Miragememories
Banned
A bit of core skeleton that 'disintegrates' shortly after the collapse, hardly represents the original core!
MM
NIST Petition Demands Corrections
- Thread starter Miragememories
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nist
A bit of core skeleton that 'disintegrates' shortly after the collapse, hardly represents the original core!
MM
MirageMemories, I've already addressed all of this stuff several times.
Since you won't or can't read that, will you at least answer a simple question for me?
Have you actually read the sections of the NIST report you're complaining about? In particular, have you read the overview report NCSTAR1 and the impact modeling report NCSTAR1-2B? Yes or no answer, please.
Last edited:
This quote (And I'm just pulling it from your post, MM, I know it's the petition's & not yours) Seems a bit off to me. I understand where they're comming from with it, but it seems reasonable to me to reject simulations that don't result in preordained conclusions, if those conclusions are what happened in reality. If the Least severe case results in the building not collapsing, it's reasonable to toss it out. If NONE of the simulations resulted in the building collapse, then ALL of them are tossed out, and it is reasonable to then look for other factors for the collapse.
The fact that the landing gear did not exit the building in the simulation is not really important. there are several variables in the simulation that have a margin of error, and the angle of impact is just one of them that might have an effect on the forces acting on the landing gear. While they can get a good estimate from video and pictures, there is a degree of uncertancy, and the scientists determine that the landing gear could penetrate the building within that uncertancy, so the simulation was NOT rejected based on the landing gear. As they stated, a change of the variables, within the margin of error, would cause the landing gear to exit the building.
So, NIST are using a simulation to determine if a plane impacting a building could cause the building to collapse in the manner observed, within a margin of error. they chose a lower bound of the impact forces, an uppper bound, and a mid-range. At some point, as they increased the values for the forces from the lower to the upper limits, they run a simulation that results in the building collapse. After a few more runs to confirm, the conclusion they reach is that at some value for the forces, the planes can cause the collapse of the towers, and that Value is will within the limits of what the collision can produce.
semi-unecissary to the topic, but a thought I had - Imagine that what actually happened during the impact was that the landing gear, after dislodging from the rest of the aircraft, was on a trajectory to hit a major support structure inside the building. This structure would have sufficiently slowed the landing gear to a point where it would not have exited the building. However, it first glanced against a large, full filecabnet that changed it's trajectory enough that it missed the Support and continued through the building, exiting the other side. While NIST knows the basic floor plan from blueprints and such, how do they know the location of every desk and filecabinet and mini-fridge and whatever else you would find in the building, and add them to their simulation? The Global Collapse is the better indicator of what is a good simulation run and what is rejected, rather than the landing gear.
But that's just my thoughts on the subject
Trif
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
People think of paper as being lightweight, but in sufficient quantities it's pretty heavy. A large office space would have supply rooms dotted throughout the floor plan. When fully stocked, each room would contain anywhere from 500 to 1000 pounds of paper. Add to that all the paper in filing cabinets, which are sometimes so heavy that the floor they stand on must be reinforced.
(How do I know this? I used to deliver office supplies for IBM.)
The only problem with this theory is that it predicts that after the crash, there would be a huge amount of paper scattered through the air...
Oh, wait. Never mind. There WAS a huge amount of paper in the air.
Miragememories
Banned
Yes. Of course I'm saying they should have properly and sincerely considered other reasons for the collapse.
I don't question that NIST considered everything. It's their choices and exclusions that I have a problem with.
Why bother using the NIST Model at all?
If it's preordained that the collapse initiations were the result of aircraft impact damage and subsequent steel weakening fires, why bother tweaking until the Model agreed with this already existing assumption?
They say they adjusted the input parameters but that they were still within the realm of possibility...whatever that means?
As far as I know, NIST has never revealed the details of their Model tweaking.
I'd like to know how extreme their extreme case scenario was? Of course the extreme case succeeded..that's what extremes do.
Since the Model failed to show the exit of heavy aircraft debris that it should have, I'd like to know how the Model was effected? Saying it was allowed for, or was within acceptable tolerances is akin to saying "trust me'. Legitimate scientific reports are supposed to show and tell.
And possibly most importantly, I wonder what NIST would have said if they were unable to tweak their Model enough to initiate collapses. Since they had eliminated scientific investigation in favour of a foregone conclusion, I can only assume that they would have continued to rationalize their tweaking no matter how extreme, in order to make those collapses happen. The greater the tweaking, the less likelihood they would make this information public.
If the less severe scenario had initiated the collapse, I suspect NIST would have been more than happy to share their data and modeling parameters.
MM
Dr Jones was fired for his ideas on 9/11 because they lacked facts.
His petition here is exactly like his fact less work that got him fired.
What a sad ending for Dr Jones.
Miragememories
Banned
A thoughtful response Trif, thank you.
I'm wondering why when setting up their Model, NIST didn't take the less severe case, and adjust the aircraft entry parameters (realistic adjustments of course) to the point where they most closely resulted in the actual observed debris ejections from the opposite wall?
You now have a Model that reflects more accurately what was observed within the first few moments of the crash. Now NIST can start adjusting variables for the three scenarios, for the remaining time that followed to the point of collapse initiation.
