Any published papers criticizing NIST?

[beachnut]

Since you seem to have missed his quote the first time it was posted, here it is again:

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.

Which conclusion? You have no clue what you are talking about. You can't answer questions made to your own claim and you are still obsessed with gravy.

 

[RedIbis]

And I believe you are focusing on the word "questionable" rather than caring what Dr. Quintiere actually meant by that.

What more important? That word, or what he meant?

"We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us."

 

[Hokulele]

You don't care what I believe. Why don't you ask Dr. Q? I believe you are falling for the Taibbi fallacy, in which it's more important to argue with proponents of a theory you disagree with than pursue valid lines of inquiry.

I disagree, what you believe is directly relevant here. Your argument hinges directly on what is meant by the "official conclusion". I already know what Quintiere means by that term, I already know what I mean when I use that phrase, and I know what I mean by it differs from Quintiere's usage in that quote.

What I don't know is what you mean by it. It may be that the disagreement is indeed subtle, by your definition, if your understanding of NIST's conclusions differs from Quintiere's.

What do you believe the "official conclusion" entails?

 

[Edx]

"We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us."

And what does that mean?

Why can't you just answer the question? How is this any different from Creationists claiming Steven J Gould felt evolution theory was in deep trouble? If you actually learn what Gould meant when he said the things quoted of him by Creationists, you see they were just quoting him out of context because he didn't MEAN what Creationists claim he meant.

If I say that the governments story about 911 is questionable I could mean that they lied to cover up incompetence, or I could mean I think they destroyed the towers with space beams. It is important what words mean, it is important what Dr Quintiere meant when he said the word questionable. Questionable how? Not at all like the way any truthers claim its questionable, thats the point. His criticisms really are minor and subtle compared with theirs. In fact he goes even further than the NIST report does when he says that without fireproofing the towers would have only lasted around 10 minutes when most truthers claim it shouldn't have ever collapsed no matter how long it burnt for.

Is the only reason you think Quintiere supports truthers position because he used the word "questionable"? Why doesn't it matter what he meant by that?

 

[RedIbis]

I disagree, what you believe is directly relevant here. Your argument hinges directly on what is meant by the "official conclusion". I already know what Quintiere means by that term, I already know what I mean when I use that phrase, and I know what I mean by it differs from Quintiere's usage in that quote.

What I don't know is what you mean by it. It may be that the disagreement is indeed subtle, by your definition, if your understanding of NIST's conclusions differs from Quintiere's.

What do you believe the "official conclusion" entails?

This should be a hoot, but what do you think Dr. Q means by "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable"?

 

[Hokulele]

This should be a hoot, but what do you think Dr. Q means by "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable"?

From what I have read of his comments, he means that WTC 1 & 2 would still have fallen if the fireproofing remained intact, so to suggest that correctly applying and maintaining the fireproofing would have had a major impact on the collapse timing, and would have saved lives, and using this as a recommendation for improving building safety is questionable.


Your turn. What do you believe the "official conclusion" entails?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Red, why are you doing this? We know what Quintiere said; I even quoted it earlier.

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.

There's no question what Quintiere was referring to. The "official conclusion" in his statement is clearly and unambiguously the detail regarding the SRFM. It's right there in his own statement. It's an element of the overall critique that NIST places too much emphasis on column failure and not enough on truss failure. We know this because he's come out and said it.

This, BTW, is what Ryan meant about "subtle". You're highlighting Quintiere's strong language, but failing to appreciate what he's applying it to. He's referring to multiple points:

1. The SFRM dislodgement
2. The implications this has in whether truss or column failure is the dominant issue to examine
3. Whether NIST used correct fuel load figures in their assesments.

... but what he's not referring to is the entire NIST explanation, or the overall narrative that fire affected the impact-damaged structure and caused it to collapse.

That, by the way, is the subtle point Ryan was referring to. In any of your posts here, did you try to demonstrate that you understood Quintiere's explanation as being specific to those details? Or did you just choose to highlight a pair of statements minus their context?

Seriously, man, you've been here too long to play those games. We well understand the context of Quintiere's statements, so we well understand what he's referring to. There's no deflecting this by merely focusing on his broad, generalized statements and ignoring the finer detail he goes on to give.

 

[Hokulele]

Bah. I was close enough.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bah. I was close enough.

No, even more. I think you were pretty much on top of things. The important elements in his objections are 1. SFRM application and 2. Fuel loading. And the second is somewhat subservient to the first, if I'm reading things accurately (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, the question of course is, do any of the other folks like Red here who trumpet Quintiere's "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” and "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse" statements understand them? Do they understand what Quintiere was referring to when he said "official conclusion" and what he means by "real alternatives"? Or are they merely seeing the general and not caring about the specific?

 

[twinstead]

Now, the question of course is, do any of the other folks like Red here who trumpet Quintiere's "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” and "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse" statements understand them? Do they understand what Quintiere was referring to when he said "official conclusion" and what he means by "real alternatives"? Or are they merely seeing the general and not caring about the specific?

I don't think they care in the least. It's all about attempting to instill doubt in the "official story", not about any legitimate discussion about the WTC buildings and how they fell.

 

[RedIbis]

From what I have read of his comments, he means that WTC 1 & 2 would still have fallen if the fireproofing remained intact, so to suggest that correctly applying and maintaining the fireproofing would have had a major impact on the collapse timing, and would have saved lives, and using this as a recommendation for improving building safety is questionable.


Your turn. What do you believe the "official conclusion" entails?

Dr. Q asks 10 important questions that criticize NIST's methods for drawing its conclusions, including

- spoliation of the evidence
- no scale model
- no peer review
- the insufficiency of computer modeling
- inaccuracy of fire modeling

I've never suggested he promotes Twoofie CD theories. He is merely doing the responsible and scientific empirical practice of basing conclusions on actual evidence, not speculation or subjective modeling.

He presents an alternative hypothesis, but what might happen if his reasonable request for independent verification and accountability were granted? His hypothesis might be verified or he might construct a new one. Regardless, he contests NIST's methods and conclusions, which is not subtle at all.

I'm not interested in revisiting the flaws in NIST's tower collapse investigations. All I've pointed out in this thread is that Dr. Q raises some legitimate questions about NIST's process and this has been disregarded to commence with Twoofer bashing.

 

[twinstead]

I'm not interested in revisiting the flaws in NIST's tower collapse investigations. All I've pointed out in this thread is that Dr. Q raises some legitimate questions about NIST's process and this has been disregarded to commence with Twoofer bashing.

And unless it points to 9-11 being an inside job and/or caused by CD instead of fire and damage I could care less. It's a discussion for a scientific or engineering sub forum, not a conspiracy sub forum. Move it there and have at it.

 

[Edx]

Fixed that for you!

I couldn't care less.

 

[Edx]

@RedIbis:

Once again when Quintiere criticises NISTs methods his reason for finding them faulty is MINOR compared to what truthers criticisms, in fact truthers would disagree even more with Quintiere's views on the collapse when he says that without fireproofing they would have only lasts around 10 minutes,. yet you say he is being responsible, scientific and basing conclusions on actual evidence. So do you agree with Quintiere's views on the collapse then? How can any truther disagree with NIST not also disagree with Quintiere? How can NIST obviously be a fraud as claimed by truthers, but Quintiere not be?

Imagine it more like this.... you have the question ...what is 1.648 x 5.147? Imagine NIST gave the answer as 8.482260. Quintiere says that NISTs answer is wrong and questions NISTs methods for arriving at that figure, he gives 8.482257. The correct answer is 8.482256. Quintiere and NIST disagree in a very minor way to each other but that difference is still major enough for Quintiere to legitimately have a problem with NISTs methods and conclusions because this affects building codes and how we understand a buildings performance in fires. Truthers on the other hand say that NIST's answer is total nonsense and NIST can't do maths, they also say that that Quintiere agrees with them... but their answer to 1.648 x 5.147 is 1.27.

This is exactly what you're doing here.

 

[1337m4n]

You don't care what I believe. Why don't you ask Dr. Q? I believe you are falling for the Taibbi fallacy, in which it's more important to argue with proponents of a theory you disagree with than pursue valid lines of inquiry.

Are you sure that shouldn't be called the RedIbis fallacy? It's all you ever do. You've never been interested in seeking the truth. You've only ever been interested in "beating" debunkers.



typical_truther.jpg

 

[RedIbis]

@RedIbis:

Once again when Quintiere criticises NISTs methods his reason for finding them faulty is MINOR compared to what truthers criticisms, in fact truthers would disagree even more with Quintiere's views on the collapse when he says that without fireproofing they would have only lasts around 10 minutes,. yet you say he is being responsible, scientific and basing conclusions on actual evidence. So do you agree with Quintiere's views on the collapse then? How can any truther disagree with NIST not also disagree with Quintiere? How can NIST obviously be a fraud as claimed by truthers, but Quintiere not be?

Imagine it more like this.... you have the question ...what is 1.648 x 5.147? Imagine NIST gave the answer as 8.482260. Quintiere says that NISTs answer is wrong and questions NISTs methods for arriving at that figure, he gives 8.482257. The correct answer is 8.482256. Quintiere and NIST disagree in a very minor way to each other but that difference is still major enough for Quintiere to legitimately have a problem with NISTs methods and conclusions because this affects building codes and how we understand a buildings performance in fires. Truthers on the other hand say that NIST's answer is total nonsense and NIST can't do maths, they also say that that Quintiere agrees with them... but their answer to 1.648 x 5.147 is 1.27.

This is exactly what you're doing here.

Again, who cares what Truthers think?

 

[Edx]

Again, who cares what Truthers think?

Quite right!

No one cares what truthers think except other truthers, which is why you do.

Quintiere's criticisms are legitimate but when applied to truthers's criticisms they are irrelevant because truthers ar e claiming something so far removed from what Quintiere is. That's what we've been saying this whle time.

 

[jaydeehess]

And they ARE subtle, extremely subtle, extraordinarily subtle WHEN COMPARED WITH TRUTHERS .

What about that do you not understand?

Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.

Its still a subtle point by Dr. Q. since he is NOT saying that the collapses were caused by something other than fire, only that fire brought them down in a different fashion. He is saying that the NIST conclusions concerning the role of fire insulation is suspect, not that their conclusion about the fact that fire caused the collapses is. Mackey's characterization thus still stands.

 

[jaydeehess]

Anyway this is all navel gazing discussing the meaninmg of the word 'subtle'.

I might also mention that the CTBUH also had concerns about the scenario that NIST had for the cause of initial collapse in WTC 7 but they are very clear also that they agree that the effect of fire brought that structure down.

Sorry I have no recollection of any peer reviewed paper, or comment from respected relevent professional group, backing any 9/11 Conspiracy scenario.

 

[RedIbis]

Anyway this is all navel gazing discussing the meaninmg of the word 'subtle'.

I might also mention that the CTBUH also had concerns about the scenario that NIST had for the cause of initial collapse in WTC 7 but they are very clear also that they agree that the effect of fire brought that structure down.

Sorry I have no recollection of any peer reviewed paper, or comment from respected relevent professional group, backing any 9/11 Conspiracy scenario.

According to Dr. Q there was no peer review of NIST's towers study.