I think it's necessary to once again look at the statements and beliefs of Dr.'s Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl. I'll start with Dr. Quintiere.
So: Does he attack the NIST report, call into question it's analysis and conclusion? Well, I don't think anyone can think otherwise. All people need to do to see this is read his "Questions" paper:
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.
Let's look at what he's saying:
- "... the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short...". So in his view NIST made mistakes regarding the length of time the fires had affected the structure.
- "An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause (bolding mine) appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses...". So, in his view, even trusses that did not lose their spray on fire resistant material were susceptible to the effects of the fire.
What is he criticizing? Obviously, it's the conclusion that NIST drew about the conditions that caused the steel to fail. As can be seen in his own statements, Quintiere believes that the steel would have still been vulnerable
even with the fireproofing still intact. He comes out and says this ("...
with the insulated trussses at the root cause...", "... This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.").
But what does this mean? It means he accepts that the fires were indeed at the heart of what caused the towers to fall. He not only doesn't challenge that, he treats that as a
given. What he does consider wrong are the conditions under which it all failed. And he wants NIST to submit their findings to other fire researchers and reevaluate whether the fireproofing was indeed sufficient. Read what he calls for:
Dr. James Quintiere said:
I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.
... and look at what he's saying. Even if we take his conclusions all the way, what we and he would end up supporting is a re-evaluation of the evidence and working assumptions used to evaluate the evidence. Which is indeed a rather big deal - others here can go into more detail as to what that would entail - but the point is that such a re-evaluation does not call into question the fundamental narrative of impacts plus fires equal collapse. The fundamentals, the "givens" would still be that the collapse is due to the result of the fires on the damaged segments of the towers, and nothing else.
So, now to the heart of the issue: Does the NIST report "lacks scientific integrity"? Well, there's a strong argument there from Dr. Quintiere, especially in his critique that the report has not been peer reviewed... and there's legitimate criticism in his statements about modeling and the role of fireproofing. I'm not sure I'm ready to go as far as he does, saying that the report "lacks scientific integrity", but I'm willing to accept that there are indeed flaws, sure. I'm happy to accept that. The criticism is valid.
But in return, people who bring up Quintiere as a scientist who challenges elements of the NIST report must in turn accept that he is yet another scientist who supports the dominant narrative, that the fires caused by the impact of the jets were indeed the cause of the collapse. They must accept that the fundamentals of his criticisms moot any hypotheses claiming that the towers needed external agents to collapse, since the entirety of his argument centers around the structure's response to the fires, the failure of the structural steel within the fire zone, and the role of fireproofing in this failure. That line of thinking explicitly contradicts Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and all others who try to claim that the building would not have failed had additional elements such as thermite or explosives been used. After all, it's irrelevant whether the fireproofing played a role or not if the ultimate cause of the collapse did not involve failure in the fire-involved zones. So sure, just for the sake of argument in this thread, I'm willing to provisionally accept Deep44's line that the NIST report is so fundamentally flawed that it "lacks scientific integrity". But, are conspiratorial believers willing in return to admit that those same criticisms validate the overall thesis that fires lead to the fall of the tower, and invalidates conspiratorial MIHOP scenarios involving active government involvement in the fall of the towers? If he and others who cite Quintiere do, then I'll be willing to accept that there are indeed truthers who are interested in the truth rather than in proving conspiracy fantasies, because they'll be accepting that Quintiere's arguments do indeed strengthen the hypothesis of fires and impact damage.
So, what's the consensus here? Do we all indeed call the NIST report fundamentally flawed due to Quintiere's criticisms? And in doing so, do we all accept that his criticisms ultimately strengthen the argument that impact damage and fires
alone were responsible for the collapse? They go hand in hand, after all.
.No seriously didnt they also retract the building 7 collapsed before it did.
