NIST's Pellets

[Yurebiz]

No way, I couldn't raise any concern to anyone who has already set it's mind up on 9/11. Not with my still under-developed english. Besides, I'm a CTer. What you expect, ME, becoming a communicating HUMAN BEING from night to day? Not in a thousand years!

 

[CHF]

No way, I couldn't raise any concern to anyone who has already set it's mind up on 9/11. Not with my still under-developed english. Besides, I'm a CTer. What you expect, ME, becoming a communicating HUMAN BEING from night to day? Not in a thousand years!

I'm sure there MUST be some engineers in the Middle East or Venezuela who would just love for you to tell them what they're missing.

Sadly, the ENTIRE twoof movement is apparently made up of people just like you. Which is why nothing ever gets done with your "proof."

 

[R.Mackey]

Ah I see. Well I've found 2 errors up to now, if you may call them that:
1- The NIST does not disclose information on which specific areas had their trusses dislodged from SFRM.
2- The NIST did not conduct any tests to conclude how much dislodgement would be necessary for collapse initiation. They've only conducted tests where there were beams with, either full insulation, or no insulation at all.

You may not call them that. They are not errors.

NIST doesn't include them because, obviously, they don't know the precise condition of individual truss members' insulation between aircraft impact and collapse. There are no pictures and hardly any survivors. NIST can't publish results that they don't have, can they?

Besides, it's irrelevant. NIST doesn't need to specify to that degree of detail, any more than a claims adjuster needs to measure every wrinkle of a wrecked car to determine who's at fault. Again, if you bother to read the NIST report, you will see the input conditions to their model and all assumptions declared. These assumptions are based on the best guesses one can make about likely structural condition. They interpolate between best and worst cases. They do not have to rerun the entire experiment for every minute change.

See, you've done it again. You're complaining about the way scientists do their job, when it's patently obvious that you don't understand their job in the first place. That's what I admonished you for above, and you seem to have missed the point completely.

What the NIST does do, as one can say, is that it prooved the collapsed initiation possible, under certain requirements. But does it attempt to associate the tests (pellets, trusses heating) with what actually happened in the Towers? Well, if so, then please show me What areas had had insulation likely dislodged.

I've been begging for this for some time already. I believe this is a crucial information which has not been disclosed, one which is essential for the NIST's collapse initiation thesis statement, as you know. By having no likely information on the subject, then I have no reasons to believe it. It would be the same as trying to "connect the dots" given in your traditional CT.

Your belief is wrong. The level of detail you demand is simply not required. Why you believe this, I have no idea.

NIST is well within its rights to put high, low, and best-guess estimates about the fire temperature, fire insulation, and impact damage, and use that -- and only that -- in its models. It does not have to model every bolt, every open window, and every piece of insulating foam. Engineers perform a step called "sensitivity analysis" to understand how sensitive their conclusions are to minor perturbations like this. The NIST report was independently reviewed by engineering firms who conducted precisely this analysis. That's the way it's done.

Now, again, read the report, and ask questions as needed. But you are in no position to call them "errors" without understanding the process. You simply don't have the experience.

 

[Mashuna]

Ah I see. Well I've found 2 errors up to now, if you may call them that:
1- The NIST does not disclose information on which specific areas had their trusses dislodged from SFRM.
2- The NIST did not conduct any tests to conclude how much dislodgement would be necessary for collapse initiation. They've only conducted tests where there were beams with, either full insulation, or no insulation at all.

Hi Yurebiz. I think with the posts above, you're confusing errors, i.e. factually incorrect statements with omissions. You may (and do) query whether these were things that should have been included in the report, but you can't class them as errors.

 

[rwguinn]

You may not call them that. They are not errors.

......snip stuff no CT'er willever even try to, much less actually, understand...
Now, again, read the report, and ask questions as needed. But you are in no position to call them "errors" without understanding the process. You simply don't have the experience.

D*mn, you're my hero! Maybe that's why I have managed to stay out of management all my career. I was born without the diplomacy gene.
The key issue, as you said

Your belief is wrong. The level of detail you demand is simply not required. Why you believe this, I have no idea.

NIST is well within its rights to put high, low, and best-guess estimates about the fire temperature, fire insulation, and impact damage, and use that -- and only that -- in its models. It does not have to model every bolt, every open window, and every piece of insulating foam. Engineers perform a step called "sensitivity analysis" to understand how sensitive their conclusions are to minor perturbations like this

They have neither the training nor intellect to understand that one can envelope the event by best and worst-case scenarios.
Just as a physician confronted with a patient with his head disconnected from the rest of his body doesn't need to run a bunch of tests to determine vitality, once the structure is understood and the energy input figured, the result of the plane crashes and subsequent fire is inevitable to the competent engineer, and further diagnosis in futile and moot

 

[The Almond]

What the NIST does do, as one can say, is that it prooved the collapsed initiation possible, under certain requirements. But does it attempt to associate the tests (pellets, trusses heating) with what actually happened in the Towers? Well, if so, then please show me What areas had had insulation likely dislodged.

Read the NIST NCSTAR1-6 report. Starting at Chapter 5: Aircraft Impact Damage you will see images of damaged insulation, areas of column damage, severity of column damage, thermal response to the structures and numerous other pictures, charts and graphs.

In particular, I would suggest figures 5-11, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, and 5-24. They contain the areas of dislodgement (shown in green on most of the charts) along with areas showing column damage and damage to the floor trusses.

Yes, NIST does associate the tests with what happened in the towers. Reading chapter 4 as well as the introduction will give you an excellent example of what happened given the global collapse scenario.

I've been begging for this for some time already.

This is quite typical of the conspiracy theorist. If the information is not in front of you, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it is someone else's job to provide it. Perhaps your research tactics could be significantly improved through the application of broader, more valid research methods.

I believe this is a crucial information which has not been disclosed,

It has been disclosed, in the report, in the figures I cited. I expect you'll retract this point in your next post.

So, (More gibberish below): Which two? FEMA and NIST? They came to different conclusions because they don't care about disclosing real investigations.

Non-sequitor. Here you're accusing NIST, the ASCE and FEMA of willfully obscuring information. Let's use this as a reference for future debates, ok?

FEMA's initial report, which was headed by the ASCE, was based primarily on ground, video and photographic representations of the collapse. The ASCE report to congress in 2003 has far more similarities with the NIST report than you realize, considering that you've read neither. For instance, both NIST and the ASCE agree that the towers would not have collapsed from the plane impact alone, or from the fires alone. The ASCE reported that dislodged fireproofing weakened the steel structure, and that the jet fuel from the planes ignited office equipment, causing extensive, hot burning fires.

Furthermore, the ASCE report was complied from structural observations made over a few weeks at ground zero and from several months of deterministic reconstruction. The NIST report is the result of years worth of research and funding and used the more robust stochastic methods where collapse sequences were found based on statistical-mechanical models, rather than deterministic ones. Of course the reports are going to have discrepencies, but on the major points of collapse initiation and reconstruction, both agencies agree.

If they did, then you'd see NIST's computer model released on national TV,

Stop. National TV? You mean, in a special between American Idol and House, NIST is going to spend an hour explaining to the general public the details of a computer simulation based on statistical mechanics?

Science is not TV. NIST presented their model, all of the assumptions and calculations, the equations and the links to real life situations in a peer-reviewed, drafted for public comment, 10,000 page document. That's science, and that's the way science is presented.

right after it was done.

Done? You mean, as soon as it's printed, we rush off to the press and plop down the answer? Or do you mean, after an extended analysis, fact-checking, peer review, publication in draft format, acceptance and presentation of the data at major professional conferences, reception of public criticism, and re-publication of a revised draft?

The mere fact that the NIST doesn't analyze the actual collapse is enough reason to doubt if they had any intentions to investigate what happened.

I would highly suggest reading the National Construction Safety Team Act. It defines NIST's role in the WTC investigation as determining the moment of collapse initiation and making recommendations to the industry about how to prevent collapse initiation. We don't build buildings to stop collapses, we build them to prevent them from happening. It would be an enormous waste of time and resources to reconstruct the dynamic collapse model, and it would provide no useful information to the public or the professional community about how to more safely design buildings.

All I see is a luster they had, to gather potential data so to explain a predefined hypothesis. Ah there you go, trash talk against trash talk.

Predefined? So, you're a scientist (let's pretend). You've spent your entire life studying, working as a professional, doing research, and gaining national recognition as a leader in your field. One day, the boss walks up to you and says, "Hey, I need you to prove that the predefined hypothesis of the WTC collapse is right." To which you respond, "What if the hypothesis is wrong?" Your boss looks at you, pulls out a gun, clicks off the safety and says, "Because, if you don't find the hypothesis right, I'm going to shoot you in the head."

I mean, thank God all of the data, the information from 200 different independent investigators, the assumptions in your model, the results of your calculations, the theory behind thermodynamic responses of steel to heat, all of that is correct and agrees with your gun-wielding boss's pre-defined hypothesis.

Is that how you think NIST works?

Nonetheless, Please debunk me by showing me what ever analysis that concludes which areas were likely to have their trusses dislodged, I'm getting tired of dragging this on.

Consider yourself debunked.

Have they said anything at all though? I haven't even seen a scenario where they find it "likely". The ones they let us see over the web are those labeled "possible". I guess that's enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Yup.

Please show me a funded scientific investigation that proves something true beyond a reasonable doubt.

They would have to stay mostly intact, because had they broke and twisted apart, that means that there was enough resistance below to crush them back. How can the downwards energy which was "overwhelmingly strong", be resisted back as to obliterate the upper part even halfway down? I reckon the lower part would suffer gradual damage over time, but that is on a lower ratio, not the whole block breaking apart and leaving nothing like a pile behind.

Newton's third law. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applying 100 kN of force to the ground means that the ground applies 100 kN back to you. If the falling towers gained both mass and speed as they fell, the force applied to the lower portions by the upper portions (which was enough to crush them) was equal and opposite to those applied by the upper portions to the lower ones.

Why did it lean over in the first place then?

The leaning was the result of gradual softening of the steal frame through heat and applied load.

If the immediate intact structure below was strong enough to resist it and make it lean, then why didn't the even lower and intact columns below couldn't keep making it lean?

Are you 6 feet tall? Stand up and move the upper portion of your body 2.5 feet to the left. Do you feel yourself leaning? How well is all of that structure below your head keeping you in the air?

Leaning means there was enough resistance, in at least one side of the tower, and meaning, there was not enough initial force to crash it down.

False. This leaning was actually what caused the collapse. Since you've already go NCSTAR1-6 out, turn to page 265, chapter 8 and read the effect of column buckling on the internal columns.

There was not enough initial force from the upper block to crash the intact structure below, in at least one side.

This is the sort of claim that should be supported by mathematics.

Then how did it kept going down, on every side anyway? If the building wasn't sturdy enough, then it means that the blocks would have to first obliterate themselves in a pancaking style, before contributing to the collapse.

False. Sturdy has nothing to do with the collapse. The towers, like all structures had no capacity to stop collapse once it started. And no, the blocks do not have to obliterate themselves before contributing to collapse for the same reason that a rock does not have to break in order to break a windshield.

But they didn't. The collapse wave was somewhat constant,

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. The collapse wave was nowhere near constant. It obeyed the law of gravity and accelerated towards the earth.

Debris ejection accounts for potential energy wasted outside the straight collapse. The dust as well. I don't know the formulas to account for all that.

I do, and I can assure you that you are completely wrong. But why are you making this claim if you admit that you have no way to prove it?

But visibly speaking, it did not simply fall straight down, as some models some experts have presented.

Which models and which experts?

There were many exterior columns being shot outwards. Sadly there's no easy way to know how much of the structure did not contribute on the collapse,

Except by modeling the collapse initiation event. Now, I wonder who did that...

thanks to all the dust encompassing the ejecting materials. We know there was steel beams everywhere after the buildings collapsed, but that's a weak point as well, since the outer columns could have peeled off at the last moments of the collapse, or however you want to put it. It's a weak argument, I know.

You appear to be arguing in a "God of the Gaps" style fallacy. Any energy you cannot account for by a self initiated collapse, you have assumed can be accounted for by ejecta, pulverization and "peeling". Without the proper equations and energy balances to account for the energy, this argument is not only weak, it's completely invalid.

Hindsight hasn't even helped us in this case. It's been more than 5 years already, and there's no open model as to how they fell the way it was seen.

What would these open models prove? What can we learn from them?
Now write your responses to these two questions in a thoughtful, well expressed letter to one of the following organizations:
National Academy of Sciences
National Science Foundation
American Society of Civil Engineers
The Pugh Charitable Trust
The Carnegie Research Institute
The Gates Foundation
The MacArthur Fellowship

I do not wish to keep arguing these technical aspects, (nor only because I have almost no strong points in it, but) because it is, as you say, too technical for us to understand through common sense. If you keep going, I won't ignore you though.

I know that I can be an elitist dufus when it comes to technical matters, but you have to understand that I loathe people who criticize what I consider to be valid, well researched positions with complaints that are irrational, illogical and invalid. You say you aren't convinced on the technical issues, but you also admit that you are incapable of arguing about them. That says to me that you are both arrogant and willfully ignorant, and that you would prefer that everyone agree with you based on the strength of your convictions. That's a terrible paradigm.

Instead, consider that a well educated, practicing structural engineer is willing to sit down and explain to you the questions and concerns you have in a language which is simple to understand. Now, ask your questions from the standpoint of someone who is trying to make up his mind, not from someone who has a lot of bad arguments and unfounded assumptions. We can set up an honest, fruitful dialog if you're willing to change the foundation of your assumptions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

They would have to stay mostly intact, because had they broke and twisted apart, that means that there was enough resistance below to crush them back. How can the downwards energy which was "overwhelmingly strong", be resisted back as to obliterate the upper part even halfway down? I reckon the lower part would suffer gradual damage over time, but that is on a lower ratio, not the whole block breaking apart and leaving nothing like a pile behind.

Simply put: The momentum of an object is not dependent on its ability to stay in one piece. If you summed the momentum of all the pieces of the upper portion, it would be essentially the same as the intact portion.

By the same token, the ability of a resisting force to break an object to pieces does not equate with being able to stop that object's momentum.

 

[Yurebiz]

I'm sure there MUST be some engineers in the Middle East or Venezuela who would just love for you to tell them what they're missing.

Sadly, the ENTIRE twoof movement is apparently made up of people just like you. Which is why nothing ever gets done with your "proof."

I haven't been able to find on yet good idea though.
We got no proof and you know it. The only thing that keeps us up are the government discrepancies on the matter.

You may not call them that. They are not errors.

NIST doesn't include them because, obviously, they don't know the precise condition of individual truss members' insulation between aircraft impact and collapse. There are no pictures and hardly any survivors. NIST can't publish results that they don't have, can they?

Besides, it's irrelevant. NIST doesn't need to specify to that degree of detail, any more than a claims adjuster needs to measure every wrinkle of a wrecked car to determine who's at fault. Again, if you bother to read the NIST report, you will see the input conditions to their model and all assumptions declared. These assumptions are based on the best guesses one can make about likely structural condition. They interpolate between best and worst cases. They do not have to rerun the entire experiment for every minute change.

See, you've done it again. You're complaining about the way scientists do their job, when it's patently obvious that you don't understand their job in the first place. That's what I admonished you for above, and you seem to have missed the point completely.


Your belief is wrong. The level of detail you demand is simply not required. Why you believe this, I have no idea.

NIST is well within its rights to put high, low, and best-guess estimates about the fire temperature, fire insulation, and impact damage, and use that -- and only that -- in its models. It does not have to model every bolt, every open window, and every piece of insulating foam. Engineers perform a step called "sensitivity analysis" to understand how sensitive their conclusions are to minor perturbations like this. The NIST report was independently reviewed by engineering firms who conducted precisely this analysis. That's the way it's done.

Now, again, read the report, and ask questions as needed. But you are in no position to call them "errors" without understanding the process. You simply don't have the experience.

How can I call something an error then? There's simply no piece that I can't refute. I was seriously looking for the "probable insulation damage charts", but there's none, only the "possible simulations".
I know they can't say what happened to every single one of them, but to go as far as not to say what's more likely, nor to open up their computer models, I can't help it but wonder if they're hiding something. It's not even my CT instincts anymore. *tingles*
SO, if I come here, present ya a CT that cutter chargers were placed in a couple key points in both towers, and you ask me where exactly, and I tell you that " I do not have that information, because it is not necessary. It's proved within my 1000 pages report. Read it, lawls", is that plausible? Figures that, if I do not even point where would they likely be placed, that pretty much discredits the rest of my theory right there. Wouldn't you think the same way?

Hi Yurebiz. I think with the posts above, you're confusing errors, i.e. factually incorrect statements with omissions. You may (and do) query whether these were things that should have been included in the report, but you can't class them as errors.

Omissions. I forgot that word. Thaaank you.

D*mn, you're my hero! Maybe that's why I have managed to stay out of management all my career. I was born without the diplomacy gene.
The key issue, as you said
They have neither the training nor intellect to understand that one can envelope the event by best and worst-case scenarios.
Just as a physician confronted with a patient with his head disconnected from the rest of his body doesn't need to run a bunch of tests to determine vitality, once the structure is understood and the energy input figured, the result of the plane crashes and subsequent fire is inevitable to the competent engineer, and further diagnosis in futile and moot

Except that this analogy doesn't quite fit that of an investigator. An investigator isn't trying to change the present situation, merely trying to recognize what happened.

If they do not have the knowledge nor ability to at least attribute a likely scenario to their thesis, then you shouldn't label it as probable. Much less hold it as the truth, whether there's alternate hypothesis for it or not.

 

[Gravy]

How can I call something an error then? There's simply no piece that I can't refute. I was seriously looking for the "probable insulation damage charts", but there's none, only the "possible simulations".
I know they can't say what happened to every single one of them, but to go as far as not to say what's more likely, nor to open up their computer models, I can't help it but wonder if they're hiding something. It's not even my CT instincts anymore. *tingles*

From your original post:

In determining the extent of insulation damage in each tower, NIST only assumed damage where dislodgement criteria could be established and supported through observations or analysis. Thus, NIST made the conservative assumption that insulation was removed only where direct debris impact occurred and did not include the possibility of insulation damage or dislodgement from structural vibration. This assumption produced a lower bound on the bared steel surface area, thereby making it more difficult to heat the steel to the point of failure.

 

[Yurebiz]

Read the NIST NCSTAR1-6 report. Starting at Chapter 5: Aircraft Impact Damage you will see images of damaged insulation, areas of column damage, severity of column damage, thermal response to the structures and numerous other pictures, charts and graphs.

In particular, I would suggest figures 5-11, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, and 5-24. They contain the areas of dislodgement (shown in green on most of the charts) along with areas showing column damage and damage to the floor trusses.

Yes, NIST does associate the tests with what happened in the towers. Reading chapter 4 as well as the introduction will give you an excellent example of what happened given the global collapse scenario.

Hey, I've posted some of those pics before. They are not a proposal to what they accepted as likely. They do not say any of these scenarios are what likely happened. They simply throw these charts on the report, and say what's happening in them. Like they did with the pellets. Like they did with the vibrations explanation. They simply imply to put everything together, but you have to connect the dots yourself, sir. They do not asemble a likely scenario themselves, nor have they released the computer model.

This is quite typical of the conspiracy theorist. If the information is not in front of you, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it is someone else's job to provide it. Perhaps your research tactics could be significantly improved through the application of broader, more valid research methods.

It's true, I did want to be spoon-fed, and I said that before. But no one came to my rescue. That includes you, for now.

It has been disclosed, in the report, in the figures I cited. I expect you'll retract this point in your next post.

Nope. Sorry. Show me the quote where they directly say one of these models has been assigned to what likely happened in the real thing. Then I'll be PLEASED to shut up and work on my rebuttal in 3 months. (As I initially intended )

Non-sequitor. Here you're accusing NIST, the ASCE and FEMA of willfully obscuring information. Let's use this as a reference for future debates, ok?

FEMA's initial report, which was headed by the ASCE, was based primarily on ground, video and photographic representations of the collapse. The ASCE report to congress in 2003 has far more similarities with the NIST report than you realize, considering that you've read neither. For instance, both NIST and the ASCE agree that the towers would not have collapsed from the plane impact alone, or from the fires alone. The ASCE reported that dislodged fireproofing weakened the steel structure, and that the jet fuel from the planes ignited office equipment, causing extensive, hot burning fires.

Furthermore, the ASCE report was complied from structural observations made over a few weeks at ground zero and from several months of deterministic reconstruction. The NIST report is the result of years worth of research and funding and used the more robust stochastic methods where collapse sequences were found based on statistical-mechanical models, rather than deterministic ones. Of course the reports are going to have discrepencies, but on the major points of collapse initiation and reconstruction, both agencies agree.

Is that so? I heard they don't do well together. Doesn't the FEMA report emphasis on pancaking collapse, while the NIST says it... well it doesn't say much, besides the collapse initiation by trusses pulling in the exterior columns. But those are huge differences.
And the NIST doesn't go over the collapse.
And the NIST didn't disclose their computer simulation.
And I haven't seen the probable insulation dislodgement supporting the initiation collapse.

Stop. National TV? You mean, in a special between American Idol and House, NIST is going to spend an hour explaining to the general public the details of a computer simulation based on statistical mechanics?

Science is not TV. NIST presented their model, all of the assumptions and calculations, the equations and the links to real life situations in a peer-reviewed, drafted for public comment, 10,000 page document. That's science, and that's the way science is presented.

Done? You mean, as soon as it's printed, we rush off to the press and plop down the answer? Or do you mean, after an extended analysis, fact-checking, peer review, publication in draft format, acceptance and presentation of the data at major professional conferences, reception of public criticism, and re-publication of a revised draft?

Wow right after American Idol, that would be awesome, I could catch it right on.
Um. Yeah, after it has been peer reviewed, that's when it's really done, AFAIK.

I would highly suggest reading the National Construction Safety Team Act. It defines NIST's role in the WTC investigation as determining the moment of collapse initiation and making recommendations to the industry about how to prevent collapse initiation. We don't build buildings to stop collapses, we build them to prevent them from happening. It would be an enormous waste of time and resources to reconstruct the dynamic collapse model, and it would provide no useful information to the public or the professional community about how to more safely design buildings.

Have the recommendations been enforced? I couldn't care less otherwise. This doesn't change the fact they didn't do it, and that's that. FEMA did it, why couldn't them then? It's like solving half of the crime and saying it's all that's needed. And they didn't even solve it quite right.

Predefined? So, you're a scientist (let's pretend). You've spent your entire life studying, working as a professional, doing research, and gaining national recognition as a leader in your field. One day, the boss walks up to you and says, "Hey, I need you to prove that the predefined hypothesis of the WTC collapse is right." To which you respond, "What if the hypothesis is wrong?" Your boss looks at you, pulls out a gun, clicks off the safety and says, "Because, if you don't find the hypothesis right, I'm going to shoot you in the head."

I mean, thank God all of the data, the information from 200 different independent investigators, the assumptions in your model, the results of your calculations, the theory behind thermodynamic responses of steel to heat, all of that is correct and agrees with your gun-wielding boss's pre-defined hypothesis.

Is that how you think NIST works?

Considering that they did not prove it, I guess they did a pretty sloppy job. Where's the model anyway?

Consider yourself debunked.

K. Show it again please. I failed to see them.

Please show me a funded scientific investigation that proves something true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was being generous. "Likely", is like, 50%+ probability. Beyond a reasonable doubt.. I dunno, maybe 98%? They haven't done either if they can't even supply us a model.

Newton's third law. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applying 100 kN of force to the ground means that the ground applies 100 kN back to you. If the falling towers gained both mass and speed as they fell, the force applied to the lower portions by the upper portions (which was enough to crush them) was equal and opposite to those applied by the upper portions to the lower ones.

I need a quote for that law. And for the formula you used to balance the forces. Haha, just kidding. Well, ok I give up on that. The ratios on how much crushing/how much pancaking are far beyond a layman's level.

The leaning was the result of gradual softening of the steal frame through heat and applied load.

The lean means there was resistance on a side right?

Are you 6 feet tall? Stand up and move the upper portion of your body 2.5 feet to the left. Do you feel yourself leaning? How well is all of that structure below your head keeping you in the air?

I'm not a skyscraper

False. This leaning was actually what caused the collapse. Since you've already go NCSTAR1-6 out, turn to page 265, chapter 8 and read the effect of column buckling on the internal columns.

I meant the resistance on the other side of the impact point.

This is the sort of claim that should be supported by mathematics.

You know very well how CTers suck at it.

False. Sturdy has nothing to do with the collapse. The towers, like all structures had no capacity to stop collapse once it started. And no, the blocks do not have to obliterate themselves before contributing to collapse for the same reason that a rock does not have to break in order to break a windshield.

Yeah I got it from before. It did resist enough to make it lean though, that's something.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. The collapse wave was nowhere near constant. It obeyed the law of gravity and accelerated towards the earth.

I meant constant acceleration. Pardon me.

I do, and I can assure you that you are completely wrong. But why are you making this claim if you admit that you have no way to prove it?

That's awesome then. This is not the point of the thread, though; I was merely sharing my CT views over the collapse. So sorry for wasting your time on it, I knew I would be wrong in most aspects.

Which models and which experts?

Ah, that Greening one. I can't seem to agree with that one. Such a huge collapse and he wasnt to break it down in a single formula, blah.

Except by modeling the collapse initiation event. Now, I wonder who did that...

How can a model of the collapse initiation say how many columns were shot outwards during the collapse? I really wonder who did that, because I want to read it.

You appear to be arguing in a "God of the Gaps" style fallacy. Any energy you cannot account for by a self initiated collapse, you have assumed can be accounted for by ejecta, pulverization and "peeling". Without the proper equations and energy balances to account for the energy, this argument is not only weak, it's completely invalid.

K.

What would these open models prove? What can we learn from them?
Now write your responses to these two questions in a thoughtful, well expressed letter to one of the following organizations:
National Academy of Sciences
National Science Foundation
American Society of Civil Engineers
The Pugh Charitable Trust
The Carnegie Research Institute
The Gates Foundation
The MacArthur Fellowship

K. Maybe them can answer m questions, since the NIST obviously can't, amirite?

I know that I can be an elitist dufus when it comes to technical matters, but you have to understand that I loathe people who criticize what I consider to be valid, well researched positions with complaints that are irrational, illogical and invalid. You say you aren't convinced on the technical issues, but you also admit that you are incapable of arguing about them. That says to me that you are both arrogant and willfully ignorant, and that you would prefer that everyone agree with you based on the strength of your convictions. That's a terrible paradigm.

Instead, consider that a well educated, practicing structural engineer is willing to sit down and explain to you the questions and concerns you have in a language which is simple to understand. Now, ask your questions from the standpoint of someone who is trying to make up his mind, not from someone who has a lot of bad arguments and unfounded assumptions. We can set up an honest, fruitful dialog if you're willing to change the foundation of your assumptions.

Ahh don't worry about it. Loathe me all you want. I made my part by bringing something up which hasn't been brought before, and that was my intention right there. I never thought anyone would agree with me. I've put down my speculations because you guys asked me to. I'm just being courteous. The regular CT wouldn't even end a sentence without using a question mark, for Christ sake. I'm just asking questions? haha.

Thanks a lot for your time, I appreciate it. I do not wish to debate the collapse issue anymore though. I don't deny it was even improbable for it to happen that way. It's just the way that NIST makes it so hard to obtain their thesis statement, makes me puzzled.

Simply put: The momentum of an object is not dependent on its ability to stay in one piece. If you summed the momentum of all the pieces of the upper portion, it would be essentially the same as the intact portion.

By the same token, the ability of a resisting force to break an object to pieces does not equate with being able to stop that object's momentum.

Sure, sure. Thanks for summing up for Almond. You don't have to explain the leaning if you want, though.

 

[Yurebiz]

From your original post:

"NIST only assumed damage where dislodgement criteria could be established and supported through observations or analysis"
Did they ever assume at all? All they show are "possible" extents.

 

[CHF]

We got no proof and you know it.

Oh I know it alright. Everyone knows it.

I would be intested in hearing how you create your theories and reach your conclusions in the absense of evidence and backing from qualified people.

Do you just rely on your imagination or what you're told by some clown on Youtube?

And please explain why the Twoof movement's theories (which you acknowledge are evidence-free) are of more value than, say, a fresh turd in my cat's litterbox.

 

[Yurebiz]

Oh I know it alright. Everyone knows it.

I would be intested in hearing how you create your theories and reach your conclusions in the absense of evidence and backing from qualified people.

Do you just rely on your imagination or what you're told by some clown on Youtube?

And please explain why the Twoof movement's theories (which you acknowledge are evidence-free) are of more value than, say, a fresh turd in my cat's litterbox.

I don't create theories. As you put it, i get what I know from some clown on youtube or whatever.
The twoof movement gets it's theories by over reacting to government omissions, simply put. But because they have been ommiting a whole lot for the last decades, I don't see why not give them any credit at all. At least I wouldn't doubt it, were I worthy enough of labeling myself as a skeptic. I wouldn't believe all of it, obviously, but the more shallow ones are not that improbable.

 

[CHF]

I don't create theories. As you put it, i get what I know from some clown on youtube or whatever.
The twoof movement gets it's theories by over reacting to government omissions, simply put.

So you don't create theories but rather "get" theories from an "over-reaction?"

Explain to me how that works.

Is it something like: "I don't understand how 140,000 falling tons could smash through a building so therefore it was a thermite reaction?"

 

[Gravy]

"NIST only assumed damage where dislodgement criteria could be established and supported through observations or analysis"
Did they ever assume at all? All they show are "possible" extents.

Yes, and they used a their more conservative estimate, the "lower boundary," based on their computer models.

ETA: Maybe I'm making too many assumptions here. If you haven't read NCSTAR 1-6C, which contains diagrams of the insulation damage estimates, that's your next stop. I can't tell from your posts above if you've gotten that far. You seem to be reading parts of the report and jumping to conclusions about what's NOT in the rest.

Anyway, great that you're reading it at all. You're already far ahead of most people.

 

[Yurebiz]

So you don't create theories but rather "get" theories from an "over-reaction?"

Explain to me how that works.

Is it something like: "I don't understand how 140,000 falling tons could smash through a building so therefore it was a thermite reaction?"

I hold probabilities for both hypothesis, had they not, either one, been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I don't like the thermite CT though.

Yes, and they used a their more conservative estimate, the "lower boundary," based on their computer models.

ETA: Maybe I'm making too many assumptions here. If you haven't read NCSTAR 1-6C, which contains diagrams of the insulation damage estimates, that's your next stop. I can't tell from your posts above if you've gotten that far. You seem to be reading parts of the report and jumping to conclusions about what's NOT in the rest.

Anyway, great that you're reading it at all. You're already far ahead of most people.

I'll get to it.

 

[The Almond]

Hey, I've posted some of those pics before. They are not a proposal to what they accepted as likely.

Ok, hence R.Mackey's criticism that you don't understand the method of bracketing the correct answer rather than foolishly pretending that you know it.

They do not say any of these scenarios are what likely happened.

But they do say that those are the scenarios that are required for collapse, and that those are consistent with both experimental and observational data. Why do they need to speculate as to the likelyhood of a given answer?

They simply throw these charts on the report, and say what's happening in them.

False.

Like they did with the pellets. Like they did with the vibrations explanation. They simply imply to put everything together, but you have to connect the dots yourself, sir.

False. On page 185, the beginning of chapter 7 details the global collapse sequence and the effect each subsystem had in the eventual collapse of the towers.

They do not asemble a likely scenario themselves, nor have they released the computer model.

They have released all of the fundamental assumptions, equations and data that went into the computer model. If you are interested in experimenting with it yourself, I would suggest buying a license to use ANSYS and inputing your own values. NIST has no right to release ANSYS to the public because it is a privately owned software package.

It's true, I did want to be spoon-fed, and I said that before. But no one came to my rescue. That includes you, for now.Nope. Sorry. Show me the quote where they directly say one of these models has been assigned to what likely happened in the real thing. Then I'll be PLEASED to shut up and work on my rebuttal in 3 months.

Read what I told you to read.

I heard they don't do well together. Doesn't the FEMA report emphasis on pancaking collapse, while the NIST says it... well it doesn't say much, besides the collapse initiation by trusses pulling in the exterior columns. But those are huge differences.

Woah there buddy! You haven't read either report, but you heard from someone that the reports are incompatible?

And the NIST doesn't go over the collapse.

NIST does address the collapse, however briefly. Note that it was not directed to by the US congress.

And the NIST didn't disclose their computer simulation.

NIST disclosed their equations, assumptions and data. Go buy ANSYS and verify it for yourself.

And I haven't seen the probable insulation dislodgement supporting the initiation collapse.

This is because you have failed to read and interpret the necessary sections of the report that would allow you to infer the most likely scenario.

Have the recommendations been enforced?

NIST is not a regulatory arm of the federal government. Implementing NIST's recommendations would require an act of congress.

I couldn't care less otherwise.

I'm glad you're so open about what you care about. Here on Planet Earth, when the major funding body that determines the amount of money you get to do research directs you to research something, you research it. The US Congress has the power to eliminate NIST, so why on earth would NIST do something other than it was directed to do?

This doesn't change the fact they didn't do it, and that's that.

And why didn't NIST do it? Because they rightly believe that the money provided by congress to research the WTC towers collapse should be spent determining how collapse was initiated and how to prevent it in the future. Spending the money, time and resources in any other way would be detrimental to the construction industry as a whole and would be a malicious misuse of taxpayer money.

FEMA did it, why couldn't them then?

FEMA hired the ASCE to do it. The purpose was to provide immediate answers to congress regarding the collapse as well as to recommend areas of further research. You will notice that when recommending areas for further research, the ASCE suggests a long term, publically funded research project that would allow engineers to determine the specific details of collapse. It seems like the congress took them up on that offer.

It's like solving half of the crime and saying it's all that's needed. And they didn't even solve it quite right.

False analogy. So far, the only people advocating a complete collapse event investigation are conspiracy theorists. No engineers in the profession are claiming that a great deal of knowledge will be gained through analysis of the actual collapse event.

To use your analogy, it's like solving a crime where you've determined who did it, when they did it, what they did it with and where they did it. Meanwhile, one person on the jury refuses to convict because the investigators did not provide a complete list of all major muscle groups, veins, capillaries and tissues that were damaged as guy A stabbed guy B.

I was being generous. "Likely", is like, 50%+ probability. Beyond a reasonable doubt.. I dunno, maybe 98%? They haven't done either if they can't even supply us a model.

Have you ever taken a statistics course, or are you pulling numbers out of your ass?

That's awesome then. This is not the point of the thread, though; I was merely sharing my CT views over the collapse. So sorry for wasting your time on it, I knew I would be wrong in most aspects.

How did you know that you'd be wrong?

K. Maybe them can answer m questions, since the NIST obviously can't, amirite?

The purpose of suggesting that course of action was to show you that you could apply for a grant to study it for yourself. Seeing as how you are part of a small group of people who demand this study be done, I would posit that it would be in your best interest to do the analysis yourselves.

Ahh don't worry about it. Loathe me all you want.

To be clear, I don't loathe you. You seem to be a bright person with unanswered questions. I loathe your position, and I think it's the position of a willfully ignorant, egotistical, hairbrained moron. As I highly doubt you are such a person, it is my hope to encourage you to change your position.

I made my part by bringing something up which hasn't been brought before, and that was my intention right there. I never thought anyone would agree with me. I've put down my speculations because you guys asked me to. I'm just being courteous. The regular CT wouldn't even end a sentence without using a question mark, for Christ sake. I'm just asking questions? haha.

This is why you're getting a lot more leverage than most CTers we see around here. If you're not like them, there is no reason to think like them.

Thanks a lot for your time, I appreciate it. I do not wish to debate the collapse issue anymore though. I don't deny it was even improbable for it to happen that way. It's just the way that NIST makes it so hard to obtain their thesis statement, makes me puzzled.

NIST is, uhh...verbose. Wordy. They like to write things. They wrote 10,000 pages on this stuff. Their conclusions and methods are buried somewhere in the report, but they have an executive summary, written in layman's terms which essentially is their thesis. That's the introduction section of the NCSTAR 1 report.

 

[Yurebiz]

Still reading...

Ok, hence R.Mackey's criticism that you don't understand the method of bracketing the correct answer rather than foolishly pretending that you know it.

If they stated what the correct answer is then maybe I could know it. That is, if they clearly stated what the likely scenario is, at all. I may not have enough knowledge to understand how an official investigation works, but I know what sidestepping means, from 3 months of lurking experience here.

Bringing up the fact that investigations would never find 100% conclusive evidence/ don't work that way/ blah blah, don't chance the fact thay I still have yet to see a probable scenario in the dislodgement issue. Skeptic swould say they require cold, hard facts when they analyze. Well, isn't it within my rights to request, at least, for a probable thesis explanation with charts and graphs? Do I really have to connect the dots myself, or wouldn't the experts do that for me in a palpable manner, had there been any dots to link? They don't show the connection.

But they do say that those are the scenarios that are required for collapse, and that those are consistent with both experimental and observational data. Why do they need to speculate as to the likelyhood of a given answer?

Ah yes.. the scenarios are consistent, because they are POSSIBLE to happen. they are consistent, because the data ranges are all ESTIMATIVES. Do they give an answer at all?
They don't need to speculate once a scenario can be proven likely. A speculation which can be proven likely to happen is more than just guessing, and may be taken as a conclusive theory. Sure it's not 100%, they do not have to go as far. All I'm asking is for a 50%+ scenario, and they didn't even provide it.

False.

Alright, they don't throw them in, they just assemble them in an orderly fashion.

False. On page 185, the beginning of chapter 7 details the global collapse sequence and the effect each subsystem had in the eventual collapse of the towers.

I gotta read it, then Ill answer.

They have released all of the fundamental assumptions, equations and data that went into the computer model. If you are interested in experimenting with it yourself, I would suggest buying a license to use ANSYS and inputing your own values. NIST has no right to release ANSYS to the public because it is a privately owned software package.

That would be awesome D: That stuff must be expensive though. Plus requires a lot of work... maybe in a couple years when it's leaked in bit torrent and CTers with nothing else to do release their own models, haha.

Read what I told you to read.

Yes sir.

Woah there buddy! You haven't read either report, but you heard from someone that the reports are incompatible?

Yes, that is what I heard. By the way you're saying it, they must compatible then, I suppose. Pardon me, forget about it please. *hides*

NIST does address the collapse, however briefly. Note that it was not directed to by the US congress.

Yeah.

NIST disclosed their equations, assumptions and data. Go buy ANSYS and verify it for yourself.

So, they can't disclose it because they aren't allowed to? I wonder why they didn't use another program them. How the heck can you disclose a full report with so many restrictions.

This is because you have failed to read and interpret the necessary sections of the report that would allow you to infer the most likely scenario.

Sure, reading might add some dots to my picture. I'll complain back here if it doesn't form a full line though.

NIST is not a regulatory arm of the federal government. Implementing NIST's recommendations would require an act of congress.

I didn't mean enforced, I meant, has any building company employed their recommendations already?

I'm glad you're so open about what you care about. Here on Planet Earth, when the major funding body that determines the amount of money you get to do research directs you to research something, you research it. The US Congress has the power to eliminate NIST, so why on earth would NIST do something other than it was directed to do?

They wouldn't, I agree. Doesn't mean they couldn't be stopped or manipulated by those same funding bodies. *CT OH NOES*

And why didn't NIST do it? Because they rightly believe that the money provided by congress to research the WTC towers collapse should be spent determining how collapse was initiated and how to prevent it in the future. Spending the money, time and resources in any other way would be detrimental to the construction industry as a whole and would be a malicious misuse of taxpayer money.

Well I guess the problem was in the congress then. They are so willingly to waste our taxpayer money in the billions over military expenditures, but can't put together a full investigation on the worst terrorist tragedy to happen over our soil. Yup that sounds like the Congress alright.

FEMA hired the ASCE to do it. The purpose was to provide immediate answers to congress regarding the collapse as well as to recommend areas of further research. You will notice that when recommending areas for further research, the ASCE suggests a long term, publically funded research project that would allow engineers to determine the specific details of collapse. It seems like the congress took them up on that offer.

You don't have to answer this, I'm innocently asking because I really don't know: Have they fulfilled their purpose?

False analogy. So far, the only people advocating a complete collapse event investigation are conspiracy theorists. No engineers in the profession are claiming that a great deal of knowledge will be gained through analysis of the actual collapse event.

To use your analogy, it's like solving a crime where you've determined who did it, when they did it, what they did it with and where they did it. Meanwhile, one person on the jury refuses to convict because the investigators did not provide a complete list of all major muscle groups, veins, capillaries and tissues that were damaged as guy A stabbed guy B.

It's not that irrelevant though. They gave no likely scenario to why one of the victims died. They saw guy A stabbing guy B, guy B did die, but guy B couldn't get an autopsy. The damage made by the wound is speculative, and they haven't provided a likely scenario to how would a single stab kill Guy B within an hour. Anyway, how the guy died wasn't clear. There was too much dust around. He could have suicided as far as speculations go. Like poisoning himself with some.. cutting charges. Also because, considering Guy B had like, a hueg plate armor on, plus a bullet proof vest or something. Haha, Sorry, I fail at making analogies on this.

Have you ever taken a statistics course, or are you pulling numbers out of your ass?

YES, that's my specialty.

How did you know that you'd be wrong?

Because I've seen this been discussed here before, and I hold my own personal numbers on the chance of occurrence for CTs. It's not exactly because the collapse issue has been "debunked" here: I believe it wasn't, but I agree there's no evidence pointing for CD, then it shouldn't be considered, when trying to refute the official story. I do give my flawed opinion anyway, for the CT side.

The purpose of suggesting that course of action was to show you that you could apply for a grant to study it for yourself. Seeing as how you are part of a small group of people who demand this study be done, I would posit that it would be in your best interest to do the analysis yourselves.

It's not that small, but yeah thanks, i guess.

To be clear, I don't loathe you. You seem to be a bright person with unanswered questions. I loathe your position, and I think it's the position of a willfully ignorant, egotistical, hairbrained moron. As I highly doubt you are such a person, it is my hope to encourage you to change your position.

Aw I'd prefer if I were to be fully antagonized. But yeah, I'm not that much willfully ignorant right now - I don't keep pushing the same buttons after being debunked. But as you know, the 9/11 CTs have many different buttons to push. So there is a loong ground to cover for me to be converted. And taken our government's composure into simply ignoring us, I hardly think I'll ever be convinced to turn around. Every years that goes further away from 9/11 is another year of silence. While things can be proven over time, much of the evidence is lost, and nothing can erase the past cover-up the early movement endured. Time is on our advantage while there's still unanswered questions. And I don't mean you guys debunking here - that's the government's burden you're carrying, which is sad, because they should be the ones answering.

This is why you're getting a lot more leverage than most CTers we see around here. If you're not like them, there is no reason to think like them.

Agreed. I'm still a CTist though

NIST is, uhh...verbose. Wordy. They like to write things. They wrote 10,000 pages on this stuff. Their conclusions and methods are buried somewhere in the report, but they have an executive summary, written in layman's terms which essentially is their thesis. That's the introduction section of the NCSTAR 1 report.

Gotta hate that. *Goes read*

 

[rwguinn]

Still reading...


So, they can't disclose it because they aren't allowed to? I wonder why they didn't use another program them. How the heck can you disclose a full report with so many restrictions.

Like Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk,Unigraphics, and all the programs and companys, they have a lot invested in their software. They don't give it away
Let's see-
You can get a limited I-Dea's License for about $40,000, NASTRAN and PATRAN for about 1/2 to 2/3 that, ALGOR for about $5-15000, depending on what you need,---ANSYS is quite reasonable.
And you can get whichever package you want, and imort the ANSYS model into it. Most of them will translate--but you need to double check the translation.
Have a blast. knock yourself out.

 

[chran]

Alright folks, I just had this awesome idea. Since Gravy makes fun of my on-the-spot-CT-speculation™, why don't we all share what we think about the SFRM damage, by playing a game of coloring?

I hope I'm not late to the party, but I just finished my drawing of the fire damage to the tower!

Wanna see? It's real neat!