Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[lisabob2]

As I read the above quote from Quintiere, it seems that he is complaining that the powers-that-be at NIST limited the scope of the investigation in some way by not including ATF in it. I am not sure why this would affect NIST's investigation in any way; they certainly appeared to have enough data to exhaustively model the tragic events of the day.

And, as has been pointed out above, this has nothing to do with any factual error Mark Roberts has made.

Dr. Quintiere's presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on "The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps", at which he stated:

"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

"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? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

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"

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated"

very unscientific I believe and I have pointed this out before as I have read nist report(most of it) and I found this to be true. I have been called names for pointing this out but with Quintiere pointing it out I am hoping others will actually read the report and see for themselves.

 

[twinstead]

No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.

A point that flies by most truthers. The man actually thinks it was even easier for the plane impact and subsequent fires to bring the buildings down than NIST does.

 

[beachnut]

I have read thru 911myths & journalof911studies. I find journal much more scientific, and it has Greening making his opinion known on it. Ross then puts in his response to Greening, but it is very issue oriented, no name calling, or avoiding facts & evidence. Just two different views of same event. Both men are educated & show us how we should debate issues.

As an engineer I see the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a fraud and politically biased tripe. Don't you? You must not be an engineer, are you? So you seem to be a truther, unable to find and use facts to make rational conclusion on 9/11.

Jones made up thermite. He says this was cut by thrermite or RDX. He discoverdd thermite is not used for CD, so he added RDX cause it is! Good job, at least he can learn while he tells lies.

Jones - … this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)

He is making it up, it was cut during clean up, not on 9/11. Jones is a liar.

Jones - Explosives such as RDX, or HMX, or superthermites, when pre-positioned by a small team of operatives, would suffice to cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings. Radio-initiated firing of the charges is implicated here, perhaps using superthermite matches.

Nope, these were also cut during clean up after 9/11. More made up junk by Jones. Little damage to surrounding buildings! What! Nuts, 19 acres were messed up and major damage to many buildings happened. What a nut! Did you read his stuff? Are you paying attention to this pathetic tripe.

Jones - Using computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers (to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse.) In this scenario, linear cutter-charges would have been placed at numerous points in the building, mostly on the critical core columns, since one would not know beforehand exactly where the planes would enter.

Now Jones is saying the terrorist flew the planes to avoid the pre planted explosives. Jones is saying the building was pre wired with radio controlled explosives and the terrorist pilots hit exact points! LOL Jones is fruit loops nuts on this, I would love to explain but if you can not get it on your own, you may not be able to think rationally. But if you are holding information now is the time to expose your facts to support Jones the dolt on 9/11 studies! Come on and show your stuff.

See, you came to say Roberts is not qualified, and now the world will see you and Jones are not qualified or able to make rational conclusion on 9/11. Roberts is. So unless you have an error to expose of Roberts, you need to move your junk to another thread!

This debunks Jones on 9/11 until you can prove the columns cut during clean up are really evidence for Jones (do you see your problem?) I assume now you will bring up an error by Roberts?

 

[T.A.M.]

So please bold the text where he asks for a NEW INVESTIGATION.

Having questions is not the same as asking for a NEW INVESTIGATION.

This has been discussed at length elsewhere on this forum...use the search function.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Lisabob cherry picking actual cherries produces delicious fruit. Taking random quotes out of context just leaves a sour taste.

 

[DGM]

Dr. Quintiere's presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on "The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps", at which he stated:

"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

"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? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

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"

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated"

very unscientific I believe and I have pointed this out before as I have read nist report(most of it) and I found this to be true. I have been called names for pointing this out but with Quintiere pointing it out I am hoping others will actually read the report and see for themselves.

When you "cut and paste" a post it is customary to list your source. That way no one will accuse you of plagiarism.

 

[lisabob2]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM

is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

 

[T.A.M.]

is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

There is a HUGE AMOUNT of difference, financially, logistically, as well as blame.

Asking questions about areas that were inadequately (in is view) analyzed, or that were not looked at, is much, MUCH different then saying we need a NEW INVESTIGATION.

It is amazing that you do not see such a difference.

And no, it is quite clear he has issues with the report, but you alleged he wanted a NEW INVESTIGATION, so clarify or retract please.

Thanks

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

A point that flies by most truthers. The man actually thinks it was even easier for the plane impact and subsequent fires to bring the buildings down than NIST does.

"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."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?

 

[twinstead]

is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

But do these issues suggest that hijackers DIDN'T crash planes into the WTC causing the damage and subsequent fires to make the buildings collapse?

If not, who cares? This if obviously an issue between Quintere and the NIST. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong.

The fact remains that unless it is evidence that 911 was an inside job, I could care less; issues like this are probably pretty common in large investigations like this.

 

[DGM]

"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."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?

Source?

 

[twinstead]

"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."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?

This proves you are simply scouring Quintere's quotes trying to make a case for an inside job instead of reading it all, if indeed this is really a quote.

Welcome to biasville. Population: you

 

[lisabob2]

There is a HUGE AMOUNT of difference, financially, logistically, as well as blame.

Asking questions about areas that were inadequately (in is view) analyzed, or that were not looked at, is much, MUCH different then saying we need a NEW INVESTIGATION.

It is amazing that you do not see such a difference.

And no, it is quite clear he has issues with the report, but you alleged he wanted a NEW INVESTIGATION, so clarify or retract please.

Thanks

TAM

First of all, a new investigation would have to rely on much of the data from nists investigation. Basically a new investigation would look at all evidence & data collected already and look at all possible answers. Any new "investigating" would be hard to do with all the evidence gone. So having a independent group looking at all the evidence from nist is about the closest thing to a new investigation as possible.

 

[T.A.M.]

The NIST investigation involved the COLLECTION OF DATA, ANALYSIS OF SAID DATA, and CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS.

Perhaps what you mean is Quintere is calling for a REANALYSIS of the the NIST Data and evidence. If that is what you meant, than you should restate...the words NEW INVESTIGATION get thrown around by truth movement members much too easily.

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

Source?

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
His presentation "Questions on the WTC Investigations" was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at www. fleetwoodonsite. com

for some reason it took awhile for this to get out, he said it June 4th and open news reported it August 21

 

[MikeW]

The source for this is Alan Millers article at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pr...nera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

It's notable for things like this.

Miller's version:

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

Full quote, snipped perhaps so you don't realise Quintiere is questioning how much fire protection the towers had:

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?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0.htm

Miller's version:

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 & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

Full quote, I suspect snipped by Miller because he didn't want people to see that Quintiere was saying the fires would be hotter than NIST claims:

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?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0.htm

Re: the point in question here, Miller's post was accurate. Quintiere said in full:

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?

But as pointed out above, he actually believes the fires were probably hotter than NIST claims: his issue is with the collection of the steel alone.

 

[twinstead]

Ignore this post at will

 

[DGM]

The source for this is Alan Millers article at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pr...nera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

It's notable for things like this.

Miller's version:


Full quote, snipped perhaps so you don't realise Quintiere is questioning how much fire protection the towers had:



Miller's version:


Full quote, I suspect snipped by Miller because he didn't want people to see that Quintiere was saying the fires would be hotter than NIST claims:



Re: the point in question here, Miller's post was accurate. Quintiere said in full:



But as pointed out above, he actually believes the fires were probably hotter than NIST claims: his issue is with the collection of the steel alone.

Thanks Mike, I actually knew that I just wanted to see our new friend show the source of his "picked" claims.

 

[lisabob2]

This proves you are simply scouring Quintere's quotes trying to make a case for an inside job instead of reading it all, if indeed this is really a quote.

Welcome to biasville. Population: you

I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

 

[twinstead]

I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

See MikeW's post above concerning quote mining.

I totally disagree with you. Out of ALL the theories presented about 911, the 'official story' is the one that fits the evidence the best.

Is it perfect? No. But IMO there is NO contest between the official story and inside job.