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

[Arus808]

nothng in those statements say anything against NIST's conclusions.

AGain, quintierre had an ISSUE about the fireproofing, and wanted NIST to explore more into the claims about the dislodging (he believes that the fireproofing didn't need to be disloged, as it would have failed anyway)

DID YOU EVEN READ HIS PAPER?


by your quote mining, its obvious you didn't.

Deep fails over and over and over again.

 

[Arus808]

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.

Thats youre cherry picking. YOu take little sentences out of entire paragraphs.

Quintierre's paper has been discussed here prior. Please leanr to use the search button. Its a dead topic and your desperation is showing, seeing how you are MISREPRESNTING his claims.


deep, you keep on failing. that's no surprise.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

I'll take that as a resounding "Yes" to my question.

I get what you're trying to do. It's just that it's patently retarded.

 

[AZCat]

• 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.

Do you think restating what was already posted in the OP will change my opinion?

Instead, let's look at what else Dr. Quintiere had to say:

Scientists at NIST should be commended for their individual efforts in rising to the occasion of the WTC investigation. NIST should be commended for organizing an activity of this scale for the first time.

Does that sound like a guy who thinks the NIST report lacks scientific integrity?

 

[deep]

I get what you're trying to do. It's just that it's patently retarded.

I have no problem with that - you're certainly entitled to your opinion. At least you understand, which puts you light-years ahead of the others posting in this thread.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have no problem with that - you're certainly entitled to your opinion. At least you understand, which puts you light-years ahead of the others posting in this thread.

What I don't get is how the hell you think this helps your cause at all... At best, NIST reworks their investigation to include the possibility that the towers would have collapsed without the fireproofing dislodged. If Quintiere's suspicions are correct, NIST finds that this is actually quite possible.

This is even further from your notion of "the truth".

Again, how do you think this helps you at all?

 

[T.A.M.]

deep:

you are merely echoing the charge made by Greening that NIST could have done a better job in some areas. Quintiere thinks so, as do others.

Well that is nice of people to say with 20/20 Hindsight. That is nice of people to say, when they have a specific agenda, with specific elements they wish to be covered, in certain detail.

I have no objection to Quintiere saying in some ways NIST was inadequate for him.

I have objection to those who would say that it is fabricated government propaganda. I have objection to those who would dismiss the incredible amount of detailed, highly valuable science within it. I have objection to IDIOTS who would claim concordance with the investigation in the title of their paper in order to promote their REAL agenda of what they find wrong about it in their absurd "scientific" paper (Jones et al).

So if you are looking for argument here, concerning whether or not some scientists found imperfections, inadequacies in areas of the NIST report, you will not get it from me.

You will not, however, get my support if you try to promote in anyway, that the NIST report is in error in any of its conclusions, as I see no evidence that it is in ERROR.

TAM

 

[deep]

Does that sound like a guy who thinks the NIST report lacks scientific integrity?

That quote makes no reference to the scientific integrity of the report. He commends them for "organizing" it. His other quotes speak directly to the scientific integrity of the report.

His position is clear, but you are apparently unable to look at this objectively. You are searching unrelated quotes for hidden meaning to support your preferred position, when there are actually five quotes in front of face that directly describe how he feels.

 

[AZCat]

That quote makes no reference to the scientific integrity of the report. He commends them for "organizing" it. His other quotes speak directly to the scientific integrity of the report.

His position is clear, but you are apparently unable to look at this objectively. You are searching unrelated quotes for hidden meaning to support your preferred position, when there are actually five quotes in front of face that directly describe how he feels.

And I don't disagree that he feels the report could have been improved upon, but I do disagree that this means he is impugning the scientific integrity of the report of a whole. It is you who is making that claim based on a handful of criticisms from Dr. Quintiere. You are apparently unable to understand that not everyone will interpret his criticisms as "suggest[ing] that the NIST report lacks integrity" as you did.

 

[deep]

What I don't get is how the hell you think this helps your cause at all... At best, NIST reworks their investigation to include the possibility that the towers would have collapsed without the fireproofing dislodged. If Quintiere's suspicions are correct, NIST finds that this is actually quite possible.

This is even further from your notion of "the truth".

Again, how do you think this helps you at all?

I never said it did; in fact, I specifically said it doesn't support any one argument.

I'm sick and tired of hearing this "zero evidence" nonsense in response to almost every argument. We've been over this stuff dozens of times, so I'm taking the time to establish certain things (and clear up misconceptions) that may or may not be referenced in future arguments.

For example, if I say, "the fact that there was molten steel seen at GZ demonstrates X and Y", and someone gives me the 'zero evidence' response, I will point them here.

That's all I'm doing. I'm sick of wasting time dealing with people who derail threads to talk about this stuff, so I'm establishing supporting evidence beforehand. I'm not even convinced that either piece of evidence is significant to any of my future arguments - but this bit-by-bit establishment of what is known to be true has proven to be absolutely necessary for 9/11 discussions @ JREF.

 

[lee5]

I have no problem with that - you're certainly entitled to your opinion. At least you understand, which puts you light-years ahead of the others posting in this thread.

You are being very bold with your accusations of ignorance from others on this forum.

But what you fail to realize, is most here have read and understand the paper better than you.

Please tell me WHAT exactly Quintiere didn't like about the NIST report. And don't say "it lacks integrity". I want to know what exactly he was concerned about.

Do you know?

Was he concerned about the possibility that they arrived at the wrong conclusion? If not then what is your point? People are always criticizing how others do things. Doesn't mean they did it wrong, only that some think "I could have done better".



Also, how does this have anything to do about 9/11 being "an inside job"?

 

[Mel Odious]

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.”

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.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

See, deep? Dr. Quintiere has issues with the NIST investigation, but he is also on record as rejecting the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.

You fail.

 

[johnny karate]

Dr. Quintiere in no way, shape or form criticizes or disagrees with any of the NIST report's ultimate conclusions.

A criticism of an aspect of the NIST report in no way, shape, or form serves as criticism of the report as a whole.

Post all the out of context quotes you want, deep44. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong just like the dozens of other Truthers that have posted those exact same quotes were wrong.

 

[R.Mackey]

This thread can be summarized, succinctly, thus:

Who is so stupid that they take out-of-context comments of two distinguished researchers of the events of September 11th, and use them to disagree radically with those researchers?

The Truth Movement, that's who.

 

[deep]

And I don't disagree that he feels the report could have been improved upon, but I do disagree that this means he is impugning the scientific integrity of the report of a whole. It is you who is making that claim based on a handful of criticisms from Dr. Quintiere. You are apparently unable to understand that not everyone will interpret his criticisms as "suggest[ing] that the NIST report lacks integrity" as you did.

OK, if you want to argue semantics, go grab a dictionary and a mirror. His quotes tell the story - call it whatever you want. Just understand that someone wishing for "peer review" & saying that they believe the conclusion is questionable is not offering "minor criticism".

 

[deep]

This thread can be summarized, succinctly, thus:

Who is so stupid that they take out-of-context comments of two distinguished researchers of the events of September 11th, and use them to disagree radically with those researchers?

The Truth Movement, that's who.

"Out of context"? Just another sign of desperation.

Tell me, under what context does "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center" mean something entirely different? Did he say, "I'm about to say the exact opposite of what I'm thinking" immediately beforehand? Get a grip.

 

[AZCat]

OK, if you want to argue semantics, go grab a dictionary and a mirror. His quotes tell the story - call it whatever you want. Just understand that someone wishing for "peer review" & saying that they believe the conclusion is questionable is not offering "minor criticism".

You put "minor criticism" in quotes, yet I never said that (nor has anyone else in this thread other than you). Perhaps you made a mistake?

You seem to think that criticism of a report equates to rejection of scientific integrity. I disagree.

Moreover, not all your quotes appear in your source (the House Committee hearing transcript). Specifically, I cannot find ""I think the official conclusion the NIST arrived at is questionable" and "I wish there would be a peer review of this" in the transcript. Do you have a source for these quotes?


ETA: I just reread the OP and saw where you listed the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference as a source for presumably the two quotes above.

ETA2: Is that the NFPA conference? If so, I might have a transcript at work (we have a NFPA subscription).

 

[Mel Odious]

His position is clear, but you are apparently unable to look at this objectively. You are searching unrelated quotes for hidden meaning to support your preferred position, when there are actually five quotes in front of face that directly describe how he feels.

The irony is just painful.

Allow me to repeat a bit of what I quoted previously:

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.

Dr. Quintiere's position on the Truth movement's idiotic "controlled demolition" hypothesis is pretty damn clear, too. Why are you dismissing it as "irrelevant"?

 

[bio]

Why do you ignore Dr. Astaneh-Asl comments?

 

[AZCat]

Why do you ignore Dr. Astaneh-Asl comments?

It is not clear who you are asking this question. If you click the "quote" button on someone's post, it includes the text of their post in a quote box in your post, making it much easier for everyone else to follow the conversation.