Dr. James Quintiere
does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
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?
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 [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[FONT="]http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm[/FONT]
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.
[FONT="]http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony Congress-March 6 Final.pdf[/FONT]
Thank you. Quintierre's complaint is that he believes the NIST report whitewashes the question of whether the fireproofing detached during the impact or not. His complaint wants a revisiting of the evidence
to study whether the fireproofing standards are sufficient (Note: Not a new investigation, rather a peer reviewal of the current information). He does not dispute that fire plus impacts is what led to the collapses. His complaints are centered around NIST's model that says the fireproofing detached, and the dangers that he sees in refusing to revisit the issue of fire protection on steel.
Take into account what Quintiere's recommendations actually are:
1. Experimental studies to establish temperatures and fire duration characteristic of modern facilities including office large plan spaces, places assembly, and underground structures should be undertaken to validate models and establish design methods. The current correlations are incomplete in terms of fuel type and building type.
2. The standard time-temperature structural fire tests should be examined in light of computational methods. Data for the tests yielding temperature and deflection should be integrated with computations to extrapolate to actual assemblies used in practice.
3. Sensor technologies integrated with alarm monitoring for building performance should be integrated into the emergency response network for assessing the nature of the hazard.
4. Forensic techniques and standards should be established to assess failure information from structural debris. The elimination of the steel structure from the WTC site should be fully addressed, and its consequences fully stated.
5. Fire and disaster planning should include full and proper analyses for safe egress and effective response. Responders and building planners need to have the benefit of analyses that quantitatively address these facets. Real time modeling of the fire effects based on sensor information are possible and should be integrated into special building designs and response actions.
6. Novel techniques need to be investigated to rescue people and to fight high-rise fires.
7. Current codes weaknesses, in light the WTC collapses, need to be fully addressed. Issues of lightweight construction designs that are vulnerable to catastrophic collapse of a structure need particular attention.
8. A nationally supported infrastructure is needed to insure that objective scientific input is placed into the code consensus process to bring fire safety to a proper level of engineering analyses. The current code process is lacking in scientific underpinning, and the WTC disaster should stand for change in this direction, especially if the scientific community cannot render a clear and decisive verdict.
(Source:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf)
Where in those recommendations does Dr. Quintiere dispute the central findings, that fire and impact damage led to the collapse? On the contrary, he seems to use that paradigm as his starting point. The
only point that echos the conspiracy fantasy's viewpoint is the one about spoilation, and Quintiere attaches no notion of hiding use of thermite or explosives to that point. Rather, he complains that the spoilation prevented them from gathering data regarding the fire's effects.
Quintiere does not dispute the narrative of impacts plus fires led to the collapses.
-------
Astaneh-Asl's complaint is that he believes codes and engineering practices were violated in the construction of the WTC, and that this problem was not discussed in the NIST report:
As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.
The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as "yield strength") in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.
As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure....
Even so, he argues, if the World Trade Center towers had been designed "using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived — it most likely would not have collapsed."
(Source:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html; my bolding for emphasis)
Note his statement:
"Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."
He's not referring to any use of thermite or explosives. He's referring to the impact of the jetliners. He most definitely does not support the conspiracy fantasy:
Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says. "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."
Neither of these researchers dispute the thesis of fires and impact damage causing the collapse. On the contrary, they support it. Their quibble is with specific details, not the overall direction of the NIST hypothesis. You are wrong in your assertion that their disagreement is a contradiction of NIST. Dr. Quintierre and Dr. Astaneh-Asl support the reality view, and are on record as disagreeing with any thesis involving explosives or incindieries. You are correct about identifying both of them as having major issues with the NIST report, but you must be careful about conflating disagreements about specific issues in the report with disagreements about the general thrust of the NIST theory. Both researchers have severe and legitimate complaints about problems with the NIST findings, but both of them
support the notion that impact plus fires led to the collapse. This is an inescapable conclusion once one reads their work.
And you ask to be taken seriously.
