NIST's Pellets

[Pardalis]

Even the trusses on the ceiling of each of the impact floors, i don't think the debris would go so far as to dislodge more than 50 ft away form the crash. Hell, it's vertical. as soon as a debris would've hit it, it would have been deflected downwards. Sure, It could damage it, and maybe dislodge about one feet square out of it, at best. But it wouldn't stick to the beam and keep tearing it apart while moving away from the impact. And it sure wouldn't pierce it like pellets, please.

bolding mine

Could you tell me on what do you base your assumptions please?

 

[Woody-]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the NIST did much more than just this "pellet" test on the fire proofing.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection

Chapter 7 Adhesive and Cohesive Strength.

20 pages of tests of the force needed to dislodge the fireproofing. The "pellet" test is found in the appendix of this report.

 

[HeyLeroy]

As Woody- pointed out, there's really no need. Leave the speculation to speculums.

 

[Gravy]

Your posts are becoming less and less rational.

Alright folks, I just had this awesome idea. Since Gravy makes fun of my on-the-spot-CT-speculation™, why don't we all share what we think about the SFRM damage, by playing a game of coloring?

I rest my case.

 

[HyJinX]

Sorry for the delete. This was supposed to be a private message.

 

[Yurebiz]

No one colored the NIST's simulations? Damn, you guys are so unfair. Can't even speculate under your own report's models?
If I ever produce a compilation of possible insulation damage versus fires, will you guys at least read it? Or ya'll just label it as SPECULATIONS FROM A 18 YEARS OLD and call for ad hominem's? Give it a try for once. This topic hasn't been discussed before, you know.

Anyway, I said I was going to answer the posts which I haven't answered to before. So here goes a long post.

Here we have the fundamental problem. You can't discuss the impact damage and the fire damage individually. They both contributed to the collapse, and any attempt to separate their effects is both misguided and ultimately doomed to failure.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This event was complicated. Attempts to "simplify" it are less than useful. There's a reason they used highly trained and experienced people to study it. If you're not one of those people, you'll be hard pressed to find any actual errors in their work. Most "problems" people will find will be a function of their own misunderstandings, and not errors in the report.

The NIST itself simplifies phenomena of the event by offering smaller models and formulas. Why can't we criticize it if it's within our reach? All I'm asking for is for a Insulation damage compilation, and all they gave up to the point I'm reading, are Pellets and vibration damage. My skepticism requires more, especially coming from a 1000-page report.

I do not, because the engineers who studied these issues do not. Your arguments, like those of so many 9/11 CTs, are founded on personal incredulity. You haven't read the relevant material, but you don't believe that the collapses should have happened as they did, so you invent improbable scenarios to satisfy your lack of specific knowledge.

Please read the reports. Your imagination is not a substitute for engineering studies.

(Old quote, yeah I know)
I'm at it, I've read the whole 6-1a today and yesterday (altho that's not even 1/10 of it all, might take a few months until I'm done reading the fundamentals I don't concur with. I won't stop, though.

Where are you getting these numbers? If it's from your own assumptions, then that's the problem right there. Does NIST require the bowing across 5 floors? I've never seen anyone claim this.

And would the bowing have to be uniform across the entire floor? If you think so, you need to explain why.

The NIST says very little of what would they require of such a collapse, considering they didn't analyze it - it wasn't necessary, right? If they did, can you show me what their exact scenario was?

NIST did not agree with this. You quoted yourself, in your first post in this thread, that they explicitly do not make that assumption: "NIST
made the conservative assumption that insulation was removed only where direct debris impact occurred..."

Where did you pull the 5 floors above figure from?

That came from the top of my head. Pardon me, but could you tell me what's the correct estipulation made by the NIST, or any expert which supports the collapse? Please?

My input is pretty weak but I would like to know what yurebiz thinks it would take to knock off the amount of fireproofing NIST claim is needed to handle enough fire to provide a grounds for collapse (and thats with LOWER BOUNDS).

Yurebiz why cant you accept what the experts say? Do you have any other reason then you dont understand? what makes you think this? any particular thing? You do know that debree was forcefully ejected threough the other side of the building, so why couldn't similar debree have enough force to remove fireproofing?

Yeah, I can't accept what the experts say. I have to ask questions first, read their stuff later. You know, common CT approach, sort of derived from skepticism as well. Before answering that question, can you tell me how much fireproofing does the NIST says it was necessary again? I don't feel like speculation on 2 factors at the same time yet again, ya'll call me bad names, and make me cry, and stuff.

I understand why you would want to keep the debate at the "laymen" level. CTist (not saying you are) want to keep it at that level because they are not qualified elevate it beyond that (but sadly that doesn't prevent them from reaching conclusions).

Does it seem odd to you that you've never read a detailed, thorough analysis refuting the NIST reports by a professional structural engineer, or have you? Now I've read CT documents about NIST, but they were not written by professional structural engineers and are not so much as refuting the details, as claiming NIST ignored what they believe are important details.

Well I have yet to read any concrete hypothesis about the collapse from the NIST as well. So I guess the concerned experts don't have much to debunk then, since most of the NIST's work is speculative data. Plus, they won't release the computer model they've concluded a possible collapse on... so what is really left to refute? You can't disprove, 100%, that speculative data is manipulated; that the input data is manipulated; if you haven't got their full simulations. Hell, no one knows how many degrees was inside that tower, nor how many trusses were dislodged. Have anyone got a camera and got in there?
Concluding, experts can't debunk estimations, nor testing reports. They could contest the simulations, upon their release.

One can also note that the inward bowing observed in the north tower was on the opposite side from the impact. That is indeed where the fires were the worst in the north tower. So you have inward bowing and consequent loss of load carrying ability on one side and on the directly opposite side of the building you have severed perimeter columns and consequent lack of load bearing ability there as well. Added to this are a few severed and impact damaged core columns and fire further weakening the core columns that are still carrying any load.
[...]
Now one can argue as much as one wants about whether or not fire could cause this sagging of the floor trusses. FACT is that there was inward bowing of the perimeter columns observed which became slowly more pronounced as time went on. This certainly could not have been accomplished by any fast acting method of causing a loss of structural strength such as explosives or thermite.

Cool, so I guess one can consistently argue about whether the trusses were dislodged from SFRM or not, right? That's a step foward. People here refute trusses from NOT being dislodged at all. I believe there's a chance on everything. Trusses bowing or not, that doesn't mean it was due to insulation dislodgement. That's simply inverting the cause-effect patterns. Same as load transfering. As far as any speculation goes, it could have been a few well placed cut-charges as well. The probabilities involved are only based on your way of seeing the different factors pieced together (AKA. CT DELUSION). I don't mind people saying that it could have probably happened this way, as high likely they might put it; I just can't stand them taking it as truth, for no concrete reason. Hell, even I say it's more likely the former. It's just the way it's done.. and the way it's "proven".. that bothers me.
I appreciate your input, I feel honesty is LACKING here, except for you and maybe a couple others.

I just want to point out that it was only the floor trusses inside the impact zone that have relevence in the impact-stripped steel-heat-collapse sequence.

We have photographic evidence of very poor insulation on the floor trusses.

It was these floor trusses that sagged due to heat and caused the collapse. Not the core columns. Not the exterior columns. Not any "beams". The spindly poorly insulated floor trusses. That's all.

-Gumboot

Ok, thanks. I've noticed that on my own way through reading (both links given and the NIST), and I'm sorry that I had previously stated that both columns and trusses had their part on it. Thats a fundamental "detail", although my points are still roughly the same.

I said I was done here for now, but I do have a bit to add.

Aside from the obvious fact that Dave is a Tory shill, he's made several instructive posts here about fire resistance testing and how CTs misuse the results of various tests.

This quote from NIST's Shyam Sunder appears to support that statement.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]However, that comment was made in 2004, before the NIST investigation was complete. I don't believe the final report supports the claim that the tower fires themselves were more severe than the fires in the four floor assembly tests.

However, I can think of some major differences between the test assemblies and the actual floors in the collapse zones:

1) The test assemblies were undamaged.

2) The test assemblies had new, intact fire insulation applied to a uniform thickness.

3) The test assemblies were subjected to a constant, relatively even heat with even ventilation, rather than to a spreading fire with uneven ventilation that causes uneven heating and cooling of the steel.

4) The test spans were 17 feet and 35 feet, as opposed to the 60-foot spans in the areas of collapse initiation (South side of WTC 1 and east side of WTC 2). This was an area of concern, as Sunder notes:

Yes yes I agree with all the above. Except that I thought you were a bit mild in explaining the ventilation.
But oh man, I tell you, I'm no expert, but if someone ever tells me that the fires performed at the NIST tests were lesser than the WTC fires, I won't even quote them anymore. And I'm not explaining why, I swear to God.

A global collapse as opposed to -- what? Did you think that only one half of the building should have collapsed, or do you think the moving portion should have toppled off instead of going straight down?

If the intact steel beams were sufficient to hold up the upper section of the tower, then it wouldn't have collapsed. If they were not, then there is nothing to stop it from collapsing globally.

Why do I make this claim? Think about it: There are a number of columns that cannot support the weight of the upper portion of the towers because of damage, and a number of others that can. If the building is going to collapse, then there will be a point in time when the set of columns that were previously able to hold up the building are no longer able to do this. This is where the collapse would begin, NOT where the columns have already been compromised.

I believe the WTC were the only buildings that ever collapsed. Plus Santa Claus and the Eastern Bunny did it.
Seriously now what does me having to believe "how should the towers have collapsed" has to do with this? Hell I've did so much speculation already. Stop beating me. Why don't you go ask the NIST what they think about it? Why don't ya ask for their computer simulation? Geez, stop picking on me so much, and start being skeptic against the ones who deserve it. I'm not the onw who says that the way the buildings fell is irrelevant to the investigation.

Patently untrue.

In fact there were more core columns hit in the south tower. The entire aircraft hit the building so characterizing it as near miss is simply ignoring that a plane with a wingspan over 100 feet completely hit the building from wingtip to wingtip. In fact the starboard wingtip came no closer than 10 feet to the corner column. The plane was also turning towrds the center of the building when it hit so it was heading towards the core. It was also faster than the plane that hit the north tower. Furthermore it hit one the side with the short span to the core. The building was square but the core was rectangular. this meant that anything that did reach the first core columns lost less speed than a similar piece in the north tower since it travelled a shorter distance to get to the core. Adding to this is that the core was longer along the path of the debris on this side than in the north tower so any dense object entering the core could hit more columns than a similar piece in the north tower.

One engine of the plane that hit the south tower went right through since it missed the core. Instead it tore through perimeter columns on both sides.

In the north tower another piece(a landing gear IIRC) punched out perimeter columns opposite the impact side. However each plane also hit the flooring differently. In the north tower both engines hit the flooring harder than in the south tower IIRC. This meant that going into the core the engines of the plane that hit the south tower lost less velocity to impact with the concrete floors.(which explains how one engine manages to exit at about 100 MPH)

Yeah I had read through that yesterday. But that is based on their computer models, ain't that right? The ones which disclosed graphs I posted yesterday as well. And we don't have full information on them. I don't see how the hell would the south tower have more core columns damaged. There was clearly more energy wasted when the plane debris exploded towards the immediate outside of the tower. Should have done less damage.
And yes i have seen that piece of debris. That did change my view a bit. I thought the core columns had stopped it all, on the WTC1, but seems like debris got through anyway. What I think is, since the explosions all try to escape through the path of less resistance, the plane debris would rather keep going straight foward untill it reached an escape point on the other side, rather than try to maze it's way out throughout the building. It does makes me wonder what kind of damage that could have done in the interior then. A wider range of dislodgement comes more open to my mind, but it's still not enough for my ideal scenario. I've included your thoughts on the model coloring images though, thanks for pointing that out.

I can't really comment on this thread, since I have 0 structural engeneering knowledge, but I do find promising that Yurebiz, an 18 year old, is at least willing to read the NIST report.

Just my impression so far.

Cool. What do I win?

The damn debris went all the way thrugh the damn building, you nutcase!
What makes you think it would not "go so far as to dislodge more than 50 ft away form the crash"
Do you even read what you are writing?
oops--I forgot! Cherry-picking is a random event. It doesn't matter what you say, as long as it's something.

What makes you think whatever the NIST think, or doesnt think?
Why don't you show me what you think, or the NIST think, for that matter?
At least I think for myself, rather than just thinking whatever the all-mighty Experts tell me to think. And they don't even say anything conclusive at all. Doesn't that make you think? Regardless, show me what you think so we can think together.
I'll refrain from typing the word "think" for a few weeks starting now.

I think you also have to allow for the effect of vibration on the fireproofing. When the planes hit the steel structure, it would have set up vibrations all along the interconnected latticework, which would have shaken off a lot of stuff as well, if the adhesion to the steel surface wasn't good, which we know it wasn't, based on the inspections done when they renovated some floors.

That, combined with the impact damage, could have removed most of the fireproofing.

One thing I noticed at the vibration formulas, is that they only account for surface detachment. Because most insulations go around the beams, they forget to account that it would be necessary to actually fracture the insulation so it would break off the trusses. On the upper beams of a truss thought, the ones in contact with the concrete floors, don't have insulation completely around them, so I could buy that some of those might have broke apart, close to the impact points, and in weak spots thanks to the irregular SFRM.
But still, all the NIST says about that, is that it could have knocked off some fireproofing, as supported by the equations (which do show a minimal amount of energy required, though the inputs are somewhat estimated). They don't go as far as to test anything, like they did with the pellets.
Besides not citing where exactly they think that kind of phenomena occured, they don't say it as a fact as one of the main reasons that insulation got knocked off. They barely say where do they think insulation was knocked off due to the direct plane crash either, if it wasn't for the few pictures made from the computer simulations. And they don't state that as conclusive either, they just say it's a possibility. (Hell, the whole collapse is a possibility)

As Woody- pointed out, there's really no need. Leave the speculation to speculums.

Has anyone in this board ever speculated anything at all? Isn't it the job of skeptics to speculate the reasons behind phenomena, other than the given explanations? You gotta speculate when there's no other conjecture around.

