[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

NIST has no authority. Do you think they have the power to dicatate thought? They have respect, it's earned. I don't have the cred to even contribute to what they have to say. I accept this and I strive to learn more. You need to access what NIST is, and what they have done, then make comment. It's about respect for people who have done, from people who haven't. At least I can acknowledge my place in this universe, they tell me this is part of what they call "Wisdom".
 
3bodyproblem said:
NIST has no authority. Do you think they have the power to dicatate thought? They have respect, it's earned. I don't have the cred to even contribute to what they have to say. I accept this and I strive to learn more. You need to access what NIST is, and what they have done, then make comment. It's about respect for people who have done, from people who haven't. At least I can acknowledge my place in this universe, they tell me this is part of what they call "Wisdom".
Click to expand...

Apparently they hold an authority over you in the form of your blind faith. They are your Emperor and you think their new clothes are so neat even though you can't really see any.
 
Hmm...how so? Because you know I think this and that about NIST? Zen, you're playing in a new league here, your blanket statements have no meaning. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks the way you think they do here. You see you're trying to extend motive to what they fine people at NIST arrived at. This isn't the case. You'd have to show me that all the contributors were "In on it" in order for this to be true. Good Luck. Are there shortcomings in the NIST report? You bet. But were they deliberate? Tell me how so.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.
Click to expand...
Well, there are some rather knowledgeable folks listed on the NIST's reports credits.

Or are you saying simply because NIST itself is in some fashion an arm of the government it's automatically untrustworthy? If so, then does that mean you also automatically don't trust the Census Bureau, CDC, USGS, NASA, NOAA, EIA, SEC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, GAO, NARA, or FDIC, just to name a few government agencies?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Hmm...how so? Because you know I think this and that about NIST? Zen, you're playing in a new league here, your blanket statements have no meaning. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks the way you think they do here. You see you're trying to extend motive to what they fine people at NIST arrived at. This isn't the case. You'd have to show me that all the contributors were "In on it" in order for this to be true. Good Luck. Are there shortcomings in the NIST report? You bet. But were they deliberate? Tell me how so.
Click to expand...

All I see here is a bunch of excuses and apologies for the obvious conflict of interest APOLLO20 pointed out in some of the people on the NIST team. It reminds me of a couple of weeks ago when the Dr. Quintiere thing surfaced about him calling for an independent review of the NIST report because of among other things....

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

There weren’t many people here on JREF who wanted to talk about those things though. All they wanted to do was point to how Quintiere didn't endorse an inside job theory as if that's the only point that matters as far as the NIST investigation goes.

You replied to my comment asking "how so"? I'm just wondering in light of Quinteres comments and the obvious conflicts of interest why all the apologies and excuses from a bunch of self proclaimed critical thinkers?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Well, there are some rather knowledgeable folks listed on the NIST's reports credits.

Or are you saying simply because NIST itself is in some fashion an arm of the government it's automatically untrustworthy? If so, then does that mean you also automatically don't trust the Census Bureau, CDC, USGS, NASA, NOAA, EIA, SEC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, GAO, NARA, or FDIC, just to name a few government agencies?
Click to expand...

No I didn't say that. Got a reply for what I did say?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Apparently they hold an authority over you in the form of your blind faith. They are your Emperor and you think their new clothes are so neat even though you can't really see any.
Click to expand...

Well you know, when you can start pointing out actual errors in their work we might take you seriously. Until then all you have is :talk006:
 
PhantomWolf said:
Well you know, when you can start pointing out actual errors in their work we might take you seriously. Until then all you have is :talk006:
Click to expand...
No what I have is a sample of real critical thinking ...

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

And then one of many samples of name calling in place of facts...

"When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT." - PhantomWolf

BTW...

phantom also fantom n. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.

Is that why you like the NIST report? You like Phantoms do you?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Perhaps you're confused, let me refresh your memory. The comment of yours I was replying to was:




So what exactly was the kind of reply you were looking for in regards to your comment quoted above?
Click to expand...
I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?
Click to expand...


I have read the entire NIST report (around 10,000 pages). Have you?

There are a few places where I think they could have done more, and one or two questions I do have on some of their conclusions which I have discussed with people I know. However, I do not believe that these minor points in any way devalue the rest of the report. The reason why I have not yet posted these questions on an open forum is that many people with the so-called truth movement will see any flaw as an excuse to throw out the entire body of work. I have no interest in contributing anything that could possibly be used by people with such a flawed view of the way science works.
 
So, let's see. An engineer says that the Towers were even more likely to collapse if hit by a plane than NIST has admitted ... and this supports the Troof how, exactly? Apollo20? Anyone? Do explain.
 
Am I missing something?

Anyone who has visited this and certain other 9/11 conspiracy forums has surely noticed the same old coterie of posters spouting the same old mantra that no qualified engineer or scientist has come up with a legitimate criticism of the impeccable NIST REPORT. What criticisms there are, come only from goof-balls, loony-tunes, teenagers, Bush-haters, etc, etc.... Hence, so these posters maintain, the NIST REPORT stands unchallenged and unrefuted as the one and only TRUTH about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

So when a real scientist or engineer does in fact step up to bat and makes a point or two that hints of criticism of NIST, the ever vigilant NISTIAN APOLOGISTS call FOUL!

Thus any scientist or engineer who has the temerity to so much as utter a single word of doubt about 9/11 is branded by the NISTIAN thought police as incorrect in his thinking: a poor researcher who is ill-informed and easily refuted. This is apparently a self-evident TRUTH simply because the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS say so, and these folks know best because they have received enlightenment from the genius scientists and engineers at NIST. They have read the "GOOD BOOK" - all 10,000 pages of it - and accept NIST as the one true GOSPEL!

So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?
 
Apollo20 said:
So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I challenge you to find one person on this site who thinks the NIST is perfect. As you must know, it's not about who challenges them, or even that its being challenged, but WHY the NIST is being 'challenged'.

It is beneath you to suggest that Quintere's critizism, for example, is of the same type as Wood's. What is your motive for lumping Quintere, Astaneh, etc with Jones and Wood? You can't tell the difference?

Therefore, I challenge you to find one TRULY qualified expert, who has studied ALL the evidence of the collapses, who will come out officially and say the buildings could not have collapsed the way NIST describes.

Heck, you could be considered in that category in many ways. Even with your criticism of the NIST report, do you think that the building collapses are impossible they way the report describes them?
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're missing something.

We all recognise (I hope) that the NIST report was not written to refute lunatic conspiracy theories. When we use it for that purpose, there is a specific line of argument that it's used to counter. That line of argument is that the WTC towers could not possibly have collapsed without explosives being used. The NIST report demonstrates that collapse without explosives is not only possible but entirely reasonable. When it's criticised by conspiracy theorists, the tenor of their criticisms is that the entire report and the investigation leading to it have no basis in reality whatsoever, and that the experts consulted by NIST fabricated evidence and calculations wholesale in order to prove a completely impossible hypothesis. This is unwarranted and libellous, and merits nothing but contempt.

There is, however, another type of criticism of NIST, which asserts that the precise mechanism proposed by NIST differs in minor ways from the actual collapse mechanism of the towers (minor ways, in this context, meaning that the root causes were still some combination of fire and impact damage), and that these differences are significant in determining how future buildings can be constructed more safely. These are sensible and responsible criticisms from sensible and responsible individuals, and merit careful consideration. Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are in a different world from Jones and Wood, and I hope everyone on the non-CT side of the debate is well aware of that.

Unfortunately, the level of polarisation in the CT debate is such that conspiracy theorists seize on criticisms of the detail of the NIST model and present them as wholesale refutations of everything in the NIST report. At this point it is necessary to defend the general sweep of the NIST model, as the dishonest tactics of conspiracy theorists lead them to claim that any revision of a part of the NIST model, however small, invalidates the entire report and investigation.

This is a perfect example, in fact, of how the conspiracy theorists are attempting, wittingly or unwittingly, to stifle open debate of any issues concerning 9-11 other than their own groundless fantasies. The fact that some of us get drawn into this over-polarised debate is unfortunate but understandable, as is the fact that we can then be rather over-dogmatic in our defense of the NIST report.

No, the NIST model is not a perfect description, and our defense of it sometimes goes beyond what is reasonable; but compared to Steven Jones's papers it is a model of clarity and precision.

Dave
 
Last edited:
The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.
Click to expand...
No I didn't say that. Got a reply for what I did say?[
Click to expand...
ZENSMACK89 said:
I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?
Click to expand...

Gee, Zens, you get that a lot.
Perhaps its because rather than actually say what you mean you assume that others can read your mind.
 
Apollo20:

IF we were discussing your papers, I would be the same way. If Dylan or someone else without proper qualifications started to Bash your paper without scientific merit to back it up, I would call foul, and slam them for it. Likewise, if legitimate scientists questioned your reports and had good science to back it, I would have to give it consideration.

I have contended that Quintere, and now Astaneh may have valid concerns and points. I think you paint with too wide a brush, which is the very thing you and others here have accused us of doing.

In terms of what issues I have with NIST, now, after hearing issues raised by other QUALIFIED individuals, includes aspects of the collapse involving alternative materials contributing to the heat and energy of the collapse. I think that others have expressed concerns regarding other aspects they feel NIST did not address sufficiency, but as to date have seen no evidence that it was within their mandate to do so.

TAM:)
 
Apollo, though you probably have me on ignore:

You love to make us sound religious in devotion to the NIST gospel. When a real scientist has a problem with NIST that he sets out scientifically, we listen.

And then there's Richard Gage:

When you come up on a 9/11 debunker or government official that says, "We've already looked into that, that's not necessary," use the force and the power of the honoring of the dead in this building to give you the inspiration to move through this resistance that you're going to face in the world as you tell your friends about this story, and as they think you're crazy because they haven't been through this presentation, they haven't seen the evidence. They have to see the evidence. You have to send them a video, a DVD, a link to my website which will have this video on it. Use the honoring -- use the force of the honoring of the fallen ones to get to the truth.
Click to expand...

That's a direct quote from his two hour presentation on 9/11 truth. Yet WE'RE the ones who are the religious zealots here? Riiiiiight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom