WRONG!
Secondly, the core column theory requires that the columns got sufficiently hot, say 500 C, and tangible evidence from metallurgical analysis is crucial in supporting the NIST conclusion. Unfortunately, that evidence has not been found by NIST.
Thirdly, as a consequence, this crucial lack of evidence must indict the selling of the WTC steel debris before an investigation could be launched. Will NIST speak to this as they now have future investigative authority?
You ignored his comments on the site i posted.
[FONT="]http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm[/FONT]
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.
“Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers
The alternative cause is CD.
-------
You ignored the point, which was:
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.
Once again, Dr. Quintiere's analysis is that NIST is handwaving past their explanation of fireproofing becoming separated from the steel. That is the
conclusion that Dr. Quintiere
challenges. Read Dr. Quintiere's own words:
The October surprise in the NIST investigation was the assertion that all of the core column insulation was knocked off by the airplane impacts. To a lesser extent, reliance on NYNJPA audit insulation data solidified the NIST assertion that the failure of the core columns, and not the trusses, were to blame for the collapses of the South and North towers. That audit information was reported by NIST to have the fire floors of the north tower with truss insulation thicknesses as an average of 2.5 inches up to 4 inches instead of the prescribed 1.5 inches.
NIST needs to produce demonstrable and clear substantive information to support this rationale for its conclusions.
It needs to be clearly demonstrated how the core column insulation was removed. This cannot simply be based on an assumption or an extrapolation from impact calculations. It is too important to the conclusions to have modeling as the sole basis.
(Source:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/n...ent_112204.pdf)
You are the one ignoring Dr. Quintiere's own words. The "alternative cause" he supports is
not CD. He has come out and said this.
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
(Source:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html)
Dr. Quintiere has stated what his "alternative cause" is:
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”...
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
(Source:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/n...ent_112204.pdf)
His work and conclusions have
nothing to do with controlled demolitions and do not lead in that direction.
He comes out and says so.
-----
Dr. Astaneh-Asl has also come out and said what he believes:
Mr. Astaneh-Asl is careful when discussing his findings, stressing that the people who perished in the buildings' collapse "were murdered by terrorists." But he insists that it is his obligation as an engineer to seek "the truth" about the buildings' history and structure.
The "truth" he discusses is that the towers were, in his opinion, flawed in the execution of the design:
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.
"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."
The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl...
"Structural engineering is something that evolved," he says. "It was not invented."
"Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."
He comes out and states what he believes were the flaws in the towers:
The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
(Source:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/world-trade-center-collapse-field.html)
And, bottom line: Dr. Astaneh-Asl rejects the notion of CD:
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 researcher supports CD, and neither intends their work to be misrepresented
as supporting such. You are right, sir, in saying that neither says the NIST report properly explains the cores collapse, but you are very, very wrong in saying that their objections amount to a challenge in the
direction that NIST points, which is towards fire and impact damage causing the collapse. They come out and say this.
Their own words illustrate this stance. And that is what I've been pointing out: What their specific objections really are. Their objections do
not point in the direction of CD. All the bolded, 7 points fonts in the world do not undo or change that conclusion.
