No problem. There is another poster here called Carlos; I am carlitos, just to keep things interesting.
Lttle Carlos...Carlitos! Sorry.
Do you really have the computing / engineering horsepower / brainpower to do such a complex FEA yourself? What good would this data do you?
No, but a team I'm working with does. The data will first point to the silliness of the "differential movement" thermally expanding beams that somehow expanded AND buckled AND lost their vertical support AND pushed an intersecting beam off (which has shear studs according to 1-1 but not in NCSTAR 1-9 (actually there is a confusing diagram see figure 12-4)
I wasn't contesting errors. I asked you "why?" Why are there errors, in your humble opinion? Bad faith, carelessness, methodological errors, crime?
I don't know why Carlitos, but I know there are far too many to take this report (actually these 1A, 1-9, 1-5 others) seriously...they are replete with error. Take just one example:
“Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column.”
- NCSTAR 1-9, pp. 614-15.
And then NCSTAR 1A blames ONE column! Column 79. Which is it NIST, one column or "most, if not all, interior columns in a building"? Can anyone here help me out with this one?
Are you now suggesting that hydraulics played a role in the collapse of the World Trade Center complex?
No, not really, but it was never considered that I know of and wouldn't make the noise that gave NIST the excuse to dismiss CD. One of the duties charged to NIST under National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act of 2002 is to establish the most likely technical cause of the building failure; but NIST has ignored relevant physical and testimonial evidence, casting doubt on the credibility of its conclusions by focusing on the analytical aspects.
The NIST authors have not proven their hypothesis regarding the fate of WTC 7. The summary report allegedly “describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7”. The report actually describes the NIST hypothesis for a fire-induced collapse of WTC 7 based on complex computer simulations.
The problem is NIST ruled out CD based on sound alone. Anyone with a pulse can look at the WTC 7 video and reason that it is a CD. Hydraulics could easily manipulate these columns (after cutting) without a lot of sound. I'm not say that is what did it, but that flies in the face of NIST's quick dismissal of CD, which brings them well short of their NCST lawful obligation. I didn’t hear the telltale “firecrackers” either, but their were testimonies of loud individual explosion sounds.
That's the first time I've heard that. Any evidence? I have no idea what the quote about firecrackers came from, but it seems like another non-sequitur to me. Explosives make really loud distinctive sounds, and the WTC didn't do that. That's why the guys at ae911truth made up thermite.
I think Jones was around before AE911T, so check that. Firefighters claiming they say molten steel first hand, hot surface temperatures for a long time (USGS 9-16-01 aerial photo), other first responders saying "it's probably 1500 degrees down there", Frank Sileccila's 9-27-01 all help add to a thermite theory, not to mention 100% of the steel evidence was recycled post haste to Boasteel – China so testing the physical WTC 7 evidence was never made available.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
I think that you would do better if you engaged in honest back-and-forth with tfk, vs. your adversarial stance and gotcha game. Your opinion may vary; I just gave you my impression as an outside audience.
Answering my questions that I've been patiently waiting for for a long long time is part of this process, unless open debate is not really sought here. If TFK really is an engineer, then my question should be no problem and he shouldn't be afraid to answer them, although they set the stage for some energy problems that is seen in the video. As far as your impression goes on my behavior, like I said, I'll do my best to be cool
As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, you can't identify moltel metal by the naked eye. Neither can the firemen.
Actually, I was shown photos. The firemen were not shown photos. TFK suggested to me that they saw tin, lead (however he landed on that I'll never know) or aluminum. There are big problems with all three of these answers. Molten metals have different odors, flow rates, dross formations, radiated heat, surface tensions and smoke discharge. I'm lucky enough to have been around molten steel, aluminum, bronze, tin, copper and silver/tin. In person, the molten steel would appear distinct by other means (biological senses) than sight alone...and it would appear different by sight as well.
The screen grab of your presentation posted above has a quote from Leslie Robertson saying "molten steel." He denied saying that, and the original notes show the words "molten metal" not steel. All of these words are moot however, because steel simply does not behave in a way that the quote-miners assert, being constrained by the laws of the physical universe.
I haven't used that quote since my (two) 2009 presentation. TFK pointed out that error and I thanked him for correcting me.
A google search of that phrase leads me to the website of Mr. David Icke, and to this thread. Who originally made this statement, and in what context?
David Icke – “reptilians” David Icke?. Ok, sure. Let me give you the full context, please.
http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
“January 26, 2010
Dear Mr. Brookman, This letter is in response to your Jan 1, 2010 FOIA #10-037 request to NIST in which you requested a copy of ‘the structural calculations or ANSYS analysis results that substantiate the walk-off failures at columns 79 and 81.’
Enclosed you will find a disc that contains 8,910 files that can be released and are responsive to your request. The files on the disc contain input files of a version of the 16-story ANSYS model of the WTC 7 structure, which does not include the connection models and was analyzed with service gravity loads, and Case B temperature files.
We are, however, withholding 3,370 files.
The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include the remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
Sincerely, Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer.”
Mr. Brookman S.E. wrote a letter to the editor about this, shown here:
http://www.seaonc.org/pdfs/SEAONC_September_2010.pdf
"The complete collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was highly anomalous—that's why it is critical for building design and construction professionals to understand it. Freedom of Information Act requests for structural-analysis data have been denied because the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Director determined that release of the data might jeopardize public safety. I asked the Director:
How, in the Director's judgment, is the release of calculations and analysis results—developed at the taxpayers' expense for a building that no longer exists—a threat to public safety?"
NIST’s response was:
"The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings."
And Mr. Brookman's reply (in the same letter to the editor) was:
“This response from NIST is an insult to building design and construction professionals who are committed to ensuring public safety with high-quality construction. As a structural engineer I have a professional interest in understanding the collapse, and it has nothing to do with ''devising ways to destroy buildings." If the WTC 7 models actually predict the complete collapse of typical tall buildings subjected to office fires, then withholding this information is not in the interest of public safety.
Independent verification is an integral part of science, so I strongly encourage the NIST Director to reconsider his decision to withhold analysis data. Only independent verification will enable these complex models to be validated.”
Sincerely,
Ronald H. Brookman, SE
