Quotes from Dr. Quintiere and Dr. Astaneh-Asl = EVIDENCE

[deep]

A few days ago, R. Mackey made several desperate attempts to explain why certain quotes from Dr. Quintiere and Dr. Astaneh-Asl were irrelevant to any argument in support of 9/11 truth. I would like to take a few moments to further demonstrate the absurdity of his claim.

First of all, nobody is claiming that either Dr. Quintiere or Dr. Astaneh-Asl are directly supporting 9/11 CTs. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter in this context.

Let's examine the quotes from Dr. Quintiere. Regardless of what he believes really happened, his comments add credibility to the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. It does not singularly prove the argument, but it supports it.

The quotes are all from the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, or here: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm

• 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.
• Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
• 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.
• I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.
• I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.

(bolding mine) His comments clearly suggest that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. Given the fact that Dr. Quintiere is a respected scholar, and a former division chief for the NIST fire program, he's speaking from a position of credibility. Once again, his thoughts on what really did happen are irrelevant, because this particular issue is black or white - either the NIST report lacks scientific integrity, or it doesn't.

_________________________________________________
​

Next up, Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments. Like Dr. Quintiere, his comments do not directly support 9/11 CTs. Instead, they corroborate the many eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten steel at Ground-Zero.

Whether or not molten steel is indicative of controlled demolition, or the use of therm*te, is outside the scope of this discussion. The relevance (or irrelevance) of molten steel to any particular argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was reported by eyewitnesses.

• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns: "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [1]
• In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl said, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [2]
• He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [3]
• The fireproofing that had been used to protect the steel also showed evidence of extreme temperatures. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [4]
• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC7 (...), "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."[4]

[1] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[2] "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction." NewsHour, PBS, 5/10/2007.
[3] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel." CBS News, 3/12/2002.
[4] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies.", NY Times, 10/2/2001​

_________________________________________________
​

The quotes from both men support small pieces of a much larger puzzle. I want to make that very clear, because debunkers will frequently claim that there is 'zero evidence' that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity, or 'zero evidence' that there was molten steel at GZ.

This is evidence. Your continued refusal to accept that simple fact is a sign of close-minded desperation.

 

[beachnut]

Failure! Cherry pick away.

 

[boloboffin]

And disagreement among evolutionary scientists means creationism is just as valid.

Next!

 

[MarkyX]

What is it exactly you are trying to propose here?

Let's just humor you for a bit and say NIST cannot be trusted, what does this prove? It's not illegal to be mistaken and when we look at the available evidence, there is nothing in there that suggests foul play. No bombs were found in the debris and molten metal isn't something out a controlled demolition.

Again, if what you are saying is true, it still proves 19 hijackers from Al-Qaeda did it. All you're admitting to me now is that conspiracy theories are nothing more than a huge negative argument, much like creationists.

"If it cannot be fully explained, it MUST be my theory"

 

[deep]

What is it exactly you are trying to propose here?

Let's just humor you for a bit and say NIST cannot be trusted, what does this prove? It's not illegal to be mistaken and when we look at the available evidence, there is nothing in there that suggests foul play. No bombs were found in the debris and molten metal isn't something out a controlled demolition.

Again, if what you are saying is true, it still proves 19 hijackers from Al-Qaeda did it. All you're admitting to me now is that conspiracy theories are nothing more than a huge negative argument, much like creationists.

"If it cannot be fully explained, it MUST be my theory"

Hi, I think you've responded to the wrong message, because I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I repeated myself several times within the same message to protect against this sort of misinterpretation.

Again, Dr. Quintiere's comments support the lack of scientific integrity in the NIST report. That doesn't singularly mean that their conclusion is incorrect (even a stopped watch is right two times per day).

Dr. Astenah-Asl corroborates the eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten steel at GZ.

There's nothing there about 19 hijackers, or even conspiracy theories. Those are independent arguments/observations that can be referenced in larger arguments as evidence.

 

[deep]

And disagreement among evolutionary scientists means creationism is just as valid.

Next!

Non-sequitur sensationalism.

 

[beachnut]

And disagreement among evolutionary scientists means creationism is just as valid.

Next!

He will not understand this.

He does not understand there is no thermite, no explosives with these guys who do not support 9/11 truth.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Waaaaiiiiit... You're using the guy that feels that the fires were bad enough that the collapses would have happened without the fireproofing being dislodged... in an attempt to destroy NIST's credibility... so that you can reject their investigation and ultimately insert a fanciful delusion about the towers being destroyed by something other than fire?

It's like "the critic of my enemy is my friend"... Wtf?

 

[WildCat]

Waaaaiiiiit... You're using the guy that feels that the fires were bad enough that the collapses would have happened without the fireproofing being dislodged... in an attempt to destroy NIST's credibility... so that you can reject their investigation and ultimately insert a fanciful delusion about the towers being destroyed by something other than fire?

Yes, that is exactly what deep44 is trying to do.

Rest assured, Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl do not in any way, shape, or form think that thermite, thermate, nanothermite, mini-nukes, space beam weapons, DEWs, etc etc were involved.

It's a pathetic effort by the truthers to pretend there's actual experts supporting their cause.

 

[deep]

Waaaaiiiiit... You're using the guy that feels that the fires were bad enough that the collapses would have happened without the fireproofing being dislodged... in an attempt to destroy NIST's credibility... so that you can reject their investigation and ultimately insert a fanciful delusion about the towers being destroyed by something other than fire?

It's like "the critic of my enemy is my friend"... Wtf?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Either the NIST report has scientific integrity, or it doesn't. Since Dr. Quintiere argued that it doesn't, and didn't provide his own report that does, there's nothing else to say. His quotes support the claim that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. Period.

To put in terms you might have an easier time understanding, if someone says, "I believe the NIST report lacks scientific integrity", and some debunker responds with, "bUt U h4v3 z3r0 eViDenCe oF tHaY11!!!11", the debunker would be incorrect. That's it. There's nothing else to assume or conclude from this.

If you're still confused, re-read this message over and over again until it sinks in, or until you start bleeding from the ears.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Either the NIST report has scientific integrity, or it doesn't. Since Dr. Quintiere argued that it doesn't, and didn't provide his own report that does, there's nothing else to say. His quotes support the claim that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. Period.

To put in terms you might have an easier time understanding, if someone says, "I believe the NIST report lacks scientific integrity", and some debunker responds with, "bUt U h4v3 z3r0 eViDenCe oF tHaY11!!!11", the debunker would be incorrect. That's it. There's nothing else to assume or conclude from this.

If you're still confused, re-read this message over and over again until it sinks in, or until you start bleeding from the ears.

What part of "not all engineers will agree perfectly with any single report that goes out there"? I fail to see how criticism of individual bits of material invalidates the integrity of the whole. Disagreements between professionals in similar fields is quite common. Just why do you think other institutions like purdue have taken it upon themselves to do models of their own?

 

[Arus808]

deep fails yet again. In fact Quintiere holds the belief that the towers would have fallen anyway; he just disagrees with NIST about the fireproofing.

how many ways can the truth movement fail?

 

[Dr Adequate]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Either the NIST report has scientific integrity, or it doesn't. Since Dr. Quintiere argued that it doesn't, and didn't provide his own report that does, there's nothing else to say.

And yet some people have been foolish enough to say that his statements support "9/11 truth" and other daft stuff like that.

 

[deep]

deep fails yet again. In fact Quintiere holds the belief that the towers would have fallen anyway; he just disagrees with NIST about the fireproofing.

how many ways can the truth movement fail?

Please provide quotes to support your argument, because the quotes I posted do not support your statement.

 

[AZCat]

I don't think Dr. Quintiere's statements "clearly suggest that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity". I think he realizes that it could be improved upon, but I do not read his specific criticisms as a condemnation of the report in general.

 

[deep]

And yet some people have been foolish enough to say that his statements support "9/11 truth" and other daft stuff like that.

Their quotes can support any number of arguments, but they do not singularly support one argument over another.

 

[Arus808]

Please provide quotes to support your argument, because the quotes I posted do not support your statement.

why dont you read his report instead of cherry picking the statements within?

anyone with a 7th grade education can understand it.

 

[deep]

I don't think Dr. Quintiere's statements "clearly suggest that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity". I think he realizes that it could be improved upon, but I do not read his specific criticisms as a condemnation of the report in general.

• 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.
• Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
• I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.
• I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.

 

[WildCat]

Please provide quotes to support your argument, because the quotes I posted do not support your statement.

Ah, the kid who thinks there were 5 basement levels under WTC 7 thinks Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl support the ridiculous claims of the truthers.

Truther fail, again.

 

[deep]

why dont you read his report instead of cherry picking the statements within?

anyone with a 7th grade education can understand it.

I pulled those quotes directly from the report, which I would have to read in order to do that. I even linked the report in my original post.

The desperation is starting to show.