[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[Totovader]

Perhaps- if you were able to go to google and do a search for NISTIAN, you would find jewels of knowledge from Greening like this one:

Pomeroo:

"Have you (meaning me) been attacked on this forum for offering that insight?

I must have missed it."

YUP, missed it you did!

Have you not been paying attention or noticed:

The JREFERs are good examples of messeger shooters, who assume every criticism of NIST signals a TWOOFER in the house. NISTIAN soldiers who march straight into denial mode whenever they are challenged...

These JREFERs show, time and again, how well they know the NIST Report, and are able to quote it, Chapter and Verse..... but FLIP-FLOP when faced with the great UNKNOWN territory of WTC collapse information OUTSIDE of the areas studied by NIST.

These NISTIAN APOLOGISTS say that if NIST didn't study it, it's not worth studying, or NIST probably DID study it, but found nothing of interest worth reporting.

In fact, when confronted with evidence of interesting information NOT addressed by NIST they offer endless, nit-picking arguments rather than concede one single lousy point to a perceived Twoofer... And about this time the comments start from the Argwiners, Tounge Lashers and other assorted Enigmas and Pardalian Variations, that I am childish, or "a failed scientist", or whatever...

So Pomeroo, may I suggest that until some JREFERs cease and desist with such behavior, then let the chips (including the one I allegedly bear on my shoulder), fall where they may.

And PLEASE do not even try to apologize for the behavior of your compadres!

P.S. I would gladly share my research with you, but not until something changes around here.

Or maybe even his most popular post:

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

You might even stumble across this "discovery":

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

The last one seems to contradict the first two, eh?

 

[TerryUK]

He obviously did say that- or at the very least implied that because he continues to refer to JREFERS.

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.

 

[Totovader]

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.

You didn't read my post- I said that at the very least he implied it. He certainly didn't correct it if it was my mistake. Plus, the quotes I just gave you- which you should have been capable of getting on your own- show that Apollo20 has made these statements repeatedly.

Since you continue to make appeals to authority mixed with the personal attacks, you can see that your post deserves to be flagged. "What you have seen" is a debate which you ran away from over a month ago in reference to this very topic. Why I should suddenly take you seriously when you couldn't do a single thing to defend your position there is beyond me. Clinging to the coat-tails of Apollo20 really doesn't help your case.

 

[TerryUK]

Originally Posted by Apollo20:
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

This sounds almost exactly like something I would post myself.

 

[rwguinn]

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.

The statments were accurate.
They were not precise, but they were accurate.
Now, stop trying to derail, or I will report you as as attempting to do so.

ETA:
And we all see how Dr. G makes attempts to justify his criticism with any kind of science at all. So far he has evaded the mechanism for embrittlement question for at least 2 months...

 

[TerryUK]

"What you have seen" is a debate which you ran away from over a month ago in reference to this very topic.

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL
Often, I have other priorities.

Clinging to the coat-tails of Apollo20 really doesn't help your case.

"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?

 

[rwguinn]

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL
Often, I have other priorities.





"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?

You were warned.
Reported for attempted derail

 

[TerryUK]

You were warned.
Reported for attempted derail

Get a life.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

I think you would be hard pressed to catch me using the phrase "was by far the most popular" in this forum or anywhere else for that matter. This is what I said ...

Because much of the discussion here on JREF about the NIST report seems to be based on their authority, or expertise, or how many pages the report was, or how much money they spent on it, etc. etc. etc., and less about what it actually asserts with its theory of the collapse initiation, the possible conflicts of interests, and their avoidance of certain aspects or possibilities.

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

So settle it. Prove it. What’s your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect?

 

[Totovader]

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL

Often, I have other priorities.

"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?

Sure- of course, the "I have a life" card. That sometimes works... if this were a chat room, maybe?

No- this is not about me, how you feel about me, or how scorned you are by our previous encounters- what this is about (primarily) is the NIST report, and criticism of that report.

If you want to continue to pretend like you have a bone to pick, then maybe you should get back to that thread you claimed to have not run away from. I'll meet you there on the topic which you also attempted to derail. That would be here.

 

[Totovader]

I think you would be hard pressed to catch me using the phrase "was by far the most popular" in this forum or anywhere else for that matter. This is what I said ...

Nor did I say you used that exact phrase, Mr. Strawman. Interestingly enough, you quotemined yourself... that's got to be a first. I wasn't as concerned with your sugarcoated attacks as I was with some of your more direct ones. Let's take a look at some of those, shall we?

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.

Is that why you like the NIST report? You like Phantoms do you?

You were unable to provide any examples where "much of the discussion" was based on an appeal to authority- in fact, when you tried you only demonstrated that the mistake is on your end.

So settle it. Prove it. What’s your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect?

It has been settled- no one here believes that the NIST report is above well-documented, scientific, researched criticism. You only continue to try a red herring because you want to avoid the fact that your accusations hold no water: skeptics are not faith-based... quite the opposite.

 

[Totovader]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

My point: Wood and Astaneh-Asl are nowhere close. The criticism that real scientists bring to the table is of tremendous benefit. Criticism of NIST, et al is not forbidden, it's encouraged. That's what science is- and someone who is a scientist should know that.

ZENSMACK: I bolded the part you continue to ignore.

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

And don't forget another scientist (James Quintiere, Former Chief NIST Fire Science Division) who was not happy with NIST. He says the towers could have fallen without the fire proofing being removed. He was briefly mentioned on the Loose Change Board but I think that stopped when they saw what he believed.

 

[Apollo20]

TerryUK:

I think you caught Totovader in a little white one... Nicely done!

By the way, I believe it is pretty obvious the particular brand of JREFer I am referring to... THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE... and their vituperation serves to self identify them!

RUGWINN:

If Al can flow down and around, so can zinc.

IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING

 

[Totovader]

TerryUK:

I think you caught Totovader in a little white one... Nicely done!

By the way, I believe it is pretty obvious the particular brand of JREFer I am referring to... THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE... and their vituperation serves to self identify them!

RUGWINN:

If Al can flow down and around, so can zinc.

IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING

You think? You're the one that believes it...

So when you refer to JREFERS and NISTIANS, you're not talking about anyone on this board?

Well... that's a relief- here I thought you were inventing a strawman for an entire group of people... as it turns out you were just talking about a small minority of individuals that don't even exist.

 

[Totovader]

Since you claim that "much of the discussion here on JREF" is actually appeal to authority, etc- could you perhaps provide 10 examples of where you see this is the case, instead of just your assertion in a desperate attempt to avoid the facts?

bump for Zensmack

 

[Totovader]

I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do. You're full of it- and I'm betting you know it. Of course- you've ignored similar challenges many times- so I guess that was more rhetorical than anything.

bump for Apollo20

 

[ZENSMACK89]

bump for Zensmack

Sorry. This isn't a one way street where you declare the rules. In other words you are no authority. Now I can give examples all day and you can claim that their not an appeal to an authority but you still haven't back up your big mouth.


What's your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect? Why are you avoiding? Afraid to bite the hand of authority that feeds your whole belief system maybe? That's my proof right there.

 

[Totovader]

Sorry. This isn't a one way street where you declare the rules. In other words you are no authority. Now I can give examples all day and you can claim that their not an appeal to an authority but you still haven't back up your big mouth.


What's your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect? Why are you avoiding? Afraid to bite the hand of authority that feeds your whole belief system maybe? That's my proof right there.

You made the claim- I've asked you three times to support it now. Since you have been unable to- it's pretty clear you were just making it up to avoid the facts and attack a group of people instead of the argument itself.

I have already provided an answer in regards to the statement I made- it's not avoiding, it's called not granting you a red herring. What you're demanding has nothing to do with the statement I made- it's non-sequitur to my rebuttal, and instead is just an attempt to avoid the issue altogether. How you think that's proof of anything but your own dodging is beyond me.

Perhaps you don't understand this, but the burden of proof is on you to provide that well-researched criticism. You've already been asked to do this and you ignored it. I'm betting you will just continue to do that.

 

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20 and Zensmack:

Your strawman argument has been shown to be just that, so why not give it a rest. You both know very well that the JREF CT subforum does not hold the NIST report as perfect. I doubt, as Toto has asked, that you could find one person who feels the NIST is beyond reproach. Frank, despite numerous concessions by numerous people here that the NIST is imperfect, you continue your own personal campaign to smear the people of this forum, some directly, others indirectly so through your continued bad mouthing of "JREFers" and "NISTIANS" as you have labeled them.

Since you find this forum useless from a scientific pov, why do you bother? Does it relieve tension for you? Does it fill some other need? I haven't said much to you about this lately, as you have been "reasonable", but now it seems you have begun again. I hope this taunting and game playing will once again be short lived.

TerryUK:

Not really sure why you took up the "Greening" defense, but I guess fair is fair, as often times we will stick up for others here. I would advise you to read all of Apollo20's posts, to get a better idea of how long he has been playing this game.

TAM