Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

[funk de fino]

If we are ALL looking for the truth as you say, I suggest you stop using the term "truther" as a label to discriminate against those who "worry you" through disagreement.

MM

And when someone points out the truth to you what do you do? Run away from the thread.

 

[DC]

Well it's tempting to say that you are implicitly a member of the "truth movement" but I am not sure this is fair. We are all looking for the truth after all, just the attitude you take is sometimes worrying as it indicates to us that you may have already decided on what theory is "correct".

Call me CT all day long, no problem, i call myself CT in regards to 9/11. but the TM is something that is used wrongly in my oppinion. im not a member of any movement or group, i share alot oppinions with those that are labled TM members but i dont really mind it anymore, i am geting used to the labeling love of humans.

I don't know what you mean when you say "left away". They conducted analysis of two seperate blasts resulting from different sized charges which were the minimum required to fail a single column. The indicated overpressures would result in a huge bang being heard well over half a mile away, nothing of the sort was recorded.

I understood that they indeed wanted to do several FEA's. And also one with hypotethical blast events from a CD.
but because there is no blast audio recorded, NIST consluded that nothing the like happened, while several withnesses indeed did report explosions.

Potentially yes, but the question is whether you can justify it scientifically. You can take a model of a building and propose that elements are removed, but such a complex structure will exhibit so called "emergent behaviour", that is things will occur in a manner different from what you expect because of the sheer complexity of the system. It took NIST 6 months to run collapse simulations on an array of highly powered machines, so simply speculating as to the locations of charges and then running the simulation from there is unlikely to be productive.

When NIST can come up with an uncontrolled mechanism that will result in a comparable collapse it is OK for me. so far they didnt. we will see what they will make out of the critiques/comments coming to NIST.

I'm not going to entirely agree or disagree with you here, yes NISTs simulation is not a completely accurate reproduction of the events, but this is because NIST was not attempting to simply replicate the collapse. NIST took the initial variables they were aware of (fire duration etc) and allowed their model to run. This is the only legitimate investigative method, as it runs without human judgement being required after a certain point. These initial assumptions can be challenged, but after that point it is simply down to the quality of simulation.

It is a big topic to cover though so I won't try and describe the process in full here.

Others (Like Dr. Greenings) are far beter informed about Fires and theyr behavior, thats so out of my field

That's fair enough, you're obviously not obligated to do anything at all until you make positive claims. Still, I don't think you can deny that NISTs simulation, even if relatively inaccurate during global collapse is quite convincing in terms of predicting the observed failure? Simply having the east penthouse collapse first, followed by a general roofline failure a few seconds later is something which should not be possible if the cause of the collapse was CD.

Im not sure about that, im not a CD expert, why should it not be possible?

 

[funk de fino]

I understood that they indeed wanted to do several FEA's. And also one with hypotethical blast events from a CD. but because there is no blast audio recorded, NIST consluded that nothing the like happened, while several withnesses indeed did report explosions.

An explosion is not always a blast.

 

[DC]

An explosion is not always a blast.

i know

 

[DC]

What do you think now about the NIST FEA of WTC7? Now that you know it did not look like the WTC7 Collapse?

I think this would be a great place for an excuse to Dr. Greening for your accusations of him using his authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field, where you thought he is so clueless about.
it turned out that you are the clueless one.


but to be fair i might add that indeed the default setting in all the FEA software packages i know is scaled deflection. Because normally you dont simulate total collapses of buildings. Youu simulate the daily use of constructions. Also in ANSYS the default setting is scaled deflections (max deflection is 5% of the total model length). But that default changes when you have the correct settings for total collapse sim.

But when you have a little understanding of FE, you know a scaled simulation of a total collapse makes no sence.
you would use scales for sims like earthquakes or a wind analysis, but sure not for a total collapse.

and the pictures from a FEA are totaly useless when you dont know the deflection scale or the max deflection.

rwguinn seem to have missed my question

 

[DC]

another quesstion for rwguinn

Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.

what software are you using or what software was you talking about?

 

[DC]

Looks like Rwguinn missed my questions.