MM
Miragememories
Banned
And now we take a moment to hear the truth;
Jones and Brigham Young University finalized a retirement package on October 20, 2006, six weeks after the school had placed him on paid leave to review his statements about the World Trade Center. "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. Jones' retirement was effective January 1, 2007
MM
Miragememories
Banned
Actually I believe my last reply to you got sent to AAH by the moderator..go figure.
Since apparently you feel you've addressed all of the stuff I've raised several times, then unless you wish to direct me to the relevant links, I don't understand why you're wasting your time on me?
I fail to see the value in replying to a post that simply demands a "yes" or a "no" response. That does not constitute a contribution to a forum discussion in my opinion.
MM
Belz...
Fiend God
I don't think you understood why and how they made that simulation.
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
What the hell? Do you not see the importance if you actually having read the section of the report you are complaining about? Whether or not you have read it is integral to you fully understanding the explanations you are being given. What is so hard about a yes or no question?
Just answer the question, please. I strongly suspect that the answer is "no." After your answer, I'll be glad to explain why.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
(In case anyone's having trouble following along, that means "No.")
I'm sure they would have liked to have an exact match, and for the most part, (I believe), that what you suggest is what they did. They started with the low-end of the parameters, and adjusted upwards until they got as close as they could. But what variables do you change next? Angle of attack, or air speed of the plane, you could probably have a good guess about. Maybe adjust the fuel amounts, but those should have been taken into consideration in the initial simulation parameters. (Your first paragraph, if I'm following correctly)
But there's items in the building that are complete unknowns as to size, density, location, mass, etc. I apologize for possibly being ghoulish, here, but even people inside the building effect and are effected by the forces, and there is simply no way to model every possible combinations of variables, especially with so many unknowns.
At some point, the scientists have to draw the line somewhere. Just a basic example, they run the simulation with a file cabinet at position "x". Then run it at postion "X" plus 1 inch. X+2. etc. now take out half the papers, put it back at "x", run it again. X+1, run it again. X+2, etc. That's just two variables, the location along the x axis and the amount of paper inside, but you can see the impossibility of trying all possible combinations and permutations of the variables, going to X+n. And as good as computers are, someone has to program the starting values, and the simulations still take time.
They probably could get the simulation to run such that the landing gear exits the building. But with so many variables, there are an indeterminite number of possible values that would all have the result of the landing gear leaving the building, and no way of knowing which one was correct. The simulation only tells what it can - that an Aircraft impact and resulting fires can bring down the WTC Towers. Probably, none of the simulations perfectly and accuratly mapped the path of every mass during the event, but going into creating the simulation, they knew that.
If they could only get the building to collapse if one of the values was well above and beyond the flight capabilities of the the plane, then they would need to find another way to explain the building failure. But as it is, a collapse can occur within operating parameters. And that's the only thing the simulation tells us laypeople.
Trif.
Miragememories
Banned
Oh I think I do.
No doubt future building codes and standards will benefit enormously from the valuable knowledge gained from the NIST WTC Model. At least that's the proper spin that's supposed to be placed on the process.
It's an investigative tool effectively looking in only one direction. NIST decided where to look, and they decided what they knew what they wanted to see. The Model was only tested with plane impact and subsequent fire scenarios. They never acknowledged testing the model with a range of minor to major controlled demolition scenarios.
If their model could be induced to initiate collapses in the extreme tweak scenarios, maybe in the less severe case, if combined with weak demolitions, the same effect might have been achieved..at least in the model? There seemed to be enough reports of secondary explosions from firefighters and others on the scene to justify modeling this possibility, especially given the extremely unusual nature of the collapse events.
I guess it all comes down to trusting that NIST acted objectively, without bias, throughout the whole process, making honest observations, drawing fair conclusions, collating all that material, and then; trusting that those select few people who determine the final conclusions were not compromised by those in power. People who may have a vested interest in what those published NIST findings would be.
MM
Does this imply that you have read NIST NCSTAR1-2B? Because that's where they describe how they made the simulation.
Please answer yes or no. I can't help you unless I know where you're coming from.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Before you type another word on this, do us all a favor and read the sections that R. Mackey pointed to.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, I'm sure you think you do.
You know, at one point doubt ceases to serve skepticism and begins to serve cynicism.
Speculation.
Why would they ? The plane and fire model accounts for the damage, and anyone with an ounce of knowledge in the matter will know that any amount of explosives that could destroy such a building would've been easily spotted; if not before the explosion, then during, for sure.
The problem with truthers is that they have a Hollywood-view of how the world works, physically and socially.
What's unusual about it ? Please be specific. Why aren't all the experts in the world asking for an investigation into this "unusual" set of circumstances ?
False dichotomy. It's not either goody-goody or evil-X-files government.
Careful, now, your bias is showing.
Miragememories
Banned
I don't quite understand you.
Airliners crashed into the towers and this was used as the pretext to completely demolish the buildings, thus exaggerating the magnitude and total psychological effect of the terrorist event.
Since airliners had never before been used to collapse a concrete and steel building, how could this be a simulation of a known effect? It was a test of an expectation maybe.
The crashes and subsequent fires were a 'shock and awe' preparation of the public mind to accept the horrific collapse climax.
MM