So, basically, we should admit Christophera has made a point because we don't feel like arguing it anymore? Or is it that JREFers are the ones who are supposed to submit to all arguments? Or do you think Christophera will stop and go away if we all agree with him, regardless of how vapid or illogical his arguments are?
And where do they say that?
Oh? No data at all? So those steel beams sitting on NIST's campus right now are, what? We can't look at them and determine what damage took place? How did NIST produce all of those lovely images of exactly what columns were damaged, how much, what their load bearing capacities were, and their thermodynamic responses without data? Or did you mean to say they don't know "exactly" how much damage occurred?
I beg your pardon? The most technically advanced fire research facility in the US does not know any of those variables? Yes, they did know that, and I would highly suggest reading NCSTAR1-6 to find out exactly how they calculated all of that.
And how did they know that, I wonder...
I think I'm forever going to quote you on that. NIST also had no proof of space aliens, microwaves, mini-nukes or the spirits of the Hopi Indians, either. So why should they consider all of the competing theories that are backed by no evidence?
False, bracketing scenarios is meant to show that the hypothesis is still true within extremes of reason. If none of the columns were damaged, but the fireproofing was still stripped away, would the towers have fallen? Consider your answer to that question very carefully.
Please quote NIST in their own words.
Shouldn't you? After all, you took that statics class. Can you calculate the load on a beam by watching a YouTube video?
Wow! Science, engineering and the real world can be explored using mathematics and logic! Amazing!
I expect you to defend your beliefs.
If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it. That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point. On your nemesis, the LC Forums, I see concessions made to skeptics all the time. A concession doesn't mean a capitulation but you folks don't seem to understand that difference.
NIST didn't have all the data for an unquestionable computer model because they had to work with video evidence and what remained in the ruins. If you wish to argue they were able to fully re-construct the scenario then I'll leave you to that fantasy.
A few steel beams extracted from the debris pile does not constitute a complete and accurate picture of what damage they sustained where and when!! The building's steel took some damage from the aircraft most certainly. Enough to remove almost all the fireproofing for a complete floor? NIST speculated yes in order to make their model work, yet how could they know since the collapse distorted the evidence? The steel took an enormous amount of damage from the subsequent collapse of their buildings. You expect it was easy to seperate aircraft damage from collapse damage?
NIST had fire testing by Underwriter Labs. The tests proven inconclusive!
Your BS about space aliens, Hopi Indians etc. is the usual crap. CD would do what was observed which makes it a relevant consideration. Suggesting the absurd only reveals how locked your mind is to your dogmatic beliefs.
Bracketing also reveals that NIST didn't have an absolute set of data parameters. They did admit to adjusting input data and had to use an extreme case scenario with parameters adjusted to what they said was still realistically possible in order to obtain collapse initiation. If that's not
guessing I don't know what is!
Maybe Greening can sit at home and calculate with equations exactly what occured on 9/11 but even his supreme ego could not know the precise data that related to the unseeable internal damage of the towers. Like NIST, he accepted the plane crash and fire as the cause and proceeded to make the math work accordingly.
Statics gave me an appreciation of force vectors. Dynamics gave me an appreciation of moving forces. Imagination, which is appallingly absent amongst JREFers allows me to see beyond the box.
As a documentary video editor and a viewer, I've seen an enormous amount of footage relating to explosions as well building destruction. From footage of WWII bombings, to controlled demolitions, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, natural gas explosions etc., I've got a fairly good idea of what looks typical and what looks odd. WTC 1 & 2 didn't just gravity collapse because they were physically damaged by aircraft collision and weakening fire; they
ERUPTED! I see it..you obviously don't. I can only assume you don't want to see it because you fear the conclusion you have to draw and you'll miss the comradry of the JREF gang.
Then I watch the multiple videos of the WTC7 collapse.
Yes it had significant damage from the collapse of WTC1. Undoubtedly it had unfought fires. Even allowing for the non-structural engineer firefighters who had never before that day seen concrete and steel buildings felled by fire calling out in advance that WTC7 was coming down.
The firefighters allowed for a topple collapse zone. They never allowed for, or showed any expectation of a footprint-type collapse. They never once were quoted as saying they expected the whole building to collapse as one.
As an engineer, do you ever consider how unlikely it would be for a building to collapse like that without artificial assistance?
Buildings left to self destruct, collapse piecemeal and usually leave a shell standing. Even the extensive bombing of WWII rarely leveled a building like we saw with WTC7. WTC7 was modern construction to boot. Yet you folks can't even acknowledge a "hmmm" You are so dogmatic and blind in your beliefs.
MM
