Building demolished from the top down.

jaydeehess said:
You do understand that if all the evidence ponts one way and although another possibility might be out that with no evidence at all to back other possibilities that the one with evidence is by far the vastly more probable one?
Click to expand...

Not really, because it fails to explain certain events. Like the squibs I've discussed previously.

Let me be clear one does not exclude the other. The NIST model is fine, but it doesn't exclude controlled demolition because if fails to explain those events which are rising questions. You can have all the bowing you mention occurring and still bring it down in a controlled manner so as not to leave things to nature.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well blame the designers for not putting in temperature sensors throughout the building's structural steel....
Click to expand...

I'll blame it on NIST for not taking the necessary amount of samples to cover their backs on issues like this one.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well blame the designers for not putting in temperature sensors throughout the building's structural steel....

NIST determined the temperature reached by steel samples they had that
-could be positively ID'd as having come from the fire floors
-was not found in the underground fire zone

They ran their FEA simulations and cross referenced the temperatures for those steel samples that was predicted by the sim against the physical steel samples and found that the sim data correellated well with the physical evidence. They then assume that if the sim correllated well in those locations that it most probably did so in other, hotter , locations as well.

Outline your issue with this and how it could have been made more to your liking.
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
I'll blame it on NIST for not taking the necessary amount of samples to cover their backs on issues like this one.
Click to expand...

So first of all WHY do you think it was possible to obtain more positively identifiable steel samples from 4-6 out of 110 storeys worth of rubble which has not come from the continuing underground fire zone?

Second , given that the sim DID correllate well with the data from the samples collected WHY do you suppose the sim would be gravely in error for its predictions of temperatures elsewhere in the building?
 
jaydeehess said:
So first of all WHY do you think it was possible to obtain more positively identifiable steel samples from 4-6 out of 110 storeys worth of rubble which has not come from the continuing underground fire zone?

Second , given that the sim DID correllate well with the data from the samples collected WHY do you suppose the sim would be gravely in error for its predictions of temperatures elsewhere in the building?
Click to expand...

Is it relevant? It's not going to fill in the gaps. Maybe NIST couldn't, maybe they didn't. But regardless of the reason the lack of samples exists and that's what is important to remember.
 
jaydeehess said:
So first of all WHY do you think it was possible to obtain more positively identifiable steel samples from 4-6 out of 110 storeys worth of rubble which has not come from the continuing underground fire zone?
Click to expand...


Java Man said:
Is it relevant? It's not going to fill in the gaps. Maybe NIST couldn't, maybe they didn't. But regardless of the reason the lack of samples exists and that's what is important to remember.
Click to expand...

Yes its relevent, at least If part of your arguement is going to be that there are fewer samples than is required. That is your contention is it not?

Second , given that the sim DID correllate well with the data from the samples collected WHY do you suppose the sim would be gravely in error for its predictions of temperatures elsewhere in the building?
Click to expand...

You going to answer this question in another post?
 
Back to this because I just don't feel like letting it slide anymore................

Java Man said:
I thought it was the other way around. That the inward pulling was deducted from the models that showed the sagging. That the high temperatures observed (although not really observed but rather inferred) were what lead to the sagging model.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
No, specifically large 'draped' objects were observed through the windows of the towers and observed to increase in the sagging over time. These were identified as most probably being the sagging floors.

In addition the inward pulling was observed and pictures indicate the actual inward distance of that pull.

This is direct observation.

In addition though NIST did conduct a test on a floor system and found that initially the concrete slab expansion pushed outward on the exterior columns but that soon afterwards the truss sags and the whole floor bows and now pulls inwards on the exterior column.

This is experimental evidence that backs up the observation.


Again NISTNCSTAR 1-6
Click to expand...
Java Man said:
I'm not questioning the inward bowing. That's pretty much on record. And I've seen the pictures with the grids showing the bowing. Now the sagging could be due to broken trusses or as NIST claims "[multi-floor fires] significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns"

What I'm saying is that NIST concludes that the sagging came from the fire. It could have been due to damaged main trusses too. There is no way to conclusively determine it was due to fire by just looking from the outside. The analysis of the columns NIST did lead it to conclude that high enough temperatures were present that allowed for the sagging. But had they not found that some other reason for the bowing would have to be found.

I'd like to add that the temperatures NIST arrived at were determined by rather dubious methods. I've mentioned it before and I'll do it again. NIST determined this based on the argument that the "sample was too small" and it could not rule out possible higher temperatures. But samples exposed to higher temperatures were not actually examined.
Click to expand...




You first say that you thought that sagging was inferred by temps you question and then when I point out that sagging was directly observed you say that you knew all along that it was observed.

Have you read any part of the NIST reports other than the FAQ's section?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Yes its relevent, at least If part of your arguement is going to be that there are fewer samples than is required. That is your contention is it not?
Click to expand...

No. It was just a clarifying note I added. Like I said this does not exclude controlled demolition. Both scenarios can be concurrent.


jaydeehess said:
"Second , given that the sim DID correllate well with the data from the samples collected WHY do you suppose the sim would be gravely in error for its predictions of temperatures elsewhere in the building?"

You going to answer this question in another post?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!

Nevertheless it would have been a better model if there had been more samples.
 
jaydeehess said:
You first say that you thought that sagging was inferred by temps you question and then when I point out that sagging was directly observed you say that you knew all along that it was observed.

Have you read any part of the NIST reports other than the FAQ's section?
Click to expand...

Don't confuse bowing with sagging. I'm aware that the bowing was observed from the outside. I never said I knew all along that sagging was observed.
 
Java Man said:
It isn't necessary to have the item survive the impact. The floors above the crash zone can be released to initiate the collapse. Those would not be affected by the crash or fire.

You can make the floors sag by damaging the main trusses.
Click to expand...

Really? What proof do you have that they would not be affected? None....

You continue to make the evaluation equality fallacy in abundance, and bare assertions galore.

You keep claiming that 'they' could do this or that as if you're writing a hollywood script and have total control over a hypothetical scenario....

but this isn't a hypothetical scenario, and pursuing wild speculation will not provide a better answer than has already been provided. That is because there is already more than sufficient evidence to nullify the conspiracy theories you ascribe to.
 
Java Man said:
No. It was just a clarifying note I added. Like I said this does not exclude controlled demolition. Both scenarios can be concurrent.
Click to expand...

Is see, you entertain ideas based solely and purely upon supposition and are willing to give them equal validity as those with evidence backing them.

Got it!


Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!
Click to expand...
Moot point, they did, and had they not then NIST would have adjusted their sim until it did correllate with the samples and conclude that the adjusted sim was valid. Either way the sim would also be compared to outside observation of the progression of the fies and after all is said and done the sim correllates well with both samples and with observed fire progression. Now, persons of your thinking would then rail on NIST for 'fudging' their sims when in fact they would have been just making them better.

Nevertheless it would have been a better model if there had been more samples.
Click to expand...

So you do or do not question the values NIST obtained by their method(at least to any significant degree)?
 
jaydeehess said:
"Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!"

Moot point, they did, and had they not then NIST would have adjusted their sim until it did correllate with the samples and conclude that the adjusted sim was valid. Either way the sim would also be compared to outside observation of the progression of the fies and after all is said and done the sim correllates well with both samples and with observed fire progression. Now, persons of your thinking would then rail on NIST for 'fudging' their sims when in fact they would have been just making them better.
Click to expand...

Moot point? Hahahahahahahaha, you just responded with the same "moot point" NIST would have adjusted their sim until it did correllate with the samples and conclude that the adjusted sim was valid. aka "calibration".

Hahaha I can't believe it. I'd love to submit this for the stundie of the month. Hahahah you call my point moot. Yet reply with the same thing except using different words. Hahahahah, you just made my weekend.
 
Java Man said:
Moot point? Hahahahahahahaha, you just responded with the same "moot point" NIST would have adjusted their sim until it did correllate with the samples and conclude that the adjusted sim was valid. aka "calibration".

Hahaha I can't believe it. I'd love to submit this for the stundie of the month. Hahahah you call my point moot. Yet reply with the same thing except using different words. Hahahahah, you just made my weekend.
Click to expand...
Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!
Click to expand...

You asked what if the sim did not correllate with the samples and I replied that the sim DID correllate with the sim and thus the point is rendered moot.

Then I went on to humour you and argue that moot point and explain that had the sim NOT correllated with observation and samples then the sim would be considered in error and adjusted unti it did correllate with observation and samples.

I cannot see how this is stundie material but feel free to post it and let's see what others have to say.

ETA:
oh I get it, you are supposing, again with no reason or evidence other than bald supposition, that NIST, as an entire body consisting of many experienced technical people, conspired to make the whole damned thing up.
I forget where to get the laughing dog gif !
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
You asked what if the sim did not correllate ith the samples and I replied that the sim DID correllate with the sim and thus the point is rendered moot.

Then I went on to humour you are argue that moot point and explain that had the sim NOT correllated with observation and samples then the sim would be considered in error and adjusted unti it did correllate with observation and samples.

I cannot see how this is stundie material but feel free to post it and let's see what others have to say.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha, sorry I still can't stop laughing at that.

Hahahahaha trying to make your point by using my exact point and spinning it around. Hahahahha, sorry I just can't stop cracking up hahahahahaha. (holds breath) hahahahhahahahaha, sorrry.
 
My bad for failing to consider the lengths to which conspiracy artists (let's face it, its as much an art form as any work of fiction) will go and thus mistook the meaning of Java Man's statement;
Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom