NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Trifikas]

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!

Well, yes, but asked and answered: Because it would not significantly change the results of the simulation.

Short Version: There is a random element to the simulation, and the conclusion they reached was based on the most likely results of the randomness, allowing for the fact that ANY given run of the simulation would result in anomolies.

Longer version: the report outlines the anomolies in the simulation; Simulated events that differ from what they could observe happened during 9/11. We don't know, however, how exact the rest of the simulation was.

There is essentially a randomness to the simulation, due to many unknown values and Margins of error. Even using the same known values and running the simulation several times will yield different results. Suppose they ran the simulation with every measureable value exctly as it was on 9/11, but didn't know it. And still the wheel only passes through 1 time out of 10 runs of the simulation with those numbers. If the Wheel is the ONLY measure of how correct the sim is, then you'd throw it out. Therefore, there was more to their decision to accept the simulations that they did accept besides just the ejected debris.

Trif

 

[Belz...]

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.

Oh. I thought my point was obvious. Let's try this again: SPECIFICALLY because it is a complex data for which little data is known... it IS IMPOSSIBLE to exactly replicate it via simulation. Is that easier to understand ?

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

How is that unreasonable?

Because since it's a chaotic event, the simulation will give you various possible outcomes. If you try three times, the result that is closest to observations will be the prefered one. In this case the more severe.

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!

Unlikely, since the fires is what ultimately resulted in the collapse. Perhaps under your scenario, less material beign ejected means more burning material and hence a shorter time before collapse.

 

[Miragememories]

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

Meanwhile you totally ignore my response.

I thought I did reply to your post.

"Bulk" best described the rest of it.

Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!

If you want to ignore important occurrences that are recorded as fact, where do you draw the line? Why not talk about the statistical probability that the plane never hit the building at all? And no, I am not a no-planer..let's not go there.

Statistical probability has meaning where factual evidence is missing.

We know the landing gear exited the building. We know this happened extremely early in the event. We know that the timeline conclusions resulted from what was initiated during these first early seconds.

NIST claimed the towers collapsed as a result of aircraft impact damage combined with further weakening of the steel due to the subsequent fires.
An approximately 3600 second event for WTC 2 and an approximately 4200 second event for WTC 1.

Obviously over those event timelines, NIST proposes the fires progressed and the structures were further weakened, so much so that at the end of each event's timeline, the extreme case scenario, which was applied to each model, lead to each tower reaching collapse initiation.

If those event timelines had progressed minus the damage caused by the titanium landing gear and jet engines, that we know exited the towers, it seems logical that the event timelines would have either been longer, or the collapse initiation would not have been reached.

The fact that collapse initiation occurred only for the extreme case in both towers only serves to emphasize that point.

I can only see an argument for ignoring the exiting aircraft landing gear and engines, if the collapse initiations were reached with the less severe, or even the base scenarios. That would indicate an easily reached collapse threshold. As a result, the validity of the non-existent damage caused by the exiting landing gear and jet engines would be inconsequential since the extreme case scenario's tweaks would no longer be needed.

MM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Meanwhile you totally ignore my response.

I thought I did reply to your post.

"Bulk" best described the rest of it.

Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!

Reread what I wrote. Yes, we know that the gear exited, however, in the models, so long as the model has a probability of the gear exiting > 0 then that model may be accurately representing what occurred the model does not need to have a 100% chance of the gear exiting to be accurately representing what occurred.

If you want to ignore important occurrences that are recorded as fact, where do you draw the line? Why not talk about the statistical probability that the plane never hit the building at all? And no, I am not a no-planer..let's not go there.

Strawman

Statistical probability has meaning where factual evidence is missing.

It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.

 

[Papermache]

It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.

It looks like there's a word or two missing. I can't figure out what you mean. Could you clarify this? Thanks.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It looks like there's a word or two missing. I can't figure out what you mean. Could you clarify this? Thanks.

"It has meaning [in] the modelling. Period. QED. " unless of course MM is seriously trying to say that the exiting of the gear from the building is a critical requirement for the collapse to have occurred.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

MM

I'm not attacking any one person. There's nothing special about you. You are simply typical of a member of an irrational subculture.

That's what I was commenting on, somewhat off-topic, I admit.

 

[T.A.M.]

"It has meaning [in] the modelling. Period. QED. " unless of course MM is seriously trying to say that the exiting of the gear from the building is a critical requirement for the collapse to have occurred.

I think that relates to the quote from NISTNCSTAR2 (page ixxiii - exec summary)

The global impact simulations provided, for each tower, a range of damage estimates. These
included a base case based on reasonable initial estimates of all input parameters, along with a less severe
and a more severe damage scenario. The less severe damage 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 and (2) The subsequent structural response analyses of the damaged towers indicated that the
towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used. As a result, this report
provides detailed description of the results of the analyses pertaining to the base and the more severe
cases, which were used as the initial conditions for the subsequent fire dynamics simulations, thermal
analyses, and fire-structural response and collapse initiation analyses. Only a brief description is provided
for the less severe damage results for comparison purposes.

bolding mine.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think that relates to the quote from NISTNCSTAR2 (page ixxiii - exec summary)



bolding mine.

TAM

And based on that we have

less severe|base|more severe
no exit|?|?
no collapse|?|?

with "less severe" throw out because it met no criteria, and "base" and "more severe" kept in.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes I think they want the "less severe" case "On the Books" so they can say...

"See one of their models resulted in no collapse. So in that case, what might have made the towers come down....oh I dont know...explosives..."

They want the case where impact damage, fires, and removal of fire proofing DID NOT result in collapse to be exposed so they can use it to promote the "other forces were at work" theory.

They will say the video footage of exiting debris is not detailed enough to say it was Plane debris, and that the engine and landing gear found outside the towers, was planted...you know...they'll call into uestion any evidence that doesnt fit their theory.


TAM

 

[Belz...]

Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!

Ah! So I take it you don't know how simulations work.

Simulations don't work backwards from a conclusion like CTers do. Instead, they are built from the beginning with the purpose of determining various outcomes to various scenarios. Of course, no simulation so far is sufficiently complex to completely model such a complex event as the plane crashes into the twin towers. However, they can give us a good approximaiton of what might have happened.

This "might" is very important, because if you were to crash the exact same airplanes, for real, into the very same buildings again, pretty much in the same spot at the same speed with the same pitch, the landing gear may simply not punch through the building, this time. So what ? The impact and the damage is fairly the same, and the simulation isn't supposed to model the exact same thing, as you've admitted, but merely show that the sequence of events that was observed is within expectations for the scenario in question.

If those event timelines had progressed minus the damage caused by the titanium landing gear and jet engines, that we know exited the towers, it seems logical that the event timelines would have either been longer, or the collapse initiation would not have been reached.

I don't think the landing gear had so much impact on the final result, but feel free to demonstrate what difference it would've made. And please, don't answer that this is precisely what the simulation was supposed to show, because we know that it demonstrated that, even within a certain margin of error, the impacts would've destroyed the towers.

The fact that collapse initiation occurred only for the extreme case in both towers only serves to emphasize that point.

An extreme case that was, admittedly, not as severe as actual reality.

 

[qarnos]

OK... I haven't read any of this thread apart from the OP, so sorry if this has already been said, but:

I agree with the subject line.

The NIST Petition does demand correction.

 

[Miragememories]

Reread what I wrote. Yes, we know that the gear exited, however, in the models, so long as the model has a probability of the gear exiting > 0 then that model may be accurately representing what occurred the model does not need to have a 100% chance of the gear exiting to be accurately representing what occurred.


Strawman


It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.

But you are ignoring the meat of my post and giving all your attention to "> 0".

The model in all 3 scenarios doesn't exercise this probability and NIST themselves explain that the model absorbs these major aircraft components at the core where any damage is critical to the collapse initiation results.

Like I said, we know the length of time for each event, from the point of aircraft collision to the point of collapse initiation.

After the aircraft crashed, since the buildings didn't collapse, the computer simulation collapse initiation results are based on what happened due to fire in that intervening time.

Over the 1 hour and 1.5 hour WTC timelines, we have fire working on the damage caused by the aircraft impact.

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But you are ignoring the meat of my post and giving all your attention to "> 0".

The model in all 3 scenarios doesn't exercise this probability and NIST themselves explain that the model absorbs these major aircraft components at the core where any damage is critical to the collapse initiation results.

Like I said, we know the length of time for each event, from the point of aircraft collision to the point of collapse initiation.

After the aircraft crashed, since the buildings didn't collapse, the computer simulation collapse initiation results are based on what happened due to fire in that intervening time.

Over the 1 hour and 1.5 hour WTC timelines, we have fire working on the damage caused by the aircraft impact.

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM

Your assuming the critical damage could not have occurred if the gear did not exit the buildling.

 

[rwguinn]

Snip>>>

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM

There you go, making ASSUMPTIONS that second-guess the people actually qualified to make them.
The major and critical damage, it must be assumed, was done at initial impact. The LG and engine are small, compared to the area they must traverse to exit the other side, and the probability of them hitting something (else) critical is small (go look up "Big Sky, Little Bullet"--pilots will understand, as will Gunnery types 8-D). Merely exiting through the aluminum/glass skin of the building is non-critical to the building's security. In other words, poking a hole in the skin between columns doesn't compromise the structure. If the gear and engine do not exit the building, they their energy goes into the building, and may or may not compromise something critical. (Filing cabinets and desks are not critical, BTW)
The actual velocity of these things exiting the building is easily measurable by calculation--you know from whence they came, and how far away from the building the landed. The rest is physics--which troofers don't have a clue as to how it works.So there is aother known--the actual energy not expended in the building by two big lmps

 

[R.Mackey]

I've been away for a couple of days...

...and nothing has changed.

MirageMemories, we're going to have to do this one step at a time.

Do you agree that the "more severe" cases are the best fit to what we saw, out of the three cases simulated? Yes or no?

 

[R.Mackey]

On re-reading carefully, there's something I must point out:

NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification.

MirageMemories repeatedly misquotes me as follows:

"a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification"

This subtle alteration misses the point.

The point is that the reconstruction must be used quantitatively, as opposed to qualitatively. I did not mean for that clause to refer to the data, I was referring to the reconstruction.

What this means is that for the model to be useful, it must provide testable predictions in both gross order effects (that's the qualitative part) and magnitude (that's the quantitative part). For instance, predicting the exact timing of collapse versus merely predicting that it will collapse.

If you want your model to be this accurate, you must select a "best fit" case. If you retain a broad spectrum of cases, you will not get consensus. Unless you have some way to estimate the error in your inputs, which we do not, we cannot propagate errors to say anything useful about the spread of results. That's why NIST is doing what it's doing, and that's why the petitioner's approach is useless, not to mention ignorant and misleading.

Also MirageMemories, your statement about how only one test could be applied to evaluate model results quantitatively:

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.

... is wrong. Please re-read what I wrote for you a couple of days ago.

Hopefully my clarification above will help you understand.

 

[beachnut]

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM

I think you are not an engineer. The biggest mass on the plane is the plane itself. 62 percent of the mass was airplane. Yes your little engines and landing gear were there but the 38 percent of total mass of people and fuel beats your tiny landing gear or engine mass. I doubt you know how much an engine weighs, nor the landing gear.

106,000 pounds of people, luggage, and fuel beats your engines and landing gear. You are not an engineer you are leaving out mass. At 600 mph mass and energy is important. You must think more like an engineer and less like a the nut case Dr Jones.

Your engines and landing gear have strength, but they are not the big energy sources for the impact. You are grasping straws and forgot it was a piece of straw in the tornado that is imbedded in the telephone pole due to energy, not the strength of the component.

Added, for mm, each engine was only 3.32 percent of the mass on 9/11. So your big part becomes a 3 percent small part, leaving the building as did many other parts (not all of the engine left the building!). I wonder how much the landing gear weighs (BTW not all the landing gear assembly left the building)? Do you even think of looking up this stuff before makeing up ideas about them?

 

[rwguinn]

On re-reading carefully, there's something I must point out:



MirageMemories repeatedly misquotes me as follows:



This subtle alteration misses the point.

The point is that the reconstruction must be used quantitatively, as opposed to qualitatively. I did not mean for that clause to refer to the data, I was referring to the reconstruction.

What this means is that for the model to be useful, it must provide testable predictions in both gross order effects (that's the qualitative part) and magnitude (that's the quantitative part). For instance, predicting the exact timing of collapse versus merely predicting that it will collapse.

If you want your model to be this accurate, you must select a "best fit" case. If you retain a broad spectrum of cases, you will not get consensus. Unless you have some way to estimate the error in your inputs, which we do not, we cannot propagate errors to say anything useful about the spread of results. That's why NIST is doing what it's doing, and that's why the petitioner's approach is useless, not to mention ignorant and misleading.

Also MirageMemories, your statement about how only one test could be applied to evaluate model results quantitatively:



... is wrong. Please re-read what I wrote for you a couple of days ago.

Hopefully my clarification above will help you understand.

I missed that change and was reading what I knew you ment into what MM said.
I attributed the lack of understanding to general lack of wanting to understand that seems to permeate the "truth movement"

 

[slyjoe]

[/QUOTE=beachnut;2538173...106,000 pounds of people, luggage, and fuel beats your engines and landing gear. You are not an engineer you are leaving out mass. At 600 mph mass and energy is important. You must think more like an engineer and less like a the nut case Dr Jones. [/QUOTE]

I thought mass and energy were always important

The only reason these guys would ever pick up a physics book is to boost themselves up to the dinner table of conspiracy nuts.