The Improbable 9/11 and its followers

[T.A.M.]

Ok, so if we are talking probabilities,

What are the odds of our planet being hit by a mile wide Asteroid? Pretty godamn slim.

SO I wonder what the Dinosaurs thought after one hit 60,000,000 years ago?

T-Rex: Thats bullcrap. It couldn't have been an asteroid. The odds of one that size hitting the earth are astronomically slim.

Dead Triceritops: blank stare.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

On 9/11 we see 3 skyscrapers with tremendously consise
behavioural characteristics within the broadest of variables.

This is what I see:

Three skyscrapers, incredibly variable damage yet
shockingly similar end results.

I think it might look different if, instead of a probability calculation, you were to view this as a thresholding problem. Every building ever built is in a higher energy state than a pile of rubble of equal weight and composition. The only thing preventing a building collapsing into a pile of rubble is an energy barrier. Input enough energy into the structure, and the barrier is overcome. Gravity and entropy take over, and the structure collapses into an energetically favourable form. Far from being improbable, if there's enough energy dumped into the structure then collapse is inevitable.

Making even a computer model of these occurances could probably
be done in a week if you have the basic simulation software.

I'd like to see you justify that figure. But in fact it's easier than that; Bazant and Zhou constructed an analytical model of a limiting case in a couple of days. The fact that it was done quickly seems to be taken by conspiracy theorists as proof, not that the task was simple, but that it was pre-prepared (at least, I think that's what they think; it probably isn't that coherently formed an idea), but in fact it's a fairly simple concept: every tall building contains many times the energy required to destroy itself, and a sufficiently large stimulus will inevitably start the process.

Dave

 

[Pardalis]

I object, the OP doesn't rhyme.

 

[kookbreaker]

Oops, a building the firemen left due to possible collapse. One Meridian Plaza in PA was totaled by fire and was too weak to use again, had to be dismantled in pieces. Building destroyed by fire. The thing that saved the building from collapse was the sprinkler system kicked in after firemen left! Philadelphia was luck the building did not collapse.

Luck, nothing. While the firefighters left the building the Philly Fire Department never stopped pumping water on the fire from a nearby tower. That probably made the difference in that blaze.

Incidentally, after years as a parking lot, the Meridian location has just had a condo tower built on it.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I think it might look different if, instead of a probability calculation, you were to view this as a thresholding problem...Far from being improbable, if there's enough energy dumped into the structure then collapse is inevitable.

...

Bazant and Zhou constructed an analytical model of a limiting case in a couple of days. The fact that it was done quickly seems to be taken by conspiracy theorists as proof, not that the task was simple, but that it was pre-prepared (at least, I think that's what they think; it probably isn't that coherently formed an idea), but in fact it's a fairly simple concept: every tall building contains many times the energy required to destroy itself, and a sufficiently large stimulus will inevitably start the process.

Dave

I would say that your 'threshold problem' is mutually exclusive from the probability of the event occuring...more akin to a pancake theory no?

One explains how it could happen, the other predicts the likelyhood of occurence.

However, if Bazant and Zhou were so successful so quickly in describing an unprecedented event, what took NIST so long in their investigation? On second thought, this is a far-fetched comparison...

Newtonian's main idea regarding the likelyhood of the 9/11 building collapses, as I interpreted it, is not accurately described here...

Ok, so if we are talking probabilities,

What are the odds of our planet being hit by a mile wide Asteroid? Pretty godamn slim.

SO I wonder what the Dinosaurs thought after one hit 60,000,000 years ago?

T-Rex: Thats bullcrap. It couldn't have been an asteroid. The odds of one that size hitting the earth are astronomically slim.

Dead Triceritops: blank stare.

TAM

This example only has one event, one meteor, for which there is only one probability. 9/11 had three improbable events, which compounds the probability.....or improbability.

It is not to say that any single event is impossible because it has not yet occurred. That is silly...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This example only has one event, one meteor, for which there is only one probability. 9/11 had three improbable events, which compounds the probability.....or improbability.

It is not to say that any single event is impossible because it has not yet occurred. That is silly...

We can argue probabilities as much as we want, but it does nothing to address the cause of something that already happened. Ultimately, that "cause" was found to be something that designers are very familiar with, and as much as we over engineer to prevent it, Utopian perfection does not exist.

Fact is, it took an extraordinary event to invoke that kind of catastrophe. Consider the rarity of events that severe. How many times before or since 9/11 has it been seen where people hijacked planes and intentionally used them in suicide missions to crash into a building? Out of all the hijackings in history only these.

How many times has it happened where said targets were built identically? Only these that I know of

If you want to discuss odds you should be prepared to do the same for whatever events led to it happening as well.

 

[A W Smith]

Twoof Mantra, Avoid math, engineering, and science, Push statistics instead.

Ho hum, Another twoof trying to drive the square peg of personal incredulity into the round hole of inside job conspiracy.

What I found fascinating in the series "Life After People" is that all skyscrapers, no matter how robust, will eventually "globally collapse" without fire or planes hitting them.

 

[A W Smith]

likelihood of foam causing a space shuttle to fall out of the sky

I would say that your 'threshold problem' is mutually exclusive from the probability of the event occuring...more akin to a pancake theory no?

One explains how it could happen, the other predicts the likelyhood of occurence.

However, if Bazant and Zhou were so successful so quickly in describing an unprecedented event, what took NIST so long in their investigation? On second thought, this is a far-fetched comparison...

Newtonian's main idea regarding the likelyhood of the 9/11 building collapses, as I interpreted it, is not accurately described here...



This example only has one event, one meteor, for which there is only one probability. 9/11 had three improbable events, which compounds the probability.....or improbability.

It is not to say that any single event is impossible because it has not yet occurred. That is silly...

Tell that to the Columbia crew

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would say that your 'threshold problem' is mutually exclusive from the probability of the event occuring...more akin to a pancake theory no?

One explains how it could happen, the other predicts the likelyhood of occurence.

No, it's more a way of understanding why it isn't that surprising that three buildings collapsed. The conclusion would be that, if enough energy is dumped into a high-rise building, it will collapse. The only difficult bit is calculating how much is enough; once that value is exceeded, the probability becomes a certainty.

However, if Bazant and Zhou were so successful so quickly in describing an unprecedented event, what took NIST so long in their investigation? On second thought, this is a far-fetched comparison...

The comparison isn't all that unreasonable. The more accurately the quality of the solution is specified, the more time is required to derive the solution. Bazant and Zhou concluded, very quickly, that the excess of potential over structural energy of the buildings was so great that collapse was virtually certain once the damage threshold was exceeded. NIST then determined in extremely fine detail how, where and when that threshold was exceeded, and what was the detailed mechanism. It's akin to the difference between predicting that a volume of gas will expand on heating, and determining the exact trajectory of every molecule in that volume. The first is trivial and the second almost impossible, but the first is no less valid for being simple to execute.

Dave

 

[djlunacee]

Ok, so if we are talking probabilities,

What are the odds of our planet being hit by a mile wide Asteroid? Pretty godamn slim.

SO I wonder what the Dinosaurs thought after one hit 60,000,000 years ago?

T-Rex: Thats bullcrap. It couldn't have been an asteroid. The odds of one that size hitting the earth are astronomically slim.

Dead Triceritops: blank stare.

TAM

That means Bush did it! Inside Job! Inside Job! Its so easy a cave man could do it!

 

[T.A.M.]

I would say that your 'threshold problem' is mutually exclusive from the probability of the event occuring...more akin to a pancake theory no?

One explains how it could happen, the other predicts the likelyhood of occurence.

However, if Bazant and Zhou were so successful so quickly in describing an unprecedented event, what took NIST so long in their investigation? On second thought, this is a far-fetched comparison...

Newtonian's main idea regarding the likelyhood of the 9/11 building collapses, as I interpreted it, is not accurately described here...



This example only has one event, one meteor, for which there is only one probability. 9/11 had three improbable events, which compounds the probability.....or improbability.

It is not to say that any single event is impossible because it has not yet occurred. That is silly...

It is all a matter of percentage, and I think you have to include WTC1 and 2 as a single event, because the method was identical, the variables involved very similar (building structure, removal of fireproofing, size of aircraft, speed of impact).

So really, practically, it is the occurrence of TWO unique events on one day.

And they are "unique" largely because, I believe, due to the uniqueness of the structures (the WTCs were much higher then almost all other skyscrapers, and much higher then any other skyscraper to be eveloped in multistorey floor fires, and the structures themselves of unique structural design), and due to the circumstances that lead to the damage and fires (large jumbojet high speed impacts).

So in the end it was the culmination of a variety of unusual and unique variables that lead, at least in the case of WTC1/2, to the collapse of the buildings.

TAM

 

[Quad4_72]

Using probability to explain why the towers should not have collapsed is so mind numbingly stupid I am finding it very difficult to wrap my head around it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Tell that to the Columbia crew

exactly. As a matter of fact, this is an example of how often, in particular with systems that have a lot of built in redundancy (like skyscrapers), it takes the occurrence of multiple rare or unlikely events to occur simultaneously, to result in system (or structural) failure. Yet it happens.

(one piece of shielding lets go, then it must hit just the right place, with the right amount of force)

Funny how truthers fail to grasp this concept.

TAM

 

[Architect]

Newtonian

In 2009, the team in our office crowded around a computer screen to watch not-quite live pictures of the impacts on WTC 1 and 2. A group of trained professionals, all more than familiar in the design and performance of similar structures. One of us (I can't remember who any more) said "that's going to come down" and not one person disagreed. Wew were, of course, right.

Now on this this forum you have several of us who design and construct buildings for a living; NB can talk authoritively about structural performance, for example. I've been part of the design team working on tall buildings on this side of the pond. All of us have university level qualifications and professional associations with the field. I would therefore ask you to forgive me when I point out that a pissing competition where you mention (say) an electrical engineering qualification isn't going to impress.

As an engineer, you will also appreciate that collapse analysis has nothing to do with mathematical probability in the way that you mean it but instead relies on a systemic assessment of cause and effect based on hard evidence. It is wrong, for example, to assert that a structure is unlikely to fail under a certain load condition unless one is able to discuss and review design loads, critical paths, and so on.

In fact, when I was at university, forensic analysis of building failure (as it was rather grandly called) was a specialist one-year elective class and that was just for the very basic, easy stuff.

If you want to cover the issues you raise yet again, then you really need to approach it in a much more focussed manner. Raise very specific points, cross-referenced to what we really know about building performance/failure and evidence arising from the day. Cite credible, sensible sources (hint: Prison Planet doesn't count). Weigh up the options, set out your thinking, and come to a conclusion.

But most of all, don't try bluster and woo. We've seen it too often.

 

[Dave Rogers]

One of us (I can't remember who any more) said "that's going to come down" and not one person disagreed. We were, of course, right.

Or you were all in on it.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Using probability to explain why the towers should not have collapsed is so mind numbingly stupid I am finding it very difficult to wrap my head around it.

Indeed. This is really the only comment necessary on this thread: mind numbingly stupid.

 

[Architect]

Or you were all in on it.

Dave

"pull it"

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"pull it"

Aha! He admits culpability!!

Either that, or it's an intentionally rude retort to Dave telling him what he can do with "it".

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I DARE the Truthers to say something about me when I say: "I need to release some gas. Do you see my finger? Could you please PULL IT?"

 

[Travis]

Pfft. Next thing you know you people will be claiming huge steel bridges can be taken down by the wind.