• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Steel

Clippy said:
Thanks for your interest, dafydd. I'm not budding; I've shed what few diseased petals may have been acquired during my intial interest in 9/11, about 2 years ago, and am down to a skeptical stem. This subforum became largely uninteresting after Greening was banned, and I only occasionally come back these days to see what's up.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it.
 
RedIbis said:
It is indeed absurd that the NIST collapse hypothesis is based on core columns exceeding 250C, when no evidence exists for it.
Click to expand...

So what?

The core beams are not where the collapse initiated.
 
RedIbis said:
It is indeed absurd that the NIST collapse hypothesis is based on core columns exceeding 250C, when no evidence exists for it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Red. Your statement is absurd.

It is precisely analogous to claiming that the assertion that "the people on board flight 93 were killed when the plane crashed" is "supported by no evidence".

Nobody saw the plane hit the ground.
Nobody recorded (at that moment) the accelerations & physical trauma to their bodies.

They simply found the debris of the plane, the bodies intermixed and therefore "jumped to the hypothesis that they were killed by the impact, when no physical evidence for it exists".

You are ignoring two huge facts that negate your assertion:

1. We have a huge body of evidence that tells us what happens in plane crashes, which are survivable, which are not, etc.

2. We have developed, over the last half century, a field of engineering called computer simulation. A field that is famously GIGO when employed by incompetents, but is incredibly powerful and reliable when operating within well known & experimentally supported fields.

And the combination of these two bodies of knowledge and computational ability allow us to assert, with great assurance, that the people found amongst the debris of the plane in Shanksville were, in fact, killed in - and by - the crash.

The heat generated in office fires is just as well understood as the decelerations of planes in crashes.

The temperatures to which that energy will heat the columns is well modeled by FEA computer sims. And has been validated by experiment.

The damage caused to the building by the crash is pretty well modeled, subject to variations in the specific details.

All of the above has variations to it. And it is impossible to say that "this particular bolt or flange or piece of this column got to this specific temperature".

But part of the engineering is that it is not necessary to generate that level of accuracy to understand the big picture. It is possible to bracket the outputs with sensitivity studies of the inputs, and then to use those studies to produce "most probable" and "boundary" outputs.

Not surprisingly, considering the engineering talent they brought to the problem, this is exactly what NIST did.

They never had any intention of trying to figure out the temps the columns were exposed to by finding pieces of steel in the rubble. They certainly would have happily preserved any of those key pieces had they found them. But it was never either a requirement or the expected way to determine the column temps.

That was always going to be the result of computer modeling of the event.

You assertion that "no evidence" exists for NIST's conclusions ignores 50 years of engineering.

Excuse me if I take a bit of umbrage at what I consider to be a Luddite interpretation of my field.


Tom
 
RedIbis said:
It is indeed absurd that the NIST collapse hypothesis is based on core columns exceeding 250C, when no evidence exists for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did, they just couldn't identify where those core columns came from in the towers.
 
tfk said:
Sorry, Red. Your statement is absurd.

It is precisely analogous to claiming that the assertion that "the people on board flight 93 were killed when the plane crashed" is "supported by no evidence".

Nobody saw the plane hit the ground.
Nobody recorded (at that moment) the accelerations & physical trauma to their bodies.

They simply found the debris of the plane, the bodies intermixed and therefore "jumped to the hypothesis that they were killed by the impact, when no physical evidence for it exists".

You are ignoring two huge facts that negate your assertion:

1. We have a huge body of evidence that tells us what happens in plane crashes, which are survivable, which are not, etc.

2. We have developed, over the last half century, a field of engineering called computer simulation. A field that is famously GIGO when employed by incompetents, but is incredibly powerful and reliable when operating within well known & experimentally supported fields.

And the combination of these two bodies of knowledge and computational ability allow us to assert, with great assurance, that the people found amongst the debris of the plane in Shanksville were, in fact, killed in - and by - the crash.

The heat generated in office fires is just as well understood as the decelerations of planes in crashes.

The temperatures to which that energy will heat the columns is well modeled by FEA computer sims. And has been validated by experiment.

The damage caused to the building by the crash is pretty well modeled, subject to variations in the specific details.

All of the above has variations to it. And it is impossible to say that "this particular bolt or flange or piece of this column got to this specific temperature".

But part of the engineering is that it is not necessary to generate that level of accuracy to understand the big picture. It is possible to bracket the outputs with sensitivity studies of the inputs, and then to use those studies to produce "most probable" and "boundary" outputs.

Not surprisingly, considering the engineering talent they brought to the problem, this is exactly what NIST did.

They never had any intention of trying to figure out the temps the columns were exposed to by finding pieces of steel in the rubble. They certainly would have happily preserved any of those key pieces had they found them. But it was never either a requirement or the expected way to determine the column temps.

That was always going to be the result of computer modeling of the event.

You assertion that "no evidence" exists for NIST's conclusions ignores 50 years of engineering.

Excuse me if I take a bit of umbrage at what I consider to be a Luddite interpretation of my field.


Tom
Click to expand...

so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
 
bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

You appear to believe the WTC was felled by demolitions, with even LESS evidence to support it than NIST's theory. Why is that?
 
bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

If you actually understood models and structures you'd know that when the model says 250Deg was enough, it makes the conclusions from the model even more solid.
 
bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

Please enumerate the evidence you have in favor of your theories.


(Hint: it is the empty set, nada, zilch)
 
bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

That is further than the truth than:

... because the towers came down, the truthers are right.

Because seriously, that is all you have. The towers came down. But thank you for trying.
 
DGM said:
How do you figure there was no evidence of it?

Quick, go back and edit your post to say "physical" evidence. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I figured that since we were discussing the evidence that a steel core column had exceeded a certain temp, any evidence would be physical in nature.

One can never underestimate the value of semantics in this forum.
 
RedIbis said:
I figured that since we were discussing the evidence that a steel core column had exceeded a certain temp, any evidence would be physical in nature.
Click to expand...

Lets discuss the fact that the collapse initiated at the exterior columns and that the core columns didn't collapse until they lost the bracing provided by the exterior columns and floors.
 
bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow :rolleyes:

NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C - although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. They had core columns heated above that but could not use them because they did not identify them. Your ignorance of what the NIST report says in laughable.
 
RedIbis said:
I figured that since we were discussing the evidence that a steel core column had exceeded a certain temp, any evidence would be physical in nature.

One can never underestimate the value of semantics in this forum.
Click to expand...

All the steel was examined by forensic examiners at the sorting sites. I guess they missed all the CD evidence then?

One can never underestimate the value of avoiding posts in this forum.
 
bio,

You don't like lots o' words? I'll be brief.

bio said:
so many words to say nothing but something irrational. wow
Click to expand...

You'll elaborate, of course.
Probably not.

bio said:
NIST built up their computer simulation - on the assumption, that the core columns heat up more than 250 C
Click to expand...

No. They did not.

bio said:
although there is no real evidence for that as Red says.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is.

bio said:
your point:
... because the towers came down, NIST is right.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. I never said or implied anything close to that.

Try again.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom