any money from his efforts. You usually get fired and, having been labeled as a trouble maker, find it hard to find a new job. There was, in fact, a NIST wistleblower who got fired. I know you think he was a 'conspiracy loon', but that is quite apart from the fact that he did exist, did complain, did go to the press and was fired. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, like Steven E. Jones, he had a story to tell and he didn't deserve to be scrutinized? But surely, one or even a few folks could certainly capitalize, many have on numerous other things, and gotten quite rich doing so...you do understand that there were hundreds of private sector structural engineers and other entities that contributed to the NIST reports as consultants...why would virtually all of them be loyal to a fallacy?--MONGO 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones's paper was peer-reviewed by 4 PhDs (two of them physicists). Peer review process, when made, states the fact that paper "makes sense", that there is "a case" with it. Anyway, Jones main point in it is a call for another investigation. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of any government employee who has gone public to point out a government crime or fraud (any issue, any time) and has made money doing it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly it's a private sector thing...but involves the feds...not sure they got rich, yet, but certainly blew the whistle...[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]...the point is, people talk, and in all of these examples, their whistleblowing proved to be based on facts that led to major upheavals...I'll be waiting patiently for a whistleblower to come forward about the NIST reports as being a fabrication.--MONGO 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Never said there weren't wistleblowers, the question was whether any made money off it, as you were suggesting. None of those you listed seem to have done well after. And of course we've had one wistleblower from NIST. But he is by definition not credible because he suggests there is a conspiracy. Circular logic. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One would hope that profit wouldn't be the only reason to "come forward"...but seriously, you do realize that about 30% of the investigators that worked on the NIST report, those that contributed knowledge, were private consultants? And the NIST report has been completely open...anyone can read it...yet not one engineering agency of any reputation has refuted the findings...seems odd. Okay, I'm usually well read, so who is this whistleblower who used to work at NIST?--MONGO 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Kevin Ryan?--MONGO 18:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think profit is never a reason, because they never make a profit. Where would they get it from? Kevin Ryan is the guy. As for other engineering agencies refuting the findings - they never do this for anything. Its not their job. They don't even read NIST reports unless it impacts on their businesses.
The NIST report is public and I've read it. I also heard the head of NIST interviewed on Irish radio a few weeks back. He claimed their study found that the building collapsed because of temperatures above 1000c. However, nowhere in the NIST report does it say this. So, if he is that 'mistaken' when talking to the media, should we trust his report? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean William Jeffrey? I'd like to see you source for that information.--MONGO 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kevin Ryan...I think the article on him was deleted since he was deemed to be not notable? Now he's the main one that was a NIST employee wo claims the feds covered the events of 9/11 up?--MONGO 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, these engineering firms simply choose to ignore NIST...why would they do that?--MONGO 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they ignore NIST generally, they simply read those reports that effect their businesses. How many would have taken the time to read this particular report in full? And why would they - it doesn't impact on their businesses. How many engineering firms have read it and officially and publicly agreed with it? I'd be interested if any have. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on now...that's like stating that people in particular fields don't read each other's work...like a physical anthropologist wouldn't read a publically accessible paper by another physical anthropologist just because it may not be of a profit to them...I find that difficult to believe. Surely, a publically accessible paper such as the NIST report would have been extremely interesting to a plethora of engineers. Yet, no one of repute has rejected the findings? You let me know when you find prove that the NIST report is based on a falacy for I would love to read it.--MONGO 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... 10 hours between the question and Mongo's reply. Am I to assume that you spent some time trying to find a single engineering firm which publicly supports this NIST report and failed? Until I see someone credible and notable publicly support the report, accusations that no one has publicly challenged it are moot. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan? Shouldn't this be moved to the page you guys are aruging about? Travb (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I added this template as I believe the "Homeland security" sections reads like an advertisement. For example, even the term "homeland security" is highly subjective, and its nature even moreso. I believe the whole section is written in a kind of tabloid style which aims to promote the notion that NIST is protecting Americans from the "evil terrorists".

"NIST is helping law enforcement, the military, emergency services, information technology, airport and building security, and other areas protect the American public from terrorist threats."

The problems I have with this are that it implies that there is even a threat at all and with the unsourced nature of promotion of the section as a whole, sounds like it is idolising NIST without stating what these "threats" are.

I do not want this to turn into a silly political debate. I request that someone who knows a lot about NIST could rephrase the section using as neutral a language as possible. Coconuteire 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)