Debate (not debase) a Truther

[ImANiceGuy]

Hello Skeptics,

I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

I trust that our resident 9/11 mod, Lashl, will moderate objectively, for the benefit of the entire JREF forum.

Finally, Mackey has me on ignore; I pissed him off sometime last year. If someone would be kind enough to apologize on my behalf, and invite him to this thread, his technical expertise would be greatly appreciated.

To better understanding my personal context if responding; physics and all related subjects should be expressed in semi-laymans terms. I cross-reference everything anyway (and suggest everyone does in this age of Internet) My specialty is economics and politics.

What I will try and do is bring to JREF the latest rebuttals from Truther websites; hopefully managing some back and forth between both sides. Don't worry,I'll share my personal opinion as well for your dissemination.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to). In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. This is where I'm at....

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

 

[alienentity]

Hey there. I haven't been posting or reading for a while, but I thought your questions could be directed to the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7. It's available online, and I think most of the info you're looking for is in it.

You don't necessarily need JREF to answer those questions, in other words. You might also be interested to ponder the fact that no scientific analysis equivalent to the NIST report has disagreed with the methods or outcomes of their work on that building.
Just something to keep in mind when framing criticisms.

cheers

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[Reactor drone]

You may also like to look through http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm particularly NCSTAR 1-5G that goes through the process of verifying the thermal models with real world experiments.

 

[Mince]

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

I can appreciate skepticism regarding WTC 7's collapse; what I cannot appreciate is people, whose totality of research involves Google searches, YouTube videos, message boards, and Alex Jones radio shows, claiming 9/11 was an inside job. It was an unprecedneted event, to include the crashing of heavy aircraft at great speeds into tall office buildings.

I hope we can all remain civil...I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

If you truly desire civil discourse, why are you taunting members one sentence later?

 

[240-185]

Truthers' way of "debating":

"Let's debate in mutual respect, you a-holes!"

 

[McHrozni]

In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data?

No, I don't, and I'm sure anyone that gives a millisecond of thought to this question won't, either.

It's simply not possible to control all bomb making material for getting into wrong hands. You can make an adequate bomb out of nail polish remover and hair bleach, as London attackers demonstrated. You can make a dangerous bomb out of fertilizer and diesel fuel, as Oklahoma city bombing demonstrated. It's just not possible to adequately control all possible ways to make a bomb.

It is possible, however, to control information of how best to demolish a building. I'm sure we can agree on that there are few legitimate reasons to want to know this, and plentiful reasons to control this information.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to).

what the heck? is this really NIST's reasoning?
that is laughabl.

Ansys LS-Dyna can be buyed or even illegaly downloaded.
the data about the building is hardly a big secret anymore. the reports contain alot of info and also other sources give alot lot details about the WTC7 construction. money and time is the only thing needed to do a LS-Dyna FEA.

this cannot be the real reasion from NIST, its laughable.

 

[T.A.M.]

Hello Skeptics,

I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

I trust that our resident 9/11 mod, Lashl, will moderate objectively, for the benefit of the entire JREF forum.

...and away we go...

Finally, Mackey has me on ignore; I pissed him off sometime last year. If someone would be kind enough to apologize on my behalf, and invite him to this thread, his technical expertise would be greatly appreciated.

To better understanding my personal context if responding; physics and all related subjects should be expressed in semi-laymans terms. I cross-reference everything anyway (and suggest everyone does in this age of Internet) My specialty is economics and politics.

What I will try and do is bring to JREF the latest rebuttals from Truther websites; hopefully managing some back and forth between both sides. Don't worry,I'll share my personal opinion as well for your dissemination.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to). In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. This is where I'm at....

1. Yes, having a global collapse of a skyscraper occur at the same time as two others do (for different reasons to a degree) is unusual. However, leaving fires to burn untreated for 7 hours is also...not the norm.

2. You'll have to post a well respected link proving your statement about why NIST wouldn't release the ANSYS files, simply because (A) it sounds like a silly excuse, and (B) IIRC they are available but you have to PAY FOR THEM.

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

Out of my area of expertise or knowledge. I would say clarification as to why such would be relevant, would be a good addition to the debate, from your pov.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario?

That's kind of a strange question; having some experience of thermal modelling, I'll try to explain why.

NIST modelled the thermal response of the structure to the heating it experienced from the fire. The inputs to any thermal model, invariably and necessarily, will be a physical description of the system being modelled, incorporating dimensions, material properties (specifically, heat capacities and thermal conductivities, among others), and details of the heat input to the structure. To carry out thermal modelling without an accurate thermal conductivity for one of the principal materials involved, when that value is universally known, would demonstrate so staggering a degree of incompetence as to be almost indescribable. To carry out thermal modelling without considering the thermal conductivity of the materials at all, as some members of the truth movement have hinted might be an accusation they would level at NIST, is beyond unthinkable; it's actually a logical contradiction.

So, although I can't prove they did use the right value for the thermal conductivity of steel, I'd be stunned to hear that they used an incorrect value; it would be akin to Nissan releasing a new design of car and forgetting to put wheels on it.

Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors?

Again, given that these were a significant part of the structural weight of the building, that NIST gathered and published their dimensions and compositions, and that the thermal response was explicitly modelled (necessitating a digital model of this part of the structure to be generated), it would be extraordinary if they didn't.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

....
Anything is possible, n'est pas?
....

No. That might be the point where your critical thought processes need some adjustment.

p.s. it's n'est-ce pas

 

[ImANiceGuy]

No. That might be the point where your critical thought processes need some adjustment.

p.s. it's n'est-ce pas

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

I have read through much of NIST's reports; I don't need .gov links please. I'll quote sections when necessary.

How does the collapse scenario change if the thermal conductivity values reflect the real values?

The collapse simulation data was partially withheld by NIST from some guy's FOIA; for apparent security reasons. This is fact(vague though, i must admit, no time to provide links). Ask yourself, is it likely that terrorists with the knowledge of long-span buildings weaknesses will then target these specific buildings? Not very likely.

I'm hoping that some members who are extremely familiar with the individual sections of NIST's final report on WTC7, can provide more information regarding their thermal conductivity values.

 

[Sabrina]

Not if you're writing in French it can't. It's n'est-ce pas (pronounced "ness pah") according to every French person I've ever encountered.

As to the security issues (which, frankly, is all I'm qualified to speak to since I'm not an engineer or architect or scientist); I think it makes perfect sense to withhold data that might help a terrorist or someone with a grudge against a particular company or just someone who wants to harm others. Granted, there are not many buildings built like the WTC buildings were, but there are some, and to release that sort of information without placing some sort of caveat on it as to the use of the data is, quite frankly, stupid. The government has to weigh the potential for certain bits of data to cause harm if released to the general public, and while admittedly it's somewhat subjective, there are guidelines in place that dictate what can and cannot be released without limitations. If the person who submitted the FOIA intended to publish the data everywhere they possibly could, INCLUDING locations where terrorists or bombers or whoever means harm could locate it and determine the potential weak points, then NIST did the right thing by withholding it. My two cents, for what it's worth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How does the collapse scenario change if the thermal conductivity values reflect the real values?

That's an even stranger question. Since you've started by asking whether the thermal conductivity values are correct, and received no clear answer, then one might assume that you still don't know whether the thermal conductivity values are correct. And yet this question assumes that the thermal conductivity values are not correct. What's your basis for this assumption?

ETA:

Ask yourself, is it likely that terrorists with the knowledge of long-span buildings weaknesses will then target these specific buildings? Not very likely.

Ask yourself, rather, is it likely that a government agency, in providing commentary on the after-effects of a terrorist incident (which was, remember, the second attack on the WTC complex), would prefer to be over-cautious in its decisions on which data to release, or would decide to release any and all information without a specific reason not to? NIST may be witholding data they should ideally release, and their rationale for doing so may be poorly-reasoned or even completely invalid, but even if so there's a very innocent explanation for their paranoia; someone is out to get them.

Dave

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...are you saying NIST is wrong..therefore "inside job", and 7 was CD'ed?

 

[DavidJames]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...are you saying NIST is wrong..therefore "inside job", and 7 was CD'ed?

He seems to have uncovered a diabolically clever new tactic, just asking questions.

 

[BigAl]

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

What "unprecedented phenomena"?

Expansion of steel and the risks of uncontrolled fire in steel structures has been understood and taught to firemen for decades.

 

[beachnut]

...state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. ...

Kind of paranoid. Anyone is free to do an engineering study on WTC7. 911Truth can't because unlike you they are not rational. The "state" does not prohibit engineering studies. lol, ... getting data on WTC7 could cost money; it is someone's work. I understand your frustration, to do a study on WTC7 could take years of your time, a super thesis for a few masters degrees or a PhD program dissertation. Life is hard, it takes real work to figure out things and it is not easy; 911 truth choose the easy road of spreading lies and delusions, and any rationalist can see that.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, ...

Fire destroying buildings is not unprecedented, this "unprecedented" junk is a 911 truth statement of stupidity. Repeating the standard cult lines make your claims of being a rationalist null and void.

...

cheers

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[URL="http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm"]http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm[/URL]

You should take this advice and read and try to start at the source and not listen to the liars and frauds of 911 truth and the fringe dolt cult members.

 

[TSR]

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

.
Not and be grammatically correct, it can't.
.

 

[Newtons Bit]

what the heck? is this really NIST's reasoning?
that is laughabl.

Ansys LS-Dyna can be buyed or even illegaly downloaded.
the data about the building is hardly a big secret anymore. the reports contain alot of info and also other sources give alot lot details about the WTC7 construction. money and time is the only thing needed to do a LS-Dyna FEA.

this cannot be the real reasion from NIST, its laughable.

You're making an argument that there's no safety concern as anyone can download/buy/pirate Ansys or LS-Dyna. This might be true. That said, not everyone can put together a model that can accurately represent a building.

1. You need to understand how FEA works.

2. You need a good understanding of how buildings are put together and how they work structurally.

An advanced engineering degree for the 1st, and a couple years of experience for the second.

These aren't common. In fact, I would argue that they are very rare. There's a large number of truthers on the internet who would like nothing else than to create a model of the towers with one of these programs and prove "inside job", or that NIST is a bunch of liars, etc. Except they haven't. I postulate that it's not possible. They don't have the ability. Most terrorists, or people who want to do harm to buildings, also don't have the ability. Giving them a large-scale fully functional model would help them in understanding how to bring down buildings.

 

[dudalb]

I smell a classic case of JAQing off here.
And I see the DC is beginning to suffer a relapse into Trutherism.