[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[Totovader]

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?

This is all you do- you set up this whopping strawman so you can continue character assassinations and then whine about it over and over and over. As MANY have pointed out, there are no examples of this in this forum that you can point to. You will not find a single person here who claims that Astaneh is equivalent to Wood- and that strawman is so absurd that it shows what you're really after: you are the one who is what you are describing. You absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says- only for the fact that it is NIST. You have no counter- except to attack the people that agree with the most complete, scientific, and well-researched study to date by claiming that they're "NISTIANS"- as if that's sufficient.

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.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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

Yes I have.

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.

And you see nothing wrong with this? You read a 10,000 page report and will only discuss what you feel is good about it out of fear that if you bring up what you feel might be viewed as a criticism someone (your declared enemy apparently) will take that criticism and run with it ? Did you make the decision to only discuss what you consider the good parts before or after you read it?

In any case at least part of your endorsement of NIST and reluctance to openly criticize it is based in fear. Well now, that's some view on how science works.

 

[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.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

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.

Maybe you two should talk.

 

[Totovader]

Maybe you two should talk.

I don't see how that helps your case, Zensmack. If anything- that confirms what I have been talking about.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe you two should talk.

What an incredible demonstration of ignorance of the scientific methodology on your part.

 

[slyjoe]

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?

NO.

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

YES.

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.

AGREED. See my sig

 

[Corsair 115]

I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?

Are the folks who worked on the NIST report not experts, a.k.a. authorities, in their respective fields? If so, then why are you so hung up on "the authority of NIST"?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

 

[TjW]

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

I think you have the cart before the horse. There's no obligation to criticize the NIST report. There is something of an obligation that any criticism be well-founded.

But I'll criticize the NIST report:
They could have printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges. I like blue paper with gilt edges. It would have been better if they'd printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges, instead of just releasing it as pdf files.

Sure, I could print it on blue paper with gilt edges myself, but that's too much work. They should have done it for me, because that's what I like.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you have the cart before the horse. There's no obligation to criticize the NIST report. There is something of an obligation that any criticism be well-founded.

But I'll criticize the NIST report:
They could have printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges. I like blue paper with gilt edges. It would have been better if they'd printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges, instead of just releasing it as pdf files.

Sure, I could print it on blue paper with gilt edges myself, but that's too much work. They should have done it for me, because that's what I like.

I agree. In fact they could have used some of that blue paper with gilt edges to explain the collapse itself instead of the invisible paper, ink, they did use.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Are the folks who worked on the NIST report not experts, a.k.a. authorities, in their respective fields? If so, then why are you so hung up on "the authority of NIST"?

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.

This though flawed thinking in my opinion is a very honest statement from Hokulele…

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I agree. In fact they could have used some of that blue paper with gilt edges to explain the collapse itself instead of the invisible paper, ink, they did use.

So what's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

Dave

 

[Totovader]

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

Red herring.

 

[Totovader]

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.

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?

 

[T.A.M.]

ZEN:

The NIST Report was a summary of the findings of a group of scientists and engineers tasked with investigating the collapse of the towers for the purpose of BUILDING PERFORMANCE.

They have since stated that once the collapse began, it was not going to stop or hault, so examining the ACTUAL COLLAPSE ITSELF would be a waste of money and time in their opinion. Given their mandate, and their premise that the collapse once initiated was unstoppable, please provide me with evidence that points to a different conclusion.

TAM

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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?

Here's just a few right from this thread

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?

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".

So they had very little control over the report anyways. Personally I would WANT people involved in the designing to be on the team because they'd likely have knowledge about the way the buildings would react and why certain things were done that outsiders wouldn't have. As long as the leadership of the group was independant and wasn't overly swayed by those few team members, I don't see any issues. Once more it seems that Apollo 20 is making mountains out of mole hills.

Given their mandate, and their premise that the collapse once initiated was unstoppable, please provide me with evidence that points to a different conclusion.TAM

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Red herring.

Really?

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?

 

[DGM]

Did I miss the part when these people that criticized NIST disagreed with their final conclusion? I don't remember the CD report.

 

[Apollo20]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.