I found the missing Jolt.

[DGM]

One doesn't need to be an expert in infant bowel movements to tell that a baby's diaper smells and it is time to change them into a new one. Some things are obvious.

The NIST WTC reports tend to fit the baby's diaper smells scenario and it is time for a new investigation.

Why do you think none of the investigators on the scene reported any signs of explosive use? Is that why we need a new investigation, to ask them?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you think none of the investigators on the scene reported any signs of explosive use? Is that why we need a new investigation, to ask them?

How does that diaper smell to you?

 

[beachnut]

How does that diaper smell to you?

Have you told the FBI you know it was CD? No, you are stuck in a fantasy, where the terrorists taking planes were a ruse. Really? lol, what smells is your BS about 9/11.

 

[DGM]

How does that diaper smell to you?

Considering the absence of poop it smells like baby powder. Would you call for a new investigation to find out why the baby didn't poop?

 

[jaydeehess]

It was the job of anyone investigating the collapse.

.

They determined, through investigation, that there was no cause to test for explosives. You skipped that part.

No reason to suspect explosives, therefore no test for explosives.

Same applies for UFOs, and pixie dust.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is wrong. NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives.

"Admitted"???
No, NIST stated that they did look for a reason to consider explosives, found none, therefore did not pursue that line of investigation.


UFOs ,,, pixie dust...

 

[jaydeehess]

One doesn't need to be an expert in infant bowel movements to tell that a baby's diaper smells and it is time to change them into a new one. Some things are obvious.

The NIST WTC reports tend to fit the baby's diaper smells scenario and everybody knows it is time for a new investigation, regardless of the weird and disingenuous protestations of a few who for some reason don't mind smelling it.

Isn't it odd then that no professional engineering, architectual, or scientific organization sees the reality of the collapses in Manhattan the same way you , and the propagandist organization you belong to do?

Seems you are smelling feces where none exists. Seems you'd like to waste money changing that diaper without reason to.
OTOH, if you choose to raise the funds to change the diaper yourself ( by "you" I refer to AE911T of course) by all means go for it. It would be a change from using the funds raised to do much other than send Gage on a world tour vacation propaganda junket.

 

[DGM]

How does that diaper smell to you?

Let's look at this from everyone elses point of view.

There's this baby in the room with dozens of adults. This baby is roaming around sucking up the love of everyone in the room. You walk in and scream "that baby stinks". Everyone else in the room looks perplexed but the parents quickly grab the baby thinking it must have soiled it's diaper. Upon further investigation the baby was not found to be at fault nor did anyone else smell the offending odor.

You claim the parents and everyone else in the room is covering for the baby and want an independent investigation of everyone in the room. You question why the parents have not saved that diaper even though it was almost 15 years ago. Everyone in the room wants you to just go home.

 

[Axxman300]

Let's look at this from everyone elses point of view.

There's this baby in the room with dozens of adults. This baby is roaming around sucking up the love of everyone in the room. You walk in and scream "that baby stinks". Everyone else in the room looks perplexed but the parents quickly grab the baby thinking it must have soiled it's diaper. Upon further investigation the baby was not found to be at fault nor did anyone else smell the offending odor.

You claim the parents and everyone else in the room is covering for the baby and want an independent investigation of everyone in the room. You question why the parents have not saved that diaper even though it was almost 15 years ago. Everyone in the room wants you to just go home.

More accurately, Tony never enters the room nor sees the baby, but reviews videos of the baby three years after the fact. He then does calculations based on incomplete and biased information to "prove" that the diaper is soiled. Tony would also have zero diaper experience, while everyone in the room at the time has changed their share over the years, yet none would be considered a credible diaper source. Instead, he would site data from "Single Men for Dirty Diaper Truth" to base his assessment upon.

 

[Dave Rogers]

More accurately, Tony never enters the room nor sees the baby, but reviews videos of the baby three years after the fact.

Or rather, views photos of the baby years after the fact, and proclaims some of them fake because there are no accompanying videos.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Was the poop planted by the NWO, as a false flag operation?

 

[ozeco41]

Even more seriously - after the umpteenth time of making false assertions about the soiled diaper AND being shown that the diaper is not soiled - he continues in asserting what is now clearly a lie.

Many parents would quite reasonably be concerned about allowing such an untruthful person in proximity with their child. The persistent lying could indicate reasons for deeper concern.

Here in AU anyone intending to "work with children" - either paid work or in volunteer capacity - has to provide the employer with proof that they are not "barred" from "Working With Children".

 

[DGM]

Even more seriously - after the umpteenth time of making false assertions about the soiled diaper AND being shown that the diaper is not soiled -.....................................

but, there is no video of the diaper being changed and "they" did not save the diaper for future investigation.

We now need a new investigation into the source of the smell............

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My view is that the NIST reports findings are immaterial to his conclusions. Fire "never has and NEVER WILL lead to the collapse of a steel framed building". Those are Tonys' own words.

In other words... Nist wasted several years investigating a cause he contents can never happen. Therefore nothing NIST did or can ever do will ever "convince" him otherwise

In the famous words of Jurrasic Park... that's a big pile of.......

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

but, there is no video of the diaper being changed and "they" did not save the diaper for future investigation.

We now need a new investigation into the source of the smell............

No we don't, the source or the smell is between Tony's ears, he is the only one smelling it.
Perhaps Tony is not well had a Friend who constantly smelled bacon. He went to the doctor and the removed non cancerous tumor from his brain.
The soil in the diaper is all in Tony's mind.
I wish Tony well but I do not believe his diaper tails.

 

[ozeco41]

but, there is no video of the diaper being changed and "they" did not save the diaper for future investigation....

The analogy can also make more good points.

"They" did not keep the diaper because:
(a) There was no faeces on it (I would prefer the less formal word but it gets spelled ****);
(b) If there is no faeces - there is no need for a chemical test to prove that the material that is not present is or is not faeces (There should be a lesson in that for FF - if it aint there and hasn't been there - there is no point doing chemical tests to prove it wasn't there);
(c) (etc...etc)

I'm not so sure about your final point:

We now need a new investigation into the source of the smell............

Since when did a truther actually identify WHAT should be investigated?

 

[ozeco41]

I wish Tony well but I do not believe his diaper tails.

Me too - I trust that was a "Freudian Slip"...

....and not just a bummer.

 

[DGM]

I'm not so sure about your final point:
Since when did a truther actually identify WHAT should be investigated?

There had to be a smell, it's the only way this one person could be correct. Since "they" did not save the diaper you can only conclude "they" are covering up for the baby and the one person that detected the odor must be correct........Everyone else in the room was a paid shill..........

"truther logic" 101..........

 

[tfk]

This is wrong. NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives.

Wrong.
There are lots of was of testing for something. Not just chemical analysis.

Competent "If this, Then that" analysis is one of those methods.

They used necessary sound levels compared to audio recordings to perform that test.

The thesis that "perhaps explosives went off" was falsified by their analysis.

You could get your co-clowns to perform a meaningful test by producing some explosive / incendiary that could cut one of the massive lower columns in any of those buildings ... quietly an in less than about 0.05 seconds.

Good luck with that.

 

[tfk]

This will be my last post to you that attempts to explain anything.

You’re simply not worth the effort

And I have come to the end of my willingness to waste any more of my time on you.

We both agree that, during the global collapse phase, NIST’s model diverges significantly from the actual building during that time.

If we both agree, then why did you use the model? If it's not right, it's not right.

Because, despite the fact that a side-by-side comparison of the actual fall & the model might cause amateurs to reject the model, that is NOT the case with engineers who understand the both the power and limitations of computer modeling.

Because you are an amateur, you don’t understand the “power” part, and focus only on the “limitation” part.

However, that’s not really true.

Because you are a Truther, you focus only on the “limitation” part … if it’s an expert (i.e., NIST’s engineers) creating the model.

Because you are a Truther, you ignore completely the “limitation” part … if the model is created by a complete amateur, like Tony Szamboti. In this case, you conclude that “an incompetent engineer producing an incompetent computer simulation, totally outside his field of expertise, can not possibly be wrong.”

Quite the irony, no?
By “irony”, I do not mean a pile of washed, but wrinkled, clothing.
__

The reason that I use the model is the same reason that all competent structural / mechanical engineers would use this model: because it got several key, observable events correct.

You focus on one aspect, the late collapse portion, which is well into the chaotic phase, because that is all that you’re capable of seeing. Or admitting.

The events that happen up to the moment of collapse initiation are, to a large degree, deterministic. They can be modeled with a good degree of reliability, because the conditions of the components can be calculated very well and the interdependent event bifurcations happen on time scales measured in hours, minutes and seconds.

In the deterministic regime, small changes in inputs lead to small changes in outputs, and so the analysis is relatively stable.

After collapse initiation begins, the condition of the components is not nearly as well known (because all the failures have occurred well into non-linear stress/strain regimes) & those bifurcations happen on the scale of tenths & hundredths of a second.

In this regime, tiny variations in the sequence of events lead to large changes in outputs. This is the very definition of the concept of “chaos”.

Engineers & mathematicians understand the differences between these two regimes, and how much confidence to put into the details of each.

You don’t understand at all.
We don’t care that you don’t understand.

Most competent engineers would simply glance at the global collapse & not put a high credence into any of the details.

Most competent engineers would attach a high level of credence to the events prior to collapse initiation.

Just like Shayam Sunder, John Gross & the rest of NIST’s engineers do.

Amazing. Just another one of the hundreds of things about which competent engineers agree with NIST’s conclusions. But confound Truthers.

More “wrinkled clothes”.

Please answer this question:
Do you believe that experienced Structural Engineers consider this fact to falsify the results of NIST’s analyses?

I'm not an expert.

We are all constantly aware of this glaringly obvious fact.

You, on the other hand, constantly forget this fact, as you stagger wildly back & forth between “I am not an expert” & “I understand physics”. Or, as below, “I understand the limits of computer modeling.”

I can assure you: your understand the limits of computer modeling no better than you understand physics. Which is, in a nutshell, “not in the slightest”.
__

My non-expert opinion is as follows:

Your non-expert opinion, while amusing, is irrelevant to anyone except you.

I would say that credible structural engineers, solely motivated by the truth and not for any political reason, would agree that NIST's models are not accurate. The reasons for this inaccuracy are the subject of a separate debate.

LMAO.
No, the reasons for these specific inaccuracies are EXACTLY the subject of this debate. Even though you don’t want to talk about the reasons. You don’t want any answers. You only want to continue talking BS in generic, unspecific terms.

Tough.
The answers lie in the specifics.
The NIST engineers discussed these specifics in great detail.

You are ignorant of those discussions …

BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ THE REPORT.

Competent structural engineers do NOT reject the model because of those variations.

As a matter of fact, LONG before you ever came on the scene, NIST went into great detail about this precise subject.

Too bad you refuse to read the report.

If you did, you wouldn’t make yourself look like such an uninformed wanker, by raising objections to questions that have already been answered … by experts.

If you weren’t so lazy, you might have read NIST’s discussion of this issue in their report:

NCSTAR1A: 3.5 Accuracy Of The Probable Collapse Sequence
Where experts discuss exactly this issue.

And:
12.5 Comparison Of Simulations With Observables
(NCSTAR1-9 v.2)
You MIGHT have learned something. And MIGHT not come across, today, as so consummately clueless about this topic, too.

And:
NIST’s clear, accurate explanation for the variation between the model & the actual during global collapse: NCSTAR1-9 v2. 12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation

And:
If you were the slightest bit perceptive, you might have realized that NIST’s description of “growing & reducing uncertainties” discussion (presented in relation to the collapse analysis of the towers in section 9.2.5 of NCSTAR1-6) ALSO applies to the collapse analysis of WTC7.

And:
With a little extra effort, you might have found NIST’s FAQ page that addresses this issue:

29. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?
…

NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the “kink” in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.

Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, “Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.” The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

So there you have it. NIST addressed your “aha, gotcha” long before you even knew that it existed.

In at least 5 separate locations, NIST discusses the variation between the model & the video in great detail.

I’m done trying to spoon feed information to your lazy ass.
If you want answers from now on, you’re on your own.

I would also expect every credible engineer to demand access to the data that was used in order to determine if the results could be duplicated, and if the input data matched reality.

To no surprise whatever, you are wrong about this, too.

You have no idea what data was released by NIST & what was withheld, do you.

NIST has released ALL the info necessary for a competent engineer to construct a valid model of the building. I invite you to get off of your ass, download NCSTAR1-9A & NCSTAR1-9 vol 2.

Scan (there is no hope that you’ll actually read) all of 1-9A.
Scan the following chapters of 1-9: Chapter 11, 12 & Appendix E.

Then tell me again how “NIST has withheld their FEA model of WTC7.”

I have not one iota of doubt that you will continue to lie about this. You are immune from learning anything. You are not a thinking human being. You are merely a Cut & Paste servant to Da Twoof.

If you had a clue about any of this, then you might be able to figure out EXACTLY WHAT & WHY NIST withheld the info that they did.

But I’m certainly not going to tell you.

I would not expect a credible structural engineer to endorse the NIST investigation.

And yet, you KNOW there are hundreds of engineers who have explicitly endorsed NIST’s conclusions (including the 100s engineers who contributed to the report), which explicitly rejects the idiocy of the Truthers..

And yet, you KNOW that there is not one single Structural Engineering Association, one single Engineering Faculty, one single Structural Engineering company in the US, Europe, Japan or China, which has published a report rejecting the NIST report.

Not one single one of those groups that has embraced the stupid arguments of AE911T or any other Truther group.

You know that there are several papers, published by structural & mechanical engineers, that explicitly confirm NIST’s results on various aspects of the investigation. (i.e., Purdue’s analyses of the plane impact & damage, Arup’s progressive failure confirmation of WTC7 collapse, etc).

I’ve posted here several statements by structural engineers who explicitly reject the stupidity of the Truther claims. (e.g., the BYU engineering department rejection of S Jones’ nonsense, Dr. Astaneh-Asl’s letter to Boleyn, several comments by Bazant, the CTBUH letter, AIA’s letter to AE911T, etc.)

ALL the above is absolutely true.

ALL the above is 180° opposed to your “expectation that credible structural engineers would not endorse NIST’s (conclusions).”

So you have your expectation (in a field in which you are absolutely clueless). Your expectations are diametrically opposed to the 99% consensus conclusion of the entire engineering field (who are experts).

WHAT are you going to do?

Are you going to change your baseless, amateur, erroneous opinion?
Or are you going to ignore the conclusion of the 99% consensus of experts?

That’s not really a question.
I know EXACTLY what you are going to do…
LMAO.

I would expect that a credible structural engineer would demand a new, legitimate one.

Nope. Wrong again.
At least you’re incredibly consistent.

Credible engineers do not advocate wasting enormous amounts of time & effort, based on abject ignorance.

Credible engineers do not advocate insulting other credible engineers by rejecting competent, quality work because of the ignorance of clueless amateurs.

You know as much about “credible engineers” as you do about physics: nothing.

Even though I am not an expert, I do understand the limitations computers have. However, that is not an excuse for NIST to fall back on.

LMFAO.
Like you “understand physics”???

NIST “fell back on” no such limitation.

I do not submit the following link as a credible source. I only submit it for the purposes of discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifi...ulation_models
That link discusses verification and validation. Has NIST posted everything they did to verify and validate their computer models?

There is no “discussion” here.
There is only you making stupid, uninformed comments, because you REFUSE TO READ THE REPORT.

And me, leading you to the answers that are already written in the report. Knowing that my time is completely wasted, because there is zero chance that you’ll ever get off your lazy ass & read the report.

Verification & validation of NIST’s software, & its substructure modeling is a HUGE part of the NIST report.

Get off your ass.
Or not.
I couldn’t care less.

I would also refer you to Richard Feynman - "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." What real-world experiments did NIST perform to validate their models?

READ THE *********** REPORT, and you’ll learn.

Two thirds of the engineers who wrote the NIST report … do NOT work for NIST.
They are all independent, working in industry or academia.

Was their work compartmentalized, or did everyone working on the NIST reports have access to everything? Did each and every one of them have editorial review of the final report?

Brain dead comment.

EVERY SINGLE ENGINEER has exactly the same access to the finished report that everyone else has.

Far more important, they all have the knowledge to read & understand all parts of the report. Just like anyone else (apparently, except Truthers like you) can.

You’re stupidly suggesting that knowledge free amateurs can detect “errors & omissions” that expert structural engineers could not detect.

That’s pretty DAMN funny…

The NCSTAR Advisory Board is made up of highly respected Structural Engineering experts … NONE of whom work for NIST.

Is that some sort of a prerequisite for being paid to commit fraud? I'm pretty sure everyone likes money. I know I do.

You are projecting your pathetic lack of ethics onto others.
Try to learn to not do that.

NO Professional Engineer is going to risk his reputation by signing his name to a fraudulent report.

Are the last few pages not part of the NIST report? Didn't you see them?

WTF is this supposed to mean?
Do you seriously just GUESS that the last few pages of any of the report volumes contains signature pages?
THAT gets a ROTFLMFAO.

The last page of each major volume:

NCSTAR1: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-1: A letter from Joseph H. Solomon of Emory Roth & Sons to Malcolm Levy, PANY, dated January 25, 1968.
NCSTAR1A: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-2: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-3: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-4: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-5: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-6: Figure B–24. WTC 2 Case D aircraft impact damage to Structural Floors 82 and 83.
NCSTAR1-7: “This page intentionally left blank.”
NCSTAR1-8: NYPD & FDNY WTC Communications frequencies
NCSTAR1-9: “This page intentionally left blank.”

Of course, there’s no way for you to know any of this, because you REFUSE TO READ THE *********** REPORT.

But it is hilarious when you guess (so reliably “guess wrong”) about what might be in the report.
LMAO.

There is precisely zero possibility that a massively fraudulent report (as you assert the NCSTAR to be) would survive the slightest, most cursory examination by competent engineers. Who would immediately blow the whistle on them.

www.ae911truth.org
What do you suppose the 2,553 professionals who signed the petition are doing?

They are doing, precisely, … nothing.
They are sitting on their collective asses, producing nothing.

Show me the AE911Truth effort at planning on bringing an organized, comprehensive analysis to a panel of experienced, independent structural engineers.

THEN, and only then, I’ll conclude that they’ve stopped doing “nothing”.

Not one single competent engineer has published an engineering paper in any peer reviewed engineering journal which negates NIST’s assumptions, methods, or conclusions.

This might be true, but only on a technicality. Why is that? Don't you think AE911T would publish their findings in any journal that would accept them? I'm sure they would. The issue is that the major journals won't let them.

1. Because over 99% of AE911T’s “architect & engineer signatories” are complete, 100% clueless amateurs on the subjects pertinent to any of their claims.

2. Because the 1% who do have some expertise in the pertinent field (e.g., Ron Brookman) KNOW that they are wrong. And, at this late date, the only way to hold onto their egos is to keep their heads down, and write nothing that can be examined in any detail.

That is EXACTLY why they produce no engineering papers.

Not one of whom has satisfied the “published in a peer reviewed engineering journal” criterion.
Nor satisfied the “competent engineer” criterion.

Engineers don't have to commit fraud to be considered competent. You should really take some time to reflect on that statement.

NO engineer, who ever commits fraud one single time in his career, will ever be considered “expert” ever again. No competent engineers would ever commit the fraud that you are suggesting, even ignoring the ethical aspects that so elude you.

You should take some time to reflect on that.