I'm a frigging CT and I'm the only one doing it. Not even the NIST has done such a thing; they just produce a shadowy computer model which no one has ever seen, and release a couple pics which show the POSSIBLE damage outlines, POSSIBLE insulation damage, etc. Heck, can't we all just for once be honest and share what we think? I feel like everyone is hiding behind the "Possible line". WTC collapsed because the event was "Possible". Islamic Terrorists killed 3000 in a suicide attack because it is "possible". Hell, I know it's possible, and I very well agree with you, it was very likely. But can't we for once, for skepticism's sake, speculate on ALTERNATIVE scenarios? Or is that too much for you? It's too much for frigging skeptics, to defy to anything other than a report based on SPECULATIVE DATA; to defy a commission report which you AGREE it's whitewashed. You get what I mean? It sure was too much for the NIST, hence they didn't solidify any scenario at all, and didn't divulge their computer models.

Please give input, I don't care if you want to ostracize me in the same reply, but please, tell me what you think about the insulation damage. Tell me what general area you're talking about, so maybe we can agree on a scenario, at least in these forums, as our government has failed to provide us with one. If you can't at least do that... then what the hell are you basing your faith on? GIEV INPUT, PLEASE. Thank you.

 

[Gravy]

No one colored the NIST's simulations? Damn, you guys are so unfair. Can't even speculate under your own report's models?

...Has anyone in this board ever speculated anything at all? Isn't it the job of skeptics to speculate the reasons behind phenomena, other than the given explanations? You gotta speculate when there's no other conjecture around.

That just made the "best of" truther quotes for 2007. Keep up the good work.

...It's too much for frigging skeptics, to defy to anything other than a report based on SPECULATIVE DATA; to defy a commission report which you AGREE it's whitewashed.

Name one person here who "AGREES" that the Commission report is whitewashed. I await your evidence.

...Please give input

I already did. I said your posts are becoming less and less rational. I was serious. Please stop and think about what you are saying.

...If you can't at least do that... then what the hell are you basing your faith on?

Science. Expertise. And experience with the real world.

GIEV INPUT, PLEASE. Thank you.

We have been giving input. Like most truthers, you simply choose not to take it to heart. I'm glad at least that you're delving into the NIST report. That's more than most 9/11 deniers do.

 

[kevin]

The claim is that it is impossible for an Aluminum 7n7 aircraft, traveling at 550 MPH and hitting a steel-and-air building, would break up into small pieces that keep traveling at some speed less than 550 MPH.

Gosh, haven't you learned to read CT yet?

I thought the pellet test was done to estimate the effects of the liquid fuel on the insulation rather than the aluminum airplane parts.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I believe the WTC were the only buildings that ever collapsed. Plus Santa Claus and the Eastern Bunny did it.
Seriously now what does me having to believe "how should the towers have collapsed" has to do with this? Hell I've did so much speculation already. Stop beating me. Why don't you go ask the NIST what they think about it? Why don't ya ask for their computer simulation?

You asked how the building could collapse globally. I responded by asking you how you expected it to collapse. Sure, I was answering a question with a question, but I felt it was a reasonable one. However, you then responded with this incoherent gibberish.

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. There's no shame in being afraid.

Geez, stop picking on me so much, and start being skeptic against the ones who deserve it.

I will, if you will provide me with evidence that anyone else is more deserving than you. So far, everything you have said has proved the opposite.

I'm not the onw who says that the way the buildings fell is irrelevant to the investigation.

Aaaand we're back to the gibberish. Very nice.

 

[Pardalis]

Calm yourself Yurebiz, you're going to give yourself a heart attack.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Yurebiz, especially because of your age. You seem to be unaware of what skepticism really means. Skepticism isn't about speculating just for the sake of speculating.

Here is some literature about skepticism and critical thinking:

http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

and of course:
http://www.randi.org/

 

[Yurebiz]

That just made the "best of" truther quotes for 2007. Keep up the good work.

Name one person here who "AGREES" that the Commission report is whitewashed. I await your evidence.

I already did. I said your posts are becoming less and less rational. I was serious. Please stop and think about what you are saying.

Science. Expertise. And experience with the real world.

We have been giving input. Like most truthers, you simply choose not to take it to heart. I'm glad at least that you're delving into the NIST report. That's more than most 9/11 deniers do.

Nice, be sure to include the pretext in the quote if you ever do. "NIST non-disclosed, SFRM dislodgement scenario", I'd appreciate it.

Gravy, I've seen you guys saying before, in this same forum, that whether the Commission report had flaws or not, it was only their own agencies covering up mistakes made on that day. Do I really have to dig a couple DOZENS of posts saying that? Taken that into consideration, they did LIE to us, as not being completely honest to what they think it happened; plus, they label that as the official story. If I'm wrong please castrate me.

I say it's our job to speculate what happened, because the NIST hasn't done so. It's not like there's a given scenario, or is there? Can you PLEASE foward me to a given official scenario to what HAPPENED to the towers? I am reading through the NIST and all I see are possible ocurrences. That's not factual, and can be debated. What the NIST has done, is similar to me coming here, saying that there could have been space beams ala Judy, and provide no factual evidence. Well, although it does seem less likely for that to happen, there's no factual evidence that the insulation could have been widely dislodged. There's only possible calculations, and no one gave me a n official scenario yet. Nor a single personal one, for that matter.

Is it anti-skepticism to SPECULATE under a non-factual premise? To try reaching a reasonable conclusion? WELL I'M SORRY then, I guess I shouldn't be in this forum then.
(And no, I'm not leaving. Ever. )

I thought the pellet test was done to estimate the effects of the liquid fuel on the insulation rather than the aluminum airplane parts.

Nope. As far as I know, at least.

You asked how the building could collapse globally. I responded by asking you how you expected it to collapse. Sure, I was answering a question with a question, but I felt it was a reasonable one. However, you then responded with this incoherent gibberish.

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. There's no shame in being afraid.

I will, if you will provide me with evidence that anyone else is more deserving than you. So far, everything you have said has proved the opposite.

Aaaand we're back to the gibberish. Very nice.

agglerithm, sure then, I'll tell you how I expected it to collapse. At least over a 15 second collapse range, and leaving the top portions mostly intact upon reaching the ground. It wouldn't be necessary for it to lean, but if it did, it should keep leaning, and not suddenly stop and disintegrate while smashing in an angle against the bottom part. If it leaned, I would further expect to see a surviving pile of floors below, along with a more damaged upper block (but still distinguishable from the rubble), since not all energy had been used in the collapse. That's my CT premise right there.
But that's another point. I could take such a collapse as seen, had there been enough factors contributing for it to happen. But fire-proof dislodgement doesn't seem like one to me.

I don't mind discussing parallel topics, but please don't take this too far.
And sorry for spilling so much gibberish. I just tend to respond you guys on the same way as I'm talked to, but I forget who's who sometimes. You haven't done so (at least to me, yet), aggle, so sorry for that.

Calm yourself Yurebiz, you're going to give yourself a heart attack.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Yurebiz, especially because of your age. You seem to be unaware of what skepticism really means. Skepticism isn't about speculating just for the sake of speculating.

[...]

I wasn't that pissed yesterday. I could have been more, but I even cut off some paragraphs where I had been quite more offensive, haha.
And please don't give me the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to be taken serious. This is a serious matter after all, and although I'm still learning how to take a stern approach, I'd like if everyone read the point and stop derailing.
Anyway, about skepticism...
I don't think I'm being delusional when I say there's no scenario, right? Because if there was, I'd be linked to it already. The only scenario known, to us, is the NIST computer simulations. And that's not available to a full extent.
Is it irrational to speculate what could that be? What blocks and floors in that simulation could have been insulation-dislodged? Sure ,if you don't want to speculate, I don't blame you, but don't come here saying it's all resolved when it isn't. If you want to say it is, then show me a scenario you find likely, then. It's not hard, I'm literally ASKING to be debunked here.

 

[R.Mackey]

I say it's our job to speculate what happened, because the NIST hasn't done so. It's not like there's a given scenario, or is there? Can you PLEASE foward me to a given official scenario to what HAPPENED to the towers? I am reading through the NIST and all I see are possible ocurrences. That's not factual, and can be debated. What the NIST has done, is similar to me coming here, saying that there could have been space beams ala Judy, and provide no factual evidence. Well, although it does seem less likely for that to happen, there's no factual evidence that the insulation could have been widely dislodged. There's only possible calculations, and no one gave me a n official scenario yet. Nor a single personal one, for that matter.

Emphases in the original.

Yurebiz, the reason people are coming down so hard on you is because you are, perhaps unwittingly, slandering scientists and legitimate researchers without first doing any research of your own.

For example: Regarding devising and considering other possible event sequences, "The NIST hasn't done so." What is your basis for that? What even makes you think so?

Have you ever been part of an accident investigation? I presume not. Team members inevitably speculate, as they bring their own experience to the table, across an enormous variety of fields. Your conclusion, that the NIST scientists were under strict orders to avoid thinking about anything other than the answer They wanted to get, is deeply insulting.

The reason you don't see much of this in the final report is because the alternate hypotheses the nutters would have them consider, including but not limited to beam weapons, thermite/ate, conventional demolition, mini-nukes, Godzilla, holographic aircraft, spontaneous combustion, UFOs, and mass hysteria, are obviously impossible to anyone with the faintest amount of scientific training. Do you really think their report needs a chapter to this effect?

Back in the realm of reality, there are actually quite a few hypotheses evaluated by the NIST in WTC collapse, and ones that have an important bearing on how we build skyscrapers in the future. In particular, would impact alone have brought them down? Would fire alone have brought them down? How long were they expected to stand? How long if fire insulation had been better? And so on. The whole question of floor trusses failing (pancake) vs. outer columns failing (observed progressive collapse) seems like a minor detail, but to those designing and building skyscrapers, this little detail is of profound significance.

What's important for folks like you is that if their findings in these areas turned out to be inconsistent with what we observed, i.e. NIST couldn't come up with a collapse mechanism that wouldn't take much longer, then NIST would go back and evaluate other theories, perhaps even reopening the wild ones. Most likely, though, there would be something more mundane but still new to be discovered -- say something about fire dynamics that isn't currently appreciated by structural engineers. The NIST investigation existed for the purpose of discovering new things. But only things that are real.

But they didn't. What they determined IS what happened, in the opinion of the best and most thorough investigation to date.

If that investigation made an error, their report is up for public review, and there IS enough detail to discover whether they made an error, or whether there is no consensus among engineers. Early on, this happened, as in the pancake vs. no-pancake discussion. But it got solved. At present, among people who know what they're talking about, there is no debate except over the finest of minutiae.

To recap, your questions make it clear that you don't understand the purpose or the findings of the investigation. I applaud you for starting to read the report, and I recommend you don't stop reading it until the above makes sense. In the meantime, you had best put aside your notions of what the NIST scientists could and couldn't do, because your opinion of them is misguided.

Just find some mistakes, that's all we ask. No 9/11 Denier has ever found even the smallest error in the report. But if there are some, we welcome your comments. Science is where it is because of critical review, and speaking as a scientist, we do not fear it.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, I've seen you guys saying before, in this same forum, that whether the Commission report had flaws or not, it was only their own agencies covering up mistakes made on that day. Do I really have to dig a couple DOZENS of posts saying that?

Yes. I asked you for evidence that we believe the 9/11 Commission report is a whitewash. Produce it or withdraw your statement.

IMO, you will do well to do more reading and thinking, and less speculative posting.

 

[Gravy]

Emphases in the original.

Yurebiz, the reason people are coming down so hard on you is because you are, perhaps unwittingly, slandering scientists and legitimate researchers without first doing any research of your own.

For example: Regarding devising and considering other possible event sequences, "The NIST hasn't done so." What is your basis for that? What even makes you think so?

Have you ever been part of an accident investigation? I presume not. Team members inevitably speculate, as they bring their own experience to the table, across an enormous variety of fields. Your conclusion, that the NIST scientists were under strict orders to avoid thinking about anything other than the answer They wanted to get, is deeply insulting.

That's well said. I recommend that Yurebiz read NIST's updates from 2002 to 2005 to get an understanding of the alternate hypotheses that NIST not only considered, but studied at length, including the FEMA's "pancaking theory."

If Yurebiz wants to explore his hypothesis that the scientists were following orders to accord with the government's wishes, he'll have to explain how two government-sponsored engineering studies reached different conclusions about the cause of the collapses.

Note to Yurebiz: this will require you communicating with the investigators.

 

[Pardalis]

And please don't give me the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to be taken serious.

Of course I'm taking you seriously, what I meant by giving you the benefit of the doubt is that I am willing to consider that you are not yet another arrogant CTist but are genuinely concerned with the facts.

Is it irrational to speculate what could that be? What blocks and floors in that simulation could have been insulation-dislodged? Sure ,if you don't want to speculate, I don't blame you, but don't come here saying it's all resolved when it isn't. If you want to say it is, then show me a scenario you find likely, then. It's not hard, I'm literally ASKING to be debunked here.

I don't know what you mean by "scenario", in French it means "movie script".

I don't have any expertise in structural engeneering so I can't really comment on how exactly the insulation was scraped off, floor by floor, but there is no reason to believe that the NIST didn't do a thorough job and that they are deliberately withholding information. That's conspiracy talk. The overall hypothesis they gave as to why the towers collapsed is sufficiently coherent for my layman understanding and even if there were some details that are not fully understood, which is to be expected with such a complex and unprecedented event, there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was an inside job controlled demolition. That "hypothesis" would require evidence of its own, which there are absolutely none what so ever. It's not because there are in your mind some details that aren't explained or don't pan out that there's necesseraly foul play involved.

That's the god of the gap fallacy, and you seem to be arguing from personal incredulity as well.

That's what's skepticism is all about: being critical of wild claims like controlled demolitions. The NIST's conclusion is not a wild claim, it's a working and completely understandable and coherent explanation.

 

[Woody-]

I say it's our job to speculate what happened, because the NIST hasn't done so. It's not like there's a given scenario, or is there? Can you PLEASE foward me to a given official scenario to what HAPPENED to the towers? I am reading through the NIST and all I see are possible ocurrences. That's not factual, and can be debated. What the NIST has done, is similar to me coming here, saying that there could have been space beams ala Judy, and provide no factual evidence. Well, although it does seem less likely for that to happen, there's no factual evidence that the insulation could have been widely dislodged. There's only possible calculations, and no one gave me a n official scenario yet. Nor a single personal one, for that matter.

Your never going to find an "official" scenario that claims 100% accuracy. Real science simply doesnt work that way, scientific theories are always given with qualifiers like "most likely" and "high probability" and they are always open to modification if new information becomes available.

 

[LashL]

Psst, Yurebiz, your persona is slipping.

 

[aggle-rithm]

agglerithm, sure then, I'll tell you how I expected it to collapse. At least over a 15 second collapse range, and leaving the top portions mostly intact upon reaching the ground.

The top portions were subjected to the same forces as the bottom portions. Why would they stay intact? They have the same construction, except for the hat trusses at the very top. Evidently, these were not sturdy enough to survive.

It wouldn't be necessary for it to lean, but if it did, it should keep leaning, and not suddenly stop and disintegrate while smashing in an angle against the bottom part.

No structural engineers were surprised that the moving portions corrected themselves as they fell. That's because the strongest position of the building is in the vertical, and so it tends to come apart and fall straight down as it leans over.

If it leaned, I would further expect to see a surviving pile of floors below, along with a more damaged upper block (but still distinguishable from the rubble), since not all energy had been used in the collapse. That's my CT premise right there.

Why wouldn't all energy be used in the collapse? What would it be used for?

But that's another point. I could take such a collapse as seen, had there been enough factors contributing for it to happen. But fire-proof dislodgement doesn't seem like one to me.

Of course it doesn't. Nothing in your ordinary experience can allow you to understand what happens in such a huge collapse. That's why engineers use mathematics, because once we start moving beyond the small, slow-moving things that humans have evolved to understand, the behavior becomes counter-intuitive. Only calculations defined in physical laws can predict what would happen, and even then, not very accurately, because there are so many unknown variables involved. It's often only in hindsight that we can truly understand what would happen in a given situation. That's why we have testing and experimentation.

ETA: Thanks for providing an answer to my question.

 

[Yurebiz]

Good evening folks, a fresh new week begins.
And here goes another hueg post.

Emphases in the original.

Yurebiz, the reason people are coming down so hard on you is because you are, perhaps unwittingly, slandering scientists and legitimate researchers without first doing any research of your own.
[...]
To recap, your questions make it clear that you don't understand the purpose or the findings of the investigation. I applaud you for starting to read the report, and I recommend you don't stop reading it until the above makes sense. In the meantime, you had best put aside your notions of what the NIST scientists could and couldn't do, because your opinion of them is misguided.

Just find some mistakes, that's all we ask. No 9/11 Denier has ever found even the smallest error in the report. But if there are some, we welcome your comments. Science is where it is because of critical review, and speaking as a scientist, we do not fear it.

Ah I see. Well I've found 2 errors up to now, if you may call them that:
1- The NIST does not disclose information on which specific areas had their trusses dislodged from SFRM.
2- The NIST did not conduct any tests to conclude how much dislodgement would be necessary for collapse initiation. They've only conducted tests where there were beams with, either full insulation, or no insulation at all.

What the NIST does do, as one can say, is that it prooved the collapsed initiation possible, under certain requirements. But does it attempt to associate the tests (pellets, trusses heating) with what actually happened in the Towers? Well, if so, then please show me What areas had had insulation likely dislodged.

I've been begging for this for some time already. I believe this is a crucial information which has not been disclosed, one which is essential for the NIST's collapse initiation thesis statement, as you know. By having no likely information on the subject, then I have no reasons to believe it. It would be the same as trying to "connect the dots" given in your traditional CT.

Yes. I asked you for evidence that we believe the 9/11 Commission report is a whitewash. Produce it or withdraw your statement.

IMO, you will do well to do more reading and thinking, and less speculative posting.

Gravy I'll try to digging for posts then. I'm sure TAM and Oliver, two of the most honest people out here, have spoken likely of a LIHOI scenario. (Let it happen out of Ignorance) You can ask them or try searching for yourself. If you really think otherwise then I'll post it.

Gibberish: LIHOI, being a scenario which would include elements within agencies trying to cover up their mistakes, and the Commission report merely trying to feed the people who questions them. It's not a far fetched scneario, nor a conspiracy theory AFAIK. I can't believe how people who call themselves 'skeptics' would push themselves to believe that the government has been the least honest on 9/11. They have omitted a hell lot of what really happened, be it because they were ignorant at the time, or whatnot. I don't want to keep this parallel discussion going, nor do I think there's any need for it. You know very well. Don't bring me an innocent stance like that, or I'll start going nuts. (like you want me to?)

That's well said. I recommend that Yurebiz read NIST's updates from 2002 to 2005 to get an understanding of the alternate hypotheses that NIST not only considered, but studied at length, including the FEMA's "pancaking theory."

If Yurebiz wants to explore his hypothesis that the scientists were following orders to accord with the government's wishes, he'll have to explain how two government-sponsored engineering studies reached different conclusions about the cause of the collapses.

Note to Yurebiz: this will require you communicating with the investigators.

You're crazy, I can barely speak english, lawl. I just type decently over the interwebz because I try to act cool. But in real life I'm full of crap. No real investigations are ever going to originate from this kid here. Nooo sir. Just the ol' regular CT-refuting.

So, (More gibberish below): Which two? FEMA and NIST? They came to different conclusions because they don't care about disclosing real investigations. If they did, then you'd see NIST's computer model released on national TV, right after it was done. The mere fact that the NIST doesn't analyze the actual collapse is enough reason to doubt if they had any intentions to investigate what happened. All I see is a luster they had, to gather potential data so to explain a predefined hypothesis. Ah there you go, trash talk against trash talk.

Nonetheless, Please debunk me by showing me what ever analysis that concludes which areas were likely to have their trusses dislodged, I'm getting tired of dragging this on.

Of course I'm taking you seriously, what I meant by giving you the benefit of the doubt is that I am willing to consider that you are not yet another arrogant CTist but are genuinely concerned with the facts.
[...]
That's what's skepticism is all about: being critical of wild claims like controlled demolitions. The NIST's conclusion is not a wild claim, it's a working and completely understandable and coherent explanation.

Nor you or the NIST can conclude, at the least probable, where was the fireproofing knocked off. If it was coherent, then they would disclose that to us. If it isn't likely, then guess what, you have an undisclosed computer model which you can't disprove (obviously, since we are not allowed see it). Accepting their conclusions is not being critical. It's just acceptance by association. They are experts therefore they are right.

Your never going to find an "official" scenario that claims 100% accuracy. Real science simply doesnt work that way, scientific theories are always given with qualifiers like "most likely" and "high probability" and they are always open to modification if new information becomes available.

Thank you Woody. Thank you.
Have they said anything at all though? I haven't even seen a scenario where they find it "likely". The ones they let us see over the web are those labeled "possible". I guess that's enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Yup.

Psst, Yurebiz, your persona is slipping.

I never had any persona to begin with, if that's what I understand it is. I've told you, I'm a 90% CTer who can't find enough reasons to buy a few, significant aspects of the official story.

The top portions were subjected to the same forces as the bottom portions. Why would they stay intact? They have the same construction, except for the hat trusses at the very top. Evidently, these were not sturdy enough to survive.

No structural engineers were surprised that the moving portions corrected themselves as they fell. That's because the strongest position of the building is in the vertical, and so it tends to come apart and fall straight down as it leans over.

Why wouldn't all energy be used in the collapse? What would it be used for?

Of course it doesn't. Nothing in your ordinary experience can allow you to understand what happens in such a huge collapse. That's why engineers use mathematics, because once we start moving beyond the small, slow-moving things that humans have evolved to understand, the behavior becomes counter-intuitive. Only calculations defined in physical laws can predict what would happen, and even then, not very accurately, because there are so many unknown variables involved. It's often only in hindsight that we can truly understand what would happen in a given situation. That's why we have testing and experimentation.

ETA: Thanks for providing an answer to my question.

Ah. I wouldn't keep this on, but what the hell, let's do it

They would have to stay mostly intact, because had they broke and twisted apart, that means that there was enough resistance below to crush them back. How can the downwards energy which was "overwhelmingly strong", be resisted back as to obliterate the upper part even halfway down? I reckon the lower part would suffer gradual damage over time, but that is on a lower ratio, not the whole block breaking apart and leaving nothing like a pile behind.

Why did it lean over in the first place then? If the immediate intact structure below was strong enough to resist it and make it lean, then why didn't the even lower and intact columns below couldn't keep making it lean? had it simply lean to the side, there would obviously be no force at all to smash the lower blocks. Leaning means there was enough resistance, in at least one side of the tower, and meaning, there was not enough initial force to crash it down. There was not enough initial force from the upper block to crash the intact structure below, in at least one side. Then how did it kept going down, on every side anyway? If the building wasn't sturdy enough, then it means that the blocks would have to first obliterate themselves in a pancaking style, before contributing to the collapse. But they didn't. The collapse wave was somewhat constant, and the blocks were literally being smashed at the same time it was pushing all down. Either the upper block should have been obliterated first, or it shouldn't have leaned that much.

Debris ejection accounts for potential energy wasted outside the straight collapse. The dust as well. I don't know the formulas to account for all that. But visibly speaking, it did not simply fall straight down, as some models some experts have presented. There were many exterior columns being shot outwards. Sadly there's no easy way to know how much of the structure did not contribute on the collapse, thanks to all the dust encompassing the ejecting materials. We know there was steel beams everywhere after the buildings collapsed, but that's a weak point as well, since the outer columns could have peeled off at the last moments of the collapse, or however you want to put it. It's a weak argument, I know.

Hindsight hasn't even helped us in this case. It's been more than 5 years already, and there's no open model as to how they fell the way it was seen.

I do not wish to keep arguing these technical aspects, (nor only because I have almost no strong points in it, but) because it is, as you say, too technical for us to understand through common sense. If you keep going, I won't ignore you though.

 

[CHF]

Yurebiz,

have you ever thought of bringing your concerns to an engineer?

Or better yet, why not write a paper on the collapses and submit it for peer-review?