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

[Alt+F4]

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

So what? What does molten metal seen for weeks after 9/11 have to do with anything? Remember which sub-forum this is.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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

hes just another eyewitness, his statements are no more or less valid as evidence anyone else

can dr astenah-asl provide pictures or other non-anecdotal evidence?

 

[lapman]

The quotes from Dr. Quintiere support the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity.

That's completely false. He just feels that NIST did not do a thorough enough job. That is his opinion, not a supported fact. However, nowhere does he state that the report lacks integrity.

 

[Pardalis]

You actually quoted the answers to your own question.

The quotes from Dr. Quintiere support the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. The quotes from Dr. Astaneh-Asl corroborate the numerous other sightings of molten steel at GZ.

That's it. No controlled demolition, no (fill in the blank) argument. I also said that I'm not even sure if molten steel is even indicative of a large scale therm*te reaction or controlled demolition - it's entirely outside the scope of this discussion.

You really must think we're stupid. At least don't lie to yourself.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Non-sequitur sensationalism.

Pretty ironic when your "evidence" of an inside job is using a complete lack of evidence and then calling it evidence. But not surprising you didn't even understand the post you were responding to and how it applies here.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The quotes from Dr. Quintiere support the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity.

Well, ignoring the fact that your statement there is 100% completely untrue, why don't you present the 9/11 conspiracy arguments to him and see if he feels they hold scientific integrity?

That would rule out the whole unscientific method of "Well I can't prove my claims, so I will just try to take pot shots at the people who can prove their claims (aka creationism)".

 

[deep]

I already did. The steel he is talking about is in NCSTAR1-3. There's a PICTURE OF IT in NCSTAR1-3 (1-3B, I think, can't really be bothered). Look at it. See that it refers to eutectic melting. Ask him if that's what he's talking about if you don't believe me. Ask Dr. Barnett at WPI as well, one of the forensic examiners who worked on the steel chemically.

As I suspected, there is no published link between Dr. Astaneh-Asl and any photograph in NCSTAR1-3, or any mention of eutectic melting.

You've told me over and over again how I'm taking quotes out of context, quote mining, and whatever else, yet this "evidence" you keep referring to is not published anywhere.

Do you honestly expect me to say, "oh, ok, I'll take your word for it that I'm wrong"? Sorry, it's nothing personal, but I need something that can be independently confirmed. Until then, I'm the one arguing with facts and providing legitimate sources... and you're not.

 

[fuelair]

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.

WOW!! I'm finally convinced - it was really a conspiracy!!!

 

[fuelair]

of dunces and incompetants to push a paranoid theory.

 

[beachnut]

As I suspected, there is no published link between Dr. Astaneh-Asl and any photograph in NCSTAR1-3, or any mention of eutectic melting.

Oops, it takes logical thinking to figure this out! You have not shown an ability to apply logic. Why is that?

You have been spoon fed the clues, but you failed to connect the dots!

 

[leftysergeant]

so all those Thermite cuting devices dont work according to leftysergant. interesting, can you backup that claim?

only 1 thermite could do it according to leftysergant, but he is not able to tell which one that would be, interesting.....

I am unwilling to tell you how to make them in this venue because there are too many potential terrorists and idots who would find it useful and would then go out and harm somebody

None of the thermite devices that I have seen twoofers shrieking about are at all useful for demolishing anything other than gun tube and vehicle suspensions and engines.

My cast thermite would do a bridge easily, but the military prefers to use elxplosives. More reliable triggering and all that.

 

[deep]

You really must think we're stupid.

Clearly, not everyone is capable of understanding the idea behind my OP, and it sounds like you're one of those people.

I invite you to either re-read everything, or go find another thread that is more your speed.

 

[deep]

That's completely false. He just feels that NIST did not do a thorough enough job. That is his opinion, not a supported fact. However, nowhere does he state that the report lacks integrity.

Believe it or not, I anticipated this sort of response, which is why I included this in my original message:

"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."
​

I know I'm asking a lot, but you might want to take some time to go back and actually read through that first message.

 

[Arus808]

another cherry picked quote. deep, we are not stupid. you think we are, but that just shows that you never understood the kind of people you are up against.

Why haven't you contacted Quintierre?

 

[deep]

WOW!! I'm finally convinced - it was really a conspiracy!!!

From the OP:

"First of all, nobody is claiming that either Dr. Quintiere or Dr. Astaneh-Asl are directly supporting 9/11 CTs."

"Next up, Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments. Like Dr. Quintiere, his comments do not directly support 9/11 CTs."

"Whether or not molten steel is indicative of controlled demolition, or the use of therm*te, is outside the scope of this discussion."

"Once again, his thoughts on what really did happen are irrelevant (...)"

"Let's examine the quotes from Dr. Quintiere. Regardless of what he believes really happened (...)"

----

You're either purposely trolling, or you didn't read the OP. Either way, please do not derail the thread with any more of this off-topic nonsense.

 

[Pardalis]

Clearly, not everyone is capable of understanding the idea behind my OP, and it sounds like you're one of those people.

I invite you to either re-read everything, or go find another thread that is more your speed.

Anybody can see what you're doing, your pathetic excuses don't fly here.

You're trying to convey meaning into these experts' words that is just not there, and you want to pretend you're not pushing for the CD theory. Please... These quotes would be of no real consequence if it wasn't about the controlled demolition idiocy. Just look at where you posted this thread. Why didn't you post it in the science subforum if you're not trying to push for you CD theory? How stupid do you think we are?

Please, do it to somebody else, you're embarassing yourself.

 

[deep]

another cherry picked quote. deep, we are not stupid. you think we are, but that just shows that you never understood the kind of people you are up against.

Another cherry picked quote?? THAT WAS MY QUOTE FROM THE OP!

Thank you for so eloquently pointing out that you're not even bothering to read my messages before replying with your desperate "cherry picked quote" accusations.

Go infect some other thread with your intellectually dishonest "auto-responder".

 

[Pardalis]

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.

snip

The quotes from both men support small pieces of a much larger puzzle.

Since this is not about controlled demolitions, would you like to advise the mods to move this thread to the science section?

 

[deep]

You're trying to convey meaning into these experts' words that is just not there, and you want to pretend you're not pushing for the CD theory. Please... These quotes would be of no real consequence if it wasn't about the controlled demolition idiocy.

That's funny, because the originators of those quotes do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The only place they're related is in your mind.

Look, you're clearly unable to understand the complexities of this thread. Stop wasting time with your paranoid accusations, unless you can provide some specific examples (sort of like the six examples I provided that demonstrate why your argument is invalid).

 

[Pardalis]

That's funny, because the originators of those quotes do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The only place they're related is in your mind.

So what are we doing here arguing? What's the angle?

What are the quotes' relevance with conspiracy theories?