Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
What NIST is Really About
- Thread starter Reality Believer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nist science wtc collapse
I have my doubts about Nist's understanding of gravity driven, global collapses!
The only gravity collapse understood by science is soil/snow avalanches and the WTC destructions are no avalanches.
The initiation of an avalanche is known: a mass of snow or soil on a slope starts moving when it is no longer held in place by friction (a particular strain energy to keep it in place). Evidently nothing to do with WTC.
Nist suggests initiation was simultaneous buckling of supporting structure due heat! OK, let the supporting local structure buckle due heat! They will still not be dislodged! They will still be attached to the block above and the structure below. No potential energy is released except to buckle/deform/shorten the relevant items. Quite easy to prove using my model test (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 ).
The Nist proposal or new national standard (?) that
"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (PEabc) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (SEcas). Global collapse (GC) ensued"
or
PEabc>SEcas implies GC
is pure unscientific nonsense. A policial gimmick! National security based, probably.
The only gravity collapse understood by science is soil/snow avalanches and the WTC destructions are no avalanches.
The initiation of an avalanche is known: a mass of snow or soil on a slope starts moving when it is no longer held in place by friction (a particular strain energy to keep it in place). Evidently nothing to do with WTC.
Nist suggests initiation was simultaneous buckling of supporting structure due heat! OK, let the supporting local structure buckle due heat! They will still not be dislodged! They will still be attached to the block above and the structure below. No potential energy is released except to buckle/deform/shorten the relevant items. Quite easy to prove using my model test (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 ).
The Nist proposal or new national standard (?) that
"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (PEabc) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (SEcas). Global collapse (GC) ensued"
or
PEabc>SEcas implies GC
is pure unscientific nonsense. A policial gimmick! National security based, probably.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
I have my doubts about your understanding of NIST's model.
To assist in your understanding, I offer an admitted hyperbole to aid your understanding.
Sledgehammer > lemon meringue pie.
You see, when the PEabc is mathematically seen to be an order of magnitude greater than the SEcas, then Global Collapse will ensue. This is not "pure unscientific nonsense." This is math. When the numbers reflect the real world, then math is not political at all. Nothing a priori is political.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
Does the NTSB ever investigate the causes of building collapses and the safety of building practices and standards?
Were the crashes accidents that the NTSB needs to determine what went wrong to cause them?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/final_towers_rpt102605.htm
Last edited:
1. I am assuming the cesna accident was a suicide then, if not an accident (IIRC they blame an Acutane in a young man...is this the correct incident).
2. When was it decided the FBI would be responsible, not the NTSB...after the first plane hit...i doubt it. It was likely after it was QUITE CLEAR that these crashes were acts of terrorism, that the FBI took over.
3. Was the NTSB not involved AT ALL in 9/11, or were they involved, but gave ultimate control and decision making to the FBI?
Others above have made the rest of the issue (NTSB mission statement etc...) clear enough.
TAM
2. When was it decided the FBI would be responsible, not the NTSB...after the first plane hit...i doubt it. It was likely after it was QUITE CLEAR that these crashes were acts of terrorism, that the FBI took over.
3. Was the NTSB not involved AT ALL in 9/11, or were they involved, but gave ultimate control and decision making to the FBI?
Others above have made the rest of the issue (NTSB mission statement etc...) clear enough.
TAM
Last edited:
As well, I believe NIST investigated 9/11 WTCs for the purpose of future building safety. I believe the cause of COLLAPSE was the main purpose, not the ins and outs of the crash, in terms of why the planes crashed, which is what the NTSB usually examines...
TAM
TAM
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
As well, I believe NIST investigated 9/11 WTCs for the purpose of future building safety. I believe the cause of COLLAPSE was the main purpose, not the ins and outs of the crash, in terms of why the planes crashed, which is what the NTSB usually examines...
TAM
I would also like to point out that in terms of building safety, NIST also investigated issues such as emergency exits, and the ease of access. Although most people in these debates focus on the structural engineering, fire modeling, and the airplanes, there is a lot of other information in there as well, and the recommendations do not stop at building design in the structural sense.
ETA: I can't see the NTSB finding this part of their mission statement.
Last edited:
NIST really does live up to its "standards" name/mission in the NIST Report!
The NIST Report is full of data as we all know.
But does the NIST Report create any new PHYSICAL reference standards?
Well, I see at least one physical quantity, 1.4 seconds to be precise, that is very important in this respect because it allows one to calibrate how fast the towers fell. Therefore this is what I would call a Primary Reference Standard, (Way to go NIST!) - a standard that is crucial to the collapse mechanism of WTC 1 & 2, a topic we have all tried to investigate and understand.
Why is a collapse time (initiation) calibration standard so important?
Well, to determine the actual rate of collapse of the towers we have to rely on the available photographic and video record.
Now the web is full of sites with still images and captured video frames of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. These sites will tell you the images are 1/2 a second apart or whatever,... but are they? When I check some of these videos against others I find serious timing discrepancies!
At this point I need an absolute collapse-time calibration standard.
Right now the best and only such standard I can find is Figure 8-101 of NCSTAR 1-5A stated by NIST (America's Standard's Institute!) to have been taken 1.4 seconds into the collapse of WTC 1. (See page 261 of NCSTAR 1-5A)
Now an analysis of certain videos of the collapse of WTC 1 taken from the same angle as Figure 8-101 shows that the roof line of WTC 1 had dropped 9.6 +/- 0.4 meters at this point in time.
And by the way, tipping, which was less than 8 degrees from the local vertical for times < 2 s, would have contributed a small apparent drop to these data which is in fact already included as a small correction to the measured vertical drop value quoted above.
Then, for an effectively constant accelerating force, and a tower roof line starting from rest:
9.6 = 1/2 acc (1.4)^2,
or acc = 9.8 m/s^2.
In other words, the collapse started at free fall!
This is a very important, if unexpected, result and I thank NIST for it......
The NIST Report is full of data as we all know.
But does the NIST Report create any new PHYSICAL reference standards?
Well, I see at least one physical quantity, 1.4 seconds to be precise, that is very important in this respect because it allows one to calibrate how fast the towers fell. Therefore this is what I would call a Primary Reference Standard, (Way to go NIST!) - a standard that is crucial to the collapse mechanism of WTC 1 & 2, a topic we have all tried to investigate and understand.
Why is a collapse time (initiