NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Horatius]

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

Essentially they're claiming that because none of the simulations showed damage as severe as was actually observed, they should not have thrown out the least damaging simulation.

How's that again?

If anything, they should have only used the most severe case, if any. They probably should have run more simulatons, to get more severe damage results, and used those.

But of course, if they had done that, CTers would be whining about how they "Tweaked" the sims to get the damage they wanted.

Feel free to critisize NIST for not doing more sims, but claiming on this basis that they should have considered the least damaging senario in all their other work is completely off the mark.

 

[Miragememories]

You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.

I suggest you 'read' it before you go off on a favorite tangent.

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

I did read it.

I was also responding to the one item you found most significant. I don't find it so.

What else do you think is relevant?

 

[beachnut]

And I can only suggest that given the short time you've had access to this document, you haven't fully read it nor have you made any serious attempt to digest it's contents.

I am not surprised.

MM

I am not surprised you are fooled by this petition. You may have read it but you do not comprehend it. Your posts confirm this, you just quote the petition. If you check the NIST report you may be able to debunk the petition. But it does not matter, the petition is meaningless and are biased opinions posed as questions that seem to sound neat to you and not real engineers. There is no substance, just truthers with nothing else left but to mislead others.

 

[T.A.M.]

And I can only suggest that given the short time you've had access to this document, you haven't fully read it nor have you made any serious attempt to digest it's contents.

I am not surprised.

MM

You are right...I already said it is a very long document. The example you gave was regarding the ejection of aircraft material on the opposite side of the tower. I a presuming their likely reason for bringing this up, is that ejection of material on the otherside, as opposed to not, indicates that there was a loss of some kinetic energy not attributable to absorption within the building via conversion to heat, and deformation of mateirals the aircraft penetrated/came in contact with.

So when I made the comment about not seeing any evidence, I meant that so far as I had read, that there was no attempt made, backed with evidence or scientific calculations, that the loss of said kinetic energy via expulsion of aircraft materials out the other side, would have been siginficant enough to effect in a significant, or beyond minimal, way, the outcome that is collapse initiation.

Are you saying that somewhere in that petition, they have scientific evidence or calculations that prove that the loss of this energy via debris expulsion, would result in no collapse initiation?

TAM

Edit: as for the ?New Rules" I was referring to the new "sticky" and its contents, at the top of this subforum.

 

[Horatius]

NISTian complacency.

If you take the time to read the whole thing you'll quickly see not only the significance of the author's case but the importance as well.

Obviously, you are using assumptions to avoid making the effort to read it.

MM

I haven't read the whole thing, but I did read the section you chose to highlight. The logical flaw was simply glaring. I'll get to the rest later.

And as mentoned by others, it's be nice if you canned the smug insinuations that we can't be bothered to read things. How long have you had this paper to read? Give us the courtesy of a little time to do the same.

Also consider that, as they paper is laid out in sections, it is natural to deal with the sections as they come. Methodical, and all. Also note that not every poster will have the knowledge to deal with every section. Just because an individual doesn't respond to every point, doesn't mean that point is valid.

Now, would you like to take a swing at explaining the logical reasons for using the least damaging simulation, when it is clear that the actual damage would have ben more severe than any of the cases they simulated? Or would you rather keep whining about others' reading speed?

 

[R.Mackey]

In that case I can only suggest that the 10,000 page NIST report wasn't much more than a toilet break for you as well.

I don't believe you read and clearly comprehended that complete petition in the short time you've had available unless you purposely skimmed and assumed your way through it.

And you like to call me a liar.

I didn't read in detail the part where they rigorously define the term "information," nor where they proved from first principles that NIST did in fact "disseminate" their report, no... I skipped ahead to the actual complaints. But that part, I read.

Now, then, how about answering my question?

 

[Miragememories]

You are right...I already said it is a very long document. The example you gave was regarding the ejection of aircraft material on the opposite side of the tower. I a presuming their likely reason for bringing this up, is that ejection of material on the otherside, as opposed to not, indicates that there was a loss of some kinetic energy not attributable to absorption within the building via conversion to heat, and deformation of mateirals the aircraft penetrated/came in contact with.

So when I made the comment about not seeing any evidence, I meant that so far as I had read, that there was no attempt made, backed with evidence or scientific calculations, that the loss of said kinetic energy via expulsion of aircraft materials out the other side, would have been siginficant enough to effect in a significant, or beyond minimal, way, the outcome that is collapse initiation.

Are you saying that somewhere in that petition, they have scientific evidence or calculations that prove that the loss of this energy via debris expulsion, would result in no collapse initiation?

TAM

Edit: as for the ?New Rules" I was referring to the new "sticky" and its contents, at the top of this subforum.

Well T.A.M. you aren't really following the drift of their case. Unfortunately I'm at the end of my shift and I don't have time to go into their very precise wording and translate it to a form more easily digested.

At my age I have to read a document like that slowly and thoughtfully in order to grasp it's significance and meaning. It's kind of 'dry reading', but I think the initial part of the document where the author's illustrate NIST's failure to follow the accepted rules of logic combined with some serious contradictions when utilizing their computer simulations, makes some very important points about the questionable validity of the NIST WTC collapse conclusions.

I don't know what the "new sticky" at the top of the subforum refers to?

It is not my wish to violate any rules, unless they aren't being enforced.

MM

 

[Spins]

Okay. For example.

With reference to the NIST computer simulations;

The NIST WTC Report claims that the less severe case “did not meet two key observables:

(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10).

(2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

However, neither “key observable” is a scientifically valid reason for excluding the less severe case, as demonstrated in detail below.

The first “key observable” that the less severe case did not match is that “no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most debris was stopped prior to reaching that side.”

Of the several pages that discuss the computer simulated damages caused by the less severe cases, the only sentence that addresses the
issue of exiting debris says this (referring to WTC 1): “Little or no debris penetration of the south wall of the tower was expected for the less severe impact condition.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.285)

Additionally, in section 9.11, “COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES”, the WTC Report states: “In the less severe damage analysis, as shown in Figure 9-120, none of the aircraft debris that passed through the core was calculated to exit the building.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.340).

Thus, it would initially appear that the first “key observable” was indeed absent from the less severe damage analysis.

However, elsewhere in the WTC Report, the reader finds that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. For WTC 1, the WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345)

This statement stands in stark contrast to the WTC Report’s admission that landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph. (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344).

Therefore, if none of the simulations showed landing gear exiting WTC1, the justification for excluding the less severe case (ie. that the first “key
observable” was not present) is clearly false with regards to WTC 1.

There's lots more but it's easier if you just read the paper yourself.

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petit...redacted%29.pdf

MM

All of the observables were not perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behaviour of the aircraft breakup and the subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models.

Landing Gear Trajectory Comparison

A portion of the main landing gear of AA 11 exited WTC 1 at the 94th or 95th floor and landed at the corner of Rector St. and West St. The debris consisted of a tire, wheel, brake assembly and hub of a main landing gear, as show in Figure 7-69. Based on the final position of the landing gear and assuming the landing gear to be a projectile with a horizontal initial velocity, the exit speed of the landing gear from the south wall of WTC 1 can be estimated to be about 105 mph. Note that there is a significant uncertainty in this estimate associated with the exit trajectory, aerodynamic effects, landing position rather than final resting position of debris, etc. Another piece of landing gear debris, shown in Figure 7-70, was found embedded in what is postulated to be the panel containing columns 329, 330, 331, running from the 93rd to the 96th floors. This panel was dislodged from the building and found at Cedar Street near its intersection with West Street. As little other damage had been documented on the south face of WTC 1 it is postulated that the landing gear debris that landed at the corner of Rector St. and West St. also exited through this panel location.

The amount of aircraft debris found to exit WTC 1 in the global impact analyses varied, as shown in Figure 7-67 and Figure 7-68. However, no portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core. In order to simulate the trajectory of the specific pieces of the aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2. . .

What? I could file a lawsuit against you because I think you smell funny. That doesn't mean I have a case.

Where do you get these idiotic ideas?

 

[Miragememories]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I did read the section you chose to highlight. The logical flaw was simply glaring. I'll get to the rest later.

And as mentoned by others, it's be nice if you canned the smug insinuations that we can't be bothered to read things. How long have you had this paper to read? Give us the courtesy of a little time to do the same.

Also consider that, as they paper is laid out in sections, it is natural to deal with the sections as they come. Methodical, and all. Also note that not every poster will have the knowledge to deal with every section. Just because an individual doesn't respond to every point, doesn't mean that point is valid.

Now, would you like to take a swing at explaining the logical reasons for using the least damaging simulation, when it is clear that the actual damage would have ben more severe than any of the cases they simulated? Or would you rather keep whining about others' reading speed?

Well excuse me for using an incomplete extract.

Read it yourself and then challenge it.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Well excuse me for using an incomplete extract.

Read it yourself and then challenge it.

MM

The fact is the petition does not change the outcome of 9/11. Truthers have no facts and the guys who put this petition together are not able to understand the facts and evidence of 9/11. As an engineer, I found no worthy items of interest in the petition. I tried, but could not find one thing worthy that would change the outcome of 9/11 or the overall NIST conclusions. I find the petition actually has enough information in it to debunk itself. I find it funny you think there is something in the petition but can not pinpoint it. I find it funnier you are unable to state in your own words why there is something in the petition we would think changes the outcome of 9/11. I find it funny, I feel happy with my humble education, when Dr Jones' signature to this proves even lay people can out think a PhD!

I find Dr Jones' work on 9/11 to be an insult to all PhDs and formally educated people. This petition continues to support that finding.

 

[Miragememories]

You are aware, of course, that the model showing complete capture of aircraft components is likely to have underestimated the impact damage, yes?

Debris pass-through is indicative of the complete destruction of every structural element in the line of travel of the debris. And as it is unlikely the aircraft vector was incorrectly estimated, given the photographic evidence both during and post-impact.

If the folks who wrote this inordinately lengthy "petition" spent more time understanding the NIST report, they'd be in better shape. As it is, many of the "corrections" they clamor for are not, themselves, correct.

The authors are responding to the NIST Report as written.

Any assumed or implied meaning outside of the NIST Report holds little validity or concern to the petitioner's arguments.

The authors address all NIST's stated computer simulation case scenarios.

I'm sure the authors' had an equal or greater understanding of the aircraft impact consequences than yourself.

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

And they're responding stupidly.

NIST clearly pointed out that, since none of their impact models had debris ejected from the other side, then they were all underestimates. Thus of their three estimates, the severe one is the best fit. The "base case" was retained as a control, and the less severe one was rejected.

Then your clowns come along and say, "well, since none of the three showed such severe phenomena, then they're all wrong. And since they're all wrong, then the less severe one is just as valid."

That's the complaint.

The first part of that complaint is plausible, though it discounts the inherent difficulty of impact modeling.

The second part of that complaint is complete stupidity. The error committed is an error of equivocation. This is a logical fallacy.

Petition rejected.

 

[beachnut]

The authors are responding to the NIST Report as written.

Any assumed or implied meaning outside of the NIST Report holds little validity or concern to the petitioner's arguments.

The authors address all NIST's stated computer simulation case scenarios.

I'm sure the authors' had an equal or greater understanding of the aircraft impact consequences than yourself.

MM

I doubt the authors could understand much of anything after reading how shallow an understanding they have of the whole matter. Based on the petition the authors show little or no understanding of the aircraft impact consequences. This is a fact and why more signatures are not on this poorly concocted junk paper.

 

[Myriad]

Yep, it's equivocation, again and again all the way through.

Consider this sentence (p. 7):

Although the less severe impact scenarios were “in good agreement with observed damage”, the WTC Report later states that the “less severe case was not used in subsequent fire dynamics, thermal, and structural analyses as it did not reasonably match key observables.” (NCSTAR 1-6, p. 121)

Makes it sound like there's a contradiction there, doesn't it? How could the less severe impace scenario be "in good agreement with observed damage" and yet not match "key observables" related to the amount of damage?

The answer is in the passages actually being referenced by the quote "in good agreement with observed damage."

The magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall were still in good agreement with the observed damage for this less severe impact scenario. (p.276)

The mode and magnitude of the calculated and observed impact damage on the exterior wall are still in good agreement in this less severe impact analysis. (p.312)

(emphasis added)

In the less severe scenarios, even though the damage to the exterior wall was similar, no debris was ejected through the far wall of the tower -- contrary to the observed phenomena at the actual crashes. Thus this scenario was rightly rejected as uninformative regarding the subsequent chain of events.

The petition goes on to claim that the medium and severe scenarios were also wrong, because different specific airplane parts were ejected from the towers in the model than in the real event. On that basis it claims that the less severe scenario is therefore no less valid. That's more equivocation, fallaciously equating "inaccurate by virtue of showing different specific pieces of debris penetrating the far wall" with "inaccurate by virtue of not showing any penetration of debris through the far wall at all." Quite silly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[CHF]

For all those NISTians who keep screaming there's no case for challenging the integrity of the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2, I suggest you read this and debunk it objectively!

Tell you what, MM...

Why don't you take the amazing facts contained in that petition and get some engineers to sign on? Frankly, no one gives a toss whether Stephen Jones or Waterboy Ryan think there's a major problem with NIST's report.

People would start paying attention if engineers started signing on though.

Here you will find engineering firms in every US state: www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Give em a call!

 

[R.Mackey]

I also find it entertaining that, if I read the petition correctly, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have added ... and Justice to their moniker.

Whatever happened to The American Way?

P.S.: Oh, and this part is the funniest thing I've read all week:

Jones has also suffered an informational injury based on the WTC Report. As a scientist affiliated with a major university (that is, until he was criticized on University web sites for challenging the findings of the WTC Report and strongly encouraged to
leave BYU),

I can't decide which is funnier, the "Informational Injury," or that he was "strongly encouraged" to leave BYU. Good ol' Steven Jones, a man who'll die with his boots on, or at least he says he'll get around to it sometime.

 

[TraitorBasher]

People here should demand the same standard of factual accuracy from the government reports that they demand from conspiracy videos like Loose Change.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh, but we do.

Loose Change has no factual accuracy whatsoever.

The NIST report still has some rough edges, but it's so far beyond Loose Change as makes no odds. Nonetheless, we're still trying to improve it in our discussions here.

Therefore, we are actually holding NIST to an even higher standard. Bully for us.