Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[jaydeehess]

Brought the idea up to him before... supposedly he "doesn't have the funding." Then again, the one model they did do of the fire illustrations was so severely malformed and lacking accurate inputs, they ****'d up their entire model. I don't have much optimism for them with as sloppy as their methods have been, and personally doubt their capacity to do anything right even if they made their own models

That would be the difference between guessing and pulling numbers,,, um,,, out of thin air (yeah that's it - out of thin air, or a warm damp location) (AE911T), and actually researching and obtaining data that can be as close as possible to reality(NIST).

 

[tmd2_1]

Link to the NIST explanation of that FEA animation please. Not one originating from a conspiracy site please.

That was illustrating framing and IIRC there was explained exaggeration of lateral movements.

So once again, If NIST's FEA was so balls'd up then why hasn't anyone of that opinion done an FEA of their own?

You say that Gage might well be earning $75K a year even if not spearheading AE911T. That would seem to agree with my point that the professionals in AE911T, Lf911T and PfT would easily be able to pitch in and donate as well as use other private donations and DO AN FEA of their own to refute NIST>

Not done though, gotta wonder about that.



Yes so far that is all you have said about that. I dispute and disagree with it.




I could hold "unreacted thermate" in the palm of my hand with no worry about being burned. It is not exothermic until it does react and thus supplies no heat until it is reacting much less enough to melt any metals.


Hundreds of workers were on that pile of debris many more sifted through teh reamains at 'Fresh Kills'. No evidence of thermate. Once more though, you seem to ignore this fact, if thermate was supplyiong heat to the underground for weeks then it was reacting(burning) and oddly enough doing so ONLY underground rather than on the surface(at any time following collapse, from the moment the rubble stopped bouncing to weeks later).
The reason you have no easy answer is because there is no answer
other than the burning of office and garage components in a highly insulated volume.

Yes you did mention other underground fires and yes they do get extremely hot. What of it, other than that it illustrates that no exotic incindiary is needed to explain the underground heat at the WTC?

You brushed aside the other underground fires.

Soooo, there was not actual molten anything weeks after the collapses or there was?


List the others.


We are 'stuck' with a scenario that best fits the known conditions and available knowledge from many deacdes of fire research. You are 'stuck' with imagining magical materials with self ascribed properties.

I will answer you in one post.

That site was youtube...you no where to find it. That model is a disgrace, and you know it. I know you will never admit it, but you have to know.

Again the hypocrisy... it took NIST many years with a huge budget to release anything. What they released was sub-par to say the least. Just because there isn't an FEA now doesn't mean there won't be one.

In regards to thermate did you read this Theremate is used to help cause the collapse. The collapse causes regular landfill type fires. These fires ignite some un-reacted thermite from time to time causing molten steel. This could explain the reports of molten steel later in the clean up. Why didn't that it happen on the top? Maybe the millions of gallons of water dumping on it?

What else could it be? I would argue (and this is a bit of an exaggeration of course) it could almost be any explosive that would bring the buildings down. Now of course each has a different probability for success, the investigation was looked at from point of view and worked backwards. The best example of this is in this quote

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

As for sifting through the debris...here is probably the best summary for it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

 

[triforcharity]

As for sifting through the debris...here is probably the best summary for it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Wow. This is most likely the most INACCURATE account of the cleanup efforts. They keep forgetting to even mention the stop at Fresh Kills Landfill that everything went through.

They also say that FEMA was not allowed at Ground Zero. That is NOT what FEMA said at all.

From their OWN link supposedly supporting their lie, says this

Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). SEAoNY offered to organize a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers to collect certain WTC steel pieces for future building performance studies. Visiting Ground Zero in early October 2001, SEAoNY engineers, with the assistance from the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), identified and set aside some steel pieces for further study

It goes on to discuss WHERE the steel WENT after it was removed from Ground Zero. It was moved to salvage yards, where SEAoNY engineers were allowed to come and inspect it, and decide if it was relevant to their investigation.

Seventeen volunteer SEAoNY engineers started going to the yards in November 2001....As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard. The duration of the visits, number of visits per yard, and the dates the yards were visited varied, depending on the volume of steel being processed, the potential significance of the steel pieces being found, salvage yard activities, weather, and other factors. Sixty-two engineer trips were made to Jersey City, 38 to Keasbey, 15 to Fresh Kills, and 16 to Newark. Three trips made in October included several ASCE engineers. Eleven engineer trips were made in November, 41 in December, 43 in January, 28 in February, and 5 through March 15, 2002.

I've hilited the relevant parts of the paragraph that show that your linked website, lies.

That is BLATENT dishonesty. In fact, I would call that outright LYING.

And you're guilty of not checking your facts, and believing in a lie. Good for you. You're a certified truther now.

 

[Edx]

Tri,

I already told tmd2_1 that, yet he repeated posting the same link as if I had never said anything and even with the exact same words he used only a page earlier!

I am so bored with him I just cant bring myself to waste time replying to his dishonesty/incompetence.

 

[dafydd]

Tri,

I already told tmd2_1 that, yet he repeated posting the same link as if I had never said anything and even with the exact same words he used only a page earlier!

I am so bored with him I just cant bring myself to waste time replying to his dishonesty/incompetence.

I've noticed that truthers do nothing but repeat themselves,even when they have been proved wrong. Should we admire them for their tenacity or despise them for their stupidity?

 

[Craig4]

snip
NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

As for sifting through the debris...here is probably the best summary for it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Why would NIST look for explosives when there's no evidence of a demolition and nothing about how the buildings fell indicated explosives were used?

 

[dafydd]

Why would NIST look for explosives when there's no evidence of a demolition and nothing about how the buildings fell indicated explosives were used?

Because a handful of brave internet warrior truthers say they should have.

 

[GlennB]

Yes Jones hasn't, but you've got a lot of nerve touting NIST around. You saw this video right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY Their model is a disgrace (that may not be a strong enough word for it) at one point they have the sides of the building almost touching each other. Something that clearly did not even come close to happening. I would be embarrassed to show that model, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you right?

The you should actually read the report and try to understand why the diagrams look that way.

If you only take your information from Truther websites and videos you will forever remain in ignorance.

Do you know how to access the original of the WTC7 report?

 

[jaydeehess]

I will answer you in one post.

That site was youtube...you no where to find it. That model is a disgrace, and you know it. I know you will never admit it, but you have to know.

The you should actually read the report and try to understand why the diagrams look that way.

If you only take your information from Truther websites and videos you will forever remain in ignorance.

Do you know how to access the original of the WTC7 report?

Seems tmd did not understand my request for a link. I asked not for a link to the NIST sim,
(BTW, Here's one) I asked him what NIST says about why t looks that way.

No answer!

Again the hypocrisy... it took NIST many years with a huge budget to release anything. What they released was sub-par to say the least. Just because there isn't an FEA now doesn't mean there won't be one.

No it does not mean that there won't be one but you just vcomplained that NIST took a few years to produce the WTC 7 report (partly because they waited until the WTC 1 & 2 reports were done before getting into WTC 7 in detail) and now its OK that AE911T has had ten years to come up with something to refute NIST's FEA based animation.
You need to look up the word hypocrisy.

In regards to thermate did you read this Theremate is used to help cause the collapse. The collapse causes regular landfill type fires. These fires ignite some un-reacted thermite from time to time causing molten steel. This could explain the reports of molten steel later in the clean up. Why didn't that it happen on the top? Maybe the millions of gallons of water dumping on it?

When did the first significant stream of water get to the WTC debris pile? Why no thermite cooking off on the top of a pile that was , in your words, still hot enough to melt aluminum?
Jeebus! how much thermite was still in the debris after collapse?

What else could it be? I would argue (and this is a bit of an exaggeration of course) it could almost be any explosive that would bring the buildings down. Now of course each has a different probability for success,

So you are back to imagining something for which you have no evidence at all. No docuemetary evidence of an explosive powerful enough to significantly weaken the supports of the tpwers or #7 and no evidence of a thermite burn other than one instance of an unidentifiable molten material flowing from one corner of one floor of one tower. Certainly no physical evidence of either any high explosive or thermitic substances.

the investigation was looked at from point of view and worked backwards. The best example of this is in this quote

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

As for sifting through the debris...here is probably the best summary for it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Of course you and shee missed Neuman's point completely. There is no docuementary evidence to suggest that looking for physical remains of explosives or thermitic material. There is also no docuementary evidence to suggest the need to look for nuclear material, or thermobaric bombs or spacebeams or pixie dust but by your logic NIST was glaringly negligent in not looking for nulcear material or thermobaric bombs or space beams or pixie dust.

understand?

 

[jaydeehess]

I did a bit of searching.

For tmd's edification, in using an FEA to model a collapse it will become more unreliable the further into the collapse it goes. This is a fact of all FEA including LSDYNA.

At collapse beginning all parameters can easily be assigned but as soon as the model has components failing the modelling can begin to diverge in the details of the collapse due to the increasingly chaotic situation.

Does the LSDYNA based simulation agree with the actual observed collapse? To a great extent it does, especially up to the beginning of the final fall of the remaining perimeter/facade. Does it model the exact direction that all parts of the facade went? Not exactly. It does however predict a CCW(from above)twist to the eastern portion of the building. This would satisfy the observed fact of that portion of the building ending up impacting the Fitterman building even if it broke over well before twisting as much as in the animation.
The animation also clearly shows the western portion moving southward which is exactly where it went in reality.
The animation predicts the kink and the progression of internal faliure, and the northward buckling of the north face columns below the 8th floor which can be expected if the southern columns under the cantilever trusses, which are part of the core structure, have failed and vastly increased the load on columns in the old Con-ed structure.

As I said, at collapse beginning parameters can best be assigned. except in the case of WTC 7 we can't be quite as good at this as we could be with a WTC 7 structure that had not suffered a large amount of impact damage to its south face including the loss of the SW corner column. We must use a best guess on how the south perimeter columns were affected. In this it seem NIST was fairly successful given that its this loss of components on the south face that is responsible for the western portion falling southward in both reality and in the animation.

So once again I ask for AE911T to produce their own FEA. Let's see how well they can have it predict the last 5 seconds of collapse which is after all what the great concern seems to be about.

 

[tmd2_1]

Seems tmd did not understand my request for a link. I asked not for a link to the NIST sim,
(BTW, Here's one) I asked him what NIST says about why t looks that way.

No answer!



No it does not mean that there won't be one but you just vcomplained that NIST took a few years to produce the WTC 7 report (partly because they waited until the WTC 1 & 2 reports were done before getting into WTC 7 in detail) and now its OK that AE911T has had ten years to come up with something to refute NIST's FEA based animation.
You need to look up the word hypocrisy.



When did the first significant stream of water get to the WTC debris pile? Why no thermite cooking off on the top of a pile that was , in your words, still hot enough to melt aluminum?
Jeebus! how much thermite was still in the debris after collapse?



So you are back to imagining something for which you have no evidence at all. No docuemetary evidence of an explosive powerful enough to significantly weaken the supports of the tpwers or #7 and no evidence of a thermite burn other than one instance of an unidentifiable molten material flowing from one corner of one floor of one tower. Certainly no physical evidence of either any high explosive or thermitic substances.


Of course you and shee missed Neuman's point completely. There is no docuementary evidence to suggest that looking for physical remains of explosives or thermitic material. There is also no docuementary evidence to suggest the need to look for nuclear material, or thermobaric bombs or spacebeams or pixie dust but by your logic NIST was glaringly negligent in not looking for nulcear material or thermobaric bombs or space beams or pixie dust.

understand?

I did a bit of searching.

For tmd's edification, in using an FEA to model a collapse it will become more unreliable the further into the collapse it goes. This is a fact of all FEA including LSDYNA.

At collapse beginning all parameters can easily be assigned but as soon as the model has components failing the modelling can begin to diverge in the details of the collapse due to the increasingly chaotic situation.

Does the LSDYNA based simulation agree with the actual observed collapse? To a great extent it does, especially up to the beginning of the final fall of the remaining perimeter/facade. Does it model the exact direction that all parts of the facade went? Not exactly. It does however predict a CCW(from above)twist to the eastern portion of the building. This would satisfy the observed fact of that portion of the building ending up impacting the Fitterman building even if it broke over well before twisting as much as in the animation.
The animation also clearly shows the western portion moving southward which is exactly where it went in reality.
The animation predicts the kink and the progression of internal faliure, and the northward buckling of the north face columns below the 8th floor which can be expected if the southern columns under the cantilever trusses, which are part of the core structure, have failed and vastly increased the load on columns in the old Con-ed structure.

As I said, at collapse beginning parameters can best be assigned. except in the case of WTC 7 we can't be quite as good at this as we could be with a WTC 7 structure that had not suffered a large amount of impact damage to its south face including the loss of the SW corner column. We must use a best guess on how the south perimeter columns were affected. In this it seem NIST was fairly successful given that its this loss of components on the south face that is responsible for the western portion falling southward in both reality and in the animation.

So once again I ask for AE911T to produce their own FEA. Let's see how well they can have it predict the last 5 seconds of collapse which is after all what the great concern seems to be about.

I told you you can find the link and paste it yourself. Which you did.
That model is a disgrace, all that can be said. You can spin anyway you want to, but you know it is.


WTC 7 was a building "everyone" know was going to come down, and it took NIST 7 years. Tell you what that investigation should have consisted of. NIST asks the person who made the call about the structural integrity of the building, that person says why he or she did, NIST starts there, and should have an answer relatively quickly. That didn't exactly happen.

Listen you know full well ground zero was closed off quickly, the debris removed quickly, so I don't know what the evidence would say. By the way 4 million gallons of water were poured onto ground 0 in the first 10 days.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallons-of-water.html

No NIST started with one premise and worked towards it the whole time. That quote is the best example of it.

To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all. Which is exactly where AE for truth are, but that may change.

 

[beachnut]

... To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all. Which is exactly where AE for truth are, but that may change.

The only thing this accomplished is to expose you have no knowledge of models, or engineering.

The George Washington reference shows you and George have no clue what fire is, or how much water it takes to put out a fire. Good job exposing your ignorance on fire-science.

I... Listen you know full well ground zero was closed off quickly, the debris removed quickly,...

Closed off? Never had a large accident or fire have you! This closed off quickly statement means nothing.

How fast was the debris removed? Months, how many months? lol, you 911 truth Followers are silly.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That didn't exactly happen.

Nor should it have. NIST was tasked with finding out what mechanism caused the collapse and determining whether these mechanisms had to be taken into account in future construction via changes to the building codes, or if the vulnerabilities were specific to WTC7. This only comes with a detailed modeling investigation that studies how the building responds to the situation. That's NOT done through a 5 minute conversation.

To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all.

No, they have a model. If you feel it's in error you have every opportunity to use the same inputs they used and demonstrate that you can do it better. AE911truth has yet to even attempt it, using the lame excuse that the NIST doesn't give them the source code. Nothing is stopping them form putting their own model together from scratch and doing it themselves... they have access to much of the same information that the NIST did.

 

[Marokkaan]

Why would NIST look for explosives when there's no evidence of a demolition and nothing about how the buildings fell indicated explosives were used?

Why would nist search for the answer natural collapse if high rise buildings never natural collapsed.

 

[excaza]

Why would nist search for the answer natural collapse if high rise buildings never natural collapsed.

Because someone crashed airplanes into them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why would nist search for the answer natural collapse if high rise buildings never natural collapsed.

NIST didn't "search for the answer natural collapse". They searched for the mechanism leading up to the collapse. This is useful information in designing new buildings, because if structural alterations can be made, either to prevent that mechanism from occurring, or at least to slow it down, then less life might be lost in any future scenario where airliners crash into high-rise buildings. The mistake that many truthers seem to make is in believing that, prior to the NIST enquiry, the controlled demolition hypothesis was a viable alternative that was seriously considered by anyone who mattered. NIST was not tasked to debunk insane conspiracy theories, and I for one think its choice to do so over WTC7 was ill-advised.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

I told you you can find the link and paste it yourself. Which you did.
That model is a disgrace, all that can be said. You can spin anyway you want to, but you know it is.


WTC 7 was a building "everyone" know was going to come down, and it took NIST 7 years. Tell you what that investigation should have consisted of. NIST asks the person who made the call about the structural integrity of the building, that person says why he or she did, NIST starts there, and should have an answer relatively quickly. That didn't exactly happen.

Listen you know full well ground zero was closed off quickly, the debris removed quickly, so I don't know what the evidence would say. By the way 4 million gallons of water were poured onto ground 0 in the first 10 days.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallons-of-water.html

No NIST started with one premise and worked towards it the whole time. That quote is the best example of it.

To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all. Which is exactly where AE for truth are, but that may change.

Where did you study engineering and how many computer models have you constructed?

 

[Marokkaan]

NIST didn't "search for the answer natural collapse". They searched for the mechanism leading up to the collapse. This is useful information in designing new buildings, because if structural alterations can be made, either to prevent that mechanism from occurring, or at least to slow it down, then less life might be lost in any future scenario where airliners crash into high-rise buildings. The mistake that many truthers seem to make is in believing that, prior to the NIST enquiry, the controlled demolition hypothesis was a viable alternative that was seriously considered by anyone who mattered. NIST was not tasked to debunk insane conspiracy theories, and I for one think its choice to do so over WTC7 was ill-advised.

Dave

Yes they did. Or else they would search also for the answer CD theory, and if you are searching for that, you would search for explosives.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy, this is also what NFPA 921 says.

But with common sense you would search for explosives, especially when you know the wtc in 93 was hit by a bomb.

NIST does not want to search explosives, because they dont expect explosives, because there is no evidence, but how do you know that, if you didnt research LOL

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're
looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting
your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”

So i will say the same, i do not expect natural collapse, because they are the first towers in history who would be natural collapsed , so i exclude natural collapse.

You do now understand the hypocrisy?

 

[excaza]

You seem to be forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) that NIST was not the preliminary investigation unit.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes they did. Or else they would search also for the answer CD theory, and if you are searching for that, you would search for explosives.

Utter gibberish. The video and audio records made it clear that there were no explosives, and there is no known method of demolishing buildings using thermite. NIST looked for the mechanism by which the effects of impact and fire damage on the known structure of the towers led to collapse, because there were no other factors worth considering. They were looking at engineering problems, not pandering to delusional idiots.

But with common sense you would search for explosives, especially when you know the wtc in 93 was hit by a bomb.

By the same "common sense", the investigators into the 7/7 bombings should have considered the possibility that three tube trains were hit by airliners, because we know al-Qaida used airliners on 9/11.

So i will say the same, i do not expect natural collapse, because they are the first towers in history who would be natural collapsed , so i exclude natural collapse.

Several people have tried to explain how stupid that argument is. They were the first towers in history to be deliberately hit by airliners used as missiles, which doesn't fit even the most insane definition of the word "natural," so in effect you're arguing that unique circumstances can't possibly produce unique results; an utterly absurd claim.

But let's extend your logic; no towers in history have collapsed due to thermite, so can we exclude thermite? No towers in history have been collapsed from the top down by explosives, so can we exclude top-down collapse due to explosives? No explosive demolition has ever failed to produce a loud enough bang to register on sound recording equipment, so can we rule out explosive demolition?

For some reason, though, truthers will only rule out what they don't want to believe. On the other hand, they can accept the most absurd contradictions if they think their beliefs are supported.

You do now understand the hypocrisy?

Oh, yes, very thoroughly.

Dave