 

[e^n]

Call me CT all day long, no problem, i call myself CT in regards to 9/11. but the TM is something that is used wrongly in my oppinion. im not a member of any movement or group, i share alot oppinions with those that are labled TM members but i dont really mind it anymore, i am geting used to the labeling love of humans.

I do understand what you're saying, but when people are courteous I try and show the same level back

I understood that they indeed wanted to do several FEA's. And also one with hypotethical blast events from a CD.
but because there is no blast audio recorded, NIST consluded that nothing the like happened, while several withnesses indeed did report explosions.

I'm not entirely sure what their initial plans were, but they used a common blast analysis program to show that were explosives used to sever only a single column, this blast would have been heard at extreme intensity over half a mile away. They had video of the collapse from before the east penthouse failure from this distance. This video does not include any blast sounds, so either

• Explosives which were not powerful enough to sever columns were used and not heard
• Explosives were set off outside of video coverage and somehow the building did not collapse
• Some sort of CD method that does not make loud sounds was used
• No CD was involved

NIST obviously takes the last position, because there is no evidence of the others.

When NIST can come up with an uncontrolled mechanism that will result in a comparable collapse it is OK for me. so far they didnt. we will see what they will make out of the critiques/comments coming to NIST.

I disagree. Lets consider just the east penthouse failure for a moment. There is no good reason that a CD of the building would incorporate this element failing before all others, and what's even more suspicious is that NIST were able to reproduce almost this exact failure method (east penthouse complete collapse, followed by the building progressing several seconds later) by showing fire induced failure of a single column.

This alone is tremendous verification of the "failure due to fire" theory. It simply should not be possible if such failure was as a result of Controlled Demolition.

I don't know why rwguinn isn't answering your questions but to be fair you do seem to be trying to bait him with "aha, I was right and you were wrong!" tactics. We've all been wrong before, and the fact you found out that NIST did use a 1:1 scaling increases all of our knowledge. There's no reason to gloat

 

[DC]

I do understand what you're saying, but when people are courteous I try and show the same level back


I'm not entirely sure what their initial plans were, but they used a common blast analysis program to show that were explosives used to sever only a single column, this blast would have been heard at extreme intensity over half a mile away. They had video of the collapse from before the east penthouse failure from this distance. This video does not include any blast sounds, so either

• Explosives which were not powerful enough to sever columns were used and not heard
• Explosives were set off outside of video coverage and somehow the building did not collapse
• Some sort of CD method that does not make loud sounds was used
• No CD was involved

NIST obviously takes the last position, because there is no evidence of the others.


I disagree. Lets consider just the east penthouse failure for a moment. There is no good reason that a CD of the building would incorporate this element failing before all others, and what's even more suspicious is that NIST were able to reproduce almost this exact failure method (east penthouse complete collapse, followed by the building progressing several seconds later) by showing fire induced failure of a single column.

This alone is tremendous verification of the "failure due to fire" theory. It simply should not be possible if such failure was as a result of Controlled Demolition.

I don't know why rwguinn isn't answering your questions but to be fair you do seem to be trying to bait him with "aha, I was right and you were wrong!" tactics. We've all been wrong before, and the fact you found out that NIST did use a 1:1 scaling increases all of our knowledge. There's no reason to gloat

yes the early collapse of the Penthouse is troubling me atm.

actually i didnt want to bait i would just like see a little excuse from him for his atack on Greenings.

and i wonder what program he is using that has 10% of the avaible screen space for max deflection as a defualt setting.

yes and also a little bit of bragging for the one time i was able to debunk JREF woo

 

[e^n]

yes and also a little bit of bragging for the one time i was able to debunk JREF woo

Haha, it's not "woo" because it's not supernatural, but you certainly were able to debunk a few claims. Congratulations

You should start a thread so we can pin you down to a specific theory or at least a specific range of theories, maybe we can debunk a few things you think, or you can debunk a few things we do.

 

[DC]

Haha, it's not "woo" because it's not supernatural, but you certainly were able to debunk a few claims. Congratulations

You should start a thread so we can pin you down to a specific theory or at least a specific range of theories, maybe we can debunk a few things you think, or you can debunk a few things we do.

it was only one claim

i dont like beeing pinned ^^

ETA: When one can "scale out" deflections scales without knowing the deflection scale or max deflection, then it is pretty close to supernatural

 

[e^n]

it was only one claim

True, I think it was made by a couple people but it's somewhat irrelevant.

i dont like beeing pinned ^^

Well sooner or later you have to believe in something! One cannot go through life without being sure of things (or can you, I certainly couldn't!)

ETA: When one can "scale out" deflections scales without knowing the deflection scale or max deflection, then it is pretty close to supernatural

I'm not so sure. I am no FEA expert but I would think the visual deflection is irrelevant as long as there's (for example) a colourised scale. Quite a few of NISTs FEAs at least in WTC 1 and 2 had scaled deflections but the actual values were denoted in a key.

Anyway lets wait for NISTs replies to the comments submitted, I also await your analysis of truther claims, but I understand you have no obligation to conduct one

 

[DC]

Well sooner or later you have to believe in something! One cannot go through life without being sure of things (or can you, I certainly couldn't!)

there are a million things i am not sure of, there are billions of things humans are not sure of. Do Wolf Rayet Stars really end up as black holes, do supernovas creat gravity waves that can be messured here on earth,what is mass, what is after death and so on
i dont know how i will end up, the first time i am confronted with something like that.

 

[DC]

Could someone Quote the mail from NIST?
it is for RWGuinn.
he has me on ignore, so he was not abble to read my post, in the Stundie nomination topic he asked for it, but only a "debunker" was there and he rightout lied about it.

 

[DC]

Oh, I forgot, we're not done.

You said you believe the truther claim that the global FEA model of WTC 7's collapse should have closely matched the observed collapse. That was the one thing you could think of that you believe the truthers get right.

I asked you how closely those two things should have matched, and said it was a highly technical issue that requires study before answering. You said you had carefully studied the issue. I said this:

I ask you again: please provide me with the sources that allowed you to come to your conclusion. Thanks.

start a topic, and i will answer in it later this day, when i am back from work.
i dont answer here, cause i will get warnings for OT.

I give you permission to answer the question here. Why not do so now? You've had plenty of time to think about it.

i wanted to post a list of books i have red about FE.
those books are at home, and i dont know theyr titles.

or we can also talk about the experiance i made with FEA and how the real construction in the real world performed. I am used to relative small constructions, and the FE prediction of deformation was always within a few milimeter. I know in a skyscraper FEA it cannot be that precise. especially in a collapse sim.

in the NIST FEA we see Horizontal deformations pretty early in the collapse sim. those deformations are not seen in any video of the WTC7. Those are deformations of several meters in all directions. This indicates to me that the collapse mechanism is not yet correct.

also the JREF FE "experts" wanted to calculate awaydeflection scales, later it turned out that there are off course no deflection scales. thus also the JREF *experts" dont think the FEA result fit the observations. also for them there is to much deflection.

ETA: and in regard to the NIST FEA i got myself acces to ANSYS LS-Dyna v.11 and made some experiance with it already.

lets continue this debate here gravy. this fits alot better than your antisemitic thread.

 

[Gravy]

Dictator Cheney, you've mistaken me for a truther. I don't "debate" subjects that I haven't taken the time to learn about. In the podcast thread I simply asked you for the sources you used to learn about it. A one-post answer was all I needed.

Your statements above aren't helpful. My question was how closely NIST's FEA should match the collapse as observed on video. What are the margins of error for the FEA and the videos, what parameters and structural elements may have been deliberately omitted by NIST and why, etc. You said they should be close. I merely asked for your sources.

I'll ask again: have you read NIST's WTC 7 paper? Does it discuss these issues? If so, will you write up your disagreements and post them, if you haven't done so already?

I don't know if an amateur can create an accurate structural FEA of WTC 7 without a lot of training and technical facts on hand, but I'm glad to see you're attempting to educate yourself. That's far beyond what most truthers will do.

You should do the decent and correct thing and retract your claim that I have an "antisemitic thread." I did not start the thread about my podcast interview, people are free to discuss any related issue there, and I have never expressed anti-Semitic views to anyone.

 

[mchapman]

Dictator Cheney, you've mistaken me for a truther. I don't "debate" subjects that I haven't taken the time to learn about. In the podcast thread I simply asked you for the sources you used to learn about it. A one-post answer was all I needed.

Your statements above aren't helpful. My question was how closely NIST's FEA should match the collapse as observed on video. What are the margins of error for the FEA and the videos, what parameters and structural elements may have been deliberately omitted by NIST and why, etc. You said they should be close. I merely asked for your sources.

I'll ask again: have you read NIST's WTC 7 paper? Does it discuss these issues? If so, will you write up your disagreements and post them, if you haven't done so already?

I don't know if an amateur can create an accurate structural FEA of WTC 7 without a lot of training and technical facts on hand, but I'm glad to see you're attempting to educate yourself. That's far beyond what most truthers will do.

You should do the decent and correct thing and retract your claim that I have an "antisemitic thread." I did not start the thread about my podcast interview, people are free to discuss any related issue there, and I have never expressed anti-Semitic views to anyone.

Will you be responding to Frank Greening's criticism of the NIST wtc7 report? Or do you still have the scientist and 911myths contributor on ignore?

 

[Gravy]

Ah, I see you've been misleading me.

With the FEA of the collapse i have no troubles at all. it looks like i would expect a fire indicated collapse. but thats not how WTC7 collapse looked to me. So i dont really see the use of rerun the sim.

i think another approach is needed, another theory, the one now does not account for the observed collapse in my oppinion.

This is circular logic and an argument from ignorance. You don't know what horizontal distortion was built into the FEA, you don't think WTC 7 looks like a fire-induced collapse (but you've never seen a similarly-constructed building collapse), you've put forth no competing hypothesis, but you assume the collapse was caused by other means and that the FEA, which you don't fully understand, is wrong. If you try to fit the evidence to your preconceptions, you will always have these problems.

I'll check back to see if you've posted your sources.

 

[DC]

Dictator Cheney, you've mistaken me for a truther. I don't "debate" subjects that I haven't taken the time to learn about. In the podcast thread I simply asked you for the sources you used to learn about it. A one-post answer was all I needed.

Your statements above aren't helpful. My question was how closely NIST's FEA should match the collapse as observed on video. What are the margins of error for the FEA and the videos, what parameters and structural elements may have been deliberately omitted by NIST and why, etc. You said they should be close. I merely asked for your sources.

I'll ask again: have you read NIST's WTC 7 paper? Does it discuss these issues? If so, will you write up your disagreements and post them, if you haven't done so already?

I don't know if an amateur can create an accurate structural FEA of WTC 7 without a lot of training and technical facts on hand, but I'm glad to see you're attempting to educate yourself. That's far beyond what most truthers will do.

You should do the decent and correct thing and retract your claim that I have an "antisemitic thread." I did not start the thread about my podcast interview, people are free to discuss any related issue there, and I have never expressed anti-Semitic views to anyone.

here my sources i used to learn :

Internal education, Sulzer Burkhardt, Winterthur / Basel
several Finite-Elemente Workshop's, Zürich
Books
Finite Elemente für Ingenieure , Springer, 1997
Simulationen mit COSMOS in SolidWorks, Vogel
and several other books about SolidWorks including Cosmos.

and some years of working

yes it needs alot of training and i am still at the begining and its not the main part of my job. I am a layman.
I cannot quanitfy what it should be. But they have to rework it so it atleast shows similar behavior.
Dont get me wrong, i dont claim they manipulated something. Would the collapse of WTC7 have looked like it did in NIST's FEA, i would have propably no problem with the collapse at all.

and sure you dont have an antisemitic thread, someone started a thread about your podcast interview and a discussion started about your attempt to slander the truth movement with antisemitic truthers. I should have writen that more precisely. it looks a bit detractive that way, isnt it?

 

[DC]

Ah, I see you've been misleading me.
This is circular logic and an argument from ignorance. You don't know what horizontal distortion was built into the FEA, you don't think WTC 7 looks like a fire-induced collapse (but you've never seen a similarly-constructed building collapse), you've put forth no competing hypothesis, but you assume the collapse was caused by other means and that the FEA, which you don't fully understand, is wrong. If you try to fit the evidence to your preconceptions, you will always have these problems.

I'll check back to see if you've posted your sources.

what do you mean with built in distortion?