opednews.com— Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation.
Aug 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
Ok, so who would you have do the investigation? Who will fund it?Keep in mind, if it has any government ties, you won't trust it. Assume that all the evidence will be avialable to the investigators.
I can't prove it wrong? Another professional says the investigation was compromised?DIGG DOWN! BURIED! That's democracy for ya! The trolls just LOVE to see things banned and information concealed.I just don't get the mind set of these people...even if it were absolute rubbish, wouldn't it be so simple just to show why we are wrong?No, instead you bury with no explanation.Good job!
There's a phrase that goes "Follow the Money." The advertissements contained within Popular Mechanics are a good indication of where a good piece of their funding comes from. I'm sure that would explain a lot.
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.__________________________________Who is desperate, trying to paint this as anything more than different theories of how FIRE BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDING?BAA sheep, BAA.
Why not? The article's only premise is tht insufficient insulation may have caused the collapse due to fire, rather than the insulation being stripped away. I think the insufficient insulation premise only increases the odds of lawsuits. It doesn't do anything for YOUR Controlled demolition non-evidence, non-scientific garbage claim.
"This guy is claiming that the official "scientific" study done by the NIST is a farce."No, he is saying he has another theory about the insulation that he wants explored. Show me where he says the report is a farce? What, can't do it? That is because you are making it up. Once again, for your own needs, not because it is the truth.I cling to nothing. You cling to the need to twist an alternate theory about hte insulation into something more than it is. There is NOTHING but contempt for the controlled demolition "theory" in this article. Why do you need to twist and obfuscate?
Read the quote I post at the last post here. You will see that when a scientific study does not follow the scientific process, this is called a farce. I did not quote him on it, but it is simple to make this observation. You just need to read the whole article.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited ALL the characteristics of destruction by explosions -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.The collapse of WTC Building 7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibited ALL the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.<a class="user" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/">http://www.ae911truth.org/</a>How The Towers Fell<a class="user" href="http://blip.tv/file/306082/">http://blip.tv/file/306082/</a>Richard Gage, AIA, Architect gives a technical analysis of the World Trade Center controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
"So he's basing these theories on uncorroborated evidence to begin with."I know you think you're taking a logical, reasonable approach to being a truther by seeming to point out curious inconsistencies, but you're justNot true. His theories are sound scientific models that are entirely plausible (the steel weakening enough to cause the collapse; see every engineer ever for corroboration). The only thing that is uncorroborated is that the steel they had left over to test didn't show signs of undergoing that kind of heat. But as he points out, there just isn't very much steel that they can test, and not every piece of steel in the entire building needs to weaken to collapse. Somebody f**ked up somewhere with keeping the steel around (or whatever they need to do to avoid spoilage), but how you make these death defying jumps in logic is truly mind boggling.
hortnonAug 22, 2007
Ok, so who would you have do the investigation? Who will fund it?Keep in mind, if it has any government ties, you won't trust it. Assume that all the evidence will be avialable to the investigators.
card51shortAug 22, 2007
I can't prove it wrong? Another professional says the investigation was compromised?DIGG DOWN! BURIED! That's democracy for ya! The trolls just LOVE to see things banned and information concealed.I just don't get the mind set of these people...even if it were absolute rubbish, wouldn't it be so simple just to show why we are wrong?No, instead you bury with no explanation.Good job!
belxulAug 22, 2007
There's a phrase that goes "Follow the Money." The advertissements contained within Popular Mechanics are a good indication of where a good piece of their funding comes from. I'm sure that would explain a lot.
Closed AccountAug 27, 2007
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.__________________________________Who is desperate, trying to paint this as anything more than different theories of how FIRE BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDING?BAA sheep, BAA.
Closed AccountAug 27, 2007
Why not? The article's only premise is tht insufficient insulation may have caused the collapse due to fire, rather than the insulation being stripped away. I think the insufficient insulation premise only increases the odds of lawsuits. It doesn't do anything for YOUR Controlled demolition non-evidence, non-scientific garbage claim.
Closed AccountAug 27, 2007
"This guy is claiming that the official "scientific" study done by the NIST is a farce."No, he is saying he has another theory about the insulation that he wants explored. Show me where he says the report is a farce? What, can't do it? That is because you are making it up. Once again, for your own needs, not because it is the truth.I cling to nothing. You cling to the need to twist an alternate theory about hte insulation into something more than it is. There is NOTHING but contempt for the controlled demolition "theory" in this article. Why do you need to twist and obfuscate?
sep11insidejobAug 27, 2007
Read the quote I post at the last post here. You will see that when a scientific study does not follow the scientific process, this is called a farce. I did not quote him on it, but it is simple to make this observation. You just need to read the whole article.
Closed AccountAug 29, 2007
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited ALL the characteristics of destruction by explosions -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.The collapse of WTC Building 7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibited ALL the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.<a class="user" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/">http://www.ae911truth.org/</a>How The Towers Fell<a class="user" href="http://blip.tv/file/306082/">http://blip.tv/file/306082/</a>Richard Gage, AIA, Architect gives a technical analysis of the World Trade Center controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
Closed AccountSep 29, 2007
"So he's basing these theories on uncorroborated evidence to begin with."I know you think you're taking a logical, reasonable approach to being a truther by seeming to point out curious inconsistencies, but you're justNot true. His theories are sound scientific models that are entirely plausible (the steel weakening enough to cause the collapse; see every engineer ever for corroboration). The only thing that is uncorroborated is that the steel they had left over to test didn't show signs of undergoing that kind of heat. But as he points out, there just isn't very much steel that they can test, and not every piece of steel in the entire building needs to weaken to collapse. Somebody f**ked up somewhere with keeping the steel around (or whatever they need to do to avoid spoilage), but how you make these death defying jumps in logic is truly mind boggling.
n987saNov 20, 2007
Hmm. <a class="user" href="http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/qotwsubj.htm">http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/qo ...</a> I wonder why they never posted my question about the temperature indicated in the images of molten iron flowing from WTC 2.