NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[rwguinn]

[/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. ]

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 knowledge.

You need to delete everything after "table", and put a "Mom's" before dinner, and you will be right.
A lot of these folks want absolutely nothing to do with knowledge. Belief is so much handier, and you have the ultimate defense against attack "I believe..."

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

...where they will skip the main course and have extra helpings of dessert.

 

[slyjoe]

Thanks guys - I edited to take out the "knowledge" part - what was I thinking?

 

[Miragememories]

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

We know that it took the extreme case to initiate the collapses of both towers.

We know this occurred after the simulated fires had been working on the simulated damage for 1 hour and 1.5 hours respectively for WTC 2 and WTC 1.

If the simulation had accurately portrayed these major aircraft components leaving the building at over 100+ mph, significant critical internal building damage would never have been part of the timeline simulation.

The fact that the simulation did not show these major aircraft component exits meant it had to absorb their capacity for damage.

That additional damage would have been subjected to the fires over the complete timeline. Combine this with the fact that only the extreme case scenario succeeded in creating the collapse initiations, and I think there's a valid case for arguing this non-existent extra damage was a key factor in the collapse result.

MM

 

[beachnut]

We know that it took the extreme case to initiate the collapses of both towers.

We know this occurred after the simulated fires had been working on the simulated damage for 1 hour and 1.5 hours respectively for WTC 2 and WTC 1.

If the simulation had accurately portrayed these major aircraft components leaving the building at over 100+ mph, significant critical internal building damage would never have been part of the timeline simulation.

The fact that the simulation did not show these major aircraft component exits meant it had to absorb their capacity for damage.

That additional damage would have been subjected to the fires over the complete timeline. Combine this with the fact that only the extreme case scenario succeeded in creating the collapse initiations, and I think there's a valid case for arguing this non-existent extra damage was a key factor in the collapse result.

MM

What percentage of the energy was lost when the spent parts came out? What are the numbers we are talking about?

 

[Miragememories]

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

Please debate the thread case being presented rather than some tangential subject that has no relationship to the topic at hand..even if it is easier to deal with.

I have been explaining the significance of the various scenarios and up until now you have been absent from that discussion.

MM

 

[Belz...]

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

...and nothing has changed.

I must disagree with you wholeheartedly, Mack.

The date has changed.

 

[beachnut]

Please debate the thread case being presented rather than some tangential subject that has no relationship to the topic at hand..even if it is easier to deal with.

I have been explaining the significance of the various scenarios and up until now you have been absent from that discussion.

MM

Please come up with some numbers on the energy lost when the spent core of an engine and a small part of a landing gear wheel assemble left the building.

These are some of the reasons you are unable to make a case; you have zero numbers. You think you talk a big game, but you have zero facts. Zero energy figures and you do not even know you are talking about an insignificant about of energy. Why are you so challenged with facts and unable to calculate energy of one singe part? Show me the numbers or stop posting in this thread about a petition done by idiots.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Non sequitur.

The pieces that broke away from the plane and shattered into many pieces probably did much more damage, in my opinion, than the landing gear, because they kinda acted like a fragmentation bomb. The gear itself just went through the building. How is it so significant ? Why do you think it so destructive ?

We know that it took the extreme case to initiate the collapses of both towers.

Just because it's the worst of the three cases doesn't mean it was "extreme" in any way.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We know that it took the extreme case to initiate the collapses of both towers.

We know this occurred after the simulated fires had been working on the simulated damage for 1 hour and 1.5 hours respectively for WTC 2 and WTC 1.

If the simulation had accurately portrayed these major aircraft components leaving the building at over 100+ mph, significant critical internal building damage would never have been part of the timeline simulation.

The fact that the simulation did not show these major aircraft component exits meant it had to absorb their capacity for damage.

That additional damage would have been subjected to the fires over the complete timeline. Combine this with the fact that only the extreme case scenario succeeded in creating the collapse initiations, and I think there's a valid case for arguing this non-existent extra damage was a key factor in the collapse result.

MM

Let me give you an example that may better explain why I am arguing against your conclusion:

The reality:
Plane crashes in to building.
Landing gear travels through buildling causing damage.
Landing gear crashes through window and exits building.

The model:
Plane crashes in to building
Landing gear travels through building causing damage.
Landing gear deflects off of simulated victim.
Landing gear crashes into, but does not penetrate through wall between to windows.

In this example, we can see that the model accounts for all the damage the landing gear did, except for the broken window. Ergo, the model would be an acceptable substitute for reality as the gear exiting through the window would not affect the structural integrity of the building.

I am not claiming that this is what happened, or what occurred in the simulation. I am saying that, given the available info, we can not declare the model wrong.

 

[R.Mackey]

To answer beachnut's valid energy question...

There is no difference in energy. In the more severe case, the wheel didn't exit, but other massive chunks of aircraft did, chunks that didn't leave the tower in real life. The total energy (and momentum) deposited to the structure is approximately correct.

Again, the discrepancy with the wheel is that in the NIST aircraft impact model, aircraft components are treated somewhat homogeneously. Move the point of impact a foot to the left or right, and you get different chunks leaving the structure, but the total amount is roughly the same. NIST decided, correctly, that the wheel scenario was plausibly matched by the more severe (and baseline) cases, even though in their specific runs, the wheel didn't exit. The point is that the wheel could, without making any significant change to the model.

In the less severe case, zero large fragments exited. The wheel couldn't, without large changes to the model.

Therefore, the less severe case is a poor fit.

It's that simple.

 

[Miragememories]

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

The whole NIST argument for collapse initiation is dependent on the combination of aircraft impact damage and subsequent fires.

Now you are trying to argue that the aircraft impact damage was inconsequential, so it didn't really matter whether the simulation accurately handled the exiting aircraft components or not?

And by the way, the skin of the building, as you choose to call it, was not aluminum and glass!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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?

beachnut[/b]]
"You must think more like an engineer and less like a the nut case Dr Jones."

Your attacking the man not the argument!

Heavy titanium steel components moving at ~570 mph (extreme case scenario) are far more destructive that aluminum, seats, and luggage which the NIST simulation shows to quickly become small debris.

Think cannonballs vs bullets as an analogy.

I didn't say ALL the landing gear or all the engines.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

[/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.

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.[/quote]


Attacking the man and not the argument!

MM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE MM: "Attacking the man and not the argument!"
Then report the damned post. Posting about it does nothing to rectify the situation.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Attacking the man and not the argument!

MM[/quote]
You are talking about 1 or 2 percent of the total impact energy leaving the building. Your ideas are based on negligible stuff. You should run the number before engaging the talk.

Prove Dr Jones' thermite ideas and I will eat my words. I think Dr Jones is the most personable guy in the 9/11 truth movement, but the most disrespectful to 9/11 memory since his ideas are not founded on facts. His idea is a nuts, thus he is a nut case when it comes to 9/11 ideas. Give me some fact to prove me wrong and I will call him the best expert on 9/11. However his ideas are not based on facts, he has no conclusions aobut much to do with 9/11.

He is like you, you have no facts, you can not come up with numbers on your energy that the landing gear part and engine part took away from doing damage to the WTC. You are like Jones with not much research or numbers to back you up, just talk.

I have studied Jones papers and work, it is all garbage pertaining to 9/11. Show me his facts and evidence to support his non conclusions. He is the nicest say nothing truther there is.

Does this mean you do not know how much energy we are missing when a part of engine and part of a landing gear left the building. What did the landing gear part weigh? How much did the part of the engine weigh?

The energy lost to damage the WTC would be
A. 10 percent
B. 25 percent
C. Less than 3 percent
D. I do not know cause I can not do the math
E. I do not know I can not research the topic
F. D and E
G. No clue I was just cutting and pasting and making up neat sounding stuff
H. I just listen to others and have no original ideas on 9/11

 

[beachnut]

Your attacking the man not the argument!

Heavy titanium steel components moving at ~570 mph (extreme case scenario) are far more destructive that aluminum, seats, and luggage which the NIST simulation shows to quickly become small debris.

Think cannonballs vs bullets as an analogy.

I didn't say ALL the landing gear or all the engines.

MM

Wrong.

You do not understand energy. False statement, the energy of an engine is not greater than the energy of all the people and fuel at 470 and 590 mph. You need to study more.

Energy at impact of stuff

Just the airframe without engines was 56 pecent of all the energy
Just an engine was 3 percent of the energy
Just fuel and people and bagage was 38 percent
Just a part of the landing gear was less than 3 pecent maybe 1 perect or less.

So the cargo and fuel was 38 percent vs our engine of 3 percent. You are only off by a factor of 10, a simple order of magnitude. Welcome to engineering.

Your seats and stuff are in the airframe number of 56 percent, without the engines too. That is a lot bigger than your 3 pecent engine.

 

[Miragememories]

RE MM: "Attacking the man and not the argument!"
Then report the damned post. Posting about it does nothing to rectify the situation.

I'm sorry Arkan Wolfshade it appears you are right, yours is the only answer.

MM

 

[aggle-rithm]

Attacking the man and not the argument!

MM

A reasonable approach when the man seems incapable of formulating a single valid argument.

 

[Miragememories]

Non sequitur.

The pieces that broke away from the plane and shattered into many pieces probably did much more damage, in my opinion, than the landing gear, because they kinda acted like a fragmentation bomb. The gear itself just went through the building. How is it so significant ? Why do you think it so destructive ?



Just because it's the worst of the three cases doesn't mean it was "extreme" in any way.

I've answered ad nauseam why I think it's significant.

Obviously the most extreme case scenario is significant!

NIST picked the word 'extreme', not me. Obviously, one has to conclude that NIST felt anything beyond extreme was impossible!

It means NIST pushed their Model to it's outer limits in order to achieve a collapse initiation!

Simulated fire, working on simulated damage; damage that should not have been there, from the time of impact, to the time of collapse, is highly relevant, especially when it took the worst case scenario to create a collapse initiation.

Had the collapse initiation occurred with the less extreme or base scenarios, I could see discounting this observable as not having enough significance to effect the outcome.

MM