NIST Fire Science Head , James Quintiere , Disputes NIST Report

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The report was valid , or invalid because He says the NIST research was a

joke.

They guessed at the results of the computer animation's.

They never researched to find a cause, just excuses.

They never used their FULL subpeona limits , NEVER subpenoed ANYONE.

They have to go to a dump to get the little steel they have, which was all

marked and coded.

The reporting at wtc7 was flawed .

And He Calls for another FULL Report.

Try reading it , instead of cut and paste.

Originally posted by Sean48

The report was valid , or invalid because He says the NIST research was a

joke.

They guessed at the results of the computer animation's.

They never researched to find a cause, just excuses.

...so are you saying that you AGREE with Dr. Quintiere's research results that show the towers collapsed becuase of insufficient fireproofing on the structural supports?

If yes, you're necessarily saying you agree with the statement that it was the fires that caused the collapse, meaning that you also acknowledge these conspriacy stoies are all hogwash. If no, then there's no rational reason why you would be bringing up Dr. Quintiere's work when he's likewise showing these conspriacy stories are hogwash other than as an phony attempt to quote him out of context to keep these conspiracy stories alive.

Which is it?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Answers in previous post.

short calls for a unneccessary 2nd

reply to post by GoodOlDave

it says right there in black and white he thinks the collapse was due to insufficient fireproofing.

You do not know what he thinks.

You posted this becuase you found some sexy sounding rubbish on some conspriacy web site that, unknown to you, had perverted the facts to give their conspiracy stories false credibility.

You do not know why, he posted this information.
If any one is being is twisting and “perverted the facts,” go look in a mirror.

If you don't want to believe the 9/11 commission report,

The 911 commission report is a proven lie,

but DON'T GO TO THESE DAMNED FOOL CONSPIRACY WEB SITES FOR YOUR INFORMATION. They are LYING to you.

Don’t go to these DAMNED FOOL ”DISINFORMATION” “WEB SITES FOR YOUR INFORMATION. They are LYING to you”.

Why are you even still arguing against the fact?

Perhaps, when you “stop denying the facts” you will realized you’ve been lied to and you will realized you been defending a massive lie.

Dr. Quintiere was only given his opinions, just like you give your opinions.
FYI we all have an opinion. You want to hear mine.

You are mostly wrong about the garbage you spew against the truth. But what would one expect, if one is getting his information from those “DAMNED FOOL disinformation” websites.
I would learn to choose better reading material, if I was going to challenge posters on ATS, concerning 911 truths.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Answers in previous post.

short calls for a unneccessary 2nd

No, actually, you didn't answer the question. All you said is that you agreed with Dr. Quintiere in wanting anothe rinvestigation. You consistantly evade the fact that Dr. Quintiere wants another investigation to examine alternative reasons for why the fires caused the collapse. There is NO debate among the involved experts that it was the fires that caused the collapse, despite these damned fool conspiracy web sites trying to portray it otherwise. They're simply debating how the fires specifically caused the collapse.

I'm not asking what your mother's bra size is, dude. I'm simply asking if you agree with Dr. Quintiere's report that says the collapse was due to insufficient fireproofing. So, do you agree with it? All it requires is a simple yes or no.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


no





but need to say this to aviod

post removal

Originally posted by impressme

You do not know what he thinks.

Dude, you have to come up with a better excuse than that to keep your conspiracy stories alive, at this point. I am quoting the very article the OP is referencing, where Dr. Quintiere said-

"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."

So yes, actually, I DO think I know what Dr. Quintiuere is thinking. He's specifically telling us what he's thinking. He thinks the towers fell becuase of insufficient fireproofing insulation on the truss rods.

It seems to me that it's YOU who doesn't know what Dr. Quintiere is thinking. Either that, or Prison Planet doesn't know what he's really thinking. But then, since we both know you're getting all your information from such damned fool conspiracy web sites to begin with, I am actually repeating myself.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

no

So then why are you bringing up Dr Quintiere's report if you don't agree with it, if you're NOT deliberately trying to quote him out of context to give your own conspiracies false credibility? It's crystal clear that Dr. Quintiere agrees 100% with the "fires brought down the towers" finding, meaning that any further investigation will still shoot down these conspiracy stories just as the first investigation did.

Try as you might, you still cannot get around the fact that these damned fool conspriacy web sites are pulling all sorts of dishonest stunts to get you to believe what they want you to believe.

The report was valid , or invalid because He says the NIST research was a

joke.

They guessed at the results of the computer animation's.

They never researched to find a cause, just excuses.

They never used their FULL subpeona limits , NEVER subpenoed ANYONE.

They have to go to a dump to get the little steel they have, which was all

marked and coded.

The reporting at wtc7 was flawed .

And He Calls for another FULL Report.

Try reading it , instead of cut and paste.

I really dont know how to word this any other way , I , can only speak English.

Originally posted by Sean48


The report was valid , or invalid because He says the NIST research was a

joke.

They guessed at the results of the computer animation's.

They never researched to find a cause, just excuses.

They never used their FULL subpeona limits , NEVER subpenoed ANYONE.

They have to go to a dump to get the little steel they have, which was all

marked and coded.

You know as well as I do you're getting all THAT from these damned fool conspiracy web sites too. Did you even READ the NIST report?

a) the report specifically explained how they collected the samples they analyzed. The "little dump" was the area where all the recovered WTC steel was being gathered, and they collected 100+ samples from critical areas. What samples shoudl they have collected, but didn't, in your view? Do you even know?

b) NIST *also* interviewed first responders, eyewitnesses, people within the building, and even William Rodriguez, to get their data. Who did they need to subpoena, but didn't, in your view? Do you even know?

c) all this is nothing but a bait and switch, actually- we're talking about Dr. QUINTIERE'S report, not NIST, and Dr. Quintiere says the towers collapsed from inadequate fireproofing and he wants another investigation to review his findings that the towers collapsed due to insufficient fireproofing. No amount of game playing on your part will conceal the fact you're attempting to take his statement out of context.

Try as you like, you still can't get away from the blatant fact that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately misrepresenting what Dr. Quintiere is reporting: it really WAS the fires that caused the collapse. Don't even try to argue your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. You simply can't do it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave , sir

Please read what people write , and reports posted .

All I wrote is from Quintiere's report .

You should read it some time, it's very good.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave , sir

Please read what people write , and reports posted .

All I wrote is from Quintiere's report .

No, actually, you didn't. You simply cut and pasted what Prison Planet wrote from Quintiere's report. I irrefutably showed you it was a deliberate misrepresentation on their part, so that debate can be laid to rest. However, the part YOU seem to be concerned about, from that entire report, is that "Dr. Quintiere wants another investigation". Yes, Dr. Quintiere wants another investigation [becuase of some reason], but WHAT is the "some reason" you're attempting to tell us he wants another investigation for?

If you're attempting to say that Quintiere wants another investigation [becuase he wants a more in depth analysis of his research that says there was insufficient fireproofing] then yes, you are correct. It's obvious this is what he means, and there's no debate over the fact that the fires brought the towers down. The debate is how exactly the fires brought the towers down.

OTOH if you're attempting to say that Quintiere wants another investigation [becuase it may show the buildings were actually brought down by controlled demolitions] then we both know you are LYING. You're inserting that into the picture on your own and you're taking his quote out of context to give your controlled demolitions conspiracy false credibility.

So allow me to be more to the point- WHY then are you so concerned with Dr. Quintiere wanting another investigation?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Are you not taking your medicine.

Look through the entire thread

i never once said Controlled Demolition, because Quintiere didn't mention it.

Dave , I put the link to Prison Planet , because that's where I got the lead to

the Report

M Y Findings Are On The Report

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's obvious this is what he means, and there's no debate over the fact that the fires brought the towers down. The debate is how exactly the fires brought the towers down.

LOL! So there is no debate that it happened. There is only debate over how it happened. This forum never fails to make me laugh something good.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Dude, you have to come up with a better excuse than that to keep your conspiracy stories alive, at this point.

I don’t need to “concoct any excuses,” I have the creatable facts that firer alone was not what brought down the WTC.
What do you have? The proven lying NIST report?

I am quoting the very article the OP is referencing, where Dr. Quintiere said-

Duh, no kidding, however as I said in my last post to YOU, Dr. Quintiere is only giving his opinions.
Is Dr. Quintiere opinions true, well that’s up to sciences to bare the truth, not you.

So yes, actually, I DO think I know what Dr. Quintiuere is thinking.

No you don’t, you are not a mind reader, and if you think you are, then you tell me what I am thinking, now?

It seems to me that it's YOU who doesn't know what Dr. Quintiere is thinking.

Your right, I don’t claim to be a mind reader.

Either that, or Prison Planet doesn't know what he's really thinking. But then, since we both know you're getting all your information from such damned fool conspiracy web sites to begin with, I am actually repeating myself.

Now I have proof that you cant read minds because, I do not read from Prison Planet, or the likes. You are full of it.
You need to stop reading disinformation from those “damned fool conspiracy web sites”.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


No, actually, you didn't. You simply cut and pasted what Prison Planet wrote from Quintiere's report. I irrefutably showed you it was a deliberate misrepresentation on their part, so that debate can be laid to rest.

This is one of the ironies of the TM. In actual fact their efforts tend to undermine the search for objective truth. Partly because they focus on such extraordinary irrelevances, and partly because people like Quintere are hardly likely to be encouraged to come forward if it means associating with the TM.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Are you not taking your medicine.

Look through the entire thread

i never once said Controlled Demolition, because Quintiere didn't mention it.

Dave , I put the link to Prison Planet , because that's where I got the lead to

the Report

M Y Findings Are On The Report

Are you flipping kidding me?!? Prison Planet is the web site of that lunatic Alex Jones, who sees secret conspiracies behind everything from 9/11 to your stubbing your toe on a rock in your back yard, and Alex Jones is well known/notorious for pushing these "controlled demolitions" stories. If you don't subscribe to his claims then you've chosen a pretty weird source for your information. Why are you surprised when people mistake you for a controlled demolitions groupie when you're associating with controlled demolitions groupies?

If you're not a controlled demolitions groupie, then you should be on my side in denouncing lunatics exactly like Alex Jones for suckering people with rubbish that YOU YOURSELF acknowledge is rubbish, becuase it's muddying the water and leading people astray from any serious research into the events of 9/11.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Don't work yourself up Dave.

911 was a inside job

say what you want about AJ, he has the lead on a lot of stories.

Jones is a fat nutter who probably thinks his own shadow is trying to poison him with flouride-flavoured swine flu pills disguised as cheerios.

This is, of course, just an opinion.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Jones is a fat nutter who probably thinks his own shadow is trying to poison him with flouride-flavoured swine flu pills disguised as cheerios.

This is, of course, just an opinion.

too funny

probably true.