Metatheory and the NIST report

[cmcaulif]

From this post, Gregory gets 39078.94 metric tonnes of concrete for tower 1 or 7. 81*10⁷kg of concrete for both.

 

[GregoryUrich]

fair enough, I'm happy to scrutinize various engineering writings supporting a gravity driven collapse, but I would also like to rule out CD if possible. Since no truther has presented a theoretical case for CD that can be evaluated on a scientific basis, this is very hard to do.

I read your post on the mass calculation, and yes, the mass should be corrected, but essentially, this will likely have a limited effect on the outcome of progressive collapse since it will reduce the overall mass, but essentially the proportions of the upper block to the lower will be similar.

And can you explain what you mean by 'crush down first'? If you are talking about what I think you are, I believe this is accounted for, but I'm really not sure what you mean so I'll wait to explain.

The proportion of upper block mass to lower block mass is actually higher in my calculation. But, most importantly the proportion of mass to the strength of the structure is much lower.

BLBG calculated collapse times based on the upper block crushing the entire lower block before collapsing itself after hitting the compressed mass of the rest of the building. Dr. Greening has done some hand waving about this, but it is clear from the SAP2000 core column data that the upper floors were weaker. In fact the weakest columns are between floors 104 and 106. It is through this part of the core, Dr. Greening suggests, that the rigidity of the hat-truss is somehow projected to the collapse front.

 

[cmcaulif]

The proportion of upper block mass to lower block mass is actually higher in my calculation. But, most importantly the proportion of mass to the strength of the structure is much lower.

BLBG calculated collapse times based on the upper block crushing the entire lower block before collapsing itself after hitting the compressed mass of the rest of the building. Dr. Greening has done some hand waving about this, but it is clear from the SAP2000 core column data that the upper floors were weaker. In fact the weakest columns are between floors 104 and 106. It is through this part of the core, Dr. Greening suggests, that the rigidity of the hat-truss is somehow projected to the collapse front.

I believe this is explained to some degree in Bazant and Verdure, from which the differential equation was taken, on pages 5-6 in the section One-Dimensional Continuum Model for Crushing Front Propagation(sorry, copy and pasting it turned out to not work well). It is also important to note that if part of the upper block has been destroyed, energy will be consumed in destroying it, but according to the B&V model, unless it is ejected out of the footprint, it becomes part of the layer of rubble at the collapse front, which has mass and velocity, and thus energy which it can transfer into the lower floors.

Although, this does not really make much of a difference because it does not have any bearing on weather or not a CD hypothesis can be formulated, which is something I would like to test, even if it is not your personal belief.

 

[pomeroo]

Engage this:- Who has the more noble cause?

We rationalists do. Our cause is reality-based and relies on reason and evidence.
Your cause is a tissue of lies, and its purpose is ignoble.

The person striving to share his fears for the way of life he holds dear,

Funny you should put it like that. The goal of the conspiracy liars is to absolve the jihadists of all wrongdoing. Does the "way of life you hold dear" involve stoning adulterers, sexually mutilating female babies, and burying homosexuals alive?

whilst risking ridicule and worse, against the hatred of a group of people intent on shouting down every plea for consideration he makes, OR the "Fanatical Forum Freedom Fighters" waging a war on ignorance, in defence of 'the dead' and their highly honorable members of govt. (who somehow are unable to defend their selves against a rag-tag army of morons, and traitors out to make a quick buck.) When the govt. you trust implicitly

Bzzzt!

You're lying again.

has marched the whole world on to the plains of Armageddon, will you offer your apologies then? And don't ask me, "Where are my facts", or I will scream.(Get ready to cover your ears! )

Armageddon is a mythical battle, an appropriate reference for a movement supported solely by myths. We will apologize as soon as your evil movement produces actual evidence for its claims. There is no need to ask you to show facts. You can't: you have none.

 

[beachnut]

The proportion of upper block mass to lower block mass is actually higher in my calculation. But, most importantly the proportion of mass to the strength of the structure is much lower.

BLBG calculated collapse times based on the upper block crushing the entire lower block before collapsing itself after hitting the compressed mass of the rest of the building. Dr. Greening has done some hand waving about this, but it is clear from the SAP2000 core column data that the upper floors were weaker. In fact the weakest columns are between floors 104 and 106. It is through this part of the core, Dr. Greening suggests, that the rigidity of the hat-truss is somehow projected to the collapse front.

Where is your paper? You are the only one waving hands and trying to join the Ross camp of wrong and woo. Where is your work published on this. It appears you have no point and no conclusions anyway, except to sign the petition of woo. So where are your numbers again? I missed your post telling me where your work is.

 

[jay howard]

Does anyone want to explain, or even understand Jones's reasons for making up thermite?

In your world, do S. Jones theories just make your problems go away?

Does the mere mention of thermite make the problems with the NIST theory disappear?

No. If one thing is clear from participating in this site, it is that supporters of the official account will do anything and everything to avoid asking uncomfortable questions about the NIST theory. Preferring instead to play "ground-clearing" with the assumption that if they can dismiss all other theories, and not ask difficult questions about their own position, they "win".

Of course, this is only good as a psychological technique--not an actual honest weighing of the evidence against probabilities. You are under the impression that if the NIST theory is wrong or incomplete, then Jones must be right. But for the same reasons your approach doesn't work, that doesn't follow either. We should be able to talk about these things openly, without resorting to insults or binding our egos to conclusions. Should.

Is it possible you can respond to my question without referring to S. Jones?

 

[Gravy]

Does anyone want to explain, or even understand NIST's reasons for beefing up the simulations?

Put a penny on the tonearm, young man. Your needle's skipping.

 

[beachnut]

after a peer review of your posts, you have failed to live up to the OP

In your world, do S. Jones theories just make your problems go away?

Does the mere mention of thermite make the problems with the NIST theory disappear?

No. If one thing is clear from participating in this site, it is that supporters of the official account will do anything and everything to avoid asking uncomfortable questions about the NIST theory. Preferring instead to play "ground-clearing" with the assumption that if they can dismiss all other theories, and not ask difficult questions about their own position, they "win".

Of course, this is only good as a psychological technique--not an actual honest weighing of the evidence against probabilities. You are under the impression that if the NIST theory is wrong or incomplete, then Jones must be right. But for the same reasons your approach doesn't work, that doesn't follow either. We should be able to talk about these things openly, without resorting to insults or binding our egos to conclusions. Should.

Is it possible you can respond to my question without referring to S. Jones?

No thermite until an idiot, Jones, made it up out of thin air. Just made it up one day in late 2005. Why? Jones started his own journal because he was turned down with his lies everywhere.

I do not need the NIST report to understand 9/11, and you have failed to show it invalid. If you would read and understand all of NIST you may have had a chance. NIST is not needed to understand, but it is a test for truthers, and when they messe up simple ideas they are exposed as fools and people trying to make up stuff about 9/11.

Show me some facts for thermite being used on 9/11. (do not forget the WTC was welded and that means there was melted steel at the WTC in the 70s, good job Sherlock). Show me how they used it. Tell me why Jones presents columns cut during clean up after 9/11 as proof of thermite and actually telling lies. Explain why the same iron is in my backyard that Jones has found at the WTC apartment in some woman's dust from her living room? Tell me why Jones is unable to do simple physics? Why are you a thermite guy? Why have you failed to successes showing NIST is what ever? Do not take a magnet to your back yard, you may have been thermited look ago.

You should go to college and got a degree in engineering or science, then you may be able to understand 9/11 like most rational people; even smart kids in high school have better ability to think for themselves than the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Is it possible you will ever learn how to apply you own methods posted in the OP? Why waste time, your thermite theories are pure bunk made up by Jones 4 years after 9/11. Jones shows people thermite, like it is his only trick, and everyone goes, wow.

You have failed to show NIST to be invalid. The only thing you have show is you want to say, Thermite.

Post 265, defending bs of microspheres, Jones again.
Post 290, Jones appears again in microspheres
Post 369 microspheres
Post 382 microspheres
Post 463 microspheres

I stopped counting a long time ago how many times you wanted to say " microspheres"! Poor Jones, and you, why are you attacking NIST. It is not needed to explain the big picture.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If one thing is clear from participating in this site, it is that supporters of the official account will do anything and everything to avoid asking uncomfortable questions about the NIST theory. Preferring instead to play "ground-clearing" with the assumption that if they can dismiss all other theories, and not ask difficult questions about their own position, they "win".

If one thing is clear from participating in this site (and other sites), it is that troothers will do anything and everything to avoid giving direct answers and making specific claims. Of course, this is only good as a psychological technique--not an actual honest weighing of the evidence against probabilities.

You have yet, despite being requested by several respondents, to give any reason why any of the issues with the NIST report that you've brought up have any significant relevance to the question of whether the towers collapsed solely because of impact damage and fire or if other factors were involved.

 

[jay howard]

Is it possible you can respond to my question without referring to S. Jones?

No thermite until an idiot, Jones, made it up out of thin air. Just made it up one day in late 2005. Why? Jones started his own journal because he was turned down with his lies everywhere.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

I do not need the NIST report to understand 9/11, and you have failed to show it invalid.

I'm not trying to show it's "invalid", you effin retard. It's an inductive argument. Please graduate highschool before your next response.

If you would read and understand all of NIST you may have had a chance.

If you understand it better, then simply tell me why they beefed up their simulations as I asked here.

NIST is not needed to understand, but it is a test for truthers, and when they messe up simple ideas they are exposed as fools and people trying to make up stuff about 9/11.

Why is "NIST not needed to understand"? Sounds like an excuse for not understanding it.

Show me some facts for thermite being used on 9/11.

Again with the thermite. That's NOT what I'm trying to convince anyone of. Why do you attempt to engage in discussion when, after nearly 1000 posts, you STILL do not understand what this thread is about?

Only goes to show what I was saying earlier: that you bring up thermite whenever you want to avoid the debate. Just a distraction.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Gravy]

Why do you attempt to engage in discussion when, after nearly 1000 posts, you STILL do not understand what this thread is about?

My irony meter just exploded, and no explosives were involved!

 

[GlennB]

...
Only goes to show what I was saying earlier: that you bring up thermite whenever you want to avoid the debate. Just a distraction.

A number of times you have claimed there were temperatures in the buildings/pile that exceeded those encountered in office fires.

A number of times you have been asked for *your* theory of how these "excessive" temperatures might have been produced.

So far you have refused to answer that simple question.

jay - please now - finally - tell us what *you* think caused the inexplicably high temperatures. Please ?? Finally ?? Is that too much to ask ??

 

[jay howard]

If one thing is clear from participating in this site (and other sites), it is that troothers will do anything and everything to avoid giving direct answers and making specific claims.

I've made specific claim after specific claim here. Or are you just making a generalization about "twoofers"?

You have yet, despite being requested by several respondents, to give any reason why any of the issues with the NIST report that you've brought up have any significant relevance to the question of whether the towers collapsed solely because of impact damage and fire or if other factors were involved.

"Yet"? Are you serious? Try the search feature for my posts. Specifically, my dialogue with R. Mackey.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not trying to show it's "invalid", you effin retard. It's an inductive argument. Please graduate highschool before your next response.

I am keeping this simple for you Jay, you have no idea what you are doing, you OP must of taken you days to put together, and just a post or two to see you were out of your league.

Why is "NIST not needed to understand"? Sounds like an excuse for not understanding it.

No, it is simple English, for me, I am a pilot and I need simple instructions. NIST, the entire report is not needed to understand what happen on 9/11. You are attacking NIST and have missed the hundreds of independent research going on about 9/11 that has already made improvements to save people in the future with better designed buildings and fire protection. WTC7 is an example of lessons learned. While all you do is make up junk about 9/11 and even then you can't say one thing about 9/11. You just ask questions about NIST, and failed to even live up to your OP.

Again with the thermite. That's NOT what I'm trying to convince anyone of. Why do you attempt to engage in discussion when, after nearly 1000 posts, you STILL do not understand what this thread is about?

You have mentioned the work of Jones many times - (stop saying micro spheres, and you better check your back yard, they are there too) You keep bringing up microspheres, why?
Post 265, defending bs of microspheres, Jones again.
Post 290, Jones appears again in microspheres
Post 369 microspheres
Post 382 microspheres
Post 463 microspheres

Only goes to show what I was saying earlier: that you bring up thermite whenever you want to avoid the debate. Just a distraction.

There is no debate with you, you just have questions and zero facts. You keep bringing up Jones stuff cause it is your bag. Microspheres..............

..", you effin retard. ...

I was born this way, thank you

 

[beachnut]

op

Why do you attempt to engage in discussion when, after nearly 1000 posts, you STILL do not understand what this thread is about?

I watched as you posted the OP. Then I looked at the NIST theory/ideas on the collapse and I saw it met Falsifiability; without having to think but a few seconds I could see it met the Falsifiability part of the OP. I was hoping you could see it and then wondered why something so easy to see was even in the OP. But you never agreed with something so easy, you should have been able to present why NIST met Falsifiability, but you failed. Have you changed your mind now, or just asking questions that continue to prove NIST's Falsifiability as you post. IRONY

You should have opened up with the fact the NIST theory met that criteria. But instead you proved you could not see it! You failed, and you posted the OP.

Then you keep trying to stick in the Jones work and you tap dance, and ask questions. I expected you would fail after I witnessed you had no clue how to apply the very ideas you posted in your OP.

The thread has come down to the fact you have no rational ideas on 9/11 and you just ask questions. Too bad you do not have a clue or anything to present about 9/11.

HINT. If you ask a question tell us what you think about the question and why.. If you can not do the work, do not start the project you are unable to compete in. Or are you some super duper scientist or engineer holding back the big guns? What is your point, you failed to understand you own OP. That is how the tread is going.

Originally Posted by jay howard
..", you effin retard. ...

Sorry but even a person of my diminished capacity can see you fail the op and what to present Jones junk, but can not do since you have not made progress with the op as you thought you could.

by jay howard "Nevertheless, nothing in the buildings or the aircraft can account for the presence of potassium, manganese or sulfur."

You say the funniest things. Jay, there are tons of sulfur in the WTC. Oops! (wallboard!!!) strike one
Lots of manganese, in the cement, paint, steel coating. strike two
Lots of potassium, in the cement, . strike three
out

These are the top elements found at the WTC, in the dust, and from thing in the WTC.
Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, sulfur, iron, Aluminum (the whole exterior of the WTC was made with Al), Organic Carbon, Carbonate Carbon, Sodium, potassium, titanium, barium, strontium, zinc, manganese.

 

[Gravy]

Please graduate highschool before your next response.

High school is two words.

 

[pomeroo]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

I'm not trying to show it's "invalid", you effin retard. It's an inductive argument. Please graduate highschool before your next response.

Originally, you asked if the NIST Report was falsifiable. It has been shown by many posters to be falsifiable in various ways. You keep going on about something.

If you understand it better, then simply tell me why they beefed up their simulations as I asked here.

Hasn't this disingenuous question been answered by R. Mackey rather definitively?

Why is "NIST not needed to understand"? Sounds like an excuse for not understanding it.

Almost all engineers (real ones) understood why the Towers collapsed before NIST issued its final report. Is your question serious, or are you just vamping as usual?

Again with the thermite. That's NOT what I'm trying to convince anyone of. Why do you attempt to engage in discussion when, after nearly 1000 posts, you STILL do not understand what this thread is about?

Only goes to show what I was saying earlier: that you bring up thermite whenever you want to avoid the debate. Just a distraction.

As it has been shown redundantly that the NIST Report is falsifiable, it's high time you told us what this thread is about.

 

[jay howard]

Post 265, defending bs of microspheres, Jones again.
Post 290, Jones appears again in microspheres
Post 369 microspheres
Post 382 microspheres
Post 463 microspheres

There is no debate with you, you just have questions and zero facts. You keep bringing up Jones stuff cause it is your bag. Microspheres..............I was born this way, thank you

How did you manage to miss the fact that these references to ferrous microspheres were from the USGS?

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that the United States Geological Survey found tiny, iron-based spherules?

The reason I didn't bring up Jones is because no one here accepts his science to begin with. Therefore, I didn't bring him up. Do you dismiss the existence of these spheres from the USGS as well?

 

[jay howard]

I watched as you posted the OP. Then I looked at the NIST theory/ideas on the collapse and I saw it met Falsifiability...

Really? How. Maybe you could expand on that just a nudge?

What conditions could demonstrate the NIST theory to be false? What would have to be the case in order for a rational person to say "hey, that a lousy explanation for what happened on 9/11."?

Give it a try. You will fail. More likely you will put words in my mouth and declare victory.

 

[jay howard]

Originally, you asked if the NIST Report was falsifiable. It has been shown by many posters to be falsifiable in various ways. You keep going on about something.

How? What conditions would demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

You too will be unable to show this. You too will likely not even attempt to answer this question.

Show me this, and you win. I go away with my tail between my legs!