• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Computer modeling and simulation

bio said:
it is dishonest to pretend, that Prof. Jones should have "manipulated" something although you have obviously no proof.
Click to expand...

there is the original unaltered pic and the video of the exact same scene
they both show its a portable halogen work light shining through dust

wasnt jones the first to use the altered pic?
even if he didnt alter it, he used it, and even after the fact that its been exposed as a fabrication (sound familiar?) he doesnt retract the altered pics implication
 
and furthermore
heres the altered pic
jones_firemen.jpg


how can those firemen be that close to molten steel and not be suffering the effects of heat radiation?
turnout gear (what you normally see FDNY members wearing) wouldnt be sufficient protection from heat like that
you would need one of those silver fire suits to get that close
 
TruthersLie said:
ROFLMAO.

That is your defense? Really?

He took the image and used it as PROOF OF MOLTEN METAL for YEARS.

The image he used was ALTERED from the original.

That leaves 3 options.
1. He altered it.
2. He took an altered image and used it w/out doing any research (which would show where it came from and that it was altered)
3. He took an altered image and used it KNOWING it had been altered.

There is no, "oopsie I used the wrong image."

he continued to use it EVEN AFTER it was shown to be manipulated.

So either he is
1. dishonest
or
2. Incompetent

which one do you choose?

ETA: And it has been shown conclusively to be from a firefighters flashlight, yet he (s Jones) and crew have claimed it was proof of molten metal.

So again, who is being dishonest? (not that it is anything new for twoofs)
Click to expand...

So Prof. Jones stopped using it. Why?
 
bio said:
So Prof. Jones stopped using it. Why?
Click to expand...

To be fair, bio, if a major organization like NIST or FEMA had displayed the same level of sloppy research as Dr. Jones, or had continued to use a misleading picture knowingly after being called on the error, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs.

When the shoe is on the other foot, you're full of indignant excuses.

Jones was caught twice; the first time with a blatantly falsified picture, which he used in his presentations to thousands of people. (ie: misleading them).

2) Then he continued to use the picture in other forms, knowing full well the false impression it gives.

Two wrongs don't make him right. He should've taken the high road and stopped using the image. I assume it was too tempting for him to get rid of, since it has served its purpose very well........and continues to do so.
 
Jones did not manipulate the photos, guys. That's not true. He just used the doctored photo.
 
Here's Gravy's page on the molten metal issue, including a brief overview of Dr. Jones' use of a fraudulent picture:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

Here's where the story gets much worse. The 9/11 'truth' cult websites are notoriously bad at correcting any mistakes, so if you go to this major one, for example, they still have as the 'current' version, the original 2006 pdf of Jones' paper, WITH the doctored photo.

No disclaimer, no explanation.

http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

Jones is still completely off his rocker when it comes to the content of his lectures. Just one example is his continued use of this photo, which he says is ' evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material,' in other words.....previously molten steel. Why do I say steel? Well, he goes to great lengths to explain that it is in fact iron, even using a bunch of scientific bafflegab to make the point:

'he abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning
electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish' blah blah blah..



This can be found all over the place, including on Frank Legge's blog:


http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html

The leopard hasn't changed his spots at all. Same deceptive ********, year after year.
 
alienentity said:
Jones did not manipulate the photos, guys. That's not true. He just used the doctored photo.
Click to expand...


We're talking about a difference in white balance, correct? Or is there some other alternation that I'm missing?
 
deep44 said:
We're talking about a difference in white balance, correct? Or is there some other alternation that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're missing the alteration of a photo (have you seen the video? I have) which shows a bunch of workers shifting a floodlight into place so they can dig.

It then is doctored (altered) to make the light appear orange/yellow, and is used as 'proof' or 'evidence' of molten metal.

That's the part you missed. The fraud part.
 
BTW, here's another photo Jones is still using to make his fake case:


His comment? It 'may show the glow of
hot metal in the rubble'. Right....it's just that we can be pretty sure it is another worklight.

Do you have any idea how frickin' hot a big ball of molten metal would be to a guy wearing ordinary clothing? If not, I suggest you do some basic research.

Just as an anecdote, I had the privilege of walking on (actually near) an active lava flow on the 'big island' of Hawaii. There was a small rivulet of molten rock, and I wanted to throw a stick into it. I couldn't get close to it because the pain was excruciating, it was so hot.
You couldn't even look at it from closeup, because it hurt your eyes and face.

Yet these workers appear to be casually gazing at a ball of molten steel.

Riiiiiight. As Penn and Teller would say (well, not Teller) BULLyouknowwhat.
 
Anyway, the whole subject of molten metal being caused by hypothetical thermite is ludicrous, according to Jones and Harrit's own claims.

They are very clear that nanothermite brought the buildings down. Nanothermite (carefully explained by Niels Harrit) is a high-explosive, not an incendiary. In other words, it trades off temperature for speed.

Nanothermite could not have smoldered for weeks in the debris piles by its very nature.

There would be zero purpose in trying to use slow thermite to 'melt' the columns in a building like WTC7 'simultaneously', when an explosive could do the job quickly and efficiently. Nobody has ever shown that thermite could even do the job, and it's not clear that it is actually possible.

No building demolition in history has resulted in pools of molten metal and giant underground debris fires anyway. So the idea that these collapses resemble 'classic controlled demolition' is farcical.

How gullible are you people? You really should abandon these infantile theories - nobody thinks the government is perfect and without corruption. Legitimate grievances should be pursued. But this controlled demolition theory is nothing but a farce. It has been debunked, and cannot be saved from its demise.

The fact that Steven Jones is relentlessly pushing these idiotic ideas says a lot about him, don't it?
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
We're talking about a difference in white balance, correct? Or is there some other alternation that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Prof. Jones has proved explosives in the dust and our "debunker-team" here find nothing more than the mistaken use of a photo , which was altered in regard to the white balance. After recognizing it, he stopped using this photo.
 
bio said:
Prof. Jones has proved explosives in the dust and our "debunker-team" here find nothing more than the mistaken use of a photo , which was altered in regard to the white balance. After recognizing it, he stopped using this photo.
Click to expand...

Jones has done no such thing, bio, and you know it.
 
bio said:
Prof. Jones has proved explosives in the dust and our "debunker-team" here find nothing more than the mistaken use of a photo , which was altered in regard to the white balance. After recognizing it, he stopped using this photo.
Click to expand...

Oh how I love da twoof.

so he takes an image which has been modified (by who?) and runs with it for YEARS.

Like him taking the 6.5 second collapse time...
and thermite, which wasn't thermite, but was thermate, but wasn't thermate and is now super duper nanothermite, but isn't.

It is really amazing.

Hey pot, it is the kettle. you are black.

If the USG, NIST, FEMA or any other organization were to use doctored photos, you twoofs would be dancing in the aisles... hypocricy... I love it.

And we ALL know they didn't find explosives, nanothermite, sol gels or anysuch in the rubble... Why won't he send it off for independent analysis? Huh?

What are you like 13? But keep on trying...

dishonesty thy name is twoofer.

ETA: as for what he found... look up sunstealers excellent analysis of the nanothermite crap...
 
bio said:
Prof. Jones has proved explosives in the dust and our "debunker-team" here find nothing more than the mistaken use of a photo , which was altered in regard to the white balance. After recognizing it, he stopped using this photo.
Click to expand...

What about all the other misleading photos and analysis? Have you forgotten those already, or just in denial?








And he's proved squat about explosives in the dust. He and Harrit don't even know what the gray layer is, they don't know what the organic binder is, and they can't explain how most of the samples contain higher energy density than actual thermite.

They've got theories, but no definitive proof of anything. They never have.

If you really think this is proof, then obviously you don't know what actual proof is. That's your failing, not ours.
This stuff cannot be taken seriously by qualified scientists unless it rises to the level of good science. It hasn't done that yet.

Just to take one small (but vital) example of the kind of proof you'd need, bio - Jones et al. would need to mix up a batch of nanothermite identical in chemical properties to the chips, then they'd need to paint it onto steel structures and destroy them. Then their work would have to be duplicated elsewhere by independent scientists and researchers. (this will never happen, of course...have you figured out why?)

That would be proof. Until then, they've got a theory. That's it. Oh, and some doctored photographs which they use to mislead people like you. and a bunch of other nonsense that you seem to buy into....
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the issue of computer modeling nd simulation, there's something that puzzles me about the twoofer quest for NIST's models.

If I were to give you the circuit file for the sooper-dooper zero-overshoot zero-attack time audio limiter I've been messing with in simulations*- AND you had the software to open it and run the sim-

It would behave exactly the same as it does on my computer.

If a third party were to use the ANSYS models NIST used in testing the response of the WTC towers to the structural damage and fire loads, AND do the same thing, i.e., let the model converge and see what happens, then remove the elements known to be broken at the next point in time of interest, set the temperatures of individual elements to those predicted by the fire simulations at that point in time, add the pull-in forces from sagging floors and then let the model settle down and see what has changed from the previous iteration, and so on...

Wouldn't you expect the same results?

I don't see what on Earth one could prove by doing that except that computers do math in a very consistent and predictable way.

So where's the putative "smoking gun" supposed to be, and how could anyone who isn't both a genuine expert in structural modeling and FEA AND in possession of a humongous amount of detailed technical information about the as-built structure and materials of the towers- information that cost NIST a great deal of legwork to develop- hope to find it?

*Not gonna do that. My idea. Mine mine mine ALL MINE!
 
ktesibios said:
Getting back to the issue of computer modeling nd simulation, there's something that puzzles me about the twoofer quest for NIST's models.

If I were to give you the circuit file for the sooper-dooper zero-overshoot zero-attack time audio limiter I've been messing with in simulations*- AND you had the software to open it and run the sim-

It would behave exactly the same as it does on my computer.

If a third party were to use the ANSYS models NIST used in testing the response of the WTC towers to the structural damage and fire loads, AND do the same thing, i.e., let the model converge and see what happens, then remove the elements known to be broken at the next point in time of interest, set the temperatures of individual elements to those predicted by the fire simulations at that point in time, add the pull-in forces from sagging floors and then let the model settle down and see what has changed from the previous iteration, and so on...

Wouldn't you expect the same results?

I don't see what on Earth one could prove by doing that except that computers do math in a very consistent and predictable way.

So where's the putative "smoking gun" supposed to be, and how could anyone who isn't both a genuine expert in structural modeling and FEA AND in possession of a humongous amount of detailed technical information about the as-built structure and materials of the towers- information that cost NIST a great deal of legwork to develop- hope to find it?

*Not gonna do that. My idea. Mine mine mine ALL MINE!
Click to expand...
See, there you go being logical.
With their super-sekret-super-duper modeling skills, they will be able to show how NIST did it all wrong!

This from people who wouldn't know a boundary condition if they met it walking down the street, or a stiffness matrix if it bit 'em on the ass!
 
the only reason i can see for them wanting it is that someone told them they cant have it

like a child throwing a tantrum cause their mommy wont buy them candy
 
bio said:
So Prof. Jones stopped using it. Why?
Click to expand...

What makes you think he doesn't use it any more?

bio said:
Prof. Jones has proved explosives in the dust and our "debunker-team" here find nothing more than the mistaken use of a photo , which was altered in regard to the white balance. After recognizing it, he stopped using this photo.
Click to expand...

(1) He hasn't proved anything to the satisfaction of anyone but conspiracy theorists.
(2) He hasn't claimed to find explosives. Thermite is an incendiary.
(3) Your last sentence is a lie. You don't know when Jones found out the photo was doctored, and you don't know when he stopped using it - in fact, you don't even know that he has stopped using it - therefore you're making things up and posting them as fact.

Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom