9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc 7
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Wow, talk about delusions of granduer!
You are far to kind. I would think it to be more nonsensical BS at best.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
No debunking necessary, just chum the waters and watch them tear at each other.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
From the discussion of femr's video data analysis thread...
NIST did indicate the damage in figure 5-83 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 but since the extent of the damage was unknown it is labelled as "possible structural damage".
Since it might just be the windows and granite facade that's missing (and they're not modelled anywhere on the building) it's probably best to err on the side of caution and not damage the underlying structure on the model. If the analysis had shown a collapse that was nothing like that observed I'm sure they would have considered going back and seeing if a more damaged area would give a more realistic collapse but since the model behaves fairly close to the observed collapse, a re-visit wasn't necessary.
NIST did indicate the damage in figure 5-83 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 but since the extent of the damage was unknown it is labelled as "possible structural damage".
Since it might just be the windows and granite facade that's missing (and they're not modelled anywhere on the building) it's probably best to err on the side of caution and not damage the underlying structure on the model. If the analysis had shown a collapse that was nothing like that observed I'm sure they would have considered going back and seeing if a more damaged area would give a more realistic collapse but since the model behaves fairly close to the observed collapse, a re-visit wasn't necessary.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Wow, I thought you guys disliked it when debunkers characterized the explosives you claim had to be used as "Hush-a-booms"tm, and yet here you are, for all intents and purposes, simply begging to have the term applied yet again.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
No need to divide and conquer,they are doing a great job themselves.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Cutting through steel columns without making a sound.It only happens in the movies.
Miragememories
Banned
The NIST show a great deal of latitude regarding their determinations of what constitutes "close agreement".
The major difference in appearance between their modeled WTC7 collapse and what was actually observed is
a classic example of what the NIST deems to be acceptable.
MM
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Such as what , EXACTLY?
Oops MM has trouble understanding what I refer to sometimes so let me rephrase.
What exactly do you characterize as a major difference between observed collapse and the FEA modelled collapse?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Furthermore MM, how does the model put forth by any 9/11 conspiracy theorist conform better to the observed collapse?
Of course you will have to first find a model of the collapse generated by a 9/11 CT
Of course you will have to first find a model of the collapse generated by a 9/11 CT
Miragememories
Banned
Miragememories said:
jaydeehess said:
Maybe I demand too much from a computer model that is being used as the primary determinant into why WTC7 collapsed,
but I find insufficient similarity between how the camera saw the collapse, and how the NIST model saw the collapse.
MM
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So I have to do what I asked you to do, for you. Is that it?
Assuming that both pictures and sim images represent the same two instants during collapse.......
(perhaps you could link to these in the NIST reports, report url and page number,please)
Your beef is then that in the NIST FEA the western face columns did not fail as quickly as they did in real life causing, in the FEA, the eastern portion beyond the kink to fall inward and the western face to twist to the north?
Is that an accurate description of what , exactly, you find to be too far from what was observed?
Assuming that both pictures and sim images represent the same two instants during collapse.......
(perhaps you could link to these in the NIST reports, report url and page number,please)
Your beef is then that in the NIST FEA the western face columns did not fail as quickly as they did in real life causing, in the FEA, the eastern portion beyond the kink to fall inward and the western face to twist to the north?
Is that an accurate description of what , exactly, you find to be too far from what was observed?
Last edited:
Like your signature failed logic and obsession with Gravy, you have no clue what models are used for, and keep posting proof.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why don't you drop Richard Gage a note and have him get his engineers on the job? There is enough information in the NIST reports to recreate what they did. He has 1300+ engineers on tap so labor cost is not an issue. If it's a software cost issue, ask him to invest the 5% he got from "NYCCAN" ad campaign.
Let us know what he says.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
And he uses the wrong model again. Try the damage + fire model next time.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Its possible that he has simply not been on the forum since my asking for the link and page number for those images. Its possible that he was here but did not have enough time at the moment to post to this thread.
Its possible, though, that he is ignoring the request because he knows that the image from the simulation animation is that which was done with no impact damage and thus an intact SW corner to the structure, among other damages.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
This is what really gets me.
Here we have, supposedly, 1300+ architects and engineers with a claim.
PfT has its pilots.
There are Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Architects, Engineers, Pilots and Lawyers are in well paid professions. Each of the above groups claims that there was a huge conspiracy perpetrated on Sept 11/01 and they are determined to get the 'truth' known.
But let's see how committed they are;
the lawyers have brought precious few cases to court and none involve any criminal actions;
the pilots have yet to produce a strictly technical paper outlining exactly how they arrive at the conclusion that Flt 77's DFDR recorded a grossly different flightpath than illustrated by the ground damage pattern and commonly accepted flightpath;
and the architects and engineers have not produced any FEA to dispute that done by NIST, nor has any of them or any Scholar demostrated that a thermite substance of any stripe can sever a large steel, vertical column(yes I know 'vertical column' is redundant)
In the case of AE911 we have instead men who now make their living from speaking engagements and tours.
Is it that these groups cannot afford to actually do the work? No, that can't be it. AS I said above they are in professions which pay well. An average of a thousand dollars from each of 1300 professionals would create a kitty of 1.3 million dollars. Certainly enough to have created a good start on proving that the 'smoking gun' of 9/11/01, WTC 7 could not have collapsed as NISt concluded. Especially if they also get voluteer professional work from some of those engineers and perhaps a few 'scholars' as well. It brings down costs a lot when manpower is free.
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
I used screencaps from the video of the simulation collapse.
How could that be the wrong model?
MM
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
There's more than one. Of course you'd know that if you'd read the reports.
This is the one you want http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iDfJ3SoPWo