Chris7,
No, no. List the names please.
Great response, Chris.
Hypocritical, illiterate & deceitful.
Allow me to explain in clear, measured tones that comply with the MA.
1. Hypocritical
One page ago, you had your panties in a bunch about a couple of posts between Animal & I, insisting "May I interrupt this conversation and bring this thread back to the topic? The 5 1/2 inch girder WALK-OFF in the NIST theory …"
Now ergo tosses out Troll-droppings, and do you respond in kind to him? No, you don't. Because you think that there is some hay to be made, you join in with a wall of irrelevant, off-topic, quote-mined text.
When you have a different set of rules for yourself than for others whenever you find it convenient, that's called "being a hypocrite".
I am sure that you'd agree...
2. Illiterate (in this case, "innumerate")
He said he bet I couldn't name ONE NAME.
I gave you 300% more than that in 6 words & 3 commas.
3. Deceitful
You imply that James Quintiere's name doesn't belongs on that list. And you highlight selective words that suits your fantasies.
You attempt to leverage his reputation as a respected engineer, at the same time as you routinely denigrate the significance of having any engineering expertise to interpret these events. (Sorry, my bad. This belongs under "Hypocritical" above.)
But you pull out this wall o' text, full of irrelevancies & outdated facts in order to DECEPTIVELY imply that Quintiere is on the "truther side" of this issue.
Allow me to substantiate my assertions:
Irrelevancies:
Quintiere said:
"Little did I realize that the NIST heart was not in it, and its efforts would not be proactive, but reclusive.
This is Dr. Quintiere's inexperience talking. These investigations are always reclusive
while they are in process.
The "reclusive" part ended when they released their 10,000 page document explaining their analysis, methods, justifications & conclusions in exacting detail.
Outdated facts:
You are quoting a comment that he made in 2005, while the investigation was incomplete.
Quintiere said:
While NIST had public hearings during the course of discharging their findings, they were limited to 5-minute presentations by the public, and no response to submitted questions or comments.
Now NIST has had many presentations to the public, and numerous responses to submitted questions & comments.
So his objections on this matter have been resolved.
That is an example of Dr. Q's outdated facts.
For an example of YOUR outdated facts:
It's now 2012 & all the reports have been released. And yet, deceptive quote-mines from 2005 is the best you have to offer of Dr. Q's objections…?!
Pretty lame.
Deception:
Dr. Q's REAL conclusions, even at that time:
Quintiere said:
Conclusions
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short…
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support … [and] puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.
Missed the part about what this has to do with WTC7. (Oh yeah. "Nothing".)
Missed the part about "bombs in the buildings", Chris.
I do NOT miss the part about the fact that you have produced
not one single quote from Dr. Q which he supports the "truther stance".
Total lack of respect for and adherence to Rule 12 noted.
JREF MA said:
Rule 12
This rule does not apply only to direct insults and attacks (which are often also a breach of Rule 0) but is intended to ensure discussion stays focussed on the topic at hand and not on the Members involved.
My comment didn't violate Rule 12 in the slightest.
I cast no aspersions at Tony, the individual.
I denigrated HIS RESPONSE as "incompetent".
And then proved that it was.
I denigrated as "stupid"
his argument that the size of the building played any role in "how fast it fell".
And then proved that
his argument was exactly stupid.
I think that you need to read Rule 12 again.
That is an erroneous interpretation of the data that only the fanatically faithful on this forum support.
LOL.
The data is the data.
If you want to argue with the data, be my guest. Thus far, you've made not one single argument against my analysis.
And you're not going to make any argument against it. Because you aren't capable of making an argument against it. That is clearly beyond your technical skill,
as proven by the fact that you've not attempted to make a single argument against it.
Your chosen path on the matter, simply repeating that it is wrong, over & over with zero supporting argument, is simply childish.
Are "childish repetitions" the best that you have to offer?
Real engineers give their real names and credentials. You are just an anonomous poster and not an engineer - except in your own mind.
What was that "Rule 12" injunction again?
"… to ensure discussion stays focussed on the topic at hand and not on the Members involved."
Hmmm, we may have another example under "hypocrisy"…
BTW, I've given my name & verified credentials to several people here that I thought could be trusted with that information.
You didn't make the list.
Neither did Tony.
Sorry.
