NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Miragememories]

Just answer the question, please. I strongly suspect that the answer is "no." After your answer, I'll be glad to explain why.

The answer is "yes".

It's around 700 pages of beautifully presented material. I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa must be buried in there someplace.

I think NIST and Applied Research Associates, Inc. did some impressive work and certainly examined the aircraft and building data thoroughly.

Repeatedly the NISTNCSTAR1-2B document emphasizes how complex the subjects were.

Given that this necessarily intricate model required an extreme case scenario to achieve a collapse initiation, I have to wonder again about the validity of the results?

I strongly suspect that I know how you will answer.

MM

 

[Trifikas]

I doon't think characterising it as "Extreme" is really aplicable. Using mid-range values in the simulation caused the collapse, If I recall, in addition to the high-range values. And all values used in the simulation were within parameters for the aircraft.

The simulation simply shows that Explosives, etc. Were not necissary for the collapse.

 

[R.Mackey]

The answer is "yes".

It's around 700 pages of beautifully presented material. I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa must be buried in there someplace.

I think NIST and Applied Research Associates, Inc. did some impressive work and certainly examined the aircraft and building data thoroughly.

Repeatedly the NISTNCSTAR1-2B document emphasizes how complex the subjects were.

Wow, really? You did read it?

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain how you made these grave errors regarding its contents:

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.

This is false.

In the report, the second half linked again here for anyone who hasn't read it, please turn to figures 9-26 on page 229, and 9-47 on page 258. These two figures describe the evolution of simulated aircraft debris in the WTC 1 case for the baseline and more severe trials, respectively.

You will notice, clearly shown, the large amount of aircraft debris that exits at the right side of the figure. This contradicts your statement that no aircraft debris was calculated to side opposite impact.

Here's another example, most clearly seen here: (note to moderators: I apologize for dredging up a post from AAH; I promise to cite and respond only to the substantive portion of that post.)

Why would they say only the "less severe case" would not match the landing gear event? The plane entering the model should be identical in all 3 scenarios since that is not a variable. The landing gear should have exited at 105 mph in ALL 3 scenarios. What parameters are they tweaking that would result in a constant becoming a variable?

This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.

The similar table for WTC 2 is Table 9-10 on page 289. If you compare this table to 9-7, you will notice something interesting -- the "more severe" case WTC 2 is not as bad as it was in WTC 1! Why is this? Quoting from the report, on page 289:

The second exception was the failure strains for the aircraft and tower materials. For the more severe WTC 1 analysis, 125 percent and 80 percent of the baseline values were used for the aircraft and tower failure strains respectively. For the more severe WTC 2 analysis, 115 percent and 90 percent of the baseline values were used. The more severe WTC 2 analysis was the final global impact analysis performed. Based on the previous analyses, the variation in damage levels indicated that the WTC 2 more severe impact analysis would produce impact damage state that was not viable (e.g., the amount of debris exiting the north wall). To ensure that a viable damage state was obtained, the aircraft and tower materials were adjusted to the values presented in Table 9–10.

Paraphrasing, they attenuated the second "more severe" case because it would have thrown too much debris out the other side. This makes the first claim of yours, that I highlighted, not just misleading, but completely backwards.

So let me try to explain how the report works. NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification. They do this by first considering a wide range of scenarios, within the limitations of what they know about conditions prior to impact, and then try to refine and select what they find to choose the best guess about what happened.

There are many selection criteria, not just the two you incorrectly identified above. These criteria include impact seen on the outer walls, both in terms of location and predicted failure mode of each component; travel of debris through the structure; distribution of aircraft debris and furniture after impact; initiation locations and spread of fires; total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact); disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution; evolution of the exterior after fire simulation; and predicted collapse time of each tower. This is presented as a table in that report as well, I will leave finding this as an exercise.

The simulations will never agree with every parameter. They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated, and many simplifications were needed to make them converge at all. Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices, but I understand them. The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation, but it's not bad -- while they don't predict landing gear break-through, they do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion, and with only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear. But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.

The petitioners are, in effect, trying to prevent NIST from choosing a most-likely scenario. They are calling for all the input conditions to be treated equally! (Vroomfondle: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!")

This is nonsense. If they think the simulations are flawed, they can point out why. If they think NIST chose incorrectly, they can submit a different most-likely scenario. If they honestly think the cases are indistinguishable, they can perform a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate this.

But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

The stunts of Dr. Jones et. al. apparently play well with those who have no conception of the NIST report, but it won't fly with anyone in the scientific community.

MirageMemories, I suggest you re-read the report. I'll be glad to help if you have questions.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Speculation.

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.

It doesn't follow that relevant experts would be fooled. In fact, I do remember reading that it was already significant that the towers didn't collapse immediately, considering the impact.

The crashes and subsequent fires were a 'shock and awe' preparation of the public mind to accept the horrific collapse climax.

Speculation.

 

[Belz...]

This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.

Not only that, but I would like to know why they expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.

But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

An astute observation, Mack.

 

[Miragememories]

Wow, really? You did read it?

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain how you made these grave errors regarding its contents:




This is false.

In the report, the second half linked again here for anyone who hasn't read it, please turn to figures 9-26 on page 229, and 9-47 on page 258. These two figures describe the evolution of simulated aircraft debris in the WTC 1 case for the baseline and more severe trials, respectively.

You will notice, clearly shown, the large amount of aircraft debris that exits at the right side of the figure. This contradicts your statement that no aircraft debris was calculated to side opposite impact.

Here's another example, most clearly seen here: (note to moderators: I apologize for dredging up a post from AAH; I promise to cite and respond only to the substantive portion of that post.)



This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.

The similar table for WTC 2 is Table 9-10 on page 289. If you compare this table to 9-7, you will notice something interesting -- the "more severe" case WTC 2 is not as bad as it was in WTC 1! Why is this? Quoting from the report, on page 289:



Paraphrasing, they attenuated the second "more severe" case because it would have thrown too much debris out the other side. This makes the first claim of yours, that I highlighted, not just misleading, but completely backwards.

So let me try to explain how the report works. NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification. They do this by first considering a wide range of scenarios, within the limitations of what they know about conditions prior to impact, and then try to refine and select what they find to choose the best guess about what happened.

There are many selection criteria, not just the two you incorrectly identified above. These criteria include impact seen on the outer walls, both in terms of location and predicted failure mode of each component; travel of debris through the structure; distribution of aircraft debris and furniture after impact; initiation locations and spread of fires; total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact); disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution; evolution of the exterior after fire simulation; and predicted collapse time of each tower. This is presented as a table in that report as well, I will leave finding this as an exercise.

The simulations will never agree with every parameter. They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated, and many simplifications were needed to make them converge at all. Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices, but I understand them. The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation, but it's not bad -- while they don't predict landing gear break-through, they do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion, and with only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear. But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.

The petitioners are, in effect, trying to prevent NIST from choosing a most-likely scenario. They are calling for all the input conditions to be treated equally! (Vroomfondle: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!")

This is nonsense. If they think the simulations are flawed, they can point out why. If they think NIST chose incorrectly, they can submit a different most-likely scenario. If they honestly think the cases are indistinguishable, they can perform a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate this.

But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

The stunts of Dr. Jones et. al. apparently play well with those who have no conception of the NIST report, but it won't fly with anyone in the scientific community.

MirageMemories, I suggest you re-read the report. I'll be glad to help if you have questions.

First of all, try and use the same page numbers that the NIST document uses in future replies. It makes it easier locating your references.

This is false? re: my statement; "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.."

After examining Figure 9-26 (WTC 2) pg.231 and Figure 9-47 (WTC 1) pg.260 they show a small amount of debris exiting which may or may not be superficial aircraft debris.

For WTC 2;

“No landing gear debris exited the building in either the base case or the less severe simulations.”

“None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large
engine fragment exiting the tower.”

“In all three simulations...it was estimated that the building contents
would likely stop the engine fragments prior to impacting the northeast
corner of the exterior wall.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)

Regarding my statement question why they failed to recreate the known landing gear 105 mph exit from WTC 1 in any of the 3 scenarios, I draw on these WTC 2 clues from the NIST report;

A portion of an engine also exited the tower at the northeast corner of the building and was found at the intersection of Murray and Church Streets.
From the damage to the building, it was believed that the engine exited the building in this corner of WTC 2. Based on this trajectory, it was estimated that the engine exited the building at approximately 120 mph....In the simulations, the engines were projected to stop short of this position, although they followed the extrapolated trajectory reasonably well. At the end of the simulation, the speed of the aft portion of the engine was below 80 mph, and it was more than 60 ft from the northeast corner of the building...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 (lowered 1-2 ft.) would be required to achieve this response. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353 So why not make the minor modifications?

In the global analyses performed, *the engine impacted the underside of the 82nd floor, as shown in Figure 9–136, pg 360. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353

*Why not make this minor modification unless, maybe, it results in a significantly altered outcome.

Okay on to my lesson on how the report works.

We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification.

We have selection criteria;

Impact on the outer walls can be substantiated by the video and photographic record.

Agreed.

Travel of debris through the structure.

Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Distribution of of aircraft debris and furniture after impact.

Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Initiation locations and spread of fires.

Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact).

Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution.

Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Evolution of the exterior after fire simulation.

Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Predicted collapse time of each tower.

Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

I will leave finding this as an exercise.

Purpose of this gratuitous statement speaks for itself.

Back to your defense of the NIST simulations;

They will never agree with every parameter.

They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated.

Many simplifications were needed to make them converge.

Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices.

The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation.

They don't predict landing gear break-through.

They do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion.

Source please..large mass?

With only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear.

?? Creative extrapolating based on "little hard data"?

But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.

Well I guess maybe less severe shouldn't be so less severe? It's all what they use after all. Less severe has to match some observable criteria or it's outside of the range of possibility. As I've indicated, selection criteria that is substantiated by the video and photo record has much more credibility than the majority of items in your criteria list that require significant extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Regarding the petitioners, I see them as trying to challenge the validity of NIST selecting a scenario that is being chosen because it's essential to validate a predetermined result.

I think you yourself have provided ample reason why the simulations can't be given our trust.

We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification.

Claiming;

the "Truth Movement" has no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals and that this is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

That, is just vicious, petty speculation as to what motivates people who happen to disagree with your point of view. A clear case of attacking the person and not the argument!

I have no reason to believe that Dr. Jones considers his efforts to be "stunts". Of course, it's always possible he may be in error regarding some of his beliefs, but I see no reason to believe he is anything less than sincere.

R.Mackey, I suggest maybe you entertain the possibility that the beautifully presented NIST WTC Report is sufficiently flawed that you would be wise to not base your convictions on it.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

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.

snip

The crashes and subsequent fires were a 'shock and awe' preparation of the public mind to accept the horrific collapse climax.

And what is your evidence for this?

 

[Belz...]

MM, I would like to know why you'd expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.

 

[beachnut]

The petition of explosives. You know one time Dr Jones was just using thermite.

I think Jones is going nuts. This is why I think he is loosing it, and his petitoin is nutty too.

In his very first paper I found 9/16/2005, he puts forth his first Pulitzer Prize experiment to prove the WTC could not be real or as it happen. (yes it took our expert 4 years to come up with his ideas, it seem his hate for Bush was greater than him wanting to help figure out the WTC to protect others in the future. Our hero finally comes forward with his lies)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

Our expert then lays out his precise mechanism for the demise of the WTC.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

It gets worse as he tries to make up stuff all on his own about...

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

What? Dr Jones is also one of the top KoolAid guys and is passing out the Kool-Aid like Fetzer. Funny how two nut cases have split on 9/11 truth. Thermite and Beam Weapons, oh my, now a petition with out merit.

 

[Miragememories]

MM, I would like to know why you'd expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.

Primarily because as R.Mackey has repeatedly emphasized; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification."

He then lists 9 possible selection criteria for the NIST Model.

Of the 9, only ONE, the impact on the outer walls can be substantiated by the video and photographic record.

3 others can be partially substantiated by the video and photographic record; "Initiation locations and spread of fires", "Disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution" and "Evolution of the exterior after fire simulation." They still require extrapolation.

Since only ONE of the 9 selection criteria can be fully substantiated by the video and photographic record, it exists as primary selection criteria for verifying that the NIST WTC Model is performing reasonably accurately.

The fact that the landing gear exited the WTC 1 perimeter wall at 105 mph, suggests that it passed through the building on a path that did not seriously block it's passage.

NIST admits that minor aircraft entry corrections would significantly improve the match with the video and photographic record.

"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 (lowered 1-2 ft.) would be required to achieve this response." NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353.

I think it is illogical to tweak a parameter so that it will result in the Model failing 100% to approximate the only conclusive primary selection criteria as observed video and photographic record.

Matching the video and photographic record would necessarily lessen the internal damage in all 3 scenarios.

The fact that NIST achieve collapse initiation only using extreme parameter adjustments (extreme case scenario) while not adjusting for the exiting jet engine and landing gear observables, meant that these these heavy titanium steel components must have been included in the internal activity and stopped by the core.

This is highly significant because additional core damage in their extreme case scenario, aids in creating the resulting collapse initiation.

I don't see how; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification" can be equated with an acceptable margin of error, given the situation as we know it.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

He has drank the KoolAid, and is now passing it out. Thank you William for standing up for high school dropout like Charlie Sheen and putting them on your web page of 9/11 was an inside job. How many perpetrators did you catch during your rounds?

If William supports the 9/11 truth movement he is not a hero, he is a supporter of those who with out evidence make up lies about 9/11. The liars are now using William to promote their lies. These are the facts and no truthers can produce facts to support any of the conclusions of the 9/11 truth movement.

Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM

 

[Belz...]

Since only ONE of the 9 selection criteria can be fully substantiated by the video and photographic record, it exists as primary selection criteria for verifying that the NIST WTC Model is performing reasonably accurately.

The fact that the landing gear exited the WTC 1 perimeter wall at 105 mph, suggests that it passed through the building on a path that did not seriously block it's passage.

So, what now ? You want them to fudge their data until they can produce a set of simulations where that exactly same gear comes out the exact same point in the building ? What about the other observed elements of the impact ? Should they simulate them all exactly, too ? That's an impossibility.

I don't see how; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification" can be equated with an acceptable margin of error, given the situation as we know it.

Er... beause it's a "highly complicated event" and we have "little hard data". What's the problem, here ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM

Then report it.


RE the modelling:
The parameters used in modelling represent a continuum of possible interactions and outcomes. Now, we know the landing gear went through the building, therefore any modelling should therefore include a statistical probability that the end result of the model has the landing gear existing the building. However, what we do not know what the probability was that the landing gear must exist the building, only that on that one particular instance it did. So long as a given model has a 1:N possibility of having the landing gear exist then the model could potentially be correctly representing the conditions at that time; the model does not need to have a 1:1 possibility of the landing gear existing the building.

The question that needs to be asked is, given the available modelling techniques and computational power, does the model used by NIST have a 1:N possibility of this event occurring and is it simply a matter of running the simulation enough times for it to show us a result that has the landing gear existing the building. Now, if the NIST model is insufficiently dynamic, or is set up wrong, so that the gear has no possibility of exiting the building regardless of the number of executions, then there is a valid criticism of it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM

This is so typical of the CT mindset. Never do anything yourself, but demand actions from others!

I have seen little to disprove my hypothesis that troofers feel powerless and worthless, but are filled with self-righteousness that prompts them to continuously declare, "Somebody should do something!"

Like saying that there needs to be an independent investigation. By whom? The government? No, can't be trusted. Experts? No, they're in on it. The troofers? [whine]Can't somebody else do it?[/whine]

 

[Miragememories]

This is so typical of the CT mindset. Never do anything yourself, but demand actions from others!

I have seen little to disprove my hypothesis that troofers feel powerless and worthless, but are filled with self-righteousness that prompts them to continuously declare, "Somebody should do something!"

Like saying that there needs to be an independent investigation. By whom? The government? No, can't be trusted. Experts? No, they're in on it. The troofers? [whine]Can't somebody else do it?[/whine]

This is not attacking the subject, but again is attacking the person!

MM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is not attacking the subject, but again is attacking the person!

MM

Then report it. Making posts about it in the thread does nothing to rectify the situation.

 

[Miragememories]

So, what now ? You want them to fudge their data until they can produce a set of simulations where that exactly same gear comes out the exact same point in the building ? What about the other observed elements of the impact ? Should they simulate them all exactly, too ? That's an impossibility.



Er... beause it's a "highly complicated event" and we have "little hard data". What's the problem, here ?

Because it was "a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification", I think it is important to recreate observed reality as much as possible before pressing the 'run' simulation button.

I realize and accept that "exact" = "impossible". When all 3 scenarios fail to reproduce the only clearly photographed observable, and when NIST admits that this observable can be created in the simulation with a minor adjustment, I have to question their not doing so!

My suggestion is they make that minor adjustment and then proceed with their less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

How is that unreasonable?

Of course that would eliminate the simulation damage this debris must have created when 'contained' by the model. This eliminated damage, especially in the crucial extreme case scenario, might result in the towers remaining standing!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Then report it.


RE the modelling:
The parameters used in modelling represent a continuum of possible interactions and outcomes. Now, we know the landing gear went through the building, therefore any modelling should therefore include a statistical probability that the end result of the model has the landing gear existing the building. However, what we do not know what the probability was that the landing gear must exist the building, only that on that one particular instance it did. So long as a given model has a 1:N possibility of having the landing gear exist then the model could potentially be correctly representing the conditions at that time; the model does not need to have a 1:1 possibility of the landing gear existing the building.

The question that needs to be asked is, given the available modelling techniques and computational power, does the model used by NIST have a 1:N possibility of this event occurring and is it simply a matter of running the simulation enough times for it to show us a result that has the landing gear existing the building. Now, if the NIST model is insufficiently dynamic, or is set up wrong, so that the gear has no possibility of exiting the building regardless of the number of executions, then there is a valid criticism of it.

A model is also constructed using as much known information as possible before starting a timeline and testing variables.

The less we know about the real situation being modeled, the less accurate will be any simulations run on the created models.

Because it has been strongly emphasized, how complex were the designs of the models of the 767 and WTC 1 & 2, then it would seem to make sense that the best observed data from the initial few seconds of the real event be given precedence before testing the remaining approximately, 3600 second (WTC2 South Tower) and 4200 second (WTC 1 North Tower) timelines. Prioritize 'observables' over 'assumables'.

If we create a model and test it from low to high extremes and in none of the cases does it reveal major observables that were photographed and recorded as video, and when the model designers say this can be easily corrected with a minor adjustment, but don't correct it, I think it's fair to see we have a "flawed model".

MM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A model is also constructed using as much known information as possible before starting a timeline and testing variables.

The less we know about the real situation being modeled, the less accurate will be any simulations run on the created models.

Because it has been strongly emphasized, how complex were the designs of the models of the 767 and WTC 1 & 2, then it would seem to make sense that the best observed data from the initial few seconds of the real event be given precedence before testing the remaining approximately, 3600 second (WTC2 South Tower) and 4200 second (WTC 1 North Tower) timelines. Prioritize 'observables' over 'assumables'.

If we create a model and test it from low to high extremes and in none of the cases does it reveal major observables that were photographed and recorded as video, and when the model designers say this can be easily corrected with a minor adjustment, but don't correct it, I think it's fair to see we have a "flawed model".

MM

Would you care to address the bulk of my post, that being the probabilities involved?

 

[beachnut]

Because it was "a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification", I think it is important to recreate observed reality as much as possible before pressing the 'run' simulation button.

I realize and accept that "exact" = "impossible". When all 3 scenarios fail to reproduce the only clearly photographed observable, and when NIST admits that this observable can be created in the simulation with a minor adjustment, I have to question their not doing so!

My suggestion is they make that minor adjustment and then proceed with their less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

How is that unreasonable?

Of course that would eliminate the simulation damage this debris must have created when 'contained' by the model. This eliminated damage, especially in the crucial extreme case scenario, might result in the towers remaining standing!

MM

You have not even brought up a single fact.

The facts are the WTC were strong buildings, even the design was made to adsorb the impact of a jet aircraft with an impact energy of What?- Why do you not know the number?

The impact energy of 386,000,000 joules.

Then on 9/11 two jets come and they have an impact energy of 2,740,000,000 and 4,320,000,000 joules.

7 and 11 times more impact energy than the design could stand. Not once have Dr Jones or any truthers wondered why the buildings were able to stand 7 to 11 times the impact design energy. They just make up stories and lies out of thin air, no facts.

Then there were fires and steel performs poor in fire, that is why steel buildings fail in fire, sometimes more that simple wood. Fire burns uncontrolled. Buildings fall. The buildings fall due to gravity collapse, just as they would fall when a massive portion falls on the rest.

You ignore the total energy of the falling building totaled for one building was 1,020,000,000,000 joules. The energy of 500 1000 pound bombs.

The energy alone accounts for the WTC failures. Only the truth movement is in the dark on how fire makes steel fail? Why?

Why is every single member of the 9/11 truth movement not able to research 9/11 and find simple facts? You have not answered that question and you support a petition that only point is to claim explosives were used to bring down the WTC! All without a single fact.

Where are your facts? Where are the truth movement facts?

Funny you have no facts and the simple proof the towers fell due to impact and fire is proven twice on 9/11, and not any engineers or scientists have facts otherwise. So you have no facts, your petition support is not based on facts, and you have lost on facts. Facts beat lies. Every single time. Math and physics are the key, should have taken some hard stuff and got the grade, seems like Dr Jones tells lies even though he had an education he now mocks with lies on 9/11.

You should have taken some engineering courses in stochastic estimation and control, no amount of BS can save the veiled petition of explosives had to do it.

Engineers and scientist before NIST came out already knew that impact and fire brought down the WTC; even the real expert, the chief designer on the WTC knows. NIST is not needed to understand the WTC failure - Petition is a waste of time. Thermite, Dr Jones, kaput.