NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[pomeroo]

Yet you don't seem too concerned about the conflicts of interest in the 911 commissioners...

I'd love to hear about hyper-partisan Democrat attack dog Richard ben-Veniste's motives for protecting George Bush. This might be a severe test for even your imagination.


Hey, how about that Danny Jowenko? He says that the collapses of the twin towers do not resemble controlled demolitions at all. Why is he wrong and what secret knowledge can you share with benighted demolition experts who reject your fantasies?

 

[Miragememories]

That's a ridiculous burden of proof. No computer model could accurately model something as inherently complex and chaotic as the impacts and collapses of the towers. At best, you get a best guess based on available evidence.

Or do you think you could come up with an exact simulation ?

Of what value is a simulation if the allowance for error is so great.

My impression is that there should be some provables that the model is useful as a simulator for what actually might have occurred.

We know the jets cut through the building's steel perimeter like a hot knife through butter.

How is it an unreasonable expectation of the Model, that the landing gear will be shown 'as it did in reality', ejecting out the opposite wall, given it's know exit speed of 105 mph and the unlikelihood that the building couldn't have contained it unless it was blocked by the core. The speed, the dimensions, the weight, and the trajectory of the aircraft when it entered WTC 1 were all known, as were the locations of all the core columns. It would seem doubtful that office furniture would deflect that kind of weight moving at that speed, especially if the outer perimeter offered such little resistance.

Are we to assume that landing gear and engines that were ejected at high speed from the buildings in reality, but were 'contained' by the buildings in the model, did inconsequential internal damage, and that this internal damage was in the range of acceptability for the Model?

Are we are also to assume that this internal damage to the Model, but not to the real building, had no bearing on the the fact that the Model showed a collapse initiation possible when pushed to it's extreme case scenario?

It would seem to me that NIST proved they could make their Models for WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse, but they never proved that the real buildings would perform similarly.

MM

 

[Horatius]

This indicates a flawed model and begs the question. How closely did the model have to match observations before NIST would have ruled the model was not viable?

MM

Mancman has already posted the bit that answers the essence of what you're asking.

None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.
However, the impact behavior suggests that only minor modifications would be required to achieve this response. For example, if the starboard engine impact location was lowered by 1 to 2 ft, which is within the aircraft impact geometry uncertainty range, the engine would likely have a greater residual speed inside the tower (over 100 mph). In the global analyses performed, the engine impacted the underside of the 82nd floor, as shown in Figure 9–136. This resulted in a large reduction in speed of approximately 200 mph. In the component analyses discussed in Chapter 5, the engine speed decreased by roughly 60 mph when impacting an exterior panel alone. This additional speed would likely result in a large engine fragment exiting the northeast corner of the tower

"only minor modifications would be required to achieve this response". That's the answer. NIST did ask the question of how close their models were to reality, because they knew they weren't getting exact reproductions of the impacts. Based on their analysis, they felt the models were close enough to produce good results. You're free to disagree with them, but don't pretend like they've never even addressed the issue.

 

[pomeroo]

Of what value is a simulation if the allowance for error is so great.

My impression is that there should be some provables that the model is useful as a simulator for what actually might have occurred.

We know the jets cut through the building's steel perimeter like a hot knife through butter.

How is it an unreasonable expectation of the Model, that the landing gear will be shown 'as it did in reality', ejecting out the opposite wall, given it's know exit speed of 105 mph and the unlikelihood that the building couldn't have contained it unless it was blocked by the core. The speed, the dimensions, the weight, and the trajectory of the aircraft when it entered WTC 1 were all known, as were the locations of all the core columns. It would seem doubtful that office furniture would deflect that kind of weight moving at that speed, especially if the outer perimeter offered such little resistance.

Are we to assume that landing gear and engines that were ejected at high speed from the buildings in reality, but were 'contained' by the buildings in the model, did inconsequential internal damage, and that this internal damage was in the range of acceptability for the Model?

Are we are also to assume that this internal damage to the Model, but not to the real building, had no bearing on the the fact that the Model showed a collapse initiation possible when pushed to it's extreme case scenario?

It would seem to me that NIST proved they could make their Models for WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse, but they never proved that the real buildings would perform similarly.

MM

Let's continue to ignore everything posted by R. Mackey. What could he possibly know?

 

[Mancman]

Since the aircraft parameters were precisely known, and since the parameters of impacted towers were precisely known, the model should have accurately mimicked what actually occurred inside the towers concluding with the observed opposite wall damage, which would validate the accuracy of the models.

Without that impact/exit corroboration, we know that the model is taking known data, i.e. the landing gear that was known to eject from the opposite wall of WTC 1 (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344), and is now processing it differently, “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) .

Not exactly true.

Yes, we do know the exact parameters of the towers, and the structure of the aircraft. But other, highly significant factors such as the precise mass, speed and trajectory of the planes are not known, and never will be.

So you are incorrect in claiming that NIST took absolute certainties, punched the numbers into the computers and came out with flawed results. The fact is, none of the 3 cases were ever going to be an exact representation of reality. To expect so would be unreasonable considering the range of variables and the amount of time and computing power necessary for each run.

 

[Miragememories]

Hey, how about that Danny Jowenko? He says that the collapses of the twin towers do not resemble controlled demolitions at all. Why is he wrong and what secret knowledge can you share with benighted demolition experts who reject your fantasies?

Danny Jowenko's differing opinions on WTC 7 vs. WTC 1&2, are brought up all the time, as a case of supposed contradiction. Supposedly there is something amiss because an expert that supports the 9/11 truth movement belief that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition doesn't also support that contention with respect to WTC 1 & 2.

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition, and Danny, as a leading European expert in controlled demolitions would be expected to confirm this. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2, which we know collapsed downward from the upper floors, was not a traditional looking controlled demolition, and Danny Jowenko naturally reacted to that difference since it did not resemble a controlled demolition as he knows them to be usually performed.

In spite of his belief that the twin towers collapses were not controlled demolitions, that does not negate the possibility that they were controlled demolitions. By necessity, to make their collapses look like the consequences of aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage, the collapse mechanism had to appear to occur in the area of these aircraft impacts. I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Danny Jowenko was correct in the sense that a controlled demolition expert would never normally attempt to bring a building down that way.

MM

 

[DavidJames]

Danny Jowenko's differing opinions on WTC 7 vs. WTC 1&2, are brought up all the time, as a case of supposed contradiction. Supposedly there is something amiss because an expert that supports the 9/11 truth movement belief that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition doesn't also support that contention with respect to WTC 1 & 2.

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition, and Danny, as a leading European expert in controlled demolitions would be expected to confirm this. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2, which we know collapsed downward from the upper floors, was not a traditional looking controlled demolition, and Danny Jowenko naturally reacted to that difference since it did not resemble a controlled demolition as he knows them to be usually performed.

In spite of his belief that the twin towers collapses were not controlled demolitions, that does not negate the possibility that they were controlled demolitions. By necessity, to make their collapses look like the consequences of aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage, the collapse mechanism had to appear to occur in the area of these aircraft impacts. I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Danny Jowenko was correct in the sense that a controlled demolition expert would never normally attempt to bring a building down that way.

MM

Do you exactly what analysis Jowenko performed to reach his conclusion about WTC7?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Danny Jowenko's differing opinions on WTC 7 vs. WTC 1&2, are brought up all the time, as a case of supposed contradiction. Supposedly there is something amiss because an expert that supports the 9/11 truth movement belief that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition doesn't also support that contention with respect to WTC 1 & 2.

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition, and Danny, as a leading European expert in controlled demolitions would be expected to confirm this. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2, which we know collapsed downward from the upper floors, was not a traditional looking controlled demolition, and Danny Jowenko naturally reacted to that difference since it did not resemble a controlled demolition as he knows them to be usually performed.

Post hoc rationalization.

In spite of his belief that the twin towers collapses were not controlled demolitions, that does not negate the possibility that they were controlled demolitions.

Correct.

By necessity, to make their collapses look like the consequences of aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage, the collapse mechanism had to appear to occur in the area of these aircraft impacts.

Post hoc rationalization.

I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Argumentum ad logicum.

 

[pomeroo]

Danny Jowenko's differing opinions on WTC 7 vs. WTC 1&2, are brought up all the time, as a case of supposed contradiction. Supposedly there is something amiss because an expert that supports the 9/11 truth movement belief that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition doesn't also support that contention with respect to WTC 1 & 2.

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition, and Danny, as a leading European expert in controlled demolitions would be expected to confirm this. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2, which we know collapsed downward from the upper floors, was not a traditional looking controlled demolition, and Danny Jowenko naturally reacted to that difference since it did not resemble a controlled demolition as he knows them to be usually performed.

In spite of his belief that the twin towers collapses were not controlled demolitions, that does not negate the possibility that they were controlled demolitions. By necessity, to make their collapses look like the consequences of aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage, the collapse mechanism had to appear to occur in the area of these aircraft impacts. I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Danny Jowenko was correct in the sense that a controlled demolition expert would never normally attempt to bring a building down that way.

MM

You will admit that it was damned ingenious to simulate the effects of commercial airliners crashing into buildings by actually crashing commercial airliners into buildings. Were it not for guys like you, who would have ever noticed the difference?

 

[T.A.M.]

Traiterbasher:

1. The 9/11 Commission Authors were a bipartisan group of Dems and Reps.
2. In my anaology, they would represent the authors of the paper, not the peer review. Congress would represent the Peer Review Committee so to speak.
3. The Commission report was not a scientific paper, so it is harder, to a fair degree, to apply the same "Peer Review" process to it.

--------

Danny Jowenko's differing opinions on WTC 7 vs. WTC 1&2, are brought up all the time, as a case of supposed contradiction. Supposedly there is something amiss because an expert that supports the 9/11 truth movement belief that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition doesn't also support that contention with respect to WTC 1 & 2.

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition, and Danny, as a leading European expert in controlled demolitions would be expected to confirm this. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2, which we know collapsed downward from the upper floors, was not a traditional looking controlled demolition, and Danny Jowenko naturally reacted to that difference since it did not resemble a controlled demolition as he knows them to be usually performed.

In spite of his belief that the twin towers collapses were not controlled demolitions, that does not negate the possibility that they were controlled demolitions. By necessity, to make their collapses look like the consequences of aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage, the collapse mechanism had to appear to occur in the area of these aircraft impacts. I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Danny Jowenko was correct in the sense that a controlled demolition expert would never normally attempt to bring a building down that way.

MM

Jowenko, looking at the visual representation (video) of both collapses stated that the WTC7 collapse looked like a Controlled Demolition, and that WTC1/2 Collapse, did NOT look like a Controlled Demolition.

His views do not really promote anyones theories, as they are limited to one aspect of the collapses...the visual presentation.

Any comment beyond that, should address directly, flaws he feels exist in the WC7 interim report.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

Of what value is a simulation if the allowance for error is so great.

My impression is that there should be some provables that the model is useful as a simulator for what actually might have occurred.

It's useful to understanding the different scenarios, and that some of them are close enough to reality to reach a conclusion as to the dynamics of the event.

We know the jets cut through the building's steel perimeter like a hot knife through butter.

Do we ?

How is it an unreasonable expectation of the Model, that the landing gear will be shown 'as it did in reality', ejecting out the opposite wall, given it's know exit speed of 105 mph and the unlikelihood that the building couldn't have contained it unless it was blocked by the core.

Again, if you think you know someone who can build a better simulation, then by all means...

The speed, the dimensions, the weight, and the trajectory of the aircraft when it entered WTC 1 were all known, as were the locations of all the core columns. It would seem doubtful that office furniture would deflect that kind of weight moving at that speed, especially if the outer perimeter offered such little resistance.

Post hoc reasoning. If the simulation is tailored to give the same results as the event, then there's no point in the simulation.

It would seem to me that NIST proved they could make their Models for WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse, but they never proved that the real buildings would perform similarly.

I don't think you understand the significance of the simulation.

 

[Belz...]

He is only declaring that which is quite obvious. The collapse of WTC7 had all the hallmarks of a traditional controlled demolition

This is one of the problems I have with the truth movement. This statement of yours is obviously false. Anyone who watches actual demolitions and the collapse of 7 WTC will be able to tell the difference. We've covered this before. There was no series of explosions prior to the collapse, the building damaged its surroundings, and it had been hit by debris from 1 WTC and on fire for hours prior to the collapse. The only thing that makes it "look" like a controlled demolition is the fact that it fell down. How is that "all the hallmarks" of a traditional demo ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Of what value is a simulation if the allowance for error is so great.

You're right, simulations are useless. Why don't you take your own money, build a 1000 foot skyscraper, and crash an airliner into it so we can get a REAL simulation.

We know the jets cut through the building's steel perimeter like a hot knife through butter.

How is it an unreasonable expectation of the Model, that the landing gear will be shown 'as it did in reality', ejecting out the opposite wall, given it's know exit speed of 105 mph and the unlikelihood that the building couldn't have contained it unless it was blocked by the core. The speed, the dimensions, the weight, and the trajectory of the aircraft when it entered WTC 1 were all known, as were the locations of all the core columns. It would seem doubtful that office furniture would deflect that kind of weight moving at that speed, especially if the outer perimeter offered such little resistance.

You may be right! However, you have not demonstrated that.

Please show us the calculations you performed to reach this conclusion. Include the weight of the debris, its velocity after being slowed by the initial collision and separated from the plane, and the resistance provided by the office materials in the building.

Also, please explain how the resistance offered by the perimeter to an intact airliner moving at hundreds of miles an hour is relevant to the behavior of the debris inside the building.

Remember, you can't simply say "I don't see how it could be that way, therefore, it couldn't be." If reality depended on your personal beliefs, then how did the world manage for so many years without you?

 

[kookbreaker]

We know the jets cut through the building's steel perimeter like a hot knife through butter.

I was not aware that a hot knife would be utterly disintigrated by the act of cutting through butter.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I was not aware that a hot knife would be utterly disintigrated by the act of cutting through butter.

It would be if it were moving 500 mph. And not so much by the butter, but the butter dish, the counter, the utensils stored in the cabinet beneath it, etc., etc.

 

[Miragememories]

Predetermining the Cause is NOT a Scientific Investigation!

To expand on my points that the flaws in the NIST Models for the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 seriously undermine the credibility of the finished NIST Report, I offer these additional points.

We know that NIST accepted the Model results from the most extreme scenario as being representative of what must have lead to the collapse initiation for both WTC 1 & 2.

I'll set aside for the moment, the debatable point regarding what constitutes acceptable margins of error in the NIST Computer Model due to the discrepancies between what was observed to happen, and what the NIST Model generates as happening.


The NIST WTC Report rejected the less severe case because they claim it “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), and (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).

The problem with this point is, and I expanded on this in a previous post, is that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower.

(2) The less severe case did not match with an observed collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST states that; “the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.”

This justification for excluding the less severe case is invalid because it is based on false logic. It's only logical to exclude that scenario if it's scientifically valid to only accept that the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were the sole possible cause of the buildings’ collapses.

The main goal of NIST’s investigation and analysis was to determine the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers, it wasn't 'officially' mandated to prove a predetermined conclusion.

To eliminate the less severe case solely because it would not create a collapse initiation in the NIST Model, means that NIST is assuming, and not determining, that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire.

If the assumption is wrong, and the Towers did not collapse solely due to impact damage plus the resulting fires, then the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were not the sole cause of the buildings’ collapses.

As the NIST Petition states; "It is not scientific to selectively choose only those computer simulations that result in a preordained conclusion. To do so is to invite the accusation of political expediency."


MM

 

[gumboot]

I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

The hard bit is rebuilding the demolished cores during the collapse so that they appear standing after the rest of the structure has hit the ground.

Now that was a neat trick.

-Gumboot

 

[Horatius]

(2) The less severe case did not match with an observed collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST states that; “the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.”

This justification for excluding the less severe case is invalid because it is based on false logic. It's only logical to exclude that scenario if it's scientifically valid to only accept that the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were the sole possible cause of the buildings’ collapses.

The main goal of NIST’s investigation and analysis was to determine the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers, it wasn't 'officially' mandated to prove a predetermined conclusion.

To eliminate the less severe case solely because it would not create a collapse initiation in the NIST Model, means that NIST is assuming, and not determining, that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire.

And once again, you're ignoring the fact that there were other reasons to select the most severe case.

You're saying that if they couldn't get the model to collapse in every case, they should have considered other reasons for the collapse: explosives, themite, enraged pixies, or whatever. The problem is, you're ignoring that there is no evidence for any of those things. No explosive sounds associated with the collapses, no explosive flashes associated with the collapses, no evidence of explosive damage to any of the structural steel, nothing.

They considered all these factors in deciding what to study. They knew, from this complete lack of evidence, that the chance of the collapse being assisted by some other means was essentially zero.

Disagree with their assesment of this lack of evidence if you want, but don't go around pretending that the lack of evidence doesn't exist, and wasn't considered.

Did that last line make any sense?

 

[Horatius]

The hard bit is rebuilding the demolished cores during the collapse so that they appear standing after the rest of the structure has hit the ground.

Now that was a neat trick.

-Gumboot

Everybody always forgets that the Death Star had tractor beams too. It's not all about the blowing up!

 

[babazaroni]

I have not seen any expert claim that it would be impossible to do this through a major sequential demolition of the cores of WTC1 & 2.

Has any expert said that the collapse of WTC 7 could not have been due to damage and fire?

This is not the same as Jowenko saying WTC 7 was a CD.