Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

twinstead said:
With all due respect Wizard, perhaps you should take your issues with NIST to a competent structural engineer or perhaps a metallurgist who could elaborate.

IMO, if there were indeed all these glaring mistakes in the report, the world's experts would kind of be upset about that.

Unless of course you think experts around the world haven't bothered to read the report, and are just taking NIST's word for it. I am under the impression that the WTC collapses, and the NIST report, are being studied in minute detail in engineering classrooms around the globe. But I may be wrong.

What in your opinion is the reason why the report is accepted as the most logical explanation of the events leading up to the collapse by professionals?
Click to expand...

Please show me your correspondence with all the experts around the world that agree with the NIST report. I mean you speak so confidently for them, I must assume you have asked them all
 
Wizard said:
Please show me your correspondence with all the experts around the world that agree with the NIST report. I mean you speak so confidently for them, I must assume you have asked them all
Click to expand...


I did. We were at this big party. Admittedly Little Fred from Sweden disagreed with the NIST report, but everyone knows Little Fred just likes to disagree on principle. None of the other experts think his opinions hold much weight.

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
Please show me your correspondence with all the experts around the world that agree with the NIST report. I mean you speak so confidently for them, I must assume you have asked them all
Click to expand...

Their silence speaks volumes.

Are you suggesting that they don't agree and are just keeping their mouths shut? Don't you think that subject may be of some interest in engineering circles? And I repeat do you think that the world's experts haven't read the report word-for-word and are just taking NIST's word for it?

I still think you need to explain why so very very few qualified people have come out against the report.
 
twinstead said:
Their silence speaks volumes.

Are you suggesting that they don't agree and are just keeping their mouths shut? Don't you think that subject may be of some interest in engineering circles? And I repeat do you think that the world's experts haven't read the report word-for-word and are just taking NIST's word for it?

I still think you need to explain why so very very few qualified people have come out against the report.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily ask you to explain why such a momentous engineering failure has not produced thousands of academic papers explaining the total destruction of the buildings.
 
And, I wonder what the National Council of Structural Engineers has to say, or their counterparts in other countries?

I think I'll find out. If they think parts of the NIST report are bogus then I'll start listening to you guys.
 
Wizard said:
I could just as easily ask you to explain why such a momentous engineering failure has not produced thousands of academic papers explaining the total destruction of the buildings.
Click to expand...

You could, but it doesn't answer my question that I posed first.

Namely, what is your explanation of why the world's experts have NOT come out against the findings of NIST?

ETA because according to you folks, it is so wrong that anybody could see through it.
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
I could just as easily ask you to explain why such a momentous engineering failure has not produced thousands of academic papers explaining the total destruction of the buildings.
Click to expand...


Well I dunno if it's thousands, but there's certainly a bucket load of different papers explaining the collapses. Of course, once NIST released their extensive report, anyone who agreed with it had no real reason to produce their own work. But I have seen plenty of papers that present a range of different theories, dating from prior to the release of the NIST papers.

-Gumboot
 
twinstead said:
You could, but it doesn't answer my question that I posed first.

Namely, what is your explanation of why the world's experts have NOT come out against the findings of NIST?

ETA because according to you folks, it is so wrong that anybody could see through it.
Click to expand...


What a ridiculous question. What are they meant to do if they disagree with it? stage a revolution?

They wouldn't dare because thety know they would be hounded as conspiracy theorists like Pegelow was when he opened his mouth
 
Here is one by the NCSEA. I think they represent a couple structural engineers:

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

So far no scathing denial of the NIST report here.

I'll read it more in detail, but can I submit this in lieu of interviewing thousands of structural engineers?
 
Wizard said:
What a ridiculous question. What are they meant to do if they disagree with it? stage a revolution?

They wouldn't dare because thety know they would be hounded as conspiracy theorists like Pegelow was when he opened his mouth
Click to expand...

Ridiculous question? Your answer is taken directly from CT 101, first chapter. Every structural engineer in the world is afraid of the US government so they are keeping their mouths shut.

And that isn't ridiclous?
 
twinstead said:
Here is one by the NCSEA. I think they represent a couple structural engineers:

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

So far no scathing denial of the NIST report here.

I'll read it more in detail, but can I submit this in lieu of interviewing thousands of structural engineers?
Click to expand...


Oh dear. I really am embarassed for you. You might want to read that document you just posted.

Its a report on how structural engineers can gather evidence at disaster sites using the wtc as an example PMSL
 
Wizard said:
They wouldn't dare because thety know they would be hounded as conspiracy theorists like Pegelow was when he opened his mouth
Click to expand...


You could atleast claim they were paid off or their families were threatened or something.

They're afraid of being labelled as a conspiracy theoriest?

That's really reaching.

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
Oh dear. I really am embarassed for you. You might want to read that document you just posted.

Its a report on how structural engineers can gather evidence at disaster sites using the wtc as an example PMSL
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. It would be a good time for them to sneak in the fact that they think NIST is full of crap, no?

I mean all that evidence that was whisked away sets a bad example, right?

And, perhaps you could address your CT 101 pat answer about why the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut.
 
twinstead said:
Ridiculous question? Your answer is taken directly from CT 101, first chapter. Every structural engineer in the world is afraid of the US government so they are keeping their mouths shut.

And that isn't ridiclous?
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone is afeared of the US gubmint...except for Alex Jones, Jack Blood, Dylan Avery, and Eric Hufschmidt. They are heroes!

Funny that people with actual expertise are all cowards after 9/11; while others who were self promoting con men before 9/11 are all heroic truth crusaders now!

Talk about ridiculous!

-z
 
twinstead said:
I am aware of that. It would be a good time for them to sneak in the fact that they think NIST is full of crap, no?

I mean all that evidence that was whisked away sets a bad example, right?

And, perhaps you could address your CT 101 pat answer about why the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut.
Click to expand...

No you were not aware of that. You presented it as an academic paper on the collapse which is what i asked for.

Have you read any of it. It has an interesting section on how a bus should be put on to the disaster site to save the engineers having to walk.

LOL you have made my day

Bit of advice....read links before you post them.
 
It always cracks me up how CTers love to discretize the mathematics into pseudoscientific gibberish english words. The acceleration was "near" freefall, and the thermal conductivity is "good", and the ground flight 93 hit was "soft". They ignore a mountain of mathematics and instead want to categorize things into english. Once they've determined the english label, they can then equate all things inside their label. Since steel is a "good conductor" that means it automagically is capable of teleporting heat anywhere at any time.
 
Wizard said:
Charles Pegelow.

Next
Click to expand...

A man who thinks the WTC had cool fires because 'no windows were broken by the heat'. He's entirely wrong about that, of course. When is he going to produce a scientific analysis of the WTC collapse and have it peer reviewed and published in a journal? Ever?
 
When will someone address the point about the towers core columns dimensions being misrepresented in NISTs computer models? The starter of the thread seems to have gone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom