NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[aggle-rithm]

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

Your argument is flawed.

A group of bullets equal in mass to a cannonball has EXACTLY the same momentum.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

Your argument is idiotic.

The "extreme" simulation was extreme only in relation to the less extreme simulations. So, anything beyond it was impossible because there were no simulations more extreme than this one.

If you feel more extreme simulations should have been performed, then by all means commission an investigation yourself. You're the one who thinks it's necessary.

 

[beachnut]

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

Will you ignore the numbers and stick to the woo of Dr Jones and his thermite theories of explosives.

No comment on the fact the engine and the landing gear parts in total were less than a percent or two of energy which may of left the building before being totally spent?

Why are you ignoring numbers and energy figures. This is important, you want to support a petition that is fancy talk and avoid looking at what the difference would be in real numbers and energy. Why? Why do you support some people who just sat around for years until they started making up lies?

Why are you ignoring the fact the energy lost to destroy more of the WTC was negligible?

 

[Miragememories]

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.

We are talking about a simulation running in a computer model.

A computer model that the esteemed R. Mackey has admitted is a very complex creation. The observable criteria with the most validation is the video and photographic evidence of the aircraft exit debris. Mr. Mackey himself has admitted his disagreement with how NIST handled the landing gear.

Asking me about energy numbers without contextualizing your question is just tossing a 'red herring' into the thread.

When investigating a murder it's not essential to know the energy released projecting the bullet to determine whether it was a factor in the cause of death or not. Where and how far it penetrated the body, and where, if it did, exit the body is the most relevant information.

The core was the principle part of the twin towers that kept them standing.

To bring down the twin towers, the cores had to be compromised.

Particles from disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc. would not have near enough the energy impact value that titanium steel landing gear and engines impacting the core would.

If the core was not impacted by these major aircraft components, how can you deny that the fire weakening timeline that followed would not have been effected?

MM

 

[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.

Ahh. A fragmentation bomb. Bits of aluminum, bits of luggage, glass etc., bombarding the heavy structural steel of the 110 storey World Trade Centre core would have more devastating power than large heavy pieces of titanium steel. Okay, I beg to disagree, but again we are debating the validity of NIST's simulation..you are entitled to believe your guess has the most merit.

I fail to see how NIST's declaration of an "extreme case scenario" fails to qualify as such in your opinion?

MM

 

[pomeroo]

We are talking about a simulation running in a computer model.

A computer model that the esteemed R. Mackey has admitted is a very complex creation. The observable criteria with the most validation is the video and photographic evidence of the aircraft exit debris. Mr. Mackey himself has admitted his disagreement with how NIST handled the landing gear.

Asking me about energy numbers without contextualizing your question is just tossing a 'red herring' into the thread.

When investigating a murder it's not essential to know the energy released projecting the bullet to determine whether it was a factor in the cause of death or not. Where and how far it penetrated the body, and where, if it did, exit the body is the most relevant information.

The core was the principle part of the twin towers that kept them standing.

To bring down the twin towers, the cores had to be compromised.

Particles from disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc. would not have near enough the energy impact value that titanium steel landing gear and engines impacting the core would.

If the core was not impacted by these major aircraft components, how can you deny that the fire weakening timeline that followed would not have been effected?

MM

I'm curious to know why you persist in debating people with scientific backgrounds when it is apparent that you lack one. You seem to believe that hundreds of researchers employed by NIST were oblivious to considerations that are obvious to you. Why should that be the case? Your arguments get exposed as wrong-headed by more capable people and yet you continue. What do you bring to the table?

 

[slyjoe]

We are talking about a simulation running in a computer model.

A computer model that the esteemed R. Mackey has admitted is a very complex creation. The observable criteria with the most validation is the video and photographic evidence of the aircraft exit debris. Mr. Mackey himself has admitted his disagreement with how NIST handled the landing gear.

Asking me about energy numbers without contextualizing your question is just tossing a 'red herring' into the thread.

See below. This is not a red herring - you brought it up.

When investigating a murder it's not essential to know the energy released projecting the bullet to determine whether it was a factor in the cause of death or not. Where and how far it penetrated the body, and where, if it did, exit the body is the most relevant information.

Totally irrelevant, and poor, analogy.

The core was the principle part of the twin towers that kept them standing.

To bring down the twin towers, the cores had to be compromised.

Particles from disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc. would not have near enough the energy impact value that titanium steel landing gear and engines impacting the core would.

This is why we have been asking for your energy numbers, and why it appears there isn't a rudimentary knowledge of energy in this post. Asking for energy numbers is not a red herring. Your statement regarding "the energy
impact value" is why we would like to see your numbers.

 

[Yurebiz]

Just a small note here, I swear to god I had made this same point about energy waste in the impacts of the airplanes, months ago.
~I mentioned how the second crash couldn't have done MORE damage than the first, simply because the plane pratically went THROUGH, yet, NIST is confident in their simulation which shows that it did MORE damage. Plus, it damaged MORE core columns than the first impact, that went straight on against the core columns...
Needless to say, I was called as stating things that I could not understand.

Meh, I totally agree there's something wrong with the simulations.

And I dare to say once again, that the dislodged insulation foams could not have been so widely dislodged all around the impact floors like the worst case simulation says. I just can't prove it, obviously, since I don't have any idea how to apply the vibration formulas or anything. Just giving some thought to this discussion. :I

 

[beachnut]

We are talking about a simulation running in a computer model.

A computer model that the esteemed R. Mackey has admitted is a very complex creation. The observable criteria with the most validation is the video and photographic evidence of the aircraft exit debris. Mr. Mackey himself has admitted his disagreement with how NIST handled the landing gear.

Asking me about energy numbers without contextualizing your question is just tossing a 'red herring' into the thread.

When investigating a murder it's not essential to know the energy released projecting the bullet to determine whether it was a factor in the cause of death or not. Where and how far it penetrated the body, and where, if it did, exit the body is the most relevant information.

The core was the principle part of the twin towers that kept them standing.

To bring down the twin towers, the cores had to be compromised.

Particles from disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc. would not have near enough the energy impact value that titanium steel landing gear and engines impacting the core would.

If the core was not impacted by these major aircraft components, how can you deny that the fire weakening timeline that followed would not have been effected?

MM

I would ask the energy of the pieces in real life and if that was significant that our model was missing 1 percent! You need some help and you will not find it at the LCF.

You are not an engineer, you lack of knowledge about energy is showing.

Produce the numbers or be gone with your fancy talk. This post is fancy talk and false on many levels.

Tell me how much energy we are missing due to the parts that left the WTC. With out a comparison you are lost. Your argument is poor due to the fact you can not place values to your energy and you never once said why it is significant, which you can not say without some numbers.

Wrong on the energy again. Ten pounds of anything still has the same energy as ten pounds of anything else moving at the same speed.

I think you have problems with energy. Go ahead pick which you want 9400 pounds of engine or 9400 pounds of fuel moving at 600 mph. Which do you want to hit your house. I want the engine, I will let you have the fuel.

Why are you defending people even more challenged than you with facts?

 

[beachnut]

Just a small note here, I swear to god I had made this same point about energy waste in the impacts of the airplanes, months ago.
~I mentioned how the second crash couldn't have done MORE damage than the first, simply because the plane pratically went THROUGH, yet, NIST is confident in their simulation which shows that it did MORE damage. Plus, it damaged MORE core columns than the first impact, that went straight on against the core columns...
Needless to say, I was called as stating things that I could not understand.

Meh, I totally agree there's something wrong with the simulations.

And I dare to say once again, that the dislodged insulation foams could not have been so widely dislodged all around the impact floors like the worst case simulation says. I just can't prove it, obviously, since I don't have any idea how to apply the vibration formulas or anything. Just giving some thought to this discussion. :I

No, the parts coming out were not much of the total energy.

The energy of the first crash was equal in energy to 1300 pounds of TNT.

The energy of the first crash was equal in energy to 2200 pounds of TNT.

Not counting the fire from the fuel which were equal to 315 tons of TNT, 600,000 pounds of TNT.

Are you having problems understanding energy? What you say is wrong.

Have you used a pressure washer? What do you think the fuel was doing to the guts of the WTC at 500 mph?

 

[Yurebiz]

No, the parts coming out were not much of the total energy.

The energy of the first crash was equal in energy to 1300 pounds of TNT.

The energy of the first crash was equal in energy to 2200 pounds of TNT.

Not counting the fire from the fuel which were equal to 315 tons of TNT, 600,000 pounds of TNT.

Are you having problems understanding energy? What you say is wrong.

Have you used a pressure washer? What do you think the fuel was doing to the guts of the WTC at 500 mph?

And what percentage of that energy was wasted outside the towers, for each crash, do you think? Does the NIST makes that exact comparison between the energy of the crashes?
I'm asking because I really don't know btw; I forgot specifics about the crashes. Or maybe I've never read into them.

 

[HyJinX]

Stop trolling. Read before you ask question that you seem to know little about in the first place. Just one man's opinion.

 

[beachnut]

Ahh. A fragmentation bomb. Bits of aluminum, bits of luggage, glass etc., bombarding the heavy structural steel of the 110 storey World Trade Centre core would have more devastating power than large heavy pieces of titanium steel. Okay, I beg to disagree, but again we are debating the validity of NIST's simulation..you are entitled to believe your guess has the most merit.

I fail to see how NIST's declaration of an "extreme case scenario" fails to qualify as such in your opinion?

MM

You have to get some help with energy. Every time you mention energy you mess it up.

What do you think an engine weighs and what percent is that of the total mass?

 

[Miragememories]

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.

Okay.

So supposedly this landing gear that exited the steel perimeter wall at 105 mph was somehow halted by impacting a flesh and bone human..must have been the Terminator. I'll check and see if he was in the WTC that day.

The problem is your attempting to negate the influence of a major aircraft component. The landing gear in reality as we know, exited throught the opposite steel perimeter wall of the WTC at a significant speed of 105 mph and for the Model to halt it internally, it would require a significant obstruction..like the core.

False additional core damage would be critical to the results pertaining to collapse iniation, especially if the collapse initiation was only achievable with a worst case scenario!

MM

 

[Gravy]

Just a small note here, I swear to god I had made this same point about energy waste in the impacts of the airplanes, months ago.
~I mentioned how the second crash couldn't have done MORE damage than the first, simply because the plane pratically went THROUGH, yet, NIST is confident in their simulation which shows that it did MORE damage. Plus, it damaged MORE core columns than the first impact, that went straight on against the core columns...
Needless to say, I was called as stating things that I could not understand.

Meh, I totally agree there's something wrong with the simulations.

No, you were given specific reasons why the flight 175 would have done more damage: higher speed, steeper angle, hitting much closer to the core, etc. If you choose not to accept those reasons, which are explained in great, great detail in the NIST report, but choose not to counter them with a fact-based argument, that's your problem. Don't blame it on others.

Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Yurebiz]

Stop trolling. Read before you ask question that you seem to know little about in the first place. Just one man's opinion.

-.- You know jinx, I admit I know little to this. I'm not trolling, just trying to understand. Contrary to many here, I admit when I'm wrong if it's clear that I was so.
And you should really try picking on other skeptics that derail threads way more frequently than I do. If this is even considered derailing at all. You can see that by my postcount. I don't throw in one-liners in every thread I see.

No, you were given specific reasons why the flight 175 would have done more damage: higher speed, steeper angle, hitting much closer to the core, etc. If you choose not to accept those reasons, which are explained in great, great detail in the NIST report, but choose not to counter them with a fact-based argument, that's your problem. Don't blame it on others.

Do you understand what I mean?

Yes I do Gravy.
But am I wrong to think that the waste of energy for the second crash was far greater than the first one, due to the fireball extending further to the outside, and more plane debree making it through?
Christ, I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything. If you folks say it isn't then fine. I was just throwing in some thoughts i had, since you people were getting into this subject here. I thought I could be right on something for once, and that was that. Sorry for wasting your time eh.

 

[beachnut]

And what percentage of that energy was wasted outside the towers, for each crash, do you think? Does the NIST makes that exact comparison between the energy of the crashes?
I'm asking because I really don't know btw; I forgot specifics about the crashes. Or maybe I've never read into them.

What are you talking about?

The energy of the impact of 11 was about 1300 pounds of TNT energy.

The energy of the impact of 175 was about 2200 pounds of TNT energy.

To put in perspective these energy levels are 7 to 11 times greater than the impact of an aircraft the WTC was designed to resist. Significant, you think?

There were parts ejected from both impacts. What is your point. The impact damage of the second airplane was greater cause there was more energy. The fact the impact looked bigger is because it was bigger and did more damage, it was like a 900 pound bomb bigger, and I have been bombed before and that is BIG. If you do not understand then think of 1300 bowling balls hitting something. Now use 2200 balls. More damage.

This is physics, go learn physics and you can correct me. Plus there was not a significant amount of either plane ejected.

 

[beachnut]

Okay.

So supposedly this landing gear that exited the steel perimeter wall at 105 mph was somehow halted by impacting a flesh and bone human..must have been the Terminator. I'll check and see if he was in the WTC that day.

The problem is your attempting to negate the influence of a major aircraft component. The landing gear in reality as we know, exited throught the opposite steel perimeter wall of the WTC at a significant speed of 105 mph and for the Model to halt it internally, it would require a significant obstruction..like the core.

False additional core damage would be critical to the results pertaining to collapse iniation, especially if the collapse initiation was only achievable with a worst case scenario!

MM

105 mph is not significant, the energy would have been reduce to almost nil compared to the total energy involved. Only 4 percent was lost of the energy the part of the landing gear had already given up to damage the WTC. Oops, not significant. You should think before you post, and you are lacking in Physics, almost as bad as Dr Jones.

4 percent of less than 1 percent of the energy was lost! Darn you should do your numbers before you commit it to paper, this a big error. Error.

That is a tiny numbers. I warned you to do the numbers before you expose yourself.

 

[jaydeehess]

MM writes;
Think cannonballs vs bullets as an analogy.
..............

.........Particles from disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc. would not have near enough the energy impact value that titanium steel landing gear and engines impacting the core would.

MM, what represents more energy,
1000 Kg of water moving at 100 MPH
1000 Kg of steel moving at 100 MPH
1000 Kg of aluminum moving at 100 MPH
a 3000 Kg 1/2 aluminum 1/2 steel drum filled with water moving 60 MPH?

If each of these is directed at a building which will cause the most damage and why?

Those disintegrating aluminum wings, body, luggage, plastics and seats etc.. What is happening in the way of physics that is causing them to disintegrate?

What percentage of the mass of the aircraft is the landing gear MM. It was moving at 1/5th the speed it entered the building at MM, how does that affect the energy?

 

[Yurebiz]

-.-
Some visuals once again to address what I'm saying
WTC1 - point blank, straight against the middle
http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pg0164hl8.png

WTC2 - going through the corner
http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pg0165wx7.png


tell me which one you think wastes more energy, both kinetic and explosive...
It's WTC2. Yet, the explosive energy is supposedly far stronger, and ultimately damages the core columns more than the first crash. If you say that's plausible, I'll take your word for it. That's all I'm saying.