Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[pgimeno]

I'm thinking that's because "cojones" doesn't need an accent, although "cojón" does. Did I learn that rule right?

Perfect

 

[pgimeno]

I know you know I know it and you know I know you know it too.

You cannot realistically compare a heavy H beam and moment frame to a stick. It is an inappropriate analogy.

In what sense? I quoted a paragraph that shows how, after fracturing, which happens soon in the buckling phase, it loses basically all of its resistance, just like a stick breaking. In that sense it is an appropriate analogy.

The NIST model shows the columns buckling, not breaking like sticks, DURING the free fall acceleration period. This is conformation that their model is NOT falling at FFA as Sunder stated at the Technical Briefing.

Indeed. Therefore, something in their model (probably related to the behavior after buckling) is not close enough to reality, because, indeed, the real columns opposed less resistance than their model. Therefore, they didn't probably model the fracturing effect described by Bazant.

I think we actually agree on this point (that the NIST model did not represent the collapse with enough accuracy).

 

[chrismohr]

I too agree that the NIST model did not perfectly reflect the reality of FFA for 2.25 seconds. Did it "represent the collapse with enough accuracy"? Here I disagree and say yes, it is enough accuracy, because their primary purpose is to understand what caused the collapse so they can recommend safety standards. It's also probably as much accuracy as could be possible once you get a couple seconds into a large, chaotic collapse.

As to my stick analogy, I'm sorry Chris7 hates it so much. I requote pgimeno's line, and remind him of other posts in the past few weeks that show very very low resistance when a column buckles, thereby making the analogy acceptable for a lay explanation:

The high-strength steel has a much lower ductility, which must have caused fractures with a drop of axial force to zero very early during buckling, [...]
Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Le, Jia-Liang; Greening, Frank R.; Benson, David B. (October 2008). What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York? Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (10) p. 896.

Change "zero" to "negligible" for a more accurate statement though (Again, remember the crane...)

 

[thedopefishlives]

I too agree that the NIST model did not perfectly reflect the reality of FFA for 2.25 seconds. Did it "represent the collapse with enough accuracy"? Here I disagree and say yes, it is enough accuracy, because their primary purpose is to understand what caused the collapse so they can recommend safety standards. It's also probably as much accuracy as could be possible once you get a couple seconds into a large, chaotic collapse.

I agree with this statement. Computer modeling can only accomplish so much, and the primary point is to establish which failure(s) were the major contributing factors of the collapse so that future designs can avoid these flaws, thus improving the resilience of skyscrapers moving forward. The point is not to perfectly match the exact outcome of the event down to the last speck of dust.

 

[Animal]

Here's the thing about computer models: They're not perfect. They represent the statistical likelihood of what occurred, but it is impossible for them to describe perfectly what occurred, because the real world is too chaotic and random and the initial conditions are impossible to describe with perfect accuracy. The collapse model represents the statistical likelihood of what happened, and it provides a good starting point to identify the cause of failure, but it should not be taken as a literal descriptor of the sequence of events.

Exactly.......all the steel was not the identical strength, it met or exceeded the specifications, same think with welds, torque on bolts etc, etc. Plus all the little things, like sprinkler lines, walls that extended to the deck above, misc. bracing that would add a little support (or add a little load) here and there that would have an impact on the final outcome,

 

[Clayton Moore]

Exactly.......all the steel was not the identical strength, it met or exceeded the specifications, same think with welds, torque on bolts etc, etc. Plus all the little things, like sprinkler lines, walls that extended to the deck above, misc. bracing that would add a little support (or add a little load) here and there that would have an impact on the final outcome,

Duh, You must be freaking kidding.

How do you think a simulation to determine the sturdiness of a yet to be built skyscraper is created? By factoring in the here and there crap you mentioned?

 

[GlennB]

Duh, You must be freaking kidding.

How do you think a simulation to determine the sturdiness of a yet to be built skyscraper is created? By factoring in the here and there crap you mentioned?

You're laughing at yourself there Clayton. But I doubt if you can see why.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm thinking that's because "cojones" doesn't need an accent, although "cojón" does. Did I learn that rule right?

ETA: The rule is, in pertinent part, that words ending in "s" have the stress on the next-to-last syllable unless accented otherwise -- so it would be redundant to put an accent there. The same rule applies to "n," so "cojon" would be pronounced something like "COE-hone."

Thanks.

I wasn't game to guess - not a language I have ever had any knowledge of. If it had been French I may have given it a go...

 

[OCaptain]

No I'm not.

The support structure, the dimensions of the support structure, the physical properties/makeup of the support structure, the strength of the support structure are all known.

The physical force needed to damage any part of the support structure can be easily applied in a simulation.


All the force and damage instances have to be applied and linked in sequence to occur in about 10 seconds.

The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.

Thank you, Dr. Science!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I agree with this statement. Computer modeling can only accomplish so much, and the primary point is to establish which failure(s) were the major contributing factors of the collapse so that future designs can avoid these flaws, thus improving the resilience of skyscrapers moving forward. The point is not to perfectly match the exact outcome of the event down to the last speck of dust.

I agree, unless collapse in a particular manner led to some other major problem which it would have been desirable to avoid. For instance if the WTC towers had fallen like tree and destroyed two more city blocks it might be thought worthwhile to find out why they did so. However since they collapsed more or less straight down the exact process once past the initiation is pretty much irrelevant so there would be no point in even trying to model it exactly even if that was possible.

 

[000063]

Duh, You must be freaking kidding.

How do you think a simulation to determine the sturdiness of a yet to be built skyscraper is created? By factoring in the here and there crap you mentioned?

Incredulity, no actual evidence presented, ignoring the other things you've been proven wrong on.

You remember chaos theory from Jurassic Park? How about the theory of entropy? Or the butterfly effect? Getting an exact model is impossible. All they can do is generalize. And you claimed they needed to test for something that was far outside the standard challenges any pre-911 skyscraper could be expected to face. Not to mention that it would be impossible to build the building to withstand a full-speed impact from a plane that didn't exist until after it was finished.

But please, continue to ignore all posts except the ones you think you can credibly rebut. Operative word; think.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I agree, unless collapse in a particular manner led to some other major problem which it would have been desirable to avoid. For instance if the WTC towers had fallen like tree and destroyed two more city blocks it might be thought worthwhile to find out why they did so. However since they collapsed more or less straight down the exact process once past the initiation is pretty much irrelevant so there would be no point in even trying to model it exactly even if that was possible.

Even then, modeling the collapse initiation probably would've given enough information to determine roughly how the collapse would've proceeded. At the point of collapse initiation, we know everything we need to know to determine how to prevent it in the future (or at least make it far less likely). Everything beyond the point of collapse initiation is irrelevant, unless something completely off the rails happens, like the upper block bouncing off the core and tumbling into the street mid-collapse. And at that point, I don't know if there's any lessons to be learned aside from "Don't let the tower collapse in the first place."

 

[carlitos]

Perfect

Hey thanks. It's been a long time since I learned those rules for accents. I'm going to have to go back and practice. I have shivers remembering sobresdrújulas.

 

[pgimeno]

I too agree that the NIST model did not perfectly reflect the reality of FFA for 2.25 seconds. Did it "represent the collapse with enough accuracy"? Here I disagree and say yes, it is enough accuracy, because their primary purpose is to understand what caused the collapse so they can recommend safety standards.

We're actually in agreement. The word "enough" here is flexible: enough for what? For their purpose, definitely. Enough as to exhibit most of the features of the real collapse? No, not enough.

Problem is, NIST's goal and CTers' goal differs, thus the discrepancy in the meaning of "enough". I was adopting the second meaning in this case given the context of being talking to a CTer.

 

[Animal]

Duh, You must be freaking kidding.

How do you think a simulation to determine the sturdiness of a yet to be built skyscraper is created? By factoring in the here and there crap you mentioned?

<sigh> troofer cluelessness never ceases to amaze me.

Free hint to the clueless........all those previously mention items will alter how the building collapsed and cause the building collapse to be different from the simulation. There is no possible way for the simulation to correctly model for all the miscellaneous items that will alter the collapse progression, hence the collapse simulation will never perfectly match reality. It is only clueless troofers that continue to insist on a perfect match.

Yet another trooofer FAIL......<YAWN>

 

[BasqueArch]

Exactly.......all the steel was not the identical strength, it met or exceeded the specifications, same think with welds, torque on bolts etc, etc. Plus all the little things, like sprinkler lines, walls that extended to the deck above, misc. bracing that would add a little support (or add a little load) here and there that would have an impact on the final outcome,

Like Pachinko. Same machine, balls. The balls take different paths due to the minute variances in the machine.
If you were to cover the top half of the face, you would not know the entire path the balls took, but you would still know they all ended in the same place.

NIST reduced the inputs margin of error of WTC1,2,7, as much as possible by taking into account their available evidence knowing their model was impossible to exactly quantify for all variables (actual out of view location and duration of fires, fuel load, temperature, floors damage, creep and buckling, fireproofing etc.).

Regardless of the exact inputs, like Pachinko, the end result was certain. The cause of the failures was the damage the fires caused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBs3xbz-QLM

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post

No I'm not.

The support structure, the dimensions of the support structure, the physical properties/makeup of the support structure, the strength of the support structure are all known.

The physical force needed to damage any part of the support structure can be easily applied in a simulation.


All the force and damage instances have to be applied and linked in sequence to occur in about 10 seconds.

The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.

Thank you, Dr. Science!

You're welcome.

 

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post





You're welcome.

OMG, the irony is lost on you, Clayton!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Like Pachinko. Same machine, balls. The balls take different paths due to the minute variances in the machine.
If you were to cover the top half of the face, you would not know the entire path the balls took, but you would still know they all ended in the same place.

NIST reduced the inputs margin of error of WTC1,2,7, as much as possible by taking into account their available evidence knowing their model was impossible to exactly quantify for all variables (actual out of view location and duration of fires, fuel load, temperature, floors damage, creep and buckling, fireproofing etc.).

Regardless of the exact inputs, like Pachinko, the end result was certain. The cause of the failures was the damage the fires caused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBs3xbz-QLM

Failure is failure. An energy or a force that cause(s) a failure is gone and the failed "whatever" is now the force or energy and must "create" another failure.

A simulation need only exact the force needed to provide the failure and resulting failures. Once the subsequent failures succeed in demolishing the buildings into mostly pulverized rubble in the simulation then a likely "Type of force" must be found from the circumstances of the day(9/11).
Get it?

The simulation must be able to make the building fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX7N6tKSIjc

The following reminds me of the gaps in the various so called 9/11 investigations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zZbfI5JKI

 

[DGM]

Failure is failure. An energy or a force that cause(s) a failure is gone and the failed "whatever" is now the force or energy and must "create" another failure.

What the hell does this mean? Can gravity be turned off and on? You never studied and don't understand physics (that wasn't a question).