Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

Originally posted by NIcon
Here's a link to a paper James Quintiere wrote after his model:

www.fpe.umd.edu...

It has some information on the model and a couple of pictures, too.

What I find interesting is his thoughts on NIST's conclusions even after he built this model:

"The NIST analysis has flaws, is incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the collapse."

And he recommends:

"...all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Which is fine, but in the end Quintiere generally argues that fire and the fire safety design had a greater role in the collapse than did the damage caused by the plane impact and explosion. No controlled demolition. Which is where this whole thing is coming from.

Originally posted by hooper
Which is fine, but in the end Quintiere generally argues that fire and the fire safety design had a greater role in the collapse than did the damage caused by the plane impact and explosion. No controlled demolition. Which is where this whole thing is coming from.

The man you're talking about, is one man, and he also disagreed with the entire NIST report's conclusions and thought it was a very poorly done report.

If you're going to jump around to considering people who discredit that report anyway, why does it have to be the guy who still says it was planes and fires rather than any number of the thousands of engineers on record stating that it wasn't, or that we simply still don't know and need a better investigation?

I know the answer. It's because you already have your mind made up and everything you argue is based on that, not on facts.

reply to post by bsbray11

The man you're talking about, is one man, and he also disagreed with the entire NIST report's conclusions and thought it was a very poorly done report.

Yes one man. And I know everyone in the "truth" movement loves to describe it as him not in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST in the feign hope of catching some poor soul unaware for a moment and thinking that finally some legitimate source is saying that the NIST is all wrong, but Quinitiere never contends that anything other than the impact of the hijacked planes caused the collapse of the towers.

If you're going to jump around to considering people who discredit that report anyway, why does it have to be the guy who still says it was planes and fires rather than any number of the thousands of engineers on record stating that it wasn't, or that we simply still don't know and need a better investigation?

I didn't bring him up, someone else did. 1000's of engineers now? Thousands? C'mon, even you know that there are not thousands of engineers on record. Please. And last time I looked at that nutty petition there were only three strucutural engineers from NY and I think two are retired and in their eighties.

I know the answer. It's because you already have your mind made up and everything you argue is based on that, not on facts

Well, yes, I have "made up my mind" based on the facts as presented. Someone else's increduilty is not going to sway me or anyone else. You'll need to do much, much, much better than that.