I think this may be my last time responding to Soul. I really don't know how many times the correct information can be posted, but it's been done many times over in this thread already, and it's getting repetative.
your confusing observation with testing the hypothesis behind that observation.
There's nothing confusing about that. That's also the way astronomy works; without the ability to manipulate stars over large distances, astronomers posit hypotheses and work out the natural consequences of such, then "tests" to see if observed behavoir fits the model. Same thing with the NIST model: It is created not only from examination of recovered steel, but also from the observations of the towers behavior prior to collapse. What part of Jones's hypothesis does that? What part of Jones's work, for example, explains the column bowing and upper segment tilting? Or the temperatures on some of the recovered columns.
proves what exactly? again the hypothesis behind the observation should be proven
The behavoir of the towers
is a validation of the model.
only a unrepresentative fraction was preserved
And by now, after all this participation, you have to have been exposed to the fact that only a representative fraction was
preserved. For
further study. By NIST. When your argument implies that NIST did not look at all the metal, therefore can not have definitively commented on the presence of absence of explosives, your argument fails in two different ways: It fails because other teams
did examine all the metal as they gathered it, especially the combination of the NYPD and FDNY, and neither of
them noted any indications that explosives were used. And it also fails because NIST representatives would have had to look at nearly all the recovered steel
in order to identifiy the ones they were after. The fact that they only selected pieces from the fire and impact zones doesn't mean that they were somehow able to bypass components from all other locations; they had to examine everything that was passed their way to determine which ones came from those areas of interest.
Information
here is critical to understanding the facts behind the steel recovery.
NIST admit they did not test for thermite residue
And again, the rationale behind that, as noted in their FAQ, is that there was no "corroborating evidence" that they were used. There must be a reason to do such a test; no indications existed that such was needed.
Furthermore, as has been noted time and time again, explosives chemical testing would be the province of the law enforcement agency concerned with the suspicious act, in this case most likely the FBI.
the computer models were not valid they were "adjusted"
You don't even know what you're saying here. Simulating to various boundary parameters doesn't invalidate the simulation.
ETA: Folks, one of the engineers here - Mackey, Newton's, Rogers, or someone else - expounded on the adjusting of the simulations parameters and why they were done. Does anyone recall which post that was? I'm not finding it.
Furthermore, if the models were invalid, why is it that the
MIT,
Weidlinger Associates, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, and Purdue models all validate the same set of conclusions that the NIST simulation does?
iron spheres with the chemical signature of commercial thermite was discovered in the WTC dust
There is nothing about Jones description that specifies their genesis as having been due to thermite. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. The oxygenation does not contraindicate welding; how could it?
unignited nanothermite was discovered in the WTC dust
When was it proven that the red chips were nanothermite? Was the grainularity of the components quantified?
[/quote]
connections between thermite and NIST investigators have been establushed
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Oh my God... Ryan notes the expertise available to NIST and asks why they didn't recognize it's use? With that much expertise, perhaps they realized that the observations are inconsistent with thermite use!
WTC 7 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist
http://www.prisonplanet.com/wtc-7-emergency-head-was-building-collapse-specialist.html
but let me guess...just another coincidence?
Let's see, Hauer also had been the head of the Office of Emergency Management in New York, as well as a specialist in terrorism and biological warfare. Perhaps he was a good fit to be a managing director of a company contracted out to run security for the WTC? Especially given that it was attacked previously, in 1993?
Until you can establish that his specialty and employment with Kroll Associates had something to do with the collapse, then you're doing nothing less than throwing mud.
name one experiment that proves the sagging floor trusses caused outer column buckling?
What do you need an experiment for?? Go look at the blueprints!!! If the floor trusses sag, they pull the columns in!
Good grief, man...
although improbable it is certainly not impossible to plant explosives covertly.
Deus-ex-machina is not an explanation. The "improbabilities" are due to severe lack of opportunity, and absolute dearth of any post-installation, pre-collapse observations that anything in the towers was disturbed to the degree necessary to even rig a small number of floors. It is ridiculous to postulate such in the absence of even indications existing of such work, let alone evidence.
you misuderstood. the question i tried to articulate was that following: what is more likely to induce a total symetrical and near free fall collapse of a steel frame skyscraper (a) asymetric fire and structural damage or (b) controlled demolition?
peace
No, I understood. You're trying to say that a controlled demolition is more likely to describe the WTC collapse than your shallow characterization of the damage by the jets' impacts. You misunderstand how the damage propogated in the fire zones, and you fail to understand that the collapse initiation was hardly symmetric. Observe the tilt, for example, of the south tower's upper section.
On top of that, you presume that controlled demolition is the only answer for the tower falling as it did. You fail to recognize what Blanchard pointed out years ago: That once a structure suffers component failure, those components collapse downward.
The fire being "asymmetric" doesn't change the fact that the collapse follows the direction of gravity. That's down.
------
The fact is that Jones's hypothesis does not predict events like column bowing and time to failure. And is contraindicated by the lack of explosives or melting damage to severed steel columns. Until a hypothesis exists that accounts for all of that, as well as the near total lack of opportunity for emplacement, plus the lack of characteristic effects during collapse, plus the observations that the steel columns were separated by mechanical rather than explosive force, then there's no use debating further.
