Why I despise the Truthers

[ZENSMACK89]

So you're posting quotes to further your positions and you're not even bothering to check if the quotes are consistent?

That's not a particularly good way for you to support your theories.
I wasn't quoting on the cost and it wasn't for you.

Is this the best you got? Am I keeping you busy?

Good.

[johnny karate]

I'm not the one trying to hijack Quintiere statements about NIST and mold them to what I want to assert. You are. I don't need to. Just read it.

"NIST falls short of expectations"

"by not definitively finding cause"

"by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause"

"by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation"


Oh yeah. I see it now. That comes down on YOUR side of thinking for sure.

Yeah that's right.

lol

Don't you just love it?


You've got to be kidding.

You accuse me of trying to "hijack" Quintiere's statements, and then you follow that accustion with truncated, out-of-context snippets from Quintiere to support your position?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I implore you...

[twinstead]

You've got to be kidding.

You accuse me of trying to "hijack" Quintiere's statements, and then you follow that accustion with truncated, out-of-context snippets from Quintiere to support your position?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I implore you...

Shhhhh. He can do that. He has the 'truth' on his side...

[Redtail]

So... When is the massive march on DC to demand a new investigation? I mean if the truthers now have a former NIST chief, plus 84% of the population, plus mountains of evidence, it should be a simple matter to get say at least 100,000 people to DC right?

[twinstead]

So... When is the massive march on DC to demand a new investigation? I mean if the truthers now have a former NIST chief, plus 84% of the population, plus mountains of evidence, it should be a simple matter to get say at least 100,000 people to DC right?

A march? Hell if they had their way there would be gallows set up in DC with Bush and Cheney 'hanging high'. You'd think with all that inconvertible evidence at their disposal the revolution is just a matter of time, right?

[Corsair 115]

I wasn't quoting on the cost and it wasn't for you.It nevertheless does not reflect well on your ability to support your debating points, does it?

[ZENSMACK89]

It nevertheless does not reflect well on your ability to support your debating points, does it?

Well you never seem to have any valid responses. I mean why else would you be trying to make a big deal about a typo for days now? What's that say about your debating skills? I keep you pretty busy don't I? Do I bother you?

Do I?

[pomeroo]

I'm not the one trying to hijack Quintiere statements about NIST and mold them to what I want to assert. You are. I don't need to. Just read it.

"NIST falls short of expectations"

"by not definitively finding cause"

"by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause"

"by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation"


Oh yeah. I see it now. That comes down on YOUR side of thinking for sure.

Yeah that's right.

lol

Don't you just love it?


I love your elephantine attempt to tap-dance around the message that Quintiere is conveying. He is saying--obviously--that the NIST researchers were neither as thorough, as careful, or as objective as they might have been. He is saying that the agency, in its zeal to show that the fireproofing of the Towers' structural steel met industry standards, glossed over the possibility that it did not.

He is most definitely NOT saying that there is anything that supports the hogwash peddled by conspiracy liars.

[OldSchool]

No one ?

wtc.nist.gov (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

I think they have a pretty good idea.

Oh, and have you ignored my previous posts, Zen ? Am I on ignore ? Aw, did I hurt your "truth" ?

Actually accept the governments account of 911.

I've got a really nice bridge for sale if you're interested.

[pomeroo]

Actually accept the governments account of 911.

I've got a really nice bridge for sale if you're interested.


Cynical ignoramuses are not skeptics.

[OldSchool]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.




Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

[NYCEMT86]

Kevin Ryan?


Is that all you got?

Kevin Ryan has no idea what ASTM E119 is. His background was a water tester for UL....


UL DOESN'T CERTIFY THE STEEL, THEY CERTIFY THE FIREPROOFING


Research ASTM E119...find out for yourself or even email UL.


ROFL

[OldSchool]

Kevin Ryan?


Is that all you got?

Kevin Ryan has no idea what ASTM E119 is. His background was a water tester for UL....


UL DOESN'T CERTIFY THE STEEL, THEY CERTIFY THE FIREPROOFING


Research ASTM E119...find out for yourself or even email UL.


ROFL


An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

[OldSchool]

Once again it appears NIST fails the test. Yet some beaver discounts even the company which certified the steel.

Very important passage if you haven't read the email.

Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

[The Doc]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Wrong.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

[OldSchool]

Former NIST employee James Quintiere Ph.D Fire Science Division of NIST

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. [B]And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

[OldSchool]

Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

At what temperature does fireproofed steel melt or weaken?

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no set temp that it suddenly weakens, it's linear. The more heat, the less strength. I think it's something like 1000 degrees where it loses half its strength. But others here can say for sure.

And it depends on the kind of steel. Melting point is often 2500 degrees F.

[Jonnyclueless]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Which executive would that be?

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh, and UL did NOT certify the steel.

[Foolmewunz]

OldSchool, please, if you're going to lie, stay here and do it, 'kay?


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14500


Just posted this on the JREF forum. They're quiet currently not much to say.

This is appended to your repeat of your post on the old tired Kevin Ryan tale. You posted it on LCF, about half-an-hour after you posted the Ryan rehash above, and after you'd been referred to answers by at least two forumites.

Water Boy is no executive at UL. He was a field manager of some sort, and he was fired for stating personal opinions on company letterhead (or something akin - Water Boy fans can straighten me out on this).

Troofer Heavy, indeed! You post a three year old story as though it's breaking news. You ignore the responses. You then go over and try to make some attention for yourself on LCF with the same old tired crap, and sing a rousing chorus of JERF On The Run! (And the only person who even responded to your boring rehashed crap on LCF is a debunker who happens to be one of our own enfants terribles.)

[OldSchool]

Oh, and UL did NOT certify the steel.


Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.As I'm sure you know, certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

[OldSchool]

OldSchool, please, if you're going to lie, stay here and do it, 'kay?


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14500




This is appended to your repeat of your post on the old tired Kevin Ryan tale. You posted it on LCF, about half-an-hour after you posted the Ryan rehash above, and after you'd been referred to answers by at least two forumites.

Water Boy is no executive at UL. He was a field manager of some sort, and he was fired for stating personal opinions on company letterhead (or something akin - Water Boy fans can straighten me out on this).

Troofer Heavy, indeed! You post a three year old story as though it's breaking news. You ignore the responses. You then go over and try to make some attention for yourself on LCF with the same old tired crap, and sing a rousing chorus of JERF On The Run! (And the only person who even responded to your boring rehashed crap on LCF is a debunker who happens to be one of our own enfants terribles.)

So what if he was fired just reinforces the fact members of the company didn't agree with NIST.

[OldSchool]

Nobody has yet to respond to the fact both professionals from the company certified the steel and a an actual employee of NIST both challenge there findings. This forum, if it is really as educated as it claims, should by now accept NIST if falling to pieces.

Nobody here of course wants to discuss:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.



“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. [B]And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

When you link UL and Quintiere together looks pretty good doesn't it. rolf

[pomeroo]

So what if he was fired just reinforces the fact members of the company didn't agree with NIST.


You can keep attempting to peddle this ancient falsehood to people who know much more about the subject than you do, or you can do the unthinkable (for a twoofer) and actually learn something.

There is a reason why Kevin Ryan ran off with his tail between his legs after Mark accepted his bogus "challenge" to a debate.

[OldSchool]

You can keep attempting to peddle this ancient falsehood to people who know much more about the subject than you do, or you can do the unthinkable (for a twoofer) and actually learn something.

There is a reason why Kevin Ryan ran off with his tail between his legs after Mark accepted his bogus "challenge" to a debate.

One could possibly assume as much prior to Dr. Quintiere's revelations to the NIST report. Put the two together and obviously NIST is no more than a single perspective document with no acedemic crediabilty. The NIST report was a huge waste of tax payers money.

[pomeroo]

One could possibly assume as much prior to Dr. Quintiere's revelations to the NIST report. Put the two together and obviously NIST is no more than a single perspective document with no acedemic crediabilty. The NIST report was a huge waste of tax payers money.


Why are Quintiere's opinions "revelations"? His is one voice against hundreds. NIST showed that the impacts of the planes caused structural damage and extensive fires which led to the eventual collapses of the buildings. Where is the disagreement on that conclusion? Dr. Greening, a chemist, emphasizes chemical reactions; Quintiere stresses his professional concerns over fireproofing. What serious researcher lends any credence to the conspiracy liars' fantasies about explosives?

[NYCEMT86]

OldSchool:


Here is what ASTM E119 is:

http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf


If you keep pushing Kevin Ryan's blatant ignorance without investigating the information for yourself than you are just as bad as Kevin Ryan.

[johnny karate]

Nobody here of course wants to discuss:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.



“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. [B]And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

If only because it's been discussed into the ground in about half a dozen other threads. As matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you took part in some of that discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2898818&postcount=285).

Hey look everybody, the guy from Memento (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/) posts here now!

[NYCEMT86]

Hey look everybody, the guy from Memento (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/) posts here now!

ROFL! Great movie..

All I have to say is "You don't want the truth. You make up your own truth." - Teddy.

[leftysergeant]

Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F

So freakin WHAT? Steel expands or contrracts every time its temperature changes. That breaks joints. The steel in the towers changed repeatedly, with a temperature gradient of hundreds of degrees over at least 45 minutes.

To give you an idea how much steel expands and contracts, I off the example of an elderly friend of mine who wiped out most of an armor battalion by placing coins between the rails of a track, especially taking care to stuff the expansion joints properly, in the cool of the night. The next morning, the tracks warmed up, expanded, and separated from the ties when they buckled, derailing the next train.

Night time temperatures to the morning sun is a small gradient, compared to what happened in the towers.

[Corsair 115]

I mean why else would you be trying to make a big deal about a typo for days now? See, now that's funny! A typo would be writing 3.5 instead of 35. The quotes you posted had entirely different meanings and were far beyond being a mere typo.

What's that say about your debating skills? I keep you pretty busy don't I? Do I bother you?Getting a bit testy, are we? Poor Zen, you don't like being caught posting contradictory information do you? You don't like being caught not checking your facts and presented info very carefully do you?

Perhaps it will serve as a reminder to you in the future to read more closely the material you post to support whatever point it is you are trying to make.

[twinstead]

Perhaps it will serve as a reminder to you in the future to read more closely the material you post to support whatever point it is you are trying to make.

Frankly, Zen could care less about that. It's not about quality, it's about quantity.

[PhantomWolf]

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Gross2.pdf

Ummm, Zen, all of the trusses in these firetests had Fireproofing, that is not what I asked for. I want you to show that NIST physically tested unfireproofed trusses, if you cannot do that, you claim that their tests are incompatable with their figures for trusses with damages and removed fireproofing is wrong.

[PhantomWolf]

One could possibly assume as much prior to Dr. Quintiere's revelations to the NIST report. Put the two together and obviously NIST is no more than a single perspective document with no acedemic crediabilty. The NIST report was a huge waste of tax payers money.

And you are of course aware that Dr. Quintiere's main revelation, apart from the fact he doesn't seem to have read the report since he keeps asking questions the report itself answers, is that he believes that the Towers would have collapsed with the fireproofing intact while NIST says that they would have stood. You do realise that this is the reason he thinks that NIST is being hampered by Lawyers, becasue he thinks that the PANYNJ should take responsiblity for the poor fireproofing and that NIST is shielding them. You are aware that Dr. Quintiere has specifically rejected the idea that the Towers were destroyed by any form of CD?

Since you keep waving his name about, you obviously think he is reliable. This being the case,why do you not accept his premiss that the Towers would have collapsed from the impacts and fire, that the removal of the fireproofing was irrellevant to this occuring, and that the Towers were not demolished. If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can you agree with his reservations about NIST, since those very reservations are based on his own conclusions. If you reject one, you must reject the other. You can't support his reservations without supporting the conclusions that lead him there. Either both are right, or both are wrong. You can't say the reservations are right, but the conclusions are wrong.

So which is it, do you support Dr. Quintiere's conclusions or not?

[pomeroo]

And you are of course aware that Dr. Quintiere's main revelation, apart from the fact he doesn't seem to have read the report since he keeps asking questions the report itself answers, is that he believes that the Towers would have collapsed with the fireproofing intact while NIST says that they would have stood. You do realise that this is the reason he thinks that NIST is being hampered by Lawyers, becasue he thinks that the PANYNJ should take responsiblity for the poor fireproofing and that NIST is shielding them. You are aware that Dr. Quintiere has specifically rejected the idea that the Towers were destroyed by any form of CD?

Since you keep waving his name about, you obviously think he is reliable. This being the case,why do you not accept his premiss that the Towers would have collapsed from the impacts and fire, that the removal of the fireproofing was irrellevant to this occuring, and that the Towers were not demolished. If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can you agree with his reservations about NIST, since those very reservations are based on his own conclusions. If you reject one, you must reject the other. You can't support his reservations without supporting the conclusions that lead him there. Either both are right, or both are wrong. You can't say the reservations are right, but the conclusions are wrong.

So which is it, do you support Dr. Quintiere's conclusions or not?


An excellent summary, PhantomWolf, but if Zen were compelled to read it out loud ten times, he would still find ways of misrepresenting what Quintiere says.

[Belz...]

Actually accept the governments account of 911.

I've got a really nice bridge for sale if you're interested.

Is that a No True Scottsman fallacy ? You said NO ONE had any idea how it happened. I show you people who do and have done real scientific work to support their conclusions, and then you say that they're not good enough because they're part of this fantasy monolithic "government" you keep blabbering about ?

[Belz...]

At what temperature does fireproofed steel melt or weaken?

At what speed does a plane rip off said fireproofing ?

[Belz...]

What a load of nonsense. Just more excuses.

“at least be reasonably assured…” ?

Yeah that sounds confident.

So what's your satisfactory level of proof, then ? Absolute 100% certainty ?

Doesn't exist except through self-delusion, you know.

"people here"?

Just who are "people here" to tell me anything but their opinion?

nothing else

Cute dodge.

[ZENSMACK89]

Ummm, Zen, all of the trusses in these firetests had Fireproofing, that is not what I asked for. I want you to show that NIST physically tested unfireproofed trusses, if you cannot do that, you claim that their tests are incompatable with their figures for trusses with damages and removed fireproofing is wrong.


I’m sorry wasn’t this your quote?

“I'm still waiting for those physical fire tests where NIST tested partially, or fully unclad trusses, Zen.


Actually you were supposed to show me what test NIST used to come up with 42 inches of sag to put into their computer model. Now NIST did test Steel with what they called different amounts of fire-proofing.

So I’m still waiting big mouth.

[ZENSMACK89]

See, now that's funny! A typo would be writing 3.5 instead of 35. The quotes you posted had entirely different meanings and were far beyond being a mere typo.

Getting a bit testy, are we? Poor Zen, you don't like being caught posting contradictory information do you? You don't like being caught not checking your facts and presented info very carefully do you?

Perhaps it will serve as a reminder to you in the future to read more closely the material you post to support whatever point it is you are trying to make.
Still nothing huh?

[ZENSMACK89]

And you are of course aware that Dr. Quintiere's main revelation, apart from the fact he doesn't seem to have read the report since he keeps asking questions the report itself answers, is that he believes that the Towers would have collapsed with the fireproofing intact while NIST says that they would have stood. You do realise that this is the reason he thinks that NIST is being hampered by Lawyers, becasue he thinks that the PANYNJ should take responsiblity for the poor fireproofing and that NIST is shielding them. You are aware that Dr. Quintiere has specifically rejected the idea that the Towers were destroyed by any form of CD?

Since you keep waving his name about, you obviously think he is reliable. This being the case,why do you not accept his premiss that the Towers would have collapsed from the impacts and fire, that the removal of the fireproofing was irrellevant to this occuring, and that the Towers were not demolished. If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can you agree with his reservations about NIST, since those very reservations are based on his own conclusions. If you reject one, you must reject the other. You can't support his reservations without supporting the conclusions that lead him there. Either both are right, or both are wrong. You can't say the reservations are right, but the conclusions are wrong.

So which is it, do you support Dr. Quintiere's conclusions or not?
So if you agree with NIST you agree woth Quintiere?

Good so you agree there should be an INDEPENDENT review of the NIST report.


You know... and investigation of the investigation.

Got any names yet for that review?

[ZENSMACK89]

So what's your satisfactory level of proof, then ? Absolute 100% certainty ?

Doesn't exist except through self-delusion, you know.



Cute dodge.
I don't know.

What percent exactly is "reasonably assured"?

[Crungy]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.


Three falsehoods in his first paragraph alone.

[Belz...]

I don't know.

What percent exactly is "reasonably assured"?

Again, nice dodge.

[johnny karate]

So if you agree with NIST you agree woth Quintiere?

Good so you agree there should be an INDEPENDENT review of the NIST report.Sure, why not? No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it.

See, what you Truthers don't understand is that we don't fear scrutiny like you do. We relish it. It's the driving mechanism behind scientific method and rational thought, and therefore your enemy, not ours.


Got any names yet for that review?Oh, I see what you did there... since we're always asking you for the names of the people you want to perform the new investigation you're demanding, now you're asking us who should perform this "investigation of the investigation". You totally turned that around on us! ZEN you are just so darn clever!

Let me explain to you how you are wrong (which seems to be a fulltime job): We're not the one asking for this review. Dr. Quintiere is. You would need to ask him for this list of names.

For you convenience, here is his e-mail address, so you can do just that:jimq@umd.edu (jimq@umd.edu).

And while you're at it, maybe ask him to explain to you all the ways in which he disagrees with the CT, since you are struggling to process that concept as your repeated uses of him as a reference demonstrate.

[ZENSMACK89]

Sure, why not? No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it.

See, what you Truthers don't understand is that we don't fear scrutiny like you do. We relish it. It's the driving mechanism behind scientific method and rational thought, and therefore your enemy, not ours.


Oh, I see what you did there... since we're always asking you for the names of the people you want to perform the new investigation you're demanding, now you're asking us who should perform this "investigation of the investigation". You totally turned that around on us! ZEN you are just so darn clever!

Let me explain to you how you are wrong (which seems to be a fulltime job): We're not the one asking for this review. Dr. Quintiere is. You would need to ask him for this list of names.

For you convenience, here is his e-mail address, so you can do just that:jimq@umd.edu (jimq@umd.edu).

And while you're at it, maybe ask him to explain to you all the ways in which he disagrees with the CT, since you are struggling to process that concept as your repeated uses of him as a reference demonstrate.
Congratulations on contradicting yourself there genius. All in one post. Classic.

"No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it."

"We're not the one asking for this review. "

Now go back and read and see where I quoted Physics911.org on the independent investigation when I was then asked for names.

[Drudgewire]

See, what you Truthers don't understand is that we don't fear scrutiny like you do. We relish it. It's the driving mechanism behind scientific method and rational thought, and therefore your enemy, not ours.
Man, that's so dead-on accurate I wouldn't mind getting the quote as a chest tattoo. :)

[HyJinX]

Congratulations on contradicting yourself there genius. All in one post. Classic.

"No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it."

"We're not the one asking for this review. "

Now go back and read and see where I quoted Physics911.org on the independent investigation when I was then asked for names.

wait a sec....how did he contradict himself, exactly?

[Belz...]

Congratulations on contradicting yourself there genius. All in one post. Classic.

"No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it."

"We're not the one asking for this review. "

That's not a contradiction. Gosh.

[ZENSMACK89]

wait a sec....how did he contradict himself, exactly?
I wasn't the first one to ask for an independent investigation. I'm only supporting and welcoming it when I was asked for names.

[Drudgewire]

I wasn't the first one to ask for an independent investigation. I'm only supporting and welcoming it when I was asked for names.
Neither is Quintiere. Calling for a review != calling for an independent investigation.

[ZENSMACK89]

Neither is Quintiere. Calling for a review != calling for an independent investigation.
Who would be part of that independent review? Do they not have names?

[twinstead]

And Zen when are you going to admit that Quintiere unquestionably supports the official explanation of what brought down the towers, and his objections with the NIST report are totally unrelated to your little fantasy?

It's as if I grabbed hold of somebody in your movement who, while still thinking 911 was an inside job, found no planers to be idiots, and I used him to declare that a member of the truth movement supports the official story.

[Drudgewire]

Who would be part of that independent review? Do they not have names?
Oh probably more people that are cited by Popular Mechanics.

You know, just to drive you guys a little more crazy. :)

[johnny karate]

Congratulations on contradicting yourself there genius. All in one post. Classic.

"No one here has ever stated that this review shouldn't take place, and many have actually voiced their support of it."

"We're not the one asking for this review. "

Now go back and read and see where I quoted Physics911.org on the independent investigation when I was then asked for names.

ZEN, when debating you I don't know whether to give you a reasoned and detailed point-by-point refutation of all your idiotic assertions, or just simply restrain you and jam my wallet in your mouth so you don't bite off your own tongue.

[Dave_46]

Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

At what temperature does fireproofed steel melt or weaken?


Fire protected steel will "melt or weaken" at the same temperature as unprotected steel. A protected assembly will take longer to heat up to the necessary temperature. That is the whole point of putting on fire protection.

Steel, whether protected or unprotected is unlikely to melt in a building fire. It will need to be far beyond red hot to melt.

Dave

[Belz...]

I wasn't the first one to ask for an independent investigation. I'm only supporting and welcoming it when I was asked for names.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045fd3d3d0d455.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4646)

[Corsair 115]

Congratulations on contradicting yourself there genius.Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

[Drudgewire]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Mmmmmm, pot. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bong.gif

[NYCEMT86]

*YAWN*


Will someone wake me when Zen stops with the Copy and Paste of Prison Planet or Scholars for 9/11. Maybe we can get him to stop dodging questions and reply with a coherent answer.


:slp:

[ZENSMACK89]

And Zen when are you going to admit that Quintiere unquestionably supports the official explanation of what brought down the towers, and his objections with the NIST report are totally unrelated to your little fantasy?

It's as if I grabbed hold of somebody in your movement who, while still thinking 911 was an inside job, found no planers to be idiots, and I used him to declare that a member of the truth movement supports the official story.
How exactly is calling for an independent review of the NIST report not questioning it?

Why does it have to be an independent review if he's not questioing NIST and their practices?

[johnny karate]

How exactly is calling for an independent review of the NIST report not questioning it?

Why does it have to be an independent review if he's not questioing NIST and their practices?


Here is Dr. Quintiere's e-mail address: jimq@umd.edu (jimq@umd.edu)

Since you can't seem to understand what his statement's regarding NIST actually mean, and you don't believe us when we try and tell you, why don't you contact him yourself for clarification?

Please let us know what he has to say.

[twinstead]

How exactly is calling for an independent review of the NIST report not questioning it?

Why does it have to be an independent review if he's not questioing NIST and their practices?

What is wrong with you? I can't believe you still don't get this!

His questioning of the NIST is totally different than YOUR questioning and your ludicrous inside job theory. He supports the official story. He is questioning the NIST report in ways TOTALLY unrelated to your fantasy.

I repeat. He supports the official explanation of how the collapse happened. You don't. Therefore it is comical in the extreme that you are using him to try to support your fantasy.

It's almost like any questioning of the NIST report, no matter for what reason, supports an inside job. (somebody speaks up saying they used the wrong sized salad forks in the NIST luncheon and wonders why the NIST would let such a travesty exist...INSIDE JOB!!!!)

You don't believe me? Email him and ask him.

[ZENSMACK89]

What is wrong with you? I can't believe you still don't get this!

His questioning of the NIST is totally different than YOUR questioning and your ludicrous inside job theory. He supports the official story. He is questioning the NIST report in ways TOTALLY unrelated to your fantasy.

I repeat. He supports the official explanation of how the collapse happened. You don't. Therefore it is comical in the extreme that you are using him to try to support your fantasy.

It's almost like any questioning of the NIST report, no matter for what reason, supports an inside job. (somebody speaks up saying they used the wrong sized salad forks in the NIST luncheon and wonders why the NIST would let such a travesty exist...INSIDE JOB!!!!)

You don't believe me? Email him and ask him.

I don't need to email him. I can read. I can comprehend. I never said he supported an inside job theory. I said he supports an independent review of the NIST report and that means he’s questioning it. You don't have a valid come back for this so of course you head down the strawman highway.

Do you not have an answer?

Why does he think the NIST report needs an independent review? Because it’s correct?

Why does it need to be independent? What would be wrong with NIST reviewing its own work?

And speaking of “Pot calls Kettle” do any of you big mouths have any names for that independent review? And who’s going to pay for it? You all seemed so concerned with this the other day.

[NYCEMT86]

I don't need to email him. I can read. I can comprehend. I never said he supported an inside job theory. I said he supports an independent review of the NIST report and that means he’s questioning it. You don't have a valid come back for this so of course you head down the strawman highway.

Do you not have an answer?

Why does he think the NIST report needs an independent review? Because it’s correct?

Why does it need to be independent? What would be wrong with NIST reviewing its own work?

And speaking of “Pot calls Kettle” do any of you big mouths have any names for that independent review? And who’s going to pay for it? You all seemed so concerned with this the other day.


Okay here is an example of why someone would want an independent review.


This is the best way I can put it and I hope you understand.

During a fire ground operation, there are two things called Primary and Secondary Search.

Primary happens before and/or during fire suppression by one crew.

Secondary happens after the fire is out by a different crew from the primary.

Why? Because the first crew would be complacent if they had to perform both primary and secondary search. Especially if they reported negative find on the primary.

Now, when you bring in a different crew for the secondary search, they may find something the first crew missed.


So with NIST, if they reviewed themselves they may miss something that say an independent committee or panel wouldn't.


I hope this helped

[ZENSMACK89]

Okay here is an example of why someone would want an independent review.


This is the best way I can put it and I hope you understand.

During a fire ground operation, there are two things called Primary and Secondary Search.

Primary happens before and/or during fire suppression by one crew.

Secondary happens after the fire is out by a different crew from the primary.

Why? Because the first crew would be complacent if they had to perform both primary and secondary search. Especially if they reported negative find on the primary.

Now, when you bring in a different crew for the secondary search, they may find something the first crew missed.


So with NIST, if they reviewed themselves they may miss something that say an independent committee or panel wouldn't.


I hope this helped
So why would NIST or anyone be opposed to this?

[nicepants]

So why would NIST or anyone be opposed to this?

There will always be someone who opposes something that costs money. In fact, for $5 I'll send you the white-paper I wrote on the subject.

[beachnut]

Fire protected steel will "melt or weaken" at the same temperature as unprotected steel. A protected assembly will take longer to heat up to the necessary temperature. That is the whole point of putting on fire protection.

Steel, whether protected or unprotected is unlikely to melt in a building fire. It will need to be far beyond red hot to melt.

Dave
Why did you raise your hand first on the easy question? Oldschool and questions are not a good combination.

[johnny karate]

I don't need to email him. I can read. I can comprehend. I never said he supported an inside job theory. I said he supports an independent review of the NIST report and that means he’s questioning it. You don't have a valid come back for this so of course you head down the strawman highway.

Do you not have an answer?Only the same one you have been given a dozen times, but still refuse to ackowledge. Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report was only about a very small issue (that being one of fire safety) and not of the report as a whole. Not only is this issue a small one, but it is entirely inconsequential to NIST's ultimate conclusions.

Why does he think the NIST report needs an independent review? Because it’s correct?Only with regard to the quality of the fire-proofing on the steel trusses does Quintiere feel the NIST report is incorrect.

Why does it need to be independent? What would be wrong with NIST reviewing its own work?For the same reason that anyone has someone else check their work: to have an objective eye critique it.

And speaking of “Pot calls Kettle” do any of you big mouths have any names for that independent review? And who’s going to pay for it? You all seemed so concerned with this the other day.No one here is championing Quintiere's cause. The most positve response I've seen is along the lines of "His criticisms are legitimate, and maybe this review wouldn't be a bad idea." We do not speak for Dr. Quintiere. If you are truly that interested, contact him yourself.

You, on the other had, have aligned yourself with an entire movement built around the notion that 9/11 needs a new investigation, and join them in demanding this investigation. Such demands require a little more detail than you and your cronies seem willing to supply.

So why won't you contact Quintiere yourself, ZEN? Why wouldn't you want clarification on these issues? Why spend your time here arguing with people you don't believe when you could get the information right from the horse's mouth?

Oh, that's right... because your flimsy arguments would come tumbling down around your ears and you know it. This way, you can take anything even remotely ambigous that Quintiere says, and twist it to your own purposes. Any clarification would rob you of this tactic, and thus dismantle your entire, pathetic modus operandi.

[pomeroo]

Here is Dr. Quintiere's e-mail address: jimq@umd.edu (jimq@umd.edu)

Since you can't seem to understand what his statement's regarding NIST actually mean, and you don't believe us when we try and tell you, why don't you contact him yourself for clarification?

Please let us know what he has to say.


Funny thing--I did exactly that. Much more to follow in the next few days.

[ZENSMACK89]

Because I'm not the one who needs clarification. I understand he has a problem with more then just one very small issue. In fact in his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005 he states at least six of them…

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

So tell me how is this only about fire-proofing?

Just because you say so?

[jp834618]

NYCEMT86: I'm a ex-truther I guess you would say. I think truthers come in many varieties. While some just think this administration allowed those events to take place, others might think it was space weapons and girl scout cookies. Other than the ones who say the FDNY and NYPD were involved, do you despise them all, or do you think some of them might be good people with good intentions who are just scared and confused?

[NYCEMT86]

NYCEMT86: I'm a ex-truther I guess you would say. I think truthers come in many varieties. While some just think this administration allowed those events to take place, others might think it was space weapons and girl scout cookies. Other than the ones who say the FDNY and NYPD were involved, do you despise them all, or do you think some of them might be good people with good intentions who are just scared and confused?

I despise the ones who say the FDNY and NYPD are involved. That brings things to a very personal level.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions...but once they only refer to LC and Scholars for Truth have taken it to another level, especially when they refuse to look beyond that. They have crossed that point of no return.

[johnny karate]

Because I'm not the one who needs clarification. I understand he has a problem with more then just one very small issue. In fact in his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005 he states at least six of them…

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

So tell me how is this only about fire-proofing?

Just because you say so?No, because Quintiere says so. Read the above passages again, paying special attention to the parts I bolded.

And again, I am not suggesting you take my word for it. Contact Dr. Quintiere yourself and see what he has to say. Ask him flat out if he has issues with the NIST report beyond issues of fire safety. If you are so confident of his positon, why wouldn't you want to take this opportunity to stick it to me and the rest of us arrogant JREFers?

And to further drive the point home, here is some more of Quintiere's statement regarding his criticisms of NIST recommendations:

"The eight group-headings of the NIST recommendations are not specific, as they cannot connect directly to their findings. Instead they speak to developing, improving or advancing technology for safety from fire. Hence, they really cry out for more research, technology adaptation, and education with respect to fire. This is understandable as the NIST role has been to be a leader in research, and a source of new knowledge for codes and standards. The Science Committee and the Congress should take note of the needs underlying the nature of these recommendations. They are more a need for research to assist standards."

Here's that email address again: jimq@umd.edu

[johnny karate]

Funny thing--I did exactly that. Much more to follow in the next few days.

Excellent. I look forward to seeing what Quintiere has to say.

[CptColumbo]

Funny thing--I did exactly that. Much more to follow in the next few days.

Given his pseudo importance to the truth movement, It might take a few months.

If ZEN is an example of their understanding of fire, some might have a problem spelling BTU.

[Dave_46]

Why did you raise your hand first on the easy question? Oldschool and questions are not a good combination.

I don't expect oldschool to accept, or understand it (or bother to read it).

I know what I wrote was obvious to anyone who understands it.

I did it for the lurkers.

Dave

[Belz...]

I don't need to email him. I can read. I can comprehend.

"E-mailing him would potentially put my fantasy in jeopardy. I shan't do that."

Why does it need to be independent?

Independent from what ?

And exactly what would your renewed investigation reveal, then ?

[Belz...]

NYCEMT86: I'm a ex-truther I guess you would say. I think truthers come in many varieties. While some just think this administration allowed those events to take place, others might think it was space weapons and girl scout cookies. Other than the ones who say the FDNY and NYPD were involved, do you despise them all, or do you think some of them might be good people with good intentions who are just scared and confused?

Welcome to the forum, Jp.

Personally, I despise anyone who is willfully ignorant, i.e. who refuses to learn about a subject that is supposedly important to him/her even when offered the possibility, just as Zen has shown a few posts ago.

[ZENSMACK89]

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


LOL

No you read it again. Now tell me how this is only about fire-proofing.

You're a Joke.

[ZENSMACK89]

"E-mailing him would potentially put my fantasy in jeopardy. I shan't do that."



Independent from what ?

And exactly what would your renewed investigation reveal, then ?
Nice and slow Belz

Quintiere is asking for an independent review of the NIST report.

Maybe you should email him if you have question.

[johnny karate]

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


LOL

No you read it again. Now tell me how this is only about fire-proofing.Because every single passage you have quoted is at some point qualified with a reference to "fire protection" or "fire safety" or something about "fire", as my previous post clearly demonstrated.

So when you quote Quintiere as saying "Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?", you're ignoring the very next sentence where he clarifies this statement by saying "Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns." and then "NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core." The two following sentences indicate quite clearly that what he meant by "alternative collapse hypothesis" relate specifically to fire-proofing.

Your sad attempts to try and twist his words into something else will only be met with failure and further embarrassment for you and your dying movement. Although you are too much of a coward to contact Dr. Quintiere for fear of having your fragile little fantasy shattered, others will (as pomeroo has demonstrated), and eventually your pathetic attempt at deception will be revealed.

I'll make a deal with you, ZEN. If pomeroo, or someone else, is able to get a hold of Dr. Quintiere and he affirms your contention (that his criticisms of NIST go beyond issues of fire safety and fire investigation), I'll admit I was wrong.

Will you be man enough to do the same when it goes the other way?

[ZENSMACK89]

Because every single passage you have quoted is at some point qualified with a reference to "fire protection" or "fire safety" or something about "fire", as my previous post clearly demonstrated.

Duh the WTC was on fire. Much of what NIST investigated was about that fire. What's your point? Quintere has a problem with much of the report?

I'll make a deal with you, ZEN. If pomeroo, or someone else, is able to get a hold of Dr. Quintiere and he affirms your contention (that his criticisms of NIST go beyond issues of fire safety and fire investigation), I'll admit I was wrong.

Bull. Stop changing it. You’re a weasel. Your exact claim was…

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report was only about a very small issue (that being ONE of fire safety)

Quinteres exact words

"I will list some of these"

Not ONE of these

some of these

Then he goes on to bullet six different items not just one thing. If it was just ONE thing then why bullet it?

And what exactly is it you claim is my contention is? Another straw man argument?

You have nothing.

[HyJinX]

Zen, How does what Quinteres says support anything ever claimed by the truthers?

[DavidJames]

You have nothing.
Speaking of nothing, 670 posts in less then a month and nothing describes what you've posted regarding evidence of an inside job.

[Pardalis]

Zen's a used chewing gum, no more juice out of this one.

[twinstead]

Zen's a used chewing gum, no more juice out of this one.

Yup. As per most truthers, he will now bog the thread down for pages in minutiae, meanings of words, irrelevant issues, and ignoring evidence that contradicts his theory instead of actually presenting any compelling evidence of an inside job on 911.

[HyJinX]

Another ass-handing. Nice work.

[johnny karate]

Duh the WTC was on fire. Much of what NIST investigated was about that fire. What's your point? Quintere has a problem with much of the report?Actually, the NIST report is an engineering report dealing primarily with issues related to engineering. Had the NIST investigation been as much about the fires as you are erroneously claiming, then Quintiere probably wouldn't have taken issue with it. You should really read the NIST report before embarassing yourself by making idiotic claims about its contents.

Stop changing it. You’re a weasel. Your exact claim was…Nothing has been changed. Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. All of his criticisms regarding the NIST report relate specifically to his field of expertise. This has been my contention all along, and remains so now. If you're too much of a coward to accept my challenge, just say so.


Quinteres exact words

"I will list some of these"

Not ONE of these

some of theseImagine that. You're taking Quintiere's statements out of context again. Are you able to comprehend that Quintiere has multiple criticisms all relating to one specific issue? Are you able to wrap your head around such a complex concept?

But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's what Quintiere had to say in his statement (you'll find it just preceding the above out of context quote you used):

"I wish I had wished for clear and complete analyses and evidence to determine the full cause of the factors behind and the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings, as they bear on the fire safety design of current and future buildings."

Then he goes on to bullet six different items not just one thing. If it was just ONE thing then why bullet it?See above. As I have already demonstrated, all of those bullet points relate to fire safety. It's not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills.

And what exactly is it you claim is my contention is? Another straw man argument?Your contention is that Dr. Quintiere's statements have a broader meaning than they actually do, therefore undermining the entire NIST investigation.

And another you thing we can add to the list of things you fail to understand: What a strawman argument actually is.

[Belz...]

Nice and slow Belz

Quintiere is asking for an independent review of the NIST report.

Maybe you should email him if you have question.

You mean, email him like you did ?

And what part of his disagreement being related to the fire protection don't you understand ?

Quinteres exact words

"I will list some of these"

And amazingly every single one of them deals with the insulation issue.

[ZENSMACK89]

LOL

Keep spinning. All of you.

I love it when you all dance for me.

Just go back and read. It's hilarious.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d44c22e147c.gif

[HyJinX]

Zen, How does what Quinteres says support anything ever claimed by the truthers?

well?

[ZENSMACK89]

well?
Which claims would that be?

And when did I claim he did?

I claimed Quintere had a problem with the NIST investigation.

I was told he only had a problem with one small issue. That's a lie.

[ZENSMACK89]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d44c22e147c.gif
Very good.

Can you moonwalk backwards out of a debate also? Maybe you can teach your friends.

[Pardalis]

It's better than to stand still like you do.

[HyJinX]

Which claims would that be?

And when did I claim he did?

I claimed Quintere had a problem with the NIST investigation.

I was told he only had a problem with one small issue. That's a lie.

Pick one.

You seem to think he sides with the truthers...why?

He does have a problem with the NIST report. Does his problem support any of your beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job?

As Belz... said, his problems all revolve around insulation.

[OldSchool]

Zen, How does what Quinteres says support anything ever claimed by the truthers?

The most important thing is he has established there was a cover-up which was politically motivated.


Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? [B]I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

I'd imagine these lawyers would suggest what was blocked was a matter of national security.

[HyJinX]

Very good.

Can you moonwalk backwards out of a debate also? Maybe you can teach your friends.

Translation: I have nothing to offer to this so called "debate", will you all please leave first because I don't want you to see me with my tail between my legs.

[HyJinX]

The most important thing is he has established there was a cover-up which was politically motivated.

Even if that were true, how does that point towards an inside job resulting in the murder of 3000 people.

Do you see how ridiculous it is to use anything Dr. Quintiere says? He does not support your theories. He supports a review of the NIST report as it pertains to fire proofing.

[twinstead]

Do you see how ridiculous it is to use anything Dr. Quintiere says?

No. Sadly he doesn't. Otherwise he would have acknowledged it the first time it was brought to his attention, pages ago.

[johnny karate]

I claimed Quintere had a problem with the NIST investigation.

I was told he only had a problem with one small issue. That's a lie.

He does have a only one issue: fire safety.

In an engineering report that dealt primarily with engineering, fire safety is a small issue, thus Dr. Quintiere's complaints.

You fail.

Again.

[johnny karate]

The most important thing is he has established there was a cover-up which was politically motivated.


Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? [B]I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

I'd imagine these lawyers would suggest what was blocked was a matter of national security.

You're embarassing yourself. Please go back and read the last few pages of this thread.

[johnny karate]

No. Sadly he doesn't. Otherwise he would have acknowledged it the first time it was brought to his attention, pages ago.

Actually, I think he does realize it. He is clearly unwilling to engage in honest debate and his lack of desire to contact Dr. Quintiere for clarification demonstrates this.

At this point, ZEN is just trolling, trying to elicit responses. He thinks he's being disruptive. Sadly, he doesn't realize that refuting his sad attempts at argument is about as challenging and time-consuming as a TV Guide crossword puzzle.

ETA: Yikes, triple post! Sorry!

[twinstead]

Actually, I think he does realize it. He is clearly unwilling to engage in honest debate and his lack of desire to contact Dr. Quintiere for clarification demonstrates this.


Well, because ignorance is a step above trolling, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt ;)

[OldSchool]

Actually he has issues with disclosure of information too. He has provided proof government lawyers were impeding there investigation. Because lawyers were not allowing NIST professionals to have all available data the entire report is null and has no credibility.

I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

[NYCEMT86]

I have e-mailed Dr. Quintiere with a few of my own questions. I will post the responses when I receive them.

[HyJinX]

Actually he has issues with disclosure of information too. He has provided proof government lawyers were impeding there investigation. Because lawyers were not allowing NIST professionals to have all available data the entire report is null and has no credibility.

I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

I say again, even if true it does not support your theories. Can we agree on that?

[Jonnyclueless]

Actually he has issues with disclosure of information too. He has provided proof government lawyers were impeding there investigation. Because lawyers were not allowing NIST professionals to have all available data the entire report is null and has no credibility.

I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”


How is someones opinion proof?

[Jonnyclueless]

LOL

Keep spinning. All of you.

I love it when you all dance for me.

Just go back and read. It's hilarious.

*patting you on the head*

[twinstead]

Actually he has issues with disclosure of information too. He has provided proof government lawyers were impeding there investigation. Because lawyers were not allowing NIST professionals to have all available data the entire report is null and has no credibility.

I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

Perhaps you should file this post in the "just because you say something, doesn't make it true" file. And while you're at it, ask the good Dr. if he thinks his questions make the entire report null and makes it loose all of its credibility.

[ZENSMACK89]

I have e-mailed Dr. Quintiere with a few of my own questions. I will post the responses when I receive them.

Can we see the questions?

LOL

[NYCEMT86]

Can we see the questions?

LOL


I asked him about the two different conclusions, what specific chain of events would have to occur for either to happen. I am trying to get this to be a technical stand point rather than an opinion. Maybe to help clear the air on some of his quotes.

[OldSchool]

I say again, even if true it does not support your theories. Can we agree on that?

Dr. Quintiere can only speak concerning his area of expertise. To go beyond would lead to people attacking his character. His statements concerning how the investigation was impeded hold more crediability because he won't discuss areas he has no expertise in.

[ZENSMACK89]

Incivility removed.

[HyJinX]

Zen...you're acting like a child. It's boring and it makes you look silly.

ETA: Also, if you change any of my quotes again I will not hesitate to report you.

[OldSchool]

Perhaps you should file this post in the "just because you say something, doesn't make it true" file. And while you're at it, ask the good Dr. if he thinks his questions make the entire report null and makes it loose all of its credibility.

The moment it was revealed government lawyers were really impeding the NIST investigation, from an acedemic standpoint, the report loses all credibility.

[Pardalis]

And yet you can't even spell academic.

[twinstead]

Dr. Quintiere can only speak concerning his area of expertise. To go beyond would lead to people attacking his character. His statements concerning how the investigation was impeded hold more crediability because he won't discuss areas he has no expertise in.

That doesn't seem to stop you

[ZENSMACK89]

The moment it was revealed government lawyers were really impeding the NIST investigation, from an acedemic standpoint, the report loses all credibility.
That's absolutely correct.

So now what's the official version?

[Jonnyclueless]

The moment it was revealed government lawyers were really impeding the NIST investigation, from an acedemic standpoint, the report loses all credibility.


Please go into detail about the lawyers impeding the investigation. Tell us more about this.

[johnny karate]

Dr. Quintiere can only speak concerning his area of expertise. To go beyond would lead to people attacking his character. His statements concerning how the investigation was impeded hold more crediability because he won't discuss areas he has no expertise in.


Wow. I am truly stunned. A Truther might have actually got something right.

And now OldSchool, the bonus question: What is Dr. Quintiere's area of expertise?

[johnny karate]

The moment it was revealed government lawyers were really impeding the NIST investigation, from an acedemic standpoint, the report loses all credibility.

No, actually for the NIST report to lose academic credibility, it would have to be refuted academically. You know, that thing that no Truther has been able to manage so far.

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow. I am truly stunned. A Truther might have actually got something right.

And now OldSchool, the bonus question: What is Dr. Quintiere's area of expertise?
I knew it.

This is what you’re going to now backtrack and spin to?

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[Pardalis]

Go away for a while Zen, take a break because you are not contributing anything to this board and are now using insults,.

[johnny karate]

I knew it.

This is what you’re going to now backtrack and spin to?

You knew what?

What am I backtracking or spinning to?

Do you know the answer to the question?

Here it is again: What is Dr. Quintiere's area of expertise?

[ZENSMACK89]

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report was only about a very small issue (that being one of fire safety)

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report encompasses more then just fire safety.

This has been pointed out to you now by someone else other then me.

[HyJinX]

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report encompasses more then just fire safety.

This has been pointed out to you now by someone else other then me.

Oh? do tell.

[johnny karate]

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report encompasses more then just fire safety.

This has been pointed out to you now by someone else other then me.

Really, who was that?

And while you're at it, why don't you just go ahead and enumerate Quintiere's criticisms that are independent of fire safety?

[ZENSMACK89]

Really, who was that?

And while you're at it, why don't you just go ahead and enumerate Quintiere's criticisms that are independent of fire safety?
Spinning again with the strawman?

Independent of?


Encompasses more then just fire safety.

[HyJinX]

Explain or retract you statement.

Outside of the topic of fire safety...what were his issues as they related to the NIST report?

[T.A.M.]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please read what is at the link Zen.

TAM;)

[ZENSMACK89]

Explain or retract you statement.

Outside of the topic of fire safety...what were his issues as they related to the NIST report?
Outside of fire safty?

Encompasses more then just fire saftey.

Know the difference?

I think you do.

[Pardalis]

This thread is looking more and more like a Monty Python sketch.

[Belz...]

LOL

Keep spinning. All of you.

I love it when you all dance for me.

Just go back and read. It's hilarious.

What part of his disagreement being related to the fire protection don't you understand ?

Spinning again with the strawman?

What strawman ? Are you saying now tha this criticism is ONLY about the insulation ?

Encompasses more then just fire safety.

Make up your mind.

Outside of fire safty?

Encompasses more then just fire saftey.

Know the difference?

Those aren't even sentences.

[Belz...]

The most important thing is he has established there was a cover-up which was politically motivated.

Wait, wait, wait. When did he establish that ?

[johnny karate]

Outside of fire safty?

Encompasses more then just fire saftey.

Know the difference?

I think you do.

So you won't be enumerating those isses then?

I didn't think so.

[ZENSMACK89]

What part of his disagreement being related to the fire protection don't you understand ?



What strawman ? Are you saying now tha this criticism is ONLY about the insulation ?



Make up your mind.



Those aren't even sentences.
Originally he tried to claim Quintere problem was a small issue with fire saftey only. Nothing else.

Now it's changing. Now its all of a sudden I said Quinteres problems were independent of fire saftey. And that I claim Quintere supports a conspiracy theory.

I didn't.

I said it was fire saftey and more. It can be both no?

How are the following statements just about a "small issue" of fire safty and nothing else?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

[johnny karate]

Originally he tried to claim Quintere problem was a small issue with fire saftey only. Nothing else.Let's take a look at what I actually instead of relying on your biased interpretation of it:

"Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report was only about a very small issue (that being one of fire safety) and not of the report as a whole. Not only is this issue a small one, but it is entirely inconsequential to NIST's ultimate conclusions."

Here are some other things I have said regarding this issue:

"The 'conclusions' referred to here are that A) either the insulation was intact or B) it wasn't. It doesn't refer to the ultimate conclusions of the NIST report that the combination of structural damage and heat-weakened steel initiated the collapse."

"The only 'conclusion' Quintiere questions is the one regarding the loss of fire-proofing. NIST has claimed that the fire-proofing was removed during impact, Quintiere maintains that the fire-proofing was insufficient to begin with."

"He only challenges the claim of fire-proofing loss and whether or not there was even enough to begin with."

"As long as you understand that the criticisms he levels are geared specifically towards the issue of fire safety."

"The only thing that Quintiere calls into question is NIST's assumption that the jetliner impact removed the fire-proofing from the steel trusses thus faciliting their weakening. He instead contends that the fire-proofing wasn't necessarily removed, but rather was insufficient to begin with."

"Quintiere's statement's regarding the NIST report only pertained to issues of fire safety and absolutely nothing else."

Now it's changing.No, it's not. My position has remained consistent, as the above quotes indicate. I defy you to point where I have said anything to the contrary. That's Lie #1 for you, sport.

Now its all of a sudden I said Quinteres problems were independent of fire saftey.I never said that. Lie #2

And that I claim Quintere supports a conspiracy theory.Or that. Lie #3

I said it was fire saftey and more. It can be both no?It sure can. But it isn't.

How are the following statements just about a "small issue" of fire safty and nothing else?

Because Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. His field of expertise is fire safety. Also, he qualified his entire statement by saying this right up front:

"I wish I had wished for clear and complete analyses and evidence to determine the full cause of the factors behind and the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings, as they bear on the fire safety design of current and future buildings."

If you are going to persist in your asinine allegations that the fire safety specialist meant for his criticisms to pertain to something other than fire safety, then please provide a quote of his that explicitly states this.

I have provided you with numerous quotes where Dr. Quintiere explicitly states he is talking about fire safety.

Your turn.

[ZENSMACK89]

Quintiere's criticism of the NIST report was only about a very small issue (that being one of fire safety)

One more time.


Try to answer if you can. Come on spin it some more for me. You must be pretty dizzy by now.

How are the following statements just about a "small issue" of fire safty and nothing else?

“3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?”

“6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?”

He also has these problems with the NIST report….

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST (not of the report as a whole?) falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

lol

[Jonnyclueless]

It's much easier to understand when you don't quote mine.

[johnny karate]

One more time.


Try to answer if you can. Come on spin it some more for me. You must be pretty dizzy by now.Please provide an example of where I have done any spinning. I am not the one trying to wedge Dr. Quintiere's statements into a different meaning. That would be you. Any dizziness you are experiencing is most likely from lack of blood flow to your brain.

How are the following statements just about a "small issue" of fire safty and nothing else?You mean the ones you take out of context? I'll try and help you out. Please pay attention this time.

The first one is fairly easy, because you're not bright enough to realize you've provided a quote that contradicts your position. Notice the very first sentence, especially the part I have bolded:

“3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?”

See, the entire passage is about how NIST didn't properly deal with the WTC wreckage as a "fire scene". Why? Because Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist, and that is his area of expertise, and therefore his sole concern when critiquing the NIST report.

The next portion is a bit trickier because as per your usual dishonest debate tactics you've taken it out of context, making it difficult to determine what he is specifically talking when it appears on it's own:

“6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?”

So what else does Dr. Quinitere have to say about WTC7 that might shed a little more light on the above statement? Let's take a look:

"It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!"

Once again, he is talking in terms of a fire investigation. Why? Oh yeah, because he is a fire safety specialist.

He also has these problems with the NIST report….Once again, you have to cheat in order to try and bolster your claims. You're taking what he said out of context.

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST (not of the report as a whole? That's correct. See below.) falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

This is what Dr. Quinitiere had to say about the NIST report in the opening remarks of his statement:

"I wish I had wished for clear and complete analyses and evidence to determine the full cause of the factors behind and the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings, as they bear on the fire safety design of current and future buildings."

Pretty clear cut.

Again, I have provided you with quotes where Dr. Quintiere explicitly states his criticisms are specific to issues of fire safety.

You contend that he has criticisms that extend into other areas. I have asked you to provide quotes that explicitly demonstrate this. You have failed to do so. Instead, you present ambiguous quotes that appear so because they are taken out of context, and you try to hang some broader meaning on them.

All in all, you're not very good at this.

[ZENSMACK89]

Man you are losing it!

LOL

This is his quote.


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


the WTC investigation by NIST

[HyJinX]

So do you believe he thinks it was an inside job then?

[johnny karate]

Man you are losing it!

LOL

This is his quote.


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


the WTC investigation by NIST

I see. So you don't have any quotes that explicitly state he is speaking about something other than fire safety. Just more out of context nonsense. Why am I not surprised.

Since you seem particularly fond of this passage (Remember a few posts back when you had multiple quotes by Quintiere to supposedly prove your point? What happened to all those? Oh yeah... I completely dimsantled your argument, and now you won't refer to them anymore out of embarassment.), let's take a closer look at at, and test your reading comprehension skills:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause"

What "cause" is Quintiere referring to here? "Cause" of what?

"by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause,"

There's that "cause" again. What "cause' is he talking about? And what "recommendations" is he referring to?

Are you able to answer these questions, ZEN? Or are you just going to dodge them like you do every other pertinent question presented to you?

Here's a tip to help: Since the above passage is out of context, you'll need to go back and read the rest of his statement to know to what he is specifically referring. Good luck!

[ZENSMACK89]

So do you believe he thinks it was an inside job then?
I never said he did. We haven't got that far yet. Like I keep saying there would first have to be a real investigation to determine if an inside job on any kind of level happened or if it is off the table. That has yet to be done.

[Drudgewire]

I never said he did. We haven't got that far yet. Like I keep saying there would first have to be a real investigation to determine if an inside job on any kind of level happened or if it is off the table. That has yet to be done.
Zen as I've mentioned before, outside of this issue we're probably not that far off on many, many things. So I can at least pretend you consider me one of the "not completely brainwashed by the gummit" voices here when I say this:

You're coming across as VERY dishonest here. "We haven't got that far yet" is going to be taken, REGARDLESS of your intent, as "you know what I'm saying but I'd like to make some points before admitting it."

