• 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?

ergo said:
My guess is that in failure analyses, engineers need to be specific as to the causes and mechanisms. If engineers talk about truss sag, they are talking about trusses sagging. If they talk about truss failure, they are talking about broken or disconnected trusses, i.e., their inability to carry any load.
Click to expand...

You say that even though an actual engineer in this very thread disagrees with you?

Shouldn't arrogance at least come with some manner of intelligence?
 
NoahFence said:
You say that even though an actual engineer in this very thread disagrees with you?

Shouldn't arrogance at least come with some manner of intelligence?
Click to expand...
I'm an engineer as well (mechanical), though I certainly don't have a CV like sylvan8798's.

I hadn't even been following this thread very closely. I just piped in at ergo's request. My response was not directed toward scoring points in any debate.
 
Hokulele said:
Has RedIbis fled this thread and abandoned his argument?
Click to expand...

Stop taunting, it's childish. I got bored with the jref carousel of semantics. I pointed out specifically where Dr. Q found fault with NIST's conclusions, you ignored them.
 
ergo said:
My guess is that in failure analyses, engineers need to be specific as to the causes and mechanisms. If engineers talk about truss sag, they are talking about trusses sagging. If they talk about truss failure, they are talking about broken or disconnected trusses, i.e., their inability to carry any load.
Click to expand...
Your guess ignores the points I made. If you'd like confirmation of my points, I can refer you to several engineers who work in the Structural Failure Analysis laboratory just down the hall from me at work. Perhaps they can explain things more clearly than I can.
 
RedIbis said:
Stop taunting, it's childish. I got bored with the jref carousel of semantics. I pointed out specifically where Dr. Q found fault with NIST's conclusions, you ignored them.
Click to expand...

No, you ignored them. All you did is hear a few strong words but forget that Dr. Q is proposing something even further from your position.
 
Mother of God, this has gotten ridiculous. From the "Scale Modeling" paper that Quintiere was one of the authors of:
The NIST report shows that the diagonal webs in the floor trusses buckled when the steel temperature reaches 565°C. The scale experimental result in Fig. 11 shows that the truss reached 565°C at around 80–90 min prototype time. This result indicates that the floor trusses would begin sagging significantly at 80–90 min. The visual record shows that “the inward bowing of the south exterior wall was first observed at 10:23 a.m. (NIST 2005) which is 96 min from the airplane impact. Hence, the scale experiment results match the WTC observation.

... The scale experiment result reproduced a timeline of the prototype. Along with the numerical simulation results conducted by NIST 2005, the scale experiment results indicate that the long-span floor trusses at the southwest corner would begin sagging significantly at 80–90 min prototype time. This corresponds to the visual record which shows that the inward bowing of the south exterior wall was first observed at 96 min from the airplane impact.
Click to expand...
"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! Because of that, how in God's name can anyone pretend that Quintiere was not refering to sag? Like I said before, he came out and put it to writing. The citation is right there.

On top of that, logically how can anyone who understands the context of what's being discussed miss this fact? Logically, there are different types of failures that can happen to steel in a fire - sag is one, viscoelastic creep is another, and in assemblies, you can also have failures of connectors, etc. (I'll let the architects or engineers here lay that out in better detail) - but when you take into account what was seen before the collapses, what have you got left? The walls bowed inward; that tells us right there that truss-to-column connections had not failed yet, therefore connection failure is not the initial failure that occurred. Those happened later. Truss sag appeared first, and we know this because the walls pulled inward. If anyone can come up with an explanation for how creep or other failures induce this, be my guest, but Quintiere and the other members of that team are clear in what they believe: That the failure mode was sag. They explicitly refere to it while they discuss their scale modeling. When you actually read the material, you understand what Quintiere and the other authors were talking about.

The issue is closed with the "Scale Model" paper quote. QED, end of story. Any further denial of this point is done so in direct contradiction to what Quintiere's team wrote, and therefore a demonstration of nothing more than ignorance of what he was saying.
 
Last edited:
Just put him on Ignore. He has nothing to contribute.

Fortunately I think we did answer the OP's question. It hardly matters that the Truthers don't even understand its significance.
 
In an attempt to re-rail this thread: Edx, Berkeley professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is one. He's got an issue with the design of the towers, and what he views as permissiveness in what was allowed.

For the record, I don't have anywhere near sufficient knowledge to judge whether that assertion is right or not, although some of the other engineers here in this forum think that the charge is unfair (I think Newton's Bit was one who specifically sounded off on this, but I'd have to dive into past threads to confirm that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong). But regardless, the point is that he is a legitimate, genuine critic of NIST's work.

And yeah, truthers tried to use them to buttress their own claims. He actually responded to that and made 100% clear what he thought of that. It wasn't supportive, not in the least.
 
RedIbis said:
Stop taunting, it's childish. I got bored with the jref carousel of semantics. I pointed out specifically where Dr. Q found fault with NIST's conclusions, you ignored them.
Click to expand...


No, you specifically pointed out where Quintiere found fault with NIST's method, not their conclusion. Basically, you proved that the difference really is subtle, as was R.Mackey's original point. So unless you can point out a non-subtle difference in conclusions, your argument fails and R.Mackey's stands.

It isn't semantics, but a refusal to allow your shifting of the goalposts to stand.
 
R.Mackey said:
Just put him on Ignore.
Click to expand...

This has become known as "The Mackey Defense." It was originally employed by Gravy, but has become much more prominent and more often used by Mackey now.

It is a defense based on the fallacy that you can provoke, maintain, and even win an argument even while ignoring all possible opponents.
 
It's not a problem of ignoring opponents to the NIST report so much as it's a problem of some of its opponents not even grasping the premise of the legitimate criticisms when they use them as part of their underlying argument. What did you think would happen after ignoring/evading the responses when this was pointed out to you? Not just here, not just once, but in multiple occasions and threads over several years...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
It's not a problem of ignoring opponents to the NIST report so much as it's a problem of some of its opponents not even grasping the premise of the legitimate criticisms when they use them as part of their underlying argument. What did you think would happen after ignoring/evading the responses when this was pointed out to you? Not just here, not just once, but in multiple occasions and threads over several years...
Click to expand...

The entire argument was based on semantics. Dr. Q disagrees with NIST's conclusions and methods. Mackey, Hock, and others think this is subtle. I don't think it's subtle at all. A difference of opinion. I'm willing to move on with my life. Others are not.
 
Please tell me what you believe are NIST's and Quintiere's conclusions and how they differ. Simply claiming they do so is not an argument, but an assertion. Failing to provide an actual argument actually demonstrates why my very first observation in this thread was made.
 
RedIbis said:
The entire argument was based on semantics. Dr. Q disagrees with NIST's conclusions and methods. Mackey, Hock, and others think this is subtle. I don't think it's subtle at all. A difference of opinion. I'm willing to move on with my life. Others are not.
Click to expand...

The "subtle" part refers to the comparison to what truthers are saying. Dr Q. validated NISTs conclusions, the trusses sagged that's how the towers failed. What don't you get about that? The "subtle" difference is that Dr Q. said the sag would have happened even with the fireproofing intact. Now sure in the world of actual practical engineering, that difference is not subtle because that is actually important. But compared to what truthers are saying it is subtle since they claim NIST doesn't even understand basic Newtonian laws and that the towers should never and could never have collapsed. How you can think that Dr. Q supports you when not only does he agree with just about all the NIST report but the only disagreement is completely inconsequential to truthers. Why do truthers care whether the buildng would have failed with fireproofing intact? Is that the big TRUTH that truthers want to expose?
 
Last edited:
I just think it's very telling that in a thread about published papers criticizing NIST, the best truthers can do is bring up Quintiere, who in no way, shape, or form supports their position that it was impossible for fire and impact damage alone to make the buildings collapse.
 
twinstead said:
I just think it's very telling that in a thread about published papers criticizing NIST, the best truthers can do is bring up Quintiere, who in no way, shape, or form supports their position that it was impossible for fire and impact damage alone to make the buildings collapse.
Click to expand...

The levels of willful stupidity twoofers constantly display never ceases to amaze.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom