DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Having fun in la-la land.
- Status
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why would it be the same? NIST explained the limitations and why they chose them. Did you actually read the reports? Do you know they left a lot of elements out on purpose?
Last edited:
'
What do you want, a fake model that looks like the collapse, bend the math...
You want Hollywood, NIST used physics/engineering. You don't understand engineering models, you want Hollywood? If the model visual looked like the video collapse I would suspect it was bogus.
Engineers use use math to build models, they don't have to "look" like what happened to prove a building can collapse. It is cool, 911 truth followers think it is bogus because it does not look right, they can't explain why the model would be wrong, and expose their ignorance of engineering model, math and physics.
E=mc2I bet the math does not look like the event...
You don't understand the engineering model; ask help from an engineer.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I've been trying for a couple years now to discuss his evidence for this hypothesis. It always comes back to my belief. I've said it before, there's nothing implausible about his hypothesis, I want to see the compelling evidence to sway me in that direction. That's when it goes off the tracks.
I have said exactly the same thing myself.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Just to answer the question without the snark... I would assume you realize that the FEA models also have their limitations? Do you think the whole collapse of the WTC 1 & 2 would have looked very similar with the FEA simulations if the NIST took them that far? I doubt it... I say the same for WTC 7; After collapse initiation there's a million different scenarios that could have taken place for it to branch out and the FEA has to sift through all of those solutions in an ever more complex path of failures working off an initial set of observed/documented data as the base.
My take is that beyond the initiation phase it would serve little in terms of knowing what weaknesses in the construction existed, or had to be improved in terms of building code requirements. I realize you have an alternative idea of the vulnerabilities the WTC 7 had as we've discussed already, but I don't think the FEA scenarios are necessarily the best path to pursue them... at least not the way you're going about it...
And for the everyone else... SanderO and I have discussed this issue a little bit already... his argument is basically that the WTC 7 had a different failure mechanism but he's not arguing for "CD"... It's a potential discussion to have, though it is a bit separate from what I'm reading ehre about the FEA material
Last edited:
A key feature of the real world collapse was the curtain wall and we don't know what was attached to it... come down like a unit.... the truthers ASSUME it was the entire building except maybe the EPH... And we can SEE the north face has a huge inward kink more or less opposite column 73 in the core.
The NIST gif DOES completely collapse.. but it MISSES the two very important features mentioned above. This is the core of my question... sure they got an FEA to show complete collapse... and it DOES explain the drop of the EPH but it's really a very poor fit. Don't you agree?
If you do why can't people just say the GIF was not good? Is it because it is LINKED to their column 79 scenario... and they probably couldn't get it to come close to real world... that would be interesting.
The NIST gif DOES completely collapse.. but it MISSES the two very important features mentioned above. This is the core of my question... sure they got an FEA to show complete collapse... and it DOES explain the drop of the EPH but it's really a very poor fit. Don't you agree?
If you do why can't people just say the GIF was not good? Is it because it is LINKED to their column 79 scenario... and they probably couldn't get it to come close to real world... that would be interesting.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
AFAIK the NIST animation shows that east of the "kink" the structure was greatly holowed out. West of that line there is a bit more still intact before perimeter frame collapse.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
... and it only took them 14 years to begin planning such research. Love how they phrase it though. Its designed to "demonstrate the impossibility of the collapse". That there is objective research if I ever saw it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That should be a huge pile of computertainment. They're going to use an analytical method few people understand thoroughly and play with the vast array of unknowns to make it seem to the general public like a computer proved NIST wrong and AE911T right.
In the "prove NIST wrong" case, it will be very easy for them to hide the assumptions that are inevitable to getting any such model to work at all. NIST published their assumptions and methods. It is, in fact, those very assumptions that the conspiracy theorists question. But simply assuming different things doesn't automatically make a more faithful model.
In the "prove us right" case, that's just an affirmed consequent. They can burn electrons all they want on a supercomputer, but simply having modeled some imagined scenario doesn't prove it happened. You can move your imaginary "nanothermite" anywhere in the model until you get something that looks close enough to the video, then tell people you've "proved" that's where the explosives "must" have been.
Get the findings published in a mainstream peer-reviewed structural engineering journal. Now that would make me take notice.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's designed to "demonstrate the impossibility of the collapse". That there is objective research if I ever saw it.
Hey, all the best researchers know the answer before they do the study, right? So instead of Principal Investigator we'll have a Principal Confirmer of Pre-Determined Outcome. Having already published the findings, they are pretty much handcuffs them to the need to play with the initial conditions and unknowns until the model doesn't produce a global collapse. And then shout "Eureka!" and proclaim that they've done better science than NIST, and that those "must" be the proper assumptions (if they discuss their assumptions at all).
If you have something like
x + a = 3
a = 2,
a = 2,
you can disprove the proposition x = 42 in this system. But as you said, you do it by showing algebraically that x must be 1. And this, of course, under the vast array of tacit assumptions such as x and a being unremarkable integers and 2 and 3 having their customary values.
But yes, you're invoking math as a front-porch to the inferential deductive logic that we use in math, and which governs what conclusions can be drawn reliably from known facts. And an unshakable fact of that form of reasoning within an open-ended system is that you can't prove a negative.
I can prove a rudder actuator was not likely to be the cause of some crash, but that by showing that the power control unit was more likely a source of failure. No amount of bench testing, design analysis, or other investigative exercise lets me say it's impossible for the rudder actuator to have failed.
To continue the math analogy, we have in this type of investigation a system that looks more like
x + a + b + c + d = 0
What are the values of the variables that aren't x? They're unknowns. You must discover their values, estimate them, or find reasonable bounds for them. And differences in the values you choose for them vastly affect the outcome. Here in this algebraic system we have an infinite number of values to choose from for each variable. In the analogous modeling system, we can reasonably bound the values but they still have vastly non-linear effects on the model state.
Going through some large number of values for a, b, c, and d does not prove the system is impossible to solve. Since the problem is practically unbounded, at most you've shown that you have not yet found a suitable set of values. Hence AE911T saying, "See, we ran our model and the building failed to collapse; therefore NIST fudged their results," is comically wrong.
Conversely, showing that one particular set of values for a, b, c, and d solves the system does not preclude other solutions or show that it is the best from among the possible values. Yes, it is an answer, but it is not necessarily the answer. For example, setting a and b to very small numbers (positive or negative), and setting c to a comparatively very large positive number requires setting d to a comparably very large negative number in order to solve the system. Depending on your reasons for setting c as you have, you cannot plausibly say you have proven d "must" be a large negative number. So AE911T saying, "See, our contrived animation looks just like the video!" doesn't prove the contrivance is what really happened.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
A collapse model/simulation that starts with the assupmtion "intentional demolition by explosives and/or incendiaries" would have to include as a published set of assumptions the specific demo charges - their locations, chemical and physical properties, sizes, timing. Equivalent to NIST's input of fuel loads and fire szenarios.
Now I believe / assume (can anyone confirm or refute this?) that NIST checked these assumed fire szenarios against observations - where were fires and smoke visible at what times? Analogously, I'd expect the AE sim to also check the other effects against available observational data - particularly sound level of explosives at locations of video cameras that caught the collapse.
NIST's models computed how heat from fires propagated in the steel, and the effects thereof. Analogously, I'd expect the AE models to compute the effects of explosive shockwaves or the heat propagation of incendiary devices to melt through steel, and how that effects the steel's performance over time.
In addition to all this I of course expect AE to model fire szenarios, match them against observation, and compute their effects on the steel - and on the demo devices.
And now the CD szenario that I would try to implement:
1. Cut the 13th floor 44-to-79 girder at its connection with col 79
2. Next, explode the floor slabs from 13th floor dowm to 8th.
3. Next, cut col. 79, followed immediately by 80 and 81
4. Next, cut core columns and adjoining floor joists in an east to west sequence
5. Cut north perimeter columns at the 8th floor.
I am sure the resulting collapse will look pretty much like the real thing
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is what Szamboti never answered. You can't just infer things from one context of evidence that don't show up in others, without trampling all over parsimony. You can't say explosives "must" have been used just because you tweak the model to produce a comparable animation. This is why they have to invent paint-on silent explosives to make their theory work.
Case in point:
And now the CD szenario that I would try to implement:
1.Cutdelete programmatically from the model the 13th floor 44-to-79 girder at its connection with col 79
2. Next,explodedelete programmatically the floor slabs from 13th floor dowm to 8th.
<etc., snip>
I am sure the resulting collapse will look pretty much like the real thing
Exactly, and by doing what I show above in your revised plan, I can "prove" that WTC 7 was destroyed by space aliens who teleported away those structural members. Which is to say, my logic will be as equally sound on that point as what AE911T proposes for their study.
7WTC appears to be a CD because whatever happened.. the structure low down in the tower failed and the top came straight down. This seems to be why the people who latch on the CD do so.
Whatever the fire cause... it had to lead to a loss of axial strength for most of the inner structure probably below the 8th floor which corresponds to the approximate FF descent of 100 or 8 stories. NIST's explanation seems to suggest the flr 13 scenario led to crushing/destruction/loss of integrity of the structure below 8... probably from the 28 stories of debris around 79, 80 and 81 coming down on the 12 stories below including taking out the load transfer structures TT1, TT2 then the EW girder and then TT3.
I suppose AE will show 8 stories of column destruction in their CD fantasy FEA... which is what Gage has been prattling on about for years.
Whatever the fire cause... it had to lead to a loss of axial strength for most of the inner structure probably below the 8th floor which corresponds to the approximate FF descent of 100 or 8 stories. NIST's explanation seems to suggest the flr 13 scenario led to crushing/destruction/loss of integrity of the structure below 8... probably from the 28 stories of debris around 79, 80 and 81 coming down on the 12 stories below including taking out the load transfer structures TT1, TT2 then the EW girder and then TT3.
I suppose AE will show 8 stories of column destruction in their CD fantasy FEA... which is what Gage has been prattling on about for years.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Oystein I can't fully confirm this, but in my many hours of phone conversations with NIST people years ago, they said, "We followed the evidence." First they collected vast amounts of data and then began hypothesizing. They also changed their hypotheses early on as some early hypotheses didn't fit the data.A collapse model/simulation that starts with the assupmtion "intentional demolition by explosives and/or incendiaries" would have to include as a published set of assumptions the specific demo charges - their locations, chemical and physical properties, sizes, timing. Equivalent to NIST's input of fuel loads and fire szenarios.
Now I believe / assume (can anyone confirm or refute this?) that NIST checked these assumed fire szenarios against observations - where were fires and smoke visible at what times? Analogously, I'd expect the AE sim to also check the other effects against available observational data - particularly sound level of explosives at locations of video cameras that caught the collapse.
NIST's models computed how heat from fires propagated in the steel, and the effects thereof. Analogously, I'd expect the AE models to compute the effects of explosive shockwaves or the heat propagation of incendiary devices to melt through steel, and how that effects the steel's performance over time.
In addition to all this I of course expect AE to model fire szenarios, match them against observation, and compute their effects on the steel - and on the demo devices.
And now the CD szenario that I would try to implement:
1. Cut the 13th floor 44-to-79 girder at its connection with col 79
2. Next, explode the floor slabs from 13th floor dowm to 8th.
3. Next, cut col. 79, followed immediately by 80 and 81
4. Next, cut core columns and adjoining floor joists in an east to west sequence
5. Cut north perimeter columns at the 8th floor.
I am sure the resulting collapse will look pretty much like the real thing
Miragememories
Banned
Many hours?
How many hours, and to whom do you claim to have conversed with at the NIST?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You have not talked to experts to help you decide why your claims are delusional nonsense?
How many newspaper turned down you claims, claims if true would be the biggest story since Watergate. You and your newspaper with your "evidence" could be the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate. But here you are, you question someone who took action to talk to the experts on 911, and you have done nothing but repeat lies from failed old men like Jones and Harrit who lies about 911.
The fact is you have failed claims on 911, and no evidence; after 13 years you think you have evidence, but you don't. You never will. What is next for you, no action for another 13 years. Why has 911 truth failed to earn a Pulitzer? Because no newspaper can earn a Pulitzer without evidence - and if they do, they are caught later, in a lie.
911 truth claims are the biggest lies in history, too bad there is no Pulitzer for lies which are orders of magnitude worse than failed fiction.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Thanks. You did exactly what journalists are expected to do. Your word is good enough for me.
To convince others, sceptics: I am quite sure - but not perfectly certain - that NIST would describe in sufficient detail if and how they matched their model fire szenarios (of which I think they had several) against real documented observations. I just have so far been too lazy to dig through NIST NCSTAR 1A, 1-9 and 1-9A to see for myself, and hoped someone else would do the legwork for me, or know it by heart. WTC7 is only a second priority interest of mine, so I don't spend very much time on such details. I am more interested in the development and activities of AE911T and related groups, which incidentally is the subject of this thread. So to rephrase my objective: I expect the announced AE911T WTC7 computer simulation study to follow the high standards of evidence and plausibility check against reality that NIST set - whatever these standards are.
- Status