• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any published papers criticizing NIST?

sylvan8798 said:
Any disagreement with NIST, or the OCT, or anyone representing it, regardless of how small or subtle implies complete agreement with No Planes, No truss theory, Concrete Core, Pentagon Flyover, No plane in Pennsylvania, Controlled Demolition, DEW, dustification, Vicsims, or and whatever your personal pet "theory" of the day's events entails.
Click to expand...

FTFY. The word "or", in relation to mutually contradictory theories, has no meaning in trutherese.

Dave
 
And, of course, it doesn't apply to those who have no theory at all, just a nebulous desire to see what they deride as "the official theory" proven wrong. Even when it is clear they have no idea what exactly they are arguing against.
 
Oystein said:
It wasn't truthers who brought up Quintiere. Truthers brought up nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Actually its funny because the reason I was asking is because I told some truther on youtube there's been various experts that have criticised NIST legitimately but none talk about thermite, explosives or that NIST doesn't understand basic Newtonian physics.

He then proceeded to ask me what peer reviewed papers have have criticised NIST, I love it when truthers call your bluff because they think you're bluffing. Sometimes I don't give a source because I want them to claim it doesn't exist first. Anyway... I gave him Quintiere's paper and told him where to find critical comments by Quintiere he then told me the paper was complete nonsence but - at the same time - that Quintiere supports truthers about NIST being wrong because he said he Quintiere questions NIST's conclusions. Seems like the same thing happened in this thread too!

This is the same guy that said that molten metal is not expected in fires and that office fires being some of the worst kind is a lie made up by NIST. Eventually he stopped posting and telling non existant "lurkers" to notice how many "lies" I am telling, and that was that.

Was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Actually its funny because the reason I was asking is because I told some truther on yotuube there's been various experts that have crictised NIST legitmately but none talk about thermite, explosives or that NIST doesn't understand basic Newtonian physics.

He then proceeded to ask me what peer reviewed papers have have crictised NIST, when I gave Quintiere's paper and told him where to find critical comments by Quintiere he then - at the same time - told me the paper was complete nonsence but that Quintiere supports truthers because he said he questions NIST's conclusions.

This is the same guy that said that molten metal is not expected in fires. Eventually he stopped posting and started talking to non existant "lurkers" to notice how many lies I am telling, and that was that.

Was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that guy's full of it. I love how truthers conflate any and all criticism with conspiracy trutherism. It's far, far from being the same thing.

Anyway, both Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl are on record as disagreeing with conspiratorial notions of explosives demolitions, Astaneh-Asl actually displaying a degree of ire at the notion.

And let's not forget Arup and the associated University of Edinburgh researchers (Usmani is the only name I can recall off the top of my head). They, too, take issue with the notion that SFRM removal is necessary for the heat related distortions to occur with the steel components. And they and NIST have had dialogues about this before. But they certainly don't support trutheristic notions one iota.

It's arrogantly delusional presumption to presume that any criticism of NIST is automatically supportive of truthers. They can't claim membership on that bandwagon, because the more important distinction is not mere criticism but legitimate criticism. The truthers don't have it. And they've been demonstrating that over and over for years now.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
"Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1", Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall, ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Nov/Dec 2007, p. 420 Does it need to get any clearer? I mean, seriously, how much more clear does this point need to be? Quintiere and the other authors came out and said that their experiment validates NIST's observations, directly refered to sag as the failure mode, and then discussed how their model did so even with the spray on fire resistant material still intact. The authors came out and directly identified sag as the failure mode being discussed!
Click to expand...

Not from these two quotes you pulled, no.

I may stand corrected as to Quintiere's confirmation of truss sagging (which, btw, he calls sagging, not "failure".) But the quotes from this paper you provide indicate only that his experiment confirmed that the trusses could sag and that this matched observables, not that it matched the rest of NIST's collapse initiation. Since Quintiere obviously had many problems with not only NIST's methodology, but conclusions as well, we'd need to see the rest of that paper to see what conclusions he came to.

And why did it take bedunkers three days to find a relevant quote?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Not from these two quotes you pulled, no.

I may stand corrected as to Quintiere's confirmation of truss sagging (which, btw, he calls sagging, not "failure".) But the quotes from this paper you provide indicate only that his experiment confirmed that the trusses could sag and that this matched observables, not that it matched the rest of NIST's collapse initiation. Since Quintiere obviously had many problems with not only NIST's methodology, but conclusions as well, we'd need to see the rest of that paper to see what conclusions he came to.

And why did it take bedunkers three days to find a relevant quote?
Click to expand...


That's lightning quick if you compare it to the non-existent supporting documentation truthers give up....


SAGGING IS FAILING

by the way
 
ergo said:
I may stand corrected as to Quintiere's confirmation of truss sagging (which, btw, he calls sagging, not "failure".)
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem with the definition of failure you got from a few engineers?

Permanent sagging is a failure of the material.

I'm not sure what your misunderstanding is at this point.

My offer to put you in contact with people who are much smarter than me in structural failure analysis still stands. I thought everyone here gave you a pretty good explaination though. What don't you understand?
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Permanent sagging is a failure of the material.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is true. But when you are looking for the mechanics of a building collapse and you want to indicate that the trusses sagged, then you would use the word "sagged".

As far as your "engineers" go, do any of them have real names?
 
NoahFence said:
That's lightning quick if you compare it to the non-existent supporting documentation truthers give up....


SAGGING IS FAILING

by the way
Click to expand...

Hold on a second; don't give his distortion credit for being accurate. I downloaded that paper back in 2009, and it was mentioned back in threads as long ago as 2007. I wasn't talking sag in terms of Quintiere's research first and only then going after documentation; I understood what Quintiere was talking about well before this thread. Why else would I have made the mention to Quintiere and sag that I did earlier? It's because I already knew what he said in that paper.

Don't let truthers get away with fact distortion; if they can't distort their central premise, they'll distort a side one. What you're replying to is a perfect example of this.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I'm sure this is true. But when you are looking for the mechanics of a building collapse and you want to indicate that the trusses sagged, then you would use the word "sagged".
Click to expand...
I don't really argue that, ergo. I used to be a fire protection engineer. I investigated a few fire losses. In my reports, I would likely used the word "sagged" to describe beams/trusses/wooden structural members that had failed in a fire if they were bowed. It would make it easier for insurance adjusters and other non-engineers to understand the extent of damage (as opposed to "failed") because they might think, like you, that they had destructively failed.

As far as your "engineers" go, do any of them have real names?
Click to expand...
Yeah, they have real names. On second thought though, I could get my butt in trouble for putting peoples names on a public forum.

I will however, give you a website with a phone number for AFRL/RXSA; our Materials Integrity Branch.

Call (937) 255-1907 and ask to speak to the head of the Structural Failure Analysis group.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8871
 
Edx said:
US AIRFORCE???

Omg in on it!1!
Click to expand...
I know. I made the offer to try to have samples of WTC dust and such analyzed at our lab, but no truther on the forum at the time indicated they would accept the results, so I quit offering.

Now I just refer them to our web site. If they want to pick up the phone and call...who knows, they might actually confirm thermite/thermate in the WTC dust!!! If they actually had a sample that is.
 
Oystein said:
It wasn't truthers who brought up Quintiere. Truthers brought up nothing at all.
Click to expand...
twinstead said:
Yea, I just looked at the thread again and noticed that. Even more interesting.
Click to expand...


I think some truthers pointed to Quintiere a while back and tried to claim his criticisms as support for 9/11 Truth. It took a while to get it through their heads that his criticism was what has been explained (again) in this thread: something even further from the truthers' claims than NIST's own theory.

sylvan8798 said:
Truther logic, twinstead. Any disagreement with NIST, or the OCT, or anyone representing it, regardless of how small or subtle implies complete agreement with No Planes, No truss theory, Concrete Core, Pentagon Flyover, No plane in Pennsylvania, Controlled Demolition, DEW, dustification, Vicsims, or whatever your personal pet "theory" of the day's events entails.
Click to expand...


For some, probably. For a lot more, though, they probably saw Quintiere's criticisms as a means of undermining NIST's credibility. Remove the folks with the dominant theory from the picture and you've got plenty of room to substitute your own pseudo-scientific mysticism.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Hold on a second; don't give his distortion credit for being accurate. I downloaded that paper back in 2009, and it was mentioned back in threads as long ago as 2007. I wasn't talking sag in terms of Quintiere's research first and only then going after documentation; I understood what Quintiere was talking about well before this thread. Why else would I have made the mention to Quintiere and sag that I did earlier? It's because I already knew what he said in that paper.

Don't let truthers get away with fact distortion; if they can't distort their central premise, they'll distort a side one. What you're replying to is a perfect example of this.
Click to expand...

Wasn't my intention - if I did I'm sure he'll be quoting me as some sort of expert in 3...2....1.....


DOH :boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom