[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[rwguinn]

Apollo20:
Re your post above
"That vessel is suffused with that which doth make things grow"

Link to or Show any evidence, studies/papers which show that zinc embrittlement would occur in the timeframs of 1 hour, to a sufficient depth in steel to cause loss of structural strength greater than that of heat.
Link to or Show papers/studies that show the spray-on heat shielding will maintain its adhesion to steel when hit by a 600-800 fps stream of debris and/or fluid.
Link to or show any documentation requiring or requesting NIST to document any occurence post collapse initiation.
Link to or show any evidence of, or mechanism that will allow zinc from sagging floor pans to work its way uphill to reach to column bases supporting said floor pan (You thought I'd forgotten that evasion you have made continuously, did you not?)

Show us ANYTHING. So far you're batting zero.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes I have.

Congratulations (sincerely, not sarcastically). That makes you one of the few in the truth movement who have.

And you see nothing wrong with this? You read a 10,000 page report and will only discuss what you feel is good about it out of fear that if you bring up what you feel might be viewed as a criticism someone (your declared enemy apparently) will take that criticism and run with it ? Did you make the decision to only discuss what you consider the good parts before or after you read it?

Wrong. I stated that I choose not to raise the questions in a public forum. I have discussed these with several people, including a self-proclaimed truth member, face to face. The main reason is partially due to the reality that people like you choose to cherry-pick and distort statements made here just as you did to my quote in your reponses to me and to Totovader.

In any case at least part of your endorsement of NIST and reluctance to openly criticize it is based in fear. Well now, that's some view on how science works.

Fear? No, disgust. Disgust at the very tactics you have used to prove your point.

 

[Oxigen]

Yes, If they had used blue pages with gilt edges, it may have been more believable.

 

[Hokulele]

Happy birthday slyjoe!

 

[Totovader]

Here's just a few right from this thread

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

 

[slyjoe]

Happy birthday slyjoe!

Thanks Hokulele. Just getting ready to go sip some nectar of the gods (that don't exist)

 

[Totovader]

Really?

Yes, really.

I'm not sure why you need clarification regarding this question since I answered it in the same post. Perhaps if you read the post again it would clear up any confusion you may have on the issue.

 

[Totovader]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Wait a minute, are you saying you're being accused of something that is so "blatently" untrue that it's laughable?

Racist.

Not very productive, is it- to just go around and say that all "JREFERS" are "NISTIANS" and are incapable of discussing any criticism of the NIST study, et al.

You continue to make these claims- despite the fact that you have been corrected far too many times for it to still be laughable. Act like an adult. Act like a scientist.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.

Um... that's great. Was that the point of the question? Or was the point of the question to address your attack on an entire group of people in an amazing strawman? Are you just going to ignore your mistake (again) or are you going to address it and stop accusing an entire group of people of things they aren't doing?

You can't possibly believe both to be true- it's a contradiction. You cannot be willing to discuss what you see as problems with the NIST study if you honestly believe that "all JREFers are NISTIAN". That type of generalization is best left to the politicos if you ask me, but it seems to be your main contention with this forum... a forum you repeatedly try to attack at the same time you're looking for a discussion. If you ask me- that just looks like a pretty pathetic scapegoat: when people point out you're wrong, you just retreat back to the comfort of making blanket assertions about an entire group of people which clearly are not true.

I don't get it- so please address the points I brought up before we go into what you really could be criticizing.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think it boils down to this...

If your pov is that NIST should have been a forensic investigation of the WTC attacks, than it leave some elements distinctly unexplored/not dealt with...

If you consider the NIST report an investigation into the causation of the collapse of the WTCs, and the science surrounding it, then it has done a fine job in most areas, with some areas left wanting.

I tend to fall into the latter.

TAM

 

[metamars]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.

Perhaps you could submit your concerns to the Union of Concerned Scientists, or, better yet, to an analogous organization of engineers? I kind of doubt that there is one, though. OTOH, UCS must have engineers, as they are concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.

Considering the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it looks like we need a Union of Concerned Engineers. Governments at various levels are not doing their jobs ito maintaining infrastructure, as became common knowledge after the Minneapolis catastrophe.

While I certainly don't agree with many things you have said re 911 collapses, I believe that you're sincere. Is your sincerity likely to be honored at JREF? Indeed, are you honoring your own life, when there are probably many scientists and engineers who, like yourself, are more interested in using their talents for public service? (As opposed to nit-picking and superficial 'apologetics', e.g.)

