Building demolished from the top down.

[alienentity]

Unfortunately I do. The unfortunate people who were trapped in the levels above the impact points.

At what levels and what time? You can't just throw out a vague assertion without qualifying it properly, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Remembering the fires progressed and heat travelled upwards, those areas are not survivable for long.


btw, you just did it again. Now go get us another shrubbery!

 

[jaydeehess]

Java Man, please explain how it would be bad form for NIST to adjust the sim so that the sim agrees with observation and the samples. You DO understand how such a sim works, right? They take estimations of fuel load and oxygen supply, as well as data on room layout and combine that with 100 years of fire engineering data and equations, push it all into a very large computer program and see what it churns out. If it does not agree with observation then the most probable reason is an error in estimated values so they run it again using new estimations.

I know now that your point was that NIST made the whole thing up, as a work of pure fiction, working backwards so that the sim would show both correllation with observation and the steel smaples AND they just dropped in all those high temp areas for the fun of it all.

However, unless you are Tom Clancy and trying out a plot for a new novel there is no reason to go down that path. That is unless you simply have a political world view that demands such things. I'd rather stick to reality rather than fiction though if you don't mind.

 

[jaydeehess]

You can't just throw out a vague assertion without qualifying it properly, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Sure he can, he's been doing so for many pages in this thread already, including now supposing that NIST did not so much make an FEA as produce a selfserving animation.

 

[alienentity]

I forget where to get the laughing dog gif !

Under smilies, 'choose all categories', 'specials'

 

[Java Man]

Remembering the fires progressed and heat travelled upwards, those areas are not survivable for long.

Remember that the floors above the impact zone retained their fireproofing and that explosives don't need to breath so smoke doesn't trouble them. Thread carefully with this counter argument you're trying to push forward.

 

[DGM]

Java Man:

Just out of curiosity, Have you given up on the notion that Silverstein "made out " on the event?

 

[jaydeehess]

Under smilies, 'choose all categories', 'specials'

Thanks,

I see that you have come to the same conclusion I have about this conspiracist;

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.

If I did not have more faith in humanity I'd begin to believe that he's just trolling for attention and not actually a person seeking to know what really happened.

 

[jaydeehess]

Java Man:

Just out of curiosity, Have you given up on the notion that Silverstein "made out " on the event?

Given some of his replies to other subjects here perhaps he now believes that Silverstien both did and did not make money on the destruction of his leased properties.

 

[Java Man]

Java Man, please explain how it would be bad form for NIST to adjust the sim so that the sim agrees with observation and the samples.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's exactly how it is done. That's why it is important to have a good sample. If your sample is limited and you're trying to simulate scenarios far away from your samples the outcome is questionable.

For example you could take some values that plotted resemble a logarithmic curve and you could extrapolate for a certain position the value as A. But taking more samples you realize it behaves more like an inverted parabola and the actual value for a certain position is not A, but B which is less than A.

Using this simple example as an analogy what NIST claims is that given the small sample size they can't rule out that it's a logarithmic curve so for them it is. When in truth it could very well be an inverted parabola, but they just choose so because clearly "an inverted parabola" limits the amount of heat damage they can justify.

This lead me to show the perfect way to ace a final. Out of all the questions just answer one and make sure you get it wrong then tell the teacher that given the small sample size of answered questions he can't extrapolate to the others and rule out they would be right. So they have to be right thus giving you an A.

 

[Java Man]

Java Man:

Just out of curiosity, Have you given up on the notion that Silverstein "made out " on the event?

No

 

[jaydeehess]

There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's exactly how it is done. That's why it is important to have a good sample. If your sample is limited and you're trying to simulate scenarios far away from your samples the outcome is questionable.

,, and is exact;ly how it was done. So why are you now trying to indicate complete fabrication on NIST's part is a valid senario?

Which would bring us back to is there any reason to believe that NIST shirked their duty and that a larger sample size was available? If not then the sample size is what it is and will have to be worked with.
I believe you agree with that.

For example you could take some values that plotted resemble a logarithmic curve and you could extrapolate for a certain position the value as A. But taking more samples you realize it behaves more like an inverted parabola and the actual value for a certain position is not A, but B which is less than A.

Using this simple example as an analogy what NIST claims is that given the small sample size they can't rule out that it's a logarithmic curve so for them it is. When in truth it could very well be an inverted parabola, but they just choose so because clearly "an inverted parabola" limits the amount of heat damage they can justify.

A quote to that effect would be in order . how much of this statement is NIST's and how much of it is yours?

That aside though I keep making reference to not only the steel samples but also to the observed progression of the fires. If the sim agrees with that as well then it bolsters the contention (arrived at using methods derived from 100 years of fire sciences) of temperature progressions in the structure.

This lead me to show the perfect way to ace a final. Out of all the questions just answer one and make sure you get it wrong then tell the teacher that given the small sample size of answered questions he can't extrapolate to the others and rule out they would be right. So they have to be right thus giving you an A.

Actually you have it backwards. If you answered one question right then the teacher would have no reason to suspect you could not answer all the others correctly as well. If you only answer one and get it wrong then the trend is towards error and he has more indication that you do not know the subject matter than he has that you do.
However since he also observed that you looked over all the questions and then picked only one to answer, he can also use that data to weigh the amount of evidence that you know the entire subject. That data would suggest that you deliberatly chose a question you could answer ,again giving more indication that you do NOT know the subject well.

However, to carry your analogy further, NIST got many questions correct and did not answer several others because they could not find the questions. Thus the preponderance of data suggest that they are correct in their predictions of temperatures rather than in grave error.

 

[Java Man]

Which would bring us back to is there any reason to believe that NIST shirked their duty and that a larger sample size was available? If not then the sample size is what it is and will have to be worked with.
I believe you agree with that.

I think I've made myself clear the first time I said that it's irrelevant if NIST shirked their duty or not. There was no larger sample size and no bigger set of values. Who's responsibility it is that the sample is irrelevant to the fact that it's limited. Placing or removing guild from NIST does not produce more data and the source of any more possible values is now lost. So the report is forever limited to its current state for better or worse. And that's what is important to remember. That things could be better but are not. Regardless of who you blame or blame not.

Actually you have it backwards. If you answered one question right then the teacher would have no reason to suspect you could not answer all the others correctly as well. If you only answer one and get it wrong then the trend is towards error and he has more indication that you do not know the subject matter than he has that you do.
However since he also observed that you looked over all the questions and then picked only one to answer, he can also use that data to weigh the amount of evidence that you know the entire subject. That data would suggest that you deliberatly chose a question you could answer ,again giving more indication that you do NOT know the subject well.

Actually I got it right. Because NIST didn't actually find any piece exposed to the temperatures it claims existed. Wrong question is equivalent to low temperature exposure. Right question is equivalent to high temperature exposure. NIST claims that because the sample is small it didn't find any pieces exposed to high temperatures. Same as saying because the sample is small we didn't find any right questions only wrong questions (pieces exposed to low temperatures). But hey that doesn't rule out the possibility of right questions. So there have to be right questions because that benefits our grade in the exam(aka theory).

Your paragraph over looking over the whole questions and all is dead on. I particularly liked the line "That data would suggest that you deliberatly chose a question you could answer". So sharp so dead on target. Are you sure you're a debunker? That metaphor is so precise I love it.

Are you lining yourself up for a second stundie nomination?

 

[jaydeehess]

I think I've made myself clear the first time I said that it's irrelevant if NIST shirked their duty or not. There was no larger sample size and no bigger set of values. Who's responsibility it is that the sample is irrelevant to the fact that it's limited. Placing or removing guild from NIST does not produce more data and the source of any more possible values is now lost. So the report is forever limited to its current state for better or worse. And that's what is important to remember. That things could be better but are not. Regardless of who you blame or blame not.

Like I said I thought you would agree.

Actually I got it right. Because NIST didn't actually find any piece exposed to the temperatures it claims existed. Wrong question is equivalent to low temperature exposure. Right question is equivalent to high temperature exposure.

No you got it wrong. The question for the teacher would be 'do you know the subject matter enough to have gotten the unanswered questions right?'

If you answer one question right it showqs you know 'some' of the subject matter which is a trend towards indicating you know the entire subject.
If you answer incorrectly to one question it show that you definately do not know that part of the subject matter and thus give no indication that you know any of it.
Carrying the analogy........
NIST definitivly answered the questions concerning the temperature of the samples and of the observed fire progression AND their FEA predicts those data points as well. This indicates that the FEA 'knows' the entire subject matter well.
NIST did not look over all the questions (steel samples from everywhere) and choose only the easy ones(those in low temp areas). They could not obtain samples from those high temp areas(they could not find the questions)
However they ran the FEA and have come up with predictions to those temperatures and you have no valid reason to suspect they are incorrect, other than your pure suspicion.

Your paragraph over looking over the whole questions and all is dead on. I particularly liked the line "That data would suggest that you deliberatly chose a question you could answer". So sharp so dead on target. Are you sure you're a debunker? That metaphor is so precise I love it.

Are you lining yourself up for a second stundie nomination?

No, I am trying to imitate a conspiracist but it does make me throw up a bit in my mouth.

Your analogy in this case would be, again, though you keep trying to say you are'nt, that NIST deliberatly did not pick samples from areas where they were going to put high temperatures.

In fact though NIST could not obtain those samples. At least that is what NIST states and there is no reason to doubt them, a point you seem to agree on yet you keep coming back to this from the other way.

Perhaps you do also believe that Silverstein did and did not make money on the insurance.

 

[Telltale Tom]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1297190596

This clip has a building being demolished by collapsing a section of the building quite high up, I thought it was fascinating.

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed. The debris flies quite far away, there is a big cloud of "pulverized concrete" and the top of the building chooses to fall through the building instead of the path of least resistance and it seems to collapse at near free fall speed!

Yes but that helps prove the ae911truth theory of controlled demolition, since this was a controlled demolition and so was the WTC 1 and 2. If you compare our truth about the WTC 1 and 2 CD's on the ae911truth web site then you see many similarities with this collapse.

1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration YES
2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution YES
3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction YES
4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Not relevant
5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Yes but concrete
6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Yes
7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Yes
8.1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Not relevant
9.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front Yes
10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Yes
11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Not relevant
12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples Not relevant
13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples Not relevant

So its almost a perfect match with WTC 1 and 2 and helps prove that both were CD's.!?

 

[Java Man]

NIST did not look over all the questions (steel samples from everywhere) and choose only the easy ones(those in low temp areas).

See now you're mixing things up and hijacking my analogy and putting your terms in it. I never mentioned easy or hard questions, just questions. And I stated that low temp samples were wrong answers, not easy questions. Please don't take the analogy for more than it was intended in the first place and extend it beyond the sensible. You're talking about subject matter and what not. Which is just mixing things up and showing that you either have reading comprehension problems (which I doubt) or are deliberately trying to confuse in an attempt to smoke screen your lack of arguments.

 

[jaydeehess]

1) a test in school is not designed to test every single aspect of the subject matter(a method to do exactly that would be rather unwieldy), only to indicate a level of understanding.
2) answering questions correctly allows a teacher to determine your level of understanding of the subject as a whole

thus answering only one question and getting it wrong indicates that your grasp of the subject as a whole is extremely bad. Answering one question correctly gives no indication of a good understanding but does give an indication of at least a low level of understanding.


NIST was looking NOT for the temperature of specific areas of steel. They were looking to devise a model by which they could predict what the temperature of any area. To do that they obtained both steel samples and videos and pictures of the observable fires, then constructed an FEA and plugged in data and equations to work on that data and came up with a model that predicts those steel temperatures and the progression of the fires through the buildings. The model correctly matched the physical sample data and the observed fire progression. Thus the FEA demonstrates a good level of understanding of the subject as a whole.

So to your analogy, whether you like or not, NIST in fact did answer all of the questions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hahahaah yea I know how bad that must look, but hahahahahah too funny (holds breath with wide open eyes) hahahahahahaaha, sorry can't help it.

I yield to your laser-sharp command of logic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes but that helps prove the ae911truth theory of controlled demolition, since this was a controlled demolition and so was the WTC 1 and 2. If you compare our truth about the WTC 1 and 2 CD's on the ae911truth web site then you see many similarities with this collapse.

1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration YES

(without the requirement for any explosives anywhere in the building, only the removal of a significant amount of load bearing capability at one level.)

2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution YES

Despite an assymettric removal of load carrying structure)

3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction YES

despite the rather slow removal of load bearing structure(wires as opposed to explosives)

5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Yes but concrete

Without the power of any explosives

6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Yes

Without any explosives do do that task

7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Yes

pryoclastic? NO! Using a term for volcanic flows is wildly off target.

Large dust clouds expanded soley by the gravity driven drop of the structure. YES!

9.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front Yes

Without explosives to accomplish this task

10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Yes

Without explosives to accomplish this task and only the mechanical removal of support at one level.

So its almost a perfect match with WTC 1 and 2 and helps prove that both were CD's.!?

EH? Its almost a perfect match to WTC 1 and 2 thus proving both were NOT CD's

 

[DGM]

Java Man:

Just out of curiosity, Have you given up on the notion that Silverstein "made out " on the event?

No

So can I assume you just want us to take this belief as true because you have no intention of showing any evidence that it is true?

 

[jaydeehess]

So can I assume you just want us to take this belief as true because you have no intention of showing any evidence that it is true?

That seems to be the case in that particular topic. On others he seems to be saying that all senarios are equally vaild despite no evidence at all for the ones he is argueing.

In short, evidence is not Java Man's long suit.