NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[femr2]

So he has provided data. It is not his responsibility to support either of achimspok or uglypig's cases. And extending it to the bigger picture goes way beyond the provision of data to support the OP.

I've even alluded to that...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8810974&postcount=173
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8811053&postcount=178
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8811201&postcount=180

If WTC7 was structurally sound immediately prior to descent, and "Instantaneous removal of 8 stories worth of supporting structure"/"explosives were detonated"/"wires were pulled"/"space beams were switched on" to bring it down immediately afterwards...then the building would not already be in motion minutes prior to release.

It would be static. Sound. It wasn't. Early motion data is the clearest replicable confirmation of the behaviour of the building during the lead up to release.

Assertions about building behaviour without that real-world data will always be seen as conjecture by those being asked to consider such assertions.

Early Motion data. Data about the behaviour of the actual building.

etc...(that was 1st December. "Discussion" since then has avhieved very little except drown the useful content actually related to the thread topic)

Blue sky responses followed.

Once again femr I commend your restraint in the face of such a load of crap.

Used to it. If, in time, some participants look back going "oh", my restraint will have been constructive

Members who disagree with the data are free to provide their own. Discussion of the differences would be legitimate.

Of course.

 

[NoahFence]

OK, so from what I get, the point is to prove NIST's data sets wrong - not to make any changes to their conclusions.

Got it. Bizarre hobby, but it's not for me to judge.

I will gracefully bow out of this then.

 

[femr2]

Missed a couple of yours in the mire. Apologies...

What exactly is being done to correct these?

Correct them ? For issues with the NIST report, I think the time for them to be considering ammendment is long gone.

Most of my input relates to correct understanding.

I don't like people repeating details as fact already shown to be...dubious, at best.

It's an important topic, including the technical details and accuracy/correctness/validity of the "historic record" if wou will.

Tracing WTC7 features has led to greater understanding of the behaviour of the building both before and during descent.

It has also, through comparison of both method and result, highlighted a number of problems with "what NIST said".

I find it rather frustrating to see that even those supposedly interested in "understanding" reject such criticism and still cite "what NIST said" as the gospel truth/the pinnacle of correctness.

Not important details ?

Consider the NIST error in Flight 175 impact orientation and trajectory.

In essence, given that those simple parameters dictated the behaviour of the entire subsequent WTC2 building simulations, they messed up the handful of numbers which were MOST critical... They slammed the aircraft in in the wrong direction.

It's possible that the trajectory difference explains a lot about WTC2 initiation behaviour (given the closer alignment to the two easterly rows of core columns) and may suggest INCREASED core column damage than they simulated.

In technical terms...GIGO. The entire WTC2 simulation is based on demonstrably incorrect initial parameters. Everything that follows is "wrong".

Consider folk citing "column 79 did THIS". Who knows ? NIST don't know for sure, and some of the studies performed by folk like myself suggest that they didn't get that right either. Yet numerous folk still state forcefully "column 79 did exactly THAT". Stupid.

Early studies of perimeter peel behaviour, combined with identifying and refining the ROOSD process improved understanding of the descent mechanisms.

All sorts of stuff that should be integrated into the position of ALL participants in these kind of discussions.

How frustrated do you get when someone starts shouting "fell at freefall speed into own footprint" ?

NIST's WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis is rubbish. List of issues is way back in this thread, buried in the rubble.

 

[beachnut]

Early studies of perimeter peel behaviour, combined with identifying and refining the ROOSD process improved understanding of the descent mechanisms. ...

.

???
Is that WTC 7 stuff??? or what ...
As seen on 911, yep, it was seen by many on 911. It took MT years to figure out the descent mechanism, an Robertson a few seconds; engineers. A quick study of the WTC structure, and confirmed on 911. Something Robertson understood on 911, the first day. No need to make up silly terms, and study the fall for the super no goal, already solved by the chief structural engineer on 911. (that was WTC 1 and 2 stuff in the WTC 7 extra credit stuff...)

When will you remove failed woo papers from your tech section? Tech papers? lol, your excuse is not valid.

Don't think it matters if NIST blew Stage 1 analysis, it had no bearing on much, except for those obsessed with NIST. Not sure how they can blow something they defined in the first place. Did they make some claims about stuff based on Stage 1? They = NIST.

 

[Spanx]

Good to see everyone has their guns back in their holsters and we know who's shooting who.

Looking at things like the link below, it does make you wonder where NIST is coming from.

To me it looks like incompetence, if there was something to hide, I don't think this is the best way to hide it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nbfeGjwZU&feature

 

[Oystein]

Good to see everyone has their guns back in their holsters and we know who's shooting who.

Looking at things like the link below, it does make you wonder where NIST is coming from.

To me it looks like incompetence, if there was something to hide, I don't think this is the best way to hide it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nbfeGjwZU&feature

Not sure what you mean.
Looking at this video, and assuming this is the "correct" (i,e, considered by NIST to model most closely their probable collapse sequence) model, I see obvious similarities and obvious discrepancies. Both are qualities that I would expect to see: The model should behave similarly, but I would definitely expect to see differences as well, owing to the trivial fact that initial conditions are not known perfectly. I just don't know how to quantify that expectation and how to measure the actual discrepancy for comparison. Do you?

 

[Spanx]

Not sure what you mean.
Looking at this video, and assuming this is the "correct" (i,e, considered by NIST to model most closely their probable collapse sequence) model, I see obvious similarities and obvious discrepancies. Both are qualities that I would expect to see: The model should behave similarly, but I would definitely expect to see differences as well, owing to the trivial fact that initial conditions are not known perfectly. I just don't know how to quantify that expectation and how to measure the actual discrepancy for comparison. Do you?

Maybe I am missing something ?

As far as the internal collapse, no one can be exact. As far as the external visual there is no crisp edges like on original. Maybe the timing is out or not thought to be relevant.

 

[DGM]

Maybe I am missing something ?

As far as the internal collapse, no one can be exact. As far as the external visual there is no crisp edges like on original. Maybe the timing is out or not thought to be relevant.

The issue here is this is outside of the scope of their report. Because some people wanted it to match what was seen they tried to model what would really be impossible( too many variables). They should have stuck to responding to their intended audience and ignored everyone else.

The main issue. NIST tried to dumb it down and make a video. In this they failed. The report however is correct and exactly what they were tasked to do (minus the irrelevant distractions).

 

[Spanx]

The issue here is this is outside of the scope of their report. Because some people wanted it to match what was seen they tried to model what would really be impossible( too many variables). They should have stuck to responding to their intended audience and ignored everyone else.

The main issue. NIST tried to dumb it down and make a video. In this they failed. The report however is correct and exactly what they were tasked to do (minus the irrelevant distractions).

It sounds like a no win situation.

I have not read the NIST report (I probably wouldn't understand it fully) my gut feeling tells me it was not designed to cover up the use of thermite or any such thing.

But yeh what do I know

 

[Justin39640]

It sounds like a no win situation.

I have not read the NIST report (I probably wouldn't understand it fully) my gut feeling tells me it was not designed to cover up the use of thermite or any such thing.

But yeh what do I know

The NIST reports are about studying how and why these structures collapsed so that new structures can be made to prevent or at least prolong collapse in order to give time to evacuate.

It's about saving lives not nano-crapola. Truthers willfully ignore this.

 

[Oystein]

... The report however is correct and exactly what they were tasked to do (minus the irrelevant distractions).

Depends on your definition of "correct".

NIST concludes a "probable" collapse scenario, and it is possible (femr2 seems to have done so) to show they are not exact.

So there is a chance that NIST is wrong about details of the actual collapse, and may even have the initiating event wrong. It may be impossible to know this, or perhaps it is knowable.

But what is ultimately the purpose of such investigations? -> To find out if future buildings can be made safer. Lessons learned.

And so, even if NIST is "not correct" on smaller or larger details containing the actual collapse, they did identify problems with long-span trusses that apparently had not been adequately dealt with in existing building codes. It is "probable" that expansion of trusses can induce walk-off of girders and render columns unbraced. Even if that turned out to not have happened.

If it turns out that NIST's collapse sequence is really wrong (as in "wasn't started by girder walk-off on floor 13"), then of course one should wonder what really happened, and if NIST missed another hazard that should be addressed.


None of this "proving NIST wrong" of course amounts to "proving CD right" - there isn't even a prima facie case to be answered.


At the very least, the simulation shows that, in that building, collapse can spread east-west in the core before bringing the shell down. It's my hunch that this is a good-enough confirmation - but certainly my hunch is biased.

 

[DGM]

If it turns out that NIST's collapse sequence is really wrong (as in "wasn't started by girder walk-off on floor 13"), then of course one should wonder what really happened, and if NIST missed another hazard that should be addressed.

This is true. One would also wonder why no one that is reporting that they are wrong has proposed any other theory or narrative to explain this progression.

At this point in the game, just arguing their wrong just doesn't cut it. Could it be that it just doesn't matter?

 

[Oystein]

This is true. One would also wonder why no one that is reporting that they are wrong has proposed any other theory or narrative to explain this progression.

At this point in the game, just arguing their wrong just doesn't cut it. Could it be that it just doesn't matter?

Matters (or not) to whom - and in what context?

 

[DGM]

Matters (or not) to whom - and in what context?

Frankly, to anyone outside of this argument (9/11 truth).

I'd debate the reasoning to why NIST felt the need to go outside of their actual field (or scope). It really serves no purpose.

What purpose has anything that this whole "free-fall" argument and NIST attempt to explain it had? Other than fuel for "truthers" nothing. It's a waste of time and money.

 

[femr2]

One would also wonder why no one that is reporting that they are wrong has proposed any other theory or narrative to explain this progression.

Whilst I would not entirely agree that no alternatives have been proposed, more pertinent to your question is that identifying what did NOT happen (as in that doesn't match what NIST say) is a different thing to identifying what DID.

My view would be for the issues/errors to be accepted first, and THEN, if possible (as it may not be), alternatives suggested.

That's not quite my field of interest, and doesn't need to be.

For WTC7 I'd suggest looking at the implications of the destruction of column 20, and it's effect upon building flexure...but as I don't have the tools or information to simulate it that would not be a gettin done by me.

 

[DGM]

Whilst I would not entirely agree that no alternatives have been proposed, more pertinent to your question is that identifying what did NOT happen (as in that doesn't match what NIST say) is a different thing to identifying what DID.

But, not really in the scope of what the report was intended for.

My view would be for the issues/errors to be accepted first, and THEN, if possible (as it may not be), alternatives suggested.

This would only be if they pertained to the original scope of the report. Nothing I've seen so far changes this. This is where the alternatives need to come in.

That's not quite my field of interest, and doesn't need to be.

I understand but, questioning without providing alternatives is not really productive.

For WTC7 I'd suggest looking at the implications of the destruction of column 20, and it's effect upon building flexure...but as I don't have the tools or information to simulate it that would not be a gettin done by me.

Again, how does this actually effect the scope of what NIST was tasked to explain(or do). Would it effect possible codes suggested to prevent this from happening in the future?

You do know why NIST actually investigated this? It wasn't to explain why this building collapsed. Remember, this building was a one off, Think big picture.

 

[femr2]

I understand but, questioning without providing alternatives is not really productive.

Feel free to resolve the issues. (Some folk design, some folk implement, some folk test, some folk...). I can't do "everything".

Again, how does this actually eaffect the scope of what NIST was tasked to explain(or do).

Does it have to ? A primary objective was "how". If they got details wrong, that hasn't been properly fulfilled.

Would it eaffect possible codes suggested to prevent this from happening in the future?

Possibly.

This is all beyond the scope of the thread.

I've posted a lengthy list of issues with the descent study and conclusions, and have included detail related to "the big picture".

There's no real refutement of those issues, and they are all relevant.

NIST did a poor job of "stage 1 analysis".

 

[DGM]

Does it have to ? A primary objective was "how". If they got details wrong, that hasn't been properly fulfilled.

Then wouldn't it be the burden of those that found this to be true to bring this to their attention and to ensure these corrections were made?

Possibly.

Wouldn't this included actually showing how?

This is all beyond the scope of the thread.

But, it does address the thrust of the argument.

I've posted a lengthy list of issues with the descent study and conclusions, and have included detail related to "the big picture".

Yes you did but, it did not actually address the picture as NIST was (initially) tasked to explain.

There's no real refutement of those issues, and they are all relevant.

NIST did a poor job of "stage 1 analysis".

........Something that really had nothing to do with their objective.

 

[femr2]

Definitely appears that tfk has abandoned his thread. Hey ho.

 

[carlitos]

Well, at least you got the last word.