The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[aggle-rithm]

I'm saying someone could build a real life test corroborating the computer models IF we knew the specific parameters to apply.

Again, it should be something like "steel trusses will exhibit f failure modes at exposure to t temp for m minutes." Undoubtedly it will be more detailed, but the more detailed, the more precisely a test can be constructed to verify it.


.

Don't you think it would be simpler to come up with a theory that fits the evidence better than what NIST has proposed? I assume you have such a theory in mind.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. "Model" refers to the computer simulations. As distinct from a "real life" test.

You misunderstand me.

The NIST FEA certainly is falsifiable, just devise another FEA, come at the problem slightly differently. AS pointed out by Ryan there have been several such models done and they all point to a global collapse.

It is also falsifiable in that if you want to check up on the details of NIST's own FEA you can do so. All they want is to be paid for it.

He also points out that simply re-running the NIST FEA is useless as it will, definitiely, indicate the same result as before. I do recall a fellow student in college who would use his calculator to do any math thrown at him including division by ten. I asked him once if he somehow expected the answer to be different depending on how many times he did the very same calc.(snarky I was, but the bozo was my lab partner and a dead weight) Re-running the NIST FEA would serve what purpose other than to see if the computer will crunch the same numbers and formulae and arrive at the same conclusions?

As for testability, there is one TM theory though that I have wondered about and have not received an answer yet. that has to do with the severing of vertical columns using thermite/thermate. Pop-sci tried this out and failed and in the program we then see several TM big guns attack the test as done by Popular Science. However, it remains testable and yet as far as I know there has been no attempt by the TM to illustrate the cutting of a large vertical column using thermite.
So why not? Well in the Pop-sci show we are told that the compound used was not normal run-of-the-mill thermite but instead a super-nano-thermite that one cannot obtain. This now puts the TM theory in the same camp as the creationist claim. An unobtainable and ill-defined material has been postulated as the having been used in the destruction of the towers. Its untestable and unfalsifiable.

Same goes for the Judy Wood directed energy weapon, and mini-(non-radiation emitting)nukes.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Again, it should be something like "steel trusses will exhibit f failure modes at exposure to t temp for m minutes." Undoubtedly it will be more detailed, but the more detailed, the more precisely a test can be constructed to verify it.


.

This isn't possible. Engineering involves a large amount of probability and statistics. Most capacities (for design and analysis) are based upon a minimum percentile of similar members failing at a stress greater than their respective capacity. There are further reductions on the susceptibility to loss of strength due to contractor error (this is particularly true in anchor bolts and welding). Steel mills will always supply steel that is stronger than what is specified, sometimes even selling a higher grade as a lower grade (this is common with A572 and A36).

Assuming that the structure is correctly designed and, even more fantastical: constructed correctly, there is no way to know exactly what the capacity of each individual element is. And if the building was designed with economy in mind (as most are), then there are various failure modes with similar capacities. Statistical guesses can be made, sure, but it's not relevant.

Does this CONNECTOR fail? Does the model fail globally when x number of connections fail? Is there anything that can be done to easily prevent this collapse initiation in the future? These are the questions that engineers are interested in. Not in recreating the exact conditions, because that is impossible and a pointless waste of resources to boot.

Without these exact capacities, there is no way to model exactly what happened or the ridiculous "live test" simulation that you have suggested. They could create an enveloped test, but the idea that they can come up with the exact point, like the point at which water boils, is just plain flat out ridiculous and belies a complete ignorance of how engineering works.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm saying someone could build a real life test corroborating the computer models IF we knew the specific parameters to apply.

Again, it should be something like "steel trusses will exhibit f failure modes at exposure to t temp for m minutes." Undoubtedly it will be more detailed, but the more detailed, the more precisely a test can be constructed to verify it.


.

So your problem with NIST or any other FEA done on this, is that they did not get detailed enough at every element of not enough elements?

You do realize that every time you introduce another parameter or detail to a calculation, that you also increase the magnitude of the error and in order to reduce that error you must run the program again using those parameters pushed to the extremes of your ability to accurately report them? For instance if you say that item 'A' of mass 'm' is moving at velocity 'v' you must include the margin of error for both mass and velocity and in any calculations done you would run it at the extremes of your error margin for both parameters. Now if you can further refine those calulations by somehow including the length of the object you also have to include the margin or error of that parameter and so on and so forth.

What you are then asking for is for the goalposts to be moved. Basically you are stating that .. 'or sure the FEAs done show global collapse but they are not detailed enough, do it again, spend double or triple what you spent before, take twice or three times the length of time to do it' Then there is no garuntee that if it was done that you would not then say.., 'not good enough, spend more time and money and prove it to me with more detail' and eventually all the errors will add up and lo and behold within the margin of error will be a structure that does not globally collapse, you claim NIST was wrong and that 911 was an inside job.

 

[jay howard]

None of this is covered here? I have to admit I'm still puzzled as to what you lack.

# NIST NCSTAR 1-5B: Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
# NIST NCSTAR 1-5C: Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
# NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
# NIST NCSTAR 1-5E: Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
# NIST NCSTAR 1-5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
# NIST NCSTAR 1-5G: Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers

Again, I don't think it's controversial to say that in a complex system like the crash site of the towers, there can be all kinds of factors that the model designers may be leaving out or over-or underestimating. That's why a particular principle should be tested, i.e.: "steel girders with k static force from x,y directions and t temp over m time will result in these failure modes f and j."

 

[jay howard]

This isn't possible. Engineering involves a large amount of probability and statistics. Most capacities (for design and analysis) are based upon a minimum percentile of similar members failing at a stress greater than their respective capacity. There are further reductions on the susceptibility to loss of strength due to contractor error (this is particularly true in anchor bolts and welding). Steel mills will always supply steel that is stronger than what is specified, sometimes even selling a higher grade as a lower grade (this is common with A572 and A36).

Assuming that the structure is correctly designed and, even more fantastical: constructed correctly, there is no way to know exactly what the capacity of each individual element is. And if the building was designed with economy in mind (as most are), then there are various failure modes with similar capacities. Statistical guesses can be made, sure, but it's not relevant.

Does this CONNECTOR fail? Does the model fail globally when x number of connections fail? Is there anything that can be done to easily prevent this collapse initiation in the future? These are the questions that engineers are interested in. Not in recreating the exact conditions, because that is impossible and a pointless waste of resources to boot.

Without these exact capacities, there is no way to model exactly what happened or the ridiculous "live test" simulation that you have suggested. They could create an enveloped test, but the idea that they can come up with the exact point, like the point at which water boils, is just plain flat out ridiculous and belies a complete ignorance of how engineering works.

A theory like this wouldn't necesarily have to nail down every exact detail, however, it would outline the MINIMUM conditions by which a particular failure mode occurs.

 

[jaydeehess]

How fast does the 9/11 commission state it fell?

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds..."

Would you like your .8 seconds back?

Yes, they said "ten seconds", they spelled the word ten. In physics and engineering this usually denotes an approximation or a measurement that is not worthy of more accuracy or precision.

NIST states that the first panels to hit the ground did so in a more specific time after collapse initiation but that does not mean that this time is the time of global collapse since at that time it is probable that a dozen or more stories were still intact.

perhaps you should think about chagning your moniker to arithmetic 34, algebra seems a little too lofty for you.

 

[jay howard]

So your problem with NIST or any other FEA done on this, is that they did not get detailed enough at every element of not enough elements?

You do realize that every time you introduce another parameter or detail to a calculation, that you also increase the magnitude of the error and in order to reduce that error you must run the program again using those parameters pushed to the extremes of your ability to accurately report them? For instance if you say that item 'A' of mass 'm' is moving at velocity 'v' you must include the margin of error for both mass and velocity and in any calculations done you would run it at the extremes of your error margin for both parameters. Now if you can further refine those calulations by somehow including the length of the object you also have to include the margin or error of that parameter and so on and so forth.

What you are then asking for is for the goalposts to be moved. Basically you are stating that .. 'or sure the FEAs done show global collapse but they are not detailed enough, do it again, spend double or triple what you spent before, take twice or three times the length of time to do it' Then there is no garuntee that if it was done that you would not then say.., 'not good enough, spend more time and money and prove it to me with more detail' and eventually all the errors will add up and lo and behold within the margin of error will be a structure that does not globally collapse, you claim NIST was wrong and that 911 was an inside job.

Oh jesus, stop whining. I'm saying if the computer simulations demonstrate failure of certain connections at certain temps over a specified time, then that info should be translatable to a real-life test.

Now, it should probably be scaled to a reasonable size, but the results should be repeatable in real life, don't you agree?

.

 

[jaydeehess]

Again, I don't think it's controversial to say that in a complex system like the crash site of the towers, there can be all kinds of factors that the model designers may be leaving out or over-or underestimating. That's why a particular principle should be tested, i.e.: "steel girders with k static force from x,y directions and t temp over m time will result in these failure modes f and j."

A theory like this wouldn't necesarily have to nail down every exact detail, however, it would outline the MINIMUM conditions by which a particular failure mode occurs.

Again you are asking to spend more time and money to do an even greater detailed analysis. Why? If you assume that the FEA models done thus far are at least first approximations and that each of them shows a global collapse then what purpose would be served?

Also I again remind you that in adding in more complexity you also increase the margin of error and thus the requirement to run even more models, adjusting for the margin of error in each new parameter.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh jesus, stop whining. I'm saying if the computer simulations demonstrate failure of certain connections at certain temps over a specified time, then that info should be translatable to a real-life test.

Now, it should probably be scaled to a reasonable size, but the results should be repeatable in real life, don't you agree?

.

Me whining? That's rich. How would you characterize what you have been doing in this thread all along.

"NIST was not good enough for me"............?

There is a century of fire engineering science that indicates how steel behaves in fire. There is a century of existing steel structures that were on fire and demonstrated how beams, columns and connections sag, buckle or fail. NIST did some tests on materials they deemed worthy of extra investigation.

IF you have a problem with what NIST did it is not good enough for you to ....... complain that it 'should be' more detailed. It is encumbant upon you to state specifically where NIST should have been more specific and WHY.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh jesus, stop whining. I'm saying if the computer simulations demonstrate failure of certain connections at certain temps over a specified time, then that info should be translatable to a real-life test.

It already is. FEM results have been tested to the real-world. Please look up some engineering journals and educate yourself.

 

[carlitos]

Oh jesus, stop whining. I'm saying if the computer simulations demonstrate failure of certain connections at certain temps over a specified time, then that info should be translatable to a real-life test.

Now, it should probably be scaled to a reasonable size, but the results should be repeatable in real life, don't you agree?

.

So go ahead. I still can't see what your problem is. You keep using the passive voice so I can't tell whom you want to model something, nor can you explain what's stopping them from doing so.

 

[jaydeehess]

, but the results should be repeatable in real life, don't you agree?

.

Thus my request that the TM demonstrate thermite cutting of vertical columns in the manner by which some suggest was done at the tower(which would include the obvious accurate timing)

 

[jay howard]

Again you are asking to spend more time and money to do an even greater detailed analysis.

If the computer models are already done, then all that needs to be done is replicating the conditions (scaled appropriately) in real life. Why is that so unreasonable?

If you assume that the FEA models done thus far are at least first approximations and that each of them shows a global collapse then what purpose would be served?

The FEA models are where this data would come from. The FEA's showed failures of certain joints and complexes, so it shouldn't be hard to build a live model of those conditions and see if it in fact fails as the simulation predicts. If it doesn't, then there's reason to believe the simulations did NOT accurately recreate the circumstances in the towers. If it does fail as predicted, then the theory is corroborated.

Also I again remind you that in adding in more complexity you also increase the margin of error and thus the requirement to run even more models, adjusting for the margin of error in each new parameter.

I'm not talking about increasing the complexity of the simulations: I'm talking about recreating an FEA in real life and testing its veracity. In light of the lack of corroborative forensic evidence, wouldn't you want to corroborate NIST's theory?

.

 

[jaydeehess]

So go ahead. I still can't see what your problem is. You keep using the passive voice so I can't tell whom you want to model something, nor can you explain what's stopping them from doing so.

I assume he means NIST, FEMA, Purdue, Arup etc. but does not include AE911T (or a collaboration of AE911T, Pilots For 911 Truth, Lawyers for 911 Truth, etc as I am sure that if they took up a collection from such professionals there would be enough money and know-how to do the job)

 

[beachnut]

It already is. FEM results have been tested to the real-world. Please look up some engineering journals and educate yourself.

Not going to happen until knowledge becomes an important part of truther-land.

 

[jay howard]

Why all the resistance to a real-life test of the FEA models?

Isn't it reasonable to question whether the simulations correctly modelled their tests? What better way to verify them than to test for repeatable failure modes in a live test?

Why is this such an unreasonable standard?

.

 

[jaydeehess]

If the computer models are already done, then all that needs to be done is replicating the conditions (scaled appropriately) in real life. Why is that so unreasonable?



The FEA models are where this data would come from. The FEA's showed failures of certain joints and complexes, so it shouldn't be hard to build a live model of those conditions and see if it in fact fails as the simulation predicts. If it doesn't, then there's reason to believe the simulations did NOT accurately recreate the circumstances in the towers. If it does fail as predicted, then the theory is corroborated.

.

This would be accurate up to the first few seconds of the collapse, if that. The failures shown are, and the engineers here can correct me if I am wrong, apply to normailzed situations for the connections. Look at the NIST descriptions of the separate FEAs they did for the aircraft impacts as compared to how they went about it for the structural response to the fires.
FACT is that you simply cannot test individual components the way you want in order to back up or refute the FEA the way you want to. The collapse is simply too complex and chaotic and thus NIST analyses how the various structural systems(not individual connections in minute detail) react to the collapse. A few seconds after collapse initiaon this situation is so chaotic that no FEA could be done to track individual connection failures.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why all the resistance to a real-life test of the FEA models?

Isn't it reasonable to question whether the simulations correctly modelled their tests? What better way to verify them than to test for repeatable failure modes in a live test?

Why is this such an unreasonable standard?

.

Where do you think the calculations used in the FEA came from?
(resisting the urge to violate a forum rule)

 

[Dog Town]

Why all the resistance to a real-life test of the FEA models?

Isn't it reasonable to question whether the simulations correctly modelled their tests? What better way to verify them than to test for repeatable failure modes in a live test?

Why is this such an unreasonable standard?

.

The ONLY thing unreasonable here, is your desire to ignore!
You have been given the answers, yet you whine incessantly! WHY?
Never mind... I know that answer.