If that's not what you're saying, come right out and say so. If it is, then stop playing games and state clearly WHY this is a valid mindset.

Really, dude. In my heart I'm rooting for you. :)

[HyJinX]

What evidence do you currently have handy that makes a strong case for a new investigation...because so far I haven't seen any from you or anybody else?

[ZENSMACK89]

Here's a tip to help: Since the above passage is out of context, you'll need to go back and read the rest of his statement to know to what he is specifically referring. Good luck!

You haven't answered to all the quotes I displayed. You simply bold the word fire and assert that he's only talking about fire safety when he's clearly talking about more then just that. If you can't find the word fire in the entire paragraph you go find another one that does have the word fire in it. What a joke.

He talks about the collapse mechanism, computer models, wtc7, the politics surrounding NIST, etc. etc. but you just keep pretending like you don't know any better. Keep playing stupid see what it gets you.

Give it up.

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen as I've mentioned before, outside of this issue we're probably not that far off on many, many things. So I can at least pretend you consider me one of the "not completely brainwashed by the gummit" voices here when I say this:

You're coming across as VERY dishonest here. "We haven't got that far yet" is going to be taken, REGARDLESS of your intent, as "you know what I'm saying but I'd like to make some points before admitting it."

If that's not what you're saying, come right out and say so. If it is, then stop playing games and state clearly WHY this is a valid mindset.

Really, dude. In my heart I'm rooting for you. :)
What is so hard to understand or is so unbelievable that I don't think there has been a valid investigation into 9-11? If I truly believe this then you tell me how I can take anything off the table including inside job until it's done properly? Remember I was posting here and saying the same thing before Quinitere comments became an issue. I never said he believes inside job or even the possibility of one. What I claimed was that Quinitere has problems with the investigation done by NIST that touch on serious issues other then just his area of expertise. Then all I get back is a bunch of excuses trying to diminish his charges. I won’t have it.

When you look at the some of the comments from Hamilton and Kean on the 9-11 commission that they were part of.

When you feel there is problems with the NIST investigation and then someone from inside NIST also has problems with it.

Then you compound it all with the question surrounding 9-11 to begin with.

I don't think it's so far out to want a real unimpeded investigation into 9-11.

Anyone who thinks they know the facts surrounding 9-11 based on the official investigations to date is either lying or delusional.

[Drudgewire]

Anyone who thinks they know the facts surrounding 9-11 based on the official investigations to date is either lying or delusional.
Well I tried. Keep reaching for that rainbow, my friend.

[Regnad Kcin]

Thought I'd drop by to say hello.

Any evidence of an "inside job" yet, ZENSMACK89? No? Okay, just checking.

[ZENSMACK89]

What evidence do you currently have handy that makes a strong case for a new investigation...because so far I haven't seen any from you or anybody else?

Any official investigation done to date is nothing more then a whitewash as far as I'm concerned. A whitewash to cover-up. If I want to believe what they are covering is the worse thing possible then it’s my porogative.

Think of it this way. I have the same problems with the official version that any of you have for any conspiracy theory. Prove it. It's just another unproven conspiracy theory from where I’m sitting. There is yet to be a complete real accounting of that day whether you are talking about loose change or the 9-11 commission report. The fact is you believe a conspiracy theory. Not completely confirmed factual evidence just another possible theory. And a wild theory at that. The best you can do is argue that your theory is better or more believable then another not that it’s true or a proven fact. Everyone in the JREF conspiracy theory thread is a conspiracy theory believer.

19 hijackers is still a conspiracy is it not?

[ZENSMACK89]

Thought I'd drop by to say hello.

Any evidence of an "inside job" yet, ZENSMACK89? No? Okay, just checking.

Anymore evidence of the official version today or just another chink in the armor?

[Digest]

so your saying until someone builds new exact replica WTC towers - lets you inspect them so you can comfirm the bombs and thermite is not present and then lets you fly and crash planes into them then resurrects you - so that you watch them collapse -- so until this x-file dream happens it is all a lie?

[Drudgewire]

Anymore evidence of the official version today or just another chink in the armor?
Have you read the PM book or just taken everybody's word that it's nothing more than a piece of kindling on the cover-up fire?

If we believed the government version on its own you'd have every right to make that statement. But it's not the fact it's an "official version," it's the fact that everyone, in the private and public sector, who can possibly be considered an expert in their respective field... INCLUDING those who can't stand the politics that currently define our country... validate it.

I hope beyond hope you can grasp this some day. Not tomorrow or anything, hell it took me years.

[HyJinX]

19 hijackers is still a conspiracy is it not?

Ummm...no. Your confusion with the situation is between you and...well...you. I trust the experts. I don't, however, trust the those who are not qualified to make the call. That, of course, would be you.

[johnny karate]

You haven't answered to all the quotes I displayed. You simply bold the word fire and assert that he's only talking about fire safety when he's clearly talking about more then just that. If you can't find the word fire in the entire paragraph you go find another one that does have the word fire in it. What a joke.The only joke here is your deplorable reading comprehension skills. For every single one of Quintiere's quotes you provided, I pointed out to you its true meaning. Your response to that is nothing more than that of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "La, la la, La!" No honest or intelligent debate. Just childish denial.

He talks about the collapse mechanism, computer models, wtc7, the politics surrounding NIST, etc. etc. but you just keep pretending like you don't know any better. Keep playing stupid see what it gets you.He certainly does talk about all those things. In relation to the issue of fire-safety because he is a fire-safety specialist!

Give it up.Speaking of giving up, am I to assume you are unable to provide the quotes that I have requested multiple times? Duly noted.

[PhantomWolf]

I’m sorry wasn’t this your quote?

“I'm still waiting for those physical fire tests where NIST tested partially, or fully unclad trusses, Zen.


Actually you were supposed to show me what test NIST used to come up with 42 inches of sag to put into their computer model. Now NIST did test Steel with what they called different amounts of fire-proofing.

So I’m still waiting big mouth.

Which part of "partially, or fully unclad" do you fail to understand? Insult report.

[PhantomWolf]

So if you agree with NIST you agree woth Quintiere?

How do you figure that? They do agree that the fire and impacts caused the towers to collapse, they disagree about why, in fact are at totally different ends of the scale in what the factor was. The point is that they both disagree with you and the one you are holding up as relaible, not only disagrees with you, but claims that the reprt you're trying to flame is far too conservative. You're esentially claiming a report that says the US can only win in Iraq by increasing it's troops and ferreting out the enemy is wrong and inhumane by waving one that says the only way to win is to nuke the place. Listen really carefully. Quintiere HURTS your arguments by claiming there was no need for Fireproofing damage, so NIST is wrong. If you agree that he is right in his claim that NIST is wrong, then you HAVE to accept that the towers would have collasped sans fireproofing damage. There isn't a way around that without looking stupid because if you try you're saying. This guy is saying a heap of garbage, but since he's attacking my foe, I'm going to support him anyway. So which is it? Is he right, and thus his claims against NIST are valid, or is he wrong and thus they are invalid?

Good so you agree there should be an INDEPENDENT review of the NIST report.

All science should be independantly reviewed, that's what science is. People are still reviewing Einstein's work.

You know... and investigation of the investigation.

A Review isn't an investigation, it's a review. An investigation determines what happened by gathering evidence and running studies and tests, a review looks over the already gathered evidence and sees if it agrees with the conclusions made.

Got any names yet for that review?

Why ask us, we aren't the ones calling for a review, ask Dr Quintiere, he, like you, is the one calling for for it.

[ZENSMACK89]

so until this x-file dream happens it is all a lie?

Prove it any way you want but until it's proven it's just another CT. You think you have the answer but based on what? Certainly not the credibility of the people behind putting the official version together. Take 9-11 out of the equation and these same people have not proven themselves credible on just about anything else. Where's this faith come from? And I'm talking about the complete 9-11 story not just the towers and how they did or didn't fall but the whole 9-11 story passed off as the truth. What led up to 9-11, the day of, and what's happened since.

Take for instance why they claim we were attacked.

Because they hate our freedom? Is that really credible?

[ZENSMACK89]

Ummm...no. Your confusion with the situation is between you and...well...you. I trust the experts. I don't, however, trust the those who are not qualified to make the call. That, of course, would be you.
Yeah well it seems these days the very experts you believe don't even seem to completely agree with them selves isn't that right? Which one is right?

[HyJinX]

Prove it any way you want but until it's proven it's just another CT. You think you have the answer but based on what? Certainly not the credibility of the people behind putting the official version together. Take 9-11 out of the equation and these same people have not proven themselves credible on just about anything else. Where's this faith come from? And I'm talking about the complete 9-11 story not just the towers and how they did or didn't fall but the whole 9-11 story passed off as the truth. What led up to 9-11, the day of, and what's happened since.

Take for instance why they claim we were attacked.

Because they hate our freedom? Is that really credible?

You, my friend, are an emotional mess. The science behind 9/11 is very, very, very sound. We're truly sorry that you don't understand it or that it doesn't fit into you political dissonance. You do realize that there is no "official version" right. It's the version of events that can be proven by science. It doesn't have a government seal. You do realize this, right? You obviously have no idea what you're actually discussing. Take 9/11 out of the equation and you're back to your "JUGGS" magazine and plethora of Kleenex brand tissues. The faith comes from trusting those people smarter and more qualified to determine how things played out. Not to trust internwebz truthers, such as yourself.

It's obvious that you don't understand why the terrorists did what they did. It's also obvious that you've never offered any alternative reason why these events happened. Once again...you have failed to bring anything substantial...or even interesting to the table.

Why do you constantly come here when it's apparent that you're ill equiped to converse on such intricate topics?

[PhantomWolf]

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

So he wants to know about the fireproofing.

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

The "alternative collapse hypotheses" he is talking about is based on an incorrect understanding of NIST's report. He claims that the fireproofing was removed from the CORE which then failed. NIST don't say that, they say it was the Trusses that lost their fireproofing and failed, pulling in the exterior columns. NIST did in fact considera number of alternatives, the dear Dr hasn't got a clue with this one. In the end the only difference between his alternative and NIST's final solution is the fireproofing or lack there of.

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

Has been shown to be wrong. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera)

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

So here he says that they did it and come up with a different answer. He complains that NIST didn't do a time line, that's wrong, they did. Whoops, he make a mistake, oh well it happens.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

Okay so not about the fireproofing really, rather again he complains that NIST is over conservative in their estimates. He claims that there was 3 times the amount of fuel that NIST does. Oooops, how does that help you argument? He's saying that the fires were bigger and hotter then NIST claims. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you need? Way to shoot yourself in the foot, again.

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?He also has these problems with the NIST report….

This is a complaint that the WTC 7 report is slow, how is that a complaint against the WTC 1 and 2 papers?

“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


Again he's wrong in a number of points, NIST did do a lot of interviews. It boils down to more "They are trying to hide the fact the towewrs would have fallen over anyways and the Lawyers are trying to make sure no one finds out."

So tell me how is this only about fire-proofing?

Just because you say so?

Okay, it's about his belief that the fireproofing was irellevant to whether the towers would have come down, and he things that NIST and the PANYNJ lawyers are covering it up. He basis this on having 3 times the fuel load in the towers and patchy fireproofing that he believes was inadequately applied. How does this help your case one bit? If he's right then the PANYNJ is guilty of incompetence and flauting regulations that they didn't actually by law have to follow, and the towers still fell down due to big planes, big impacts and big fires.

[ZENSMACK89]

How do you figure that? They do agree that the fire and impacts caused the towers to collapse; they disagree about why...

They don't completely agree on a theory. It’s not as easy to disagree about facts.

All science should be independently reviewed, that's what science is. People are still reviewing Einstein's work.

So why the resistance? Quintere's been saying this stuff for a couple years now. Why don't they answer his questions?

A Review isn't an investigation, it's a review. An investigation determines what happened by gathering evidence and running studies and tests, a review looks over the already gathered evidence and sees if it agrees with the conclusions made.

He already has done that and doesn't agree with their conclusions. He's looking to go beyond that now.

Why ask us, we aren't the ones calling for a review, ask Dr Quintiere, he, like you, is the one calling for it.

I posted what 911physics stated about wanting an independent investigation. Then I was asked for names. What's the difference?

[ZENSMACK89]

You, my friend, are an emotional mess. The science behind 9/11 is very, very, very sound. We're truly sorry that you don't understand it or that it doesn't fit into you political dissonance. You do realize that there is no "official version" right. It's the version of events that can be proven by science. It doesn't have a government seal. You do realize this, right? You obviously have no idea what you're actually discussing. Take 9/11 out of the equation and you're back to your "JUGGS" magazine and plethora of Kleenex brand tissues. The faith comes from trusting those people smarter and more qualified to determine how things played out. Not to trust internwebz truthers, such as yourself.

It's obvious that you don't understand why the terrorists did what they did. It's also obvious that you've never offered any alternative reason why these events happened. Once again...you have failed to bring anything substantial...or even interesting to the table.

Why do you constantly come here when it's apparent that you're ill equiped to converse on such intricate topics?
No. The 9-11 commission report is not science.

The NIST report is a theory not a fact of only one aspect of 9-11. And a
highly disputed theory at that.

I'm sorry you wish it was more. I'm sorry you like to think that by just asserting that it's more makes it so.

[beachnut]

It has to be their blind political bias showing as they suspend rational thought and bring out the thermite, or the beam weapons or just hearsay bs talk.

It is also their lack of facts, they just talk and bring up Iraq, or what Bush said, chanting "inside job" and not supporting their incomplete conclusions with evidence. Zero evidence, no real ideas on what really happen.

Hearsay, they only use what other people make up; Griffin is the big example I see. Or pick any of the current truthers not really saying anything.

No ties to reality; no coherent story of what did happen.

Bringing up or trying to tear down NIST, when they do not even know the goals of the NIST report. Is that due to truthers can not read 10,000 pages that may contain real fact and information without being dustified?

Do not tell them NIST is not needed to solve 9/11. I also find the lack of fact to be the real weakness. Look at the current set of truthers who post, just talk, totally reactive, no real proactive approach of presenting what happen with facts and evidence.

[ZENSMACK89]

Which part of "partially, or fully unclad" do you fail to understand? Insult report.
Report all you want. Just be sure to answer the question when you are done.

If they didn't test any steel without ANY fire-proofing how does this help them come up with the numbers they put into their computer model?

In other words what's your point in relation to my original question?

[PhantomWolf]

The most important thing is he has established there was a cover-up which was politically motivated.


Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? [B]I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

I'd imagine these lawyers would suggest what was blocked was a matter of national security.

No the important thing is what he thinks was covered up and what he specifically states did not happen.

Consider this. In 1978 an Air New Zealand DC 10 flew into the side of Mt Erebus in Antarctica, the one and only ever fatal crash of an Air New Zealand plane. The investigating Judge called Air New Zealand's story a "Litany of lies" because they tried to blame the pilot. It turned out that the ground crew were told to change the plane's course, but the pilot wasn't told of the flight plan change. Caught in a white out, he didn't realise that he was heading straight for a mountain, and so trying to get below the clouds, hit the side of the volcano. There was definitely a cover-up, but just because there was a cover-up doesn't mean that there was a plot inside the boardroom of Air New Zealand to kill off that pilot by crashing him into a mountain. It was a cover-up to protect their butts after a SNAFU.

In the same way, Dr Quintiere believes that the PANYNJ has been caught in a SNAFU and has put political pressure on NIST to cover up the inadequacies of the fireproofing job. Whether or not that cover up exists is totally irrelevant to if 9/11 was an inside Job, a hypothesis Dr Quintiere specifically rejects.

Continuing to wave the paper about as a flagship is only hurting your own credibility. This guy thinks that the Towers would have fallen with less damage than NIST does. You are supporting a guy who's claims make the so called offical version even stronger. Why can't you see that? Are you so blind that you'd happy shoot your own cause down in an attempt to take on a strawman? Man that is totally dumb.

[PhantomWolf]

Report all you want. Just be sure to answer the question when you are done.

If they didn't test any steel without ANY fire-proofing how does this help them come up with the numbers they put into their computer model?

In other words what's your point in relation to my original question?

Your original point was that they did do tests and the numbers were not consistant. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong and that no such tests were done?

[ZENSMACK89]

It has to be their blind political bias showing as they suspend rational thought and bring out the thermite, or the beam weapons or just hearsay bs talk.

It is also their lack of facts, they just talk and bring up Iraq, or what Bush said, chanting "inside job" and not supporting their incomplete conclusions with evidence. Zero evidence, no real ideas on what really happen.

Hearsay, they only use what other people make up; Griffin is the big example I see. Or pick any of the current truthers not really saying anything.

No ties to reality; no coherent story of what did happen.

Bringing up or trying to tear down NIST, when they do not even know the goals of the NIST report. Is that due to truthers can not read 10,000 pages that may contain real fact and information without being dustified?

Do not tell them NIST is not needed to solve 9/11. I also find the lack of fact to be the real weakness. Look at the current set of truthers who post, just talk, totally reactive, no real proactive approach of presenting what happen with facts and evidence.
If the goals of the NIST report wasn't to find out completely what happen to the towers from the point of impact until it was nothing but a pile of smoldering rubble then fine.

Just don't point to their theory of collapse initiation as complete proof of what happened on 9-11.

It's not. Sorry.

[PhantomWolf]

If the goals of the NIST report wasn't to find out completely what happen to the towers from the point of impact until it was nothing but a pile of smoldering rubble then fine.

NIST's job was to determine what caused the collapses and to recommend ways to prevent such things occuring in the future.

Just don't point to their theory of collapse initiation as complete proof of what happened on 9-11.

It's not. Sorry.

No one ever said it was, but it is the best theory so far advanced and is the best supported of any theory out there. Where is the CT computer model showing that the towers could have only collapsed by CD? Where is the CT model of anything? If you want to prepare and present a well supported theory with your own models, then go for it, but till them, NIST is the best we have.

[Digest]

Prove it any way you want but until it's proven it's just another CT. You think you have the answer but based on what?
Science

Certainly not the credibility of the people behind putting the official version together. Take 9-11 out of the equation and these same people have not proven themselves credible on just about anything else.
Really i guess their degrees/research are just useless- what in your eyes makes them credible- oh and your sources are credible?

Where's this faith come from? And I'm talking about the complete 9-11 story not just the towers and how they did or didn't fall but the whole 9-11 story passed off as the truth. What led up to 9-11, the day of, and what's happened since.
its not a faith - my only faith is in god and my own free will

Take for instance why they claim we were attacked.
Because they hate our freedom? Is that really credible?
Yes its a common occurance around the world now and in the past - sometimes cultures, religions, societies clash. Did you ever take a world history class?

[beachnut]

If the goals of the NIST report wasn't to find out completely what happen to the towers from the point of impact until it was nothing but a pile of smoldering rubble then fine.

Just don't point to their theory of collapse initiation as complete proof of what happened on 9-11.

It's not. Sorry.
The WTC collapsed due to impact and fire. Facts, not theory. I do not need NIST, and you do not even have a coherent ides what happened on 9/11.

You have not even presented one fact about it. The fact is steel fails in fire. The impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact the chief engineer planned on. More Facts. You still have not presented facts. The buildings were damaged by the energy of impacts equal to 1300 and 2200 pounds of TNT. Like big bombs the planes damaged like bombs would. The fuel from just the jets, each jet, released 315 TONS of TNT energy in HEAT. Then the buildings fire protection damaged, and fire control systems inop, lead to the failure of the steel as the office fires added to the destruction. Facts.

You have yet to present facts, you present hearsay at best and talk about NIST, but not what happen. The NIST model is not needed, the actually thing happened on 9/11. There were zero visual evidence of explosive, and no supporting evidence. These are facts too.

The fact is you are fact less in a fact filled debate, you have demonstrated with precision you have no idea what NIST goals are, or what you are talking about. You are just all talk, no action, no research, no clue about what happened on 9/11. So how did it really go down, where is this Pulitzer Prize evidence that will rock my world?

[ZENSMACK89]

Your original point was that they did do tests and the numbers were not consistant. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong and that no such tests were done?
I only said they did fire tests on steel and documented the sag and if collapse occurred or not. For some reason you wanted to know if they did any partially or unclad steel. I showed where they did tests with different amounts of fire-proofing sprayed on. Someone else pointed to some grainy picture of a “hanging object” in the building. How anyone could attribute this hanging object to anything other then the plane impact I still don’t know.

The best answer I got was that the physical fire tests were done just for comparisons not to determine what to put into the computer model. That’s fine but it still doesn’t answer my question.

Whatever they were for or whether or not they did any tests without fire-proofing doesn't answer how they came up with 42 inches of sag.

That was my question What test did NIST perform warranted 42 inches of sag into their computer model? The only answer I got was video.

Video? Is that it?

[Minadin]

If the goals of the NIST report wasn't to find out completely what happen to the towers from the point of impact until it was nothing but a pile of smoldering rubble then fine.

Just don't point to their theory of collapse initiation as complete proof of what happened on 9-11.

It's not. Sorry.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the goals of the NIST and their investigation regarding the world trade center, so I'm glad you have brought this up. You can read their statement as to their purpose here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

But, I'll post the relevant section:


In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.
(their bolding)

As a design professional in the building industry, I would like to state, emphatically, that we're not really interested in arresting a collapse that has already begun. That's silly. It is far better to prevent it from starting in the first place. That's why the NIST is tasked with investigating collapse initiation, not the progression.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

In fact, were the NIST To devote any amount of time or monies to researching these things you have questions about, which are outside of those things they have been asked to look into, they would be guilty of wasting taxpayer dollars. The idea is to make suggestions to improve building design, update codes, and keep professionals informed as to what potential issues may exist, not to answer every question from laypeople who have doubts or simply don't understand the subject.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm

[ZENSMACK89]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the goals of the NIST and their investigation regarding the world trade center, so I'm glad you have brought this up. You can read their statement as to their purpose here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

But, I'll post the relevant section:

(their bolding)

As a design professional in the building industry, I would like to state, emphatically, that we're not really interested in arresting a collapse that has already begun. That's silly. It is far better to prevent it from starting in the first place. That's why the NIST is tasked with investigating collapse initiation, not the progression.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

In fact, were the NIST To devote any amount of time or monies to researching these things you have questions about, which are outside of those things they have been asked to look into, they would be guilty of wasting taxpayer dollars. The idea is to make suggestions to improve building design, update codes, and keep professionals informed as to what potential issues may exist, not to answer every question from laypeople who have doubts or simply don't understand the subject.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm


OK?

I understand what they did and what they claim. I also understand it's a theory as to what happened the WTC up until collapse initiation so it's not even complete as far as what occurred all the way to the end of the collapse. I understand why they claim they stopped at collapse initiation.

I just don’t believe their theory.

[ZENSMACK89]

The WTC collapsed due to impact and fire. Facts, not theory. I do not need NIST, and you do not even have a coherent ides what happened on 9/11.

You have not even presented one fact about it. The fact is steel fails in fire. The impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact the chief engineer planned on. More Facts. You still have not presented facts. The buildings were damaged by the energy of impacts equal to 1300 and 2200 pounds of TNT. Like big bombs the planes damaged like bombs would. The fuel from just the jets, each jet, released 315 TONS of TNT energy in HEAT. Then the buildings fire protection damaged, and fire control systems inop, lead to the failure of the steel as the office fires added to the destruction. Facts.

You have yet to present facts, you present hearsay at best and talk about NIST, but not what happen. The NIST model is not needed, the actually thing happened on 9/11. There were zero visual evidence of explosive, and no supporting evidence. These are facts too.

The fact is you are fact less in a fact filled debate, you have demonstrated with precision you have no idea what NIST goals are, or what you are talking about. You are just all talk, no action, no research, no clue about what happened on 9/11. So how did it really go down, where is this Pulitzer Prize evidence that will rock my world?
These are not facts these are disputed theories. Do I have to have my own theory just because I don't believe the theory that's presently being pushed?

You don't believe something just because it's the only explanation offered up.

[ZENSMACK89]

Science

The NIST report is just a theory not a fact.

Really i guess their degrees/research are just useless- what in your eyes makes them credible- oh and your sources are credible?

There are plenty with the same degrees and knowledge that disagree.

its not a faith - my only faith is in god and my own free will

All this tells me is you could be prone to blind faith. Nothing scientific about that.

Yes its a common occurance around the world now and in the past - sometimes cultures, religions, societies clash. Did you ever take a world history class?

There is no credibility to the sound bite “They Hate Our Freedom”.

[Minadin]

OK?

I understand what they did and what they claim. I also understand it's a theory as to what happened the WTC up until collapse initiation so it's not even complete as far as what occurred all the way to the end of the collapse. I understand why they claim they stopped at collapse initiation.

I just don’t believe their theory.

But why do you feel that you need to know what happened after collapse initiation?

[beachnut]

These are not facts these are disputed theories. Do I have to have my own theory just because I don't believe the theory that's presently being pushed?

You don't believe something just because it's the only explanation offered up.
Do you have a problem identifying facts. Do you have problems posting to the OP?

I stated a bunch of facts, why are you unable to identify the facts? Are you unable to figure out energy, like E=1/2MVV? Did you miss physics class, we can help you with physics, there are many here who took physics in high school and college and are now those engineers, and some are just very smart rational think people who post here. We can help you, but you have not presented any thing rational yet on 9/11; or asked some real good questions. I don't need NIST. But they sure did a lot of work for people to use.

BTW, there are hundreds of reports on the WTC from other sources that support, impact, fire, collapse. You have lost the edge to see the big picture by concentrating on the NIST BS. The other reports are being used, have been used, to improve buildings that are being built now and have been built since 9/11. You my poor mislead truther type person are being left behind as the world moves on and leaves you fringe guys holding the lie bag on 9/11. What will you do when you finally understand you are in the biggest fraud movement of the decade if not the next 100 years.

[Digest]

The NIST report is just a theory not a fact.
No science is science I never mentioned anything about NIST



There are plenty with the same degrees and knowledge that disagree.
if by plenty you mean a SMALL MINORITY



All this tells me is you could be prone to blind faith. Nothing scientific about that.
All this tells me is that you ate lead paint as a child



There is no credibility to the sound bite “They Hate Our Freedom”
more lead paint. you dont even make sense - one culture believes another should bow to its will. Do you think Radical Islam support Democracy or Free Speech?

[johnny karate]

The NIST report is just a theory not a fact.You might want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) to help you better understand this concept with which you are struggling.

There are plenty with the same degrees and knowledge that disagree.Really? The same degrees and knowledge as the experts who put together the NIST report? Please list these experts whose credentials are the equivalent of those of the NIST researchers that disagree with the official theory.

All this tells me is you could be prone to blind faith. Nothing scientific about that.You'll find all the scientific data you require in the NIST report. Your choosing to disbelieve it does not render it invalid. You actually have to refute it. With more science. Got any? I didn't think so.

There is no credibility to the sound bite “They Hate Our Freedom”.You're the only one trying to pass that soundbite off as the only explanation that's been put forth. Plenty has been written by very knowledgable people. Of course, none of this has been made available on Youtube, so that's probably why you missed it. You'll find most of this information in something called "books".

[twinstead]

Personally I would like to second Johnny's request that Zen provide some experts with the same credentials as the contributers to the NIST report who disagree with the official story.

[Belz...]

Originally he tried to claim Quintere problem was a small issue with fire saftey only. Nothing else.

Now it's changing. Now its all of a sudden I said Quinteres problems were independent of fire saftey. And that I claim Quintere supports a conspiracy theory.

I didn't.

Doesn't change the fact that his problem is a small issue with fire insulation only.

I said it was fire saftey and more. It can be both no?

Sure, but only if you can provide evidence that it is.

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

I don't think that means what you think it means. ReEad it again.

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?

Again, without context we can't know why he feels 7 WTC's report should've been out sooner.

[Belz...]

Man you are losing it!

How is pointing out your misinterpretation or outward misrepresentation of someone else's words "losing it" ?

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

Congratulations! You've removed the part that Karate thought was important. It's a nice sleigh of hand, assuming you could do it without being caught, which you've now realised, you can't.

I never said he did. We haven't got that far yet.

"I didn't say that! Strawman!! But I DO believe that, and I WILL say it, eventually..." :rolleyes:

You simply bold the word fire and assert that he's only talking about fire safety when he's clearly talking about more then just that.

If it's THAT clear you'll have no problem bolding the other part of the text which you feel is significant.

He talks about the collapse mechanism, computer models, wtc7, the politics surrounding NIST, etc. etc.

All of which could relate to the fire unless you can clearly show that it doesn't, since we've already seen that he's talking at least about the fires.

Keep playing stupid see what it gets you.

There, there, now. That's not the way an adult debates. You're not supposed to start claiming the opponent doesn't believe what he says he believes. Otherwise you open a Pandora's box and you might not like what's inside.

What is so hard to understand or is so unbelievable that I don't think there has been a valid investigation into 9-11?

It's quite easy to believe. If that was the only thing you wanted to prove, you've succeeded. What WE've been trying to understand, is WHY you think so.

[Belz...]

If I truly believe this then you tell me how I can take anything off the table including inside job until it's done properly?

[...]

Anyone who thinks they know the facts surrounding 9-11 based on the official investigations to date is either lying or delusional.

Your bias is showing, Zen. Button up.

Any official investigation done to date is nothing more then a whitewash as far as I'm concerned. A whitewash to cover-up.

Cover up what, pray tell ?

And what's your evidence ? If you think the investigation was inadequate, then how do you know the twoof ?

Prove it.

Then I guess it all comes down to this: what level of proof would satisfy you ? Obviously, the level found in the NIST document doesn't.

19 hijackers is still a conspiracy is it not?

Yes, indeed. But it's not one that defies the laws of physics.

Everyone in the JREF conspiracy theory thread is a conspiracy theory believer.

That's because you don't know what "conspiracy theory" means. I suggest looking it up.

Where's this faith come from?

Evidence. Which of course means it's not faith at all.

Yeah well it seems these days the very experts you believe don't even seem to completely agree with them selves isn't that right? Which one is right?

Again, no matter which one wins, you lose.

Because they hate our freedom? Is that really credible?

It's a colourful way to put it, but yes. Religious extremists, especially Muslim fundamentalists, hate our way of life because they see it as decadent and against god. And since they're extremists... well you can do the math.

No ?

72 virgins. There. Beat that, Christians!

No. The 9-11 commission report is not science.

Indeed. We're talking about NIST, here.

The NIST report is a theory not a fact

You DO understand what "theory" means, right ?

And a highly disputed theory at that.

"Highly" ? No. A handful of malcontent truthers don't amount to "high" dispute.

[Belz...]

Just don't point to their theory of collapse initiation as complete proof of what happened on 9-11.

It's not. Sorry.

Are you now claiming that the towers would not have collapsed completely after initiation ?

And are you ever going to adress the point about you championing a guy who hurts your cause ?

I understand what they did and what they claim. I also understand it's a theory as to what happened the WTC up until collapse initiation so it's not even complete as far as what occurred all the way to the end of the collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045fd3d3d0d455.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4646)

I understand why they claim they stopped at collapse initiation.

I just don’t believe their theory.

Now you're just being sillier and sillier, Zen. You're simply being stubborn for no reason. This is turning into a religious argument from you.

These are not facts these are disputed theories.

Steel DOESN'T fail in a fire ? Please, Zen. Stop this.

You don't believe something just because it's the only explanation offered up.

Apparently, YOU don't believe something because you don't like the person or organisation that's saying it.

[ZENSMACK89]

But why do you feel that you need to know what happened after collapse initiation?
The same reason I want to know any of it. I want to see how it could happen. It doesn't make sense. It's my opinion they left it out not because they weren't commissioned to show it I think they left it out because the couldn't do explain it. The report is on everything from evacuation procedures to emergency response to a very detailed explanation of this collapse initiation theory. That should show it follow through to further support the initiation theory.

[johnny karate]

The same reason I want to know any of it. I want to see how it could happen. It doesn't make sense. It's my opinion they left it out not because they weren't commissioned to show it I think they left it out because the couldn't do explain it. The report is on everything from evacuation procedures to emergency response to a very detailed explanation of this collapse initiation theory. That should show it follow through to further support the initiation theory.Too bad not a single qualified expert on the planet agrees with you. Again, we're talking about science here. Your layman's incredulity is not enough to dismiss it. If you don't think it makes sense, then you need to prove it doesn't make sense. You know, with math and science and stuff. (And before you trot out the same old tired "papers" by Steven Jones et al, remember, the math and science actually have to be correct.)

Also, ZEN?

Still waiting for that list of experts.

[Belz...]

The same reason I want to know any of it. I want to see how it could happen. It doesn't make sense. It's my opinion they left it out not because they weren't commissioned to show it I think they left it out because the couldn't do explain it.

Your opinion is irrelevant. All you have is incredulity.

[pomeroo]

These are not facts these are disputed theories. Do I have to have my own theory just because I don't believe the theory that's presently being pushed?

You don't believe something just because it's the only explanation offered up.


Many ignorant, obtuse twoofers prattle about "impossible physics." Why do you suppose no actual physicists believe that the collapses of the towers defy any scientific laws? What do you know that they don't? Why can't they understand something that is so obvious to kids and uneducated cranks?

Are all real scientists part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy?

[DavidJames]

Personally I would like to second Johnny's request that Zen provide some experts with the same credentials as the contributers to the NIST report who disagree with the official story.Assuming he doesn’t completely ignore these requests, he’ll no doubt reply with Jowenko and a link to that CT site of “engineers” (I don’t recall the actual name and link).

People will then point out the huge problems with those people including their real qualifications and their lack of submitting any technical papers.

He’ll provide one line, snarky and incoherent responses.

The show will go on.

[Minadin]

The same reason I want to know any of it. I want to see how it could happen. It doesn't make sense. It's my opinion they left it out not because they weren't commissioned to show it I think they left it out because the couldn't do explain it. The report is on everything from evacuation procedures to emergency response to a very detailed explanation of this collapse initiation theory. That should show it follow through to further support the initiation theory.

Satisfying your curiosity isn't a justifiable reason to expand the investigation. Your opinion doesn't matter - I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but it's the truth. The subject matter that you find uninteresting in the report, such as evacuation procedures and emergency response, are some of the very things that will assist us in avoiding incidents like this disaster in the future. That was their purpose.

[ZENSMACK89]

Many ignorant, obtuse twoofers prattle about "impossible physics." Why do you suppose no actual physicists believe that the collapses of the towers defy any scientific laws? What do you know that they don't? Why can't they understand something that is so obvious to kids and uneducated cranks?

Are all real scientists part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy?
What exactly do you mean by no actual physicists believe that the collapses of the towers defy any scientific laws? Now if you are saying no physicists disagree with the official version then what is Steven Jones if not a physicist?

Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. - wiki

[Drudgewire]

Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. - wiki
He's a physicist with an agenda whose work can't survive peer review, regardless of how many times he swears it has.

[ZENSMACK89]

Satisfying your curiosity isn't a justifiable reason to expand the investigation. Your opinion doesn't matter - I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but it's the truth. The subject matter that you find uninteresting in the report, such as evacuation procedures and emergency response, are some of the very things that will assist us in avoiding incidents like this disaster in the future. That was their purpose.

And what? Finding out then mechanisms behind just how fast a 110 story building can completely collapse on people isn't just as important?

[ZENSMACK89]

He's a physicist with an agenda whose work can't survive peer review, regardless of how many times he swears it has.
I though there were "no actual physicists ".

That's what will never be true regardless of how many times liars swear it is.

[twinstead]

Pomeroo made the mistake of asking you to provide just one, and asked for physicists. Well, frankly there can be kooky scientists and Jones just happens to be one of those.

Even among physicists Jones is in such a vast minority as to be a nothing. No proper peer-reviews papers, he is a laughing stock in the scientific community.

Don't hitch your fantasy wagon to Jones and expect many other physicists or structural engineers to give you the time of day. You won't hear me asking you to provide just one, but I will tell you that until you have some respected physicists and structural engineers in your camp, you will not get any recognition at all.

Plus, I doubt you have the knowledge to even know if what Jones is saying is full of it or not.

Perhaps like us you should get a second opinion.

[ZENSMACK89]

Too bad not a single qualified expert on the planet agrees with you. Again, we're talking about science here. Your layman's incredulity is not enough to dismiss it. If you don't think it makes sense, then you need to prove it doesn't make sense. You know, with math and science and stuff. (And before you trot out the same old tired "papers" by Steven Jones et al, remember, the math and science actually have to be correct.)

Also, ZEN?

Still waiting for that list of experts.
Take your pick.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

[twinstead]

Basically, get some folks of the same caliber of those who contributed to the NIST report, for example, then we can talk.

[ZENSMACK89]

Pomeroo made the mistake of asking you to provide just one, and asked for physicists. .

No he declared there wern't any period.

Now which physicists agree with the official version and with what paper?

[twinstead]

Take your pick.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

LOL patriotsquestion911.com.

You pretty much take anybody's word for anything, as long as it suits you, don't you?

Now. CAREFULLY read those links. You'll notice some odd things.

[ZENSMACK89]

Boy, lots of re-qualifying of original assertions and questions.

How come?

[DavidJames]

Boy, lots of re-qualifying of original assertions and questions.

How come?

I should have applied for the million $ challenge.

[twinstead]

No he declared there wern't any period.

Now which physicists agree with the official version and with what paper?

Yes, and I said that was a mistake on his part, because he should have known you were going to jump on that and bring up Jones.

The list of contributers to the NIST report for example is a veritable who's who of eminent experts in relevant fields. That list has been posted a thousand times in this forum.

Believe me you don't want to have a battle of the 'experts', especially if you like to use sites like patriotsquestion911.

[ZENSMACK89]

I still haven't seen any of your experts or their papers.

[twinstead]

Boy, lots of re-qualifying of original assertions and questions.

How come?

If there were a prize about having to re-qualify assertions you would win the gold hands down.

Now. Perhaps is the time to do some investigating and actually find out who your beloved experts really are on patriotsquestion911.com.

Unless you believe them without question. Do you? Do you hold your sites and evidence to the same scrutiny as you do ours?

[Minadin]

And what? Finding out then mechanisms behind just how fast a 110 story building can completely collapse on people isn't just as important?

No, it's not. We want to prevent the collapses from happening at all, or delay them from starting as much as we can, not stop them or slow them down once they start.

[twinstead]

I still haven't seen any of your experts or their papers.

A place to start:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin)

[Belz...]

I though there were "no actual physicists ".

There are also no true scottsmen.

Believe me you don't want to have a battle of the 'experts', especially if you like to use sites like patriotsquestion911.

Don't you mean "parrotsquestion911" ?

[funk de fino]

That site also lists a victim from the day? That is disgusting

Its OP

Many engineers and architects have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 190 engineers and architects that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.


How can the dead guy question the 911 commission?

Also Jowenko, but funnily enough they do not mention debri damage to him about WTC7, why is that? They only mention fire?

[ZENSMACK89]

If there were a prize about having to re-qualify assertions you would win the gold hands down.

Now. Perhaps is the time to do some investigating and actually find out who your beloved experts really are on patriotsquestion911.com.

Unless you believe them without question. Do you? Do you hold your sites and evidence to the same scrutiny as you do ours?
Who are yours? Did you find out before you put your faith into them? I mean don't go look for them now. Name them.

Who's you physicist and where's his paper?

[Dave Rogers]

I still haven't seen any of your experts or their papers.

Here (physicist, 20+ years experience, 30+ papers on photonics and related subjects). You won't find any papers from a physics perspective on the WTC collapses, for the simple reason that the gross features of the WTC collapses are explained perfectly satisfactorily by the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics, hence there's no new physics involved. You'll find quite a few structural engineering papers on the WTC collapses, as the collapse of a 110-storey building had not occurred before 9-11 and there is a considerable amount of engineering analysis to be done on understanding the collapses in detail. You may find, however, that the content of the structural engineering papers is universally not to your liking.

Dave

[twinstead]

Okay

http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm

By Zdenek P. bazant

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

Your turn

[Drudgewire]

I though there were "no actual physicists ".

That's what will never be true regardless of how many times liars swear it is.
And it will never make his findings any less untrue, at least according to all other physicists in the world considered his equal or greater.

See how that works? That's rhetorical obviously, keep telling yourself you have a point.

[pomeroo]

What exactly do you mean by no actual physicists believe that the collapses of the towers defy any scientific laws? Now if you are saying no physicists disagree with the official version then what is Steven Jones if not a physicist?

Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. - wiki


You have problems understanding what people write. You parroted the twoofer nonsense about "impossible physics." I pointed out that no actual physicists have noticed any violations of the physical laws that govern the universe, and for a very good reason: those laws cannot be violated.

You offer the discredited Steven Jones, a man who has been repudiated by his own department for his failure to meet professional standards, a man who refuses to submit any of his work for peer review.

Are you acknowledging, then, that conspiracy liars have no science to support their pernicious falsehoods and fabrications?

[ZENSMACK89]

Bazant?

This isn't the paper written 2 days after the collapse is it?

Anyway... here you go. You must have seen this.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

[ZENSMACK89]

You have problems understanding what people write. You parroted the twoofer nonsense about "impossible physics." I pointed out that no actual physicists have noticed any violations of the physical laws that govern the universe, and for a very good reason: those laws cannot be violated.

You offer the discredited Steven Jones, a man who has been repudiated by his own department for his failure to meet professional standards, a man who refuses to submit any of his work for peer review.

Are you acknowledgeing, then, that conspiracy liars have no science to support their pernicious falsehoods and fabrications?
Give it up.

[ZENSMACK89]

according to all other physicists in the world

Ok which ones and where?

[ZENSMACK89]

A place to start:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin)

This isn't Gravy's site is it? Well whoever's site it is how is it any more valid then any other CT site?

Just because you agree with it?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Ok which ones and where?

I'm not sure about physicists, but THESE GUYS (http://www.asce.org/) disagree with your nonsense.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf

But of course... In your world, people who disagree with you, who HAVE THE CREDENTIALS, are just ignored. Or wait, let me guess, ASCE is run by alien lizardmen using chemtrails?

[Dave Rogers]

Ok which ones and where?

Look, this really isn't something we're particularly interested in, as physicists. There is no unexplained physics in the WTC collapses. If I wrote and submitted a paper to a physics journal explaining how the collapses agree with known laws of physics, the rejection slip would read something along the lines of "Well, duh!" Pomeroo should really have pointed out the unanimity of peer-reviewed papers from structural engineers in their opinion that the collapse was due to fire and structural damage. There are actually a few physicists who are sufficiently out of touch with the real world that they do believe there's something wrong about the WTC collapses (A. K. Dewdney is another). They're idiots, and I apologise for them on behalf of my profession, but they exist. However, I defy you to find a single anonymously peer-reviewed paper in any discipline which supports the controlled demolition theory, whereas there are plenty that categorically reject it.

Dave

[NYCEMT86]

This isn't Gravy's site is it? Well whoever's site it is how is it any more valid then any other CT site?

Just because you agree with it?


Well I still haven't seen a CT site that has actually provided an paper published by anyone with credentials. Usually they just break it down and only post what they believe is wrong with it.

On the other hand, Gravy provides all information in its true and full form.

If you have a problem with Brazant's paper, maybe you should talk to Dr. Greening (Apollo20). He might be of some assistance.

[twinstead]

This isn't Gravy's site is it? Well whoever's site it is how is it any more valid then any other CT site?

Just because you agree with it?

I simply submitted it for your perusal, without comment, because you asked for papers by experts supporting the official story. The paper has quite a bit of links to experts' opinions and papers concerning the collapses.

If you have a problem with any of the facts on that site you are more than welcome to address them, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that your support by true experts is dubious at best. Since you aren't any more qualified to judge these papers than I am, we both have to rely on these experts quite a bit. It's important to me that they actually are experts.

Doesn't that matter to you?

[twinstead]

If you have a problem with Brazant's paper, maybe you should talk to Dr. Greening (Apollo20). He might be of some assistance.

Zen doesn't have a problem with the paper, Gordon Ross does. Zen has no idea if what Ross is saying makes sense or not. That's why, as you suggest, Greening is critical as a 'second opinion'.

Zen is content to believe Ross. I on the other hand wasn't sure so I DID RESEARCH and found Greening. Having both sides of the subject, I then took into account the prevailing expert opinion and came to my conclusion.

I have no idea if Zen actually did that.

Did you, Zen?

[ZENSMACK89]

I simply submitted it for your perusal, without comment, because you asked for papers by experts supporting the official story. The paper has quite a bit of links to experts' opinions and papers concerning the collapses.

If you have a problem with any of the facts on that site you are more than welcome to address them, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that your support by true experts is dubious at best. Since you aren't any more qualified to judge these papers than I am, we both have to rely on these experts quite a bit. It's important to me that they actually are experts.

Doesn't that matter to you?
Back up.

I was told there are no actual physicists that say the laws physics were defied on 9-11. I never claimed there was.

I only said Steven Jones is a real physicist who disputes the official version. Then of course we have to go down the same old tired road about peer review and if it's valid peer review and blah blah blah.

So I asked what physicist supports the official version and with what paper.

I was given Bazant which although he has a diploma in physics he is really more of an engineer. But that's fine. He just doesn't have the credentials of Jones in physics. I gave a link of a whole list of engineers and architects. Discredit them all it’s just your opinion.

I was also given Gravy's paper. Fine. Gravy has no degrees in Physics or Engineering or anything that I know of. So who was the one who brought up actual physicist in the first place?

Me?

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen doesn't have a problem with the paper, Gordon Ross does. Zen has no idea if what Ross is saying makes sense or not. That's why, as you suggest, Greening is critical as a 'second opinion'.

Zen is content to believe Ross. I on the other hand wasn't sure so I DID RESEARCH and found Greening. Having both sides of the subject, I then took into account the prevailing expert opinion and came to my conclusion.

I have no idea if Zen actually did that.

Did you, Zen?
Does Greening fully support the official version?

[Drudgewire]

Ok which ones and where?
The ones not names Steven Jones who can't ALL be part of this great conspiracy yet for some reason won't validate his work.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm not sure about physicists, but THESE GUYS (http://www.asce.org/) disagree with your nonsense.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf

But of course... In your world, people who disagree with you, who HAVE THE CREDENTIALS, are just ignored. Or wait, let me guess, ASCE is run by alien lizardmen using chemtrails?
Didn't say anything about lizarsmen or anything like that but Kevin Ryan did point this out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

"Ryan shows that the same principals headed the various government investigations of the WTC collapses, the Pentagon crash, and Oklahoma City bombing, despite the fact that the investigations involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ,there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers. "

[ZENSMACK89]

The ones not names Steven Jones who can't ALL be part of this great conspiracy yet for some reason won't validate his work.
That's an answer?

ok

[twinstead]

Does Greening fully support the official version?

Greening does NOT like the current administration, and has a problem with American policies. He has no reason to trust the government at all.

As far as the entire official story, you'd have to ask him.

But, since you think that the collapses defied the laws of physics, he would probably not agree with you in the least.

[Drudgewire]

That's an answer?

ok
Would you prefer all the ones that PM cites? Something tells me that won't be any more of a satisfactory answer to you.

Of course, neither will anything other than "it was a conspiracy." Everything else is just words for your movement to tap dance around.

[twinstead]

Didn't say anything about lizarsmen or anything like that but Kevin Ryan did point this out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

"Ryan shows that the same principals headed the various government investigations of the WTC collapses, the Pentagon crash, and Oklahoma City bombing, despite the fact that the investigations involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ,there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers. "

This is called conjecture. Conjecture isn't proof of anything. This is the kind of reasoning that dumbfounds rational people and why you are fighting to be taken seriously as an investigator.

Do you think it's good form to toss out conjecture with no evidence to support it and pretend it's some kind of proof? These 5 were AMONG THE INITIAL TEAM. If you want to accuse these people of being in on it, you must accuse the other members of the team of either being stupid or in on it. Unless you thing those 5 were the only members of the team.

In true form, the quote you submitted implies an accusation of wrongdoing, but refuses to accept any responsibility for it by "just asking questions".

The thread is entitled why I despise the Truthers

This kind of skewed and biased reasoning to support a position is one of those reasons for me.

[NYCEMT86]

Didn't say anything about lizarsmen or anything like that but Kevin Ryan did point this out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

"Ryan shows that the same principals headed the various government investigations of the WTC collapses, the Pentagon crash, and Oklahoma City bombing, despite the fact that the investigations involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ,there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers. "


ad hominem

[Drudgewire]

Do you think it's good form to toss out conjecture with no evidence to support it and pretend it's some kind of proof?
If they didn't, the twoof movment would consist of one 11 second youtube video and a website of pictures of Bush and Cheney with devil horns drawn on them. :p

[pomeroo]

Give it up.


You parade your empty-headed arrogance and tell rationalists to give it up? Do you realize that you just asked posters on the JREF if they were familiar with Gordon Ross's worthless junk? Ross has been utterly destroyed by Dr. Greening and Ryan Mackey. But, you don't know that.

[Minadin]

And what? Finding out then mechanisms behind just how fast a 110 story building can completely collapse on people isn't just as important?

No, it's not. We want to prevent the collapses from happening at all, or delay them from starting as much as we can, not stop them or slow them down once they start.


Reposted in case you missed it. Have you begun to understand why your own personal incredulity doesn't (and shouldn't) govern the scope of the NIST's investigation?

[pomeroo]

Back up.

I was told there are no actual physicists that say the laws physics were defied on 9-11. I never claimed there was.

I only said Steven Jones is a real physicist who disputes the official version. Then of course we have to go down the same old tired road about peer review and if it's valid peer review and blah blah blah.

So I asked what physicist supports the official version and with what paper.

I was given Bazant which although he has a diploma in physics he is really more of an engineer. But that's fine. He just doesn't have the credentials of Jones in physics. I gave a link of a whole list of engineers and architects. Discredit them all it’s just your opinion.

I was also given Gravy's paper. Fine. Gravy has no degrees in Physics or Engineering or anything that I know of. So who was the one who brought up actual physicist in the first place?

Me?


Characteristic dishonesty. You parroted the fantasist line about "impossible physics." You.

[pomeroo]

Look, this really isn't something we're particularly interested in, as physicists. There is no unexplained physics in the WTC collapses. If I wrote and submitted a paper to a physics journal explaining how the collapses agree with known laws of physics, the rejection slip would read something along the lines of "Well, duh!" Pomeroo should really have pointed out the unanimity of peer-reviewed papers from structural engineers in their opinion that the collapse was due to fire and structural damage. There are actually a few physicists who are sufficiently out of touch with the real world that they do believe there's something wrong about the WTC collapses (A. K. Dewdney is another). They're idiots, and I apologise for them on behalf of my profession, but they exist. However, I defy you to find a single anonymously peer-reviewed paper in any discipline which supports the controlled demolition theory, whereas there are plenty that categorically reject it.

Dave


Since when is Dewdney a physicist? I thought he was a mathematics/computer science guy.

[twinstead]

I only said Steven Jones is a real physicist who disputes the official version. Then of course we have to go down the same old tired road about peer review and if it's valid peer review and blah blah blah.

Peer review, blah blah blah??? So you really don't see how important it is to get an objective expert second, third, or even forth opinion about papers that you aren't qualified to judge? Wow.

So. How do YOU judge the merits of a scientific paper? I judge it by how many other experts concur. How else could I? I certainly won't judge a paper that I'm not qualified to critique by ANYBODY, even if I agree with their position, unless that position is verified by other experts.

I think you judge it by if it supports your world view.

[ZENSMACK89]

Reposted in case you missed it. Have you begun to understand why your own personal incredulity doesn't (and shouldn't) govern the scope of the NIST's investigation?
I didn't say it was although I feel I've pointed to more then just my own personal incredulity.



Now people here more then once have asked me what my problem is with any of the official versions. I'm only answering. And you're chiming in after the fact. To insinuate I am the only one in the world who has a problem with NIST following through with their theory is nothing more then your personal incredulity.

[ZENSMACK89]

Peer review, blah blah blah??? So you really don't see how important it is to get an objective expert second, third, or even forth opinion about papers that you aren't qualified to judge? Wow.

So. How do YOU judge the merits of a scientific paper? I judge it by how many other experts concur. How else could I? I certainly won't judge a paper that I'm not qualified to critique by ANYBODY, even if I agree with their position, unless that position is verified by other experts.

I think you judge it by if it supports your world view.
Yes it is important. For instance Quinteres call for a second opinion on NIST is very important. I'm only pointing out if you are going to call for it on Jones call for it on your own versions and theories.

[Pardalis]

Who wants to place bets as to how long this thread is going to get?

100 pages?
200 pages?

[ZENSMACK89]

You parade your empty-headed arrogance and tell rationalists to give it up? Do you realize that you just asked posters on the JREF if they were familiar with Gordon Ross's worthless junk? Ross has been utterly destroyed by Dr. Greening and Ryan Mackey. But, you don't know that.
Opinion. And again I ask. Does Greening fully support the official version according to NIST?

[NYCEMT86]

Opinion. And again I ask. Does Greening fully support the official version according to NIST?

None of us can answer that. We don't represent Dr. Greening. Maybe YOU should talk to him and find out for yourself.

[NYCEMT86]

Who wants to place bets as to how long this thread is going to get?

100 pages?
200 pages?

.....I don't even want to think about it. If you removed Zens argument and all rebuttals this thread would only be like 4 pages long.

[ZENSMACK89]

ad hominem
Oh really? An what would be insinuating someone believes in alien lizardmen because they don't buy the official version?

[twinstead]

Opinion. And again I ask. Does Greening fully support the official version according to NIST?

Dude. Again, he is on this forum. Apollo20 is his nick.

Start a thread and ask him how much of the official version he supports, or send him a PM, or whatever.