Perhaps you should start an NGO which focuses on engineering safety issues. Then you could get $$ from foundations, which you are going to need to do many of the kinds of work you can't do, otherwise.

I wonder where UCS gets funds from. I really don't know much about them - mostly I know of them from interviews of their members on Michio Kaku's 'Explorations in Understanding'.

 

[TerryUK]

Not very productive, is it- to just go around and say that all "JREFERS" are "NISTIANS"

The above quote was part of your reply to Apollo20.

Can you show exactly where he says all JREFERS ?

Or have you made it up?

 

[Totovader]

The above quote was part of your reply to Apollo20.

Can you show exactly where he says all JREFERS ?

Or have you made it up?

The above quote was the result of watching Apollo20 make comments for the last couple months, not just in this thread. If you feel that I have made it up, you can search through his threads yourself, or perhaps just realize that he didn't deny it.

 

[TerryUK]

The above quote was the result of watching Apollo20 make comments for the last couple months, not just in this thread. If you feel that I have made it up, you can search through his threads yourself, or perhaps just realize that he didn't deny it.

In post #121 of this thread, you wrote to Apollo20 : " I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do.

So, what does "just claimed" mean?

Well, it means just now, i.e. in this thread, does it not?
So, show me where, or have you made it up?

 

[TerryUK]

This is all you doI challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do. You're full of it- and I'm betting you know it.

Where did he say this?
ARE YOU LYING?

 

[Totovader]

In post #121 of this thread, you wrote to Apollo20 : " I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do.

So, what does "just claimed" mean?

Well, it means just now, i.e. in this thread, does it not?
So, show me where, or have you made it up?

Perhaps you need to read the post again- the "just claimed" was referring to what he said about JREFERs- so I suggest you look in the post before, and in his previous posts.

Again, Apollo20 isn't disputing this. He's written extensively on what "JREFERS" do- and has been praised by the nut community for that work.

 

[Totovader]

Where did he say this?
ARE YOU LYING?

No, I am not lying.

And no, I am not going to repeat myself. See previous post.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend, here- but if you were even slightly familiar with what Greening has said, then you wouldn't need to keep asking me if I'm lying.

 

[Furcifer]

Zen: There will never be "No conflict of interest" in the conspiracy world. You need to look at the body of work and adress it instead of the contributors. From what I have read and understood of it, NCSTAR appears to be technically correct, the methods were appropriate, and made no excuses for its apparent short comings (as far as the fires and exactly matching the experimental and collected data). It wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been, I agree. NCSTAR could have been a 10 year study, with 500 scientists from around the world, working around the clock. It could have been 100 000 pages, single spaced and typed on both sides. It could have been alot of things in many peoples minds I guess. If you want to go after the contributors, could you find people willing to state on the record that NIST had more data that was supressed? Can you find anyone from NIST that says "We had a really good idea about...but when we brought it up we were hushed and told not to pursue it"?

 

[metamars]

Considering the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it looks like we need a Union of Concerned Engineers. Governments at various levels are not doing their jobs ito maintaining infrastructure, as became common knowledge after the Minneapolis catastrophe.

I guess I should have added that a cousin of mine, who is an architect, has told me that many business buildings are so cheaply made, they will not last 50 years. Thus, I see a need for lots of preventative, as well as post-mortem analysis in the not-too-distant future.

 

[TerryUK]

No, I am not lying.

And no, I am not going to repeat myself. See previous post.

You haven't - and can't - show me where he said "all JREFERs"

I know you've made it up, because he didn't ever say that.

Unlike you, Apollo20 knows about accuracy and unlike you he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Totovader]

You haven't - and can't - show me where he said "all JREFERs"

I know you've made it up, because he didn't ever say that.

Unlike you, Apollo20 knows about accuracy and unlike you he knows what he's talking about.

I haven't but won't- because it's a waste of my time. All you have to do is go to google and type in "NISTIAN"- a term coined by Greening to see what he has said about "JREFERS".

He obviously did say that- or at the very least implied that because he continues to refer to JREFERS. Why you are trying to wedge such a ridiculous issue is beyond me, but it appears that you're doing exactly the opposite of what he did- and what he accuses all JREFERS of doing: an appeal to authority.

Slick- that takes some guts to try and defend someone by doing exactly what they're having a hissy fit about. Difference being: I can POINT to where you just did it. Greening, Zensmack, etc- cannot give an example of JREFERS doing this.

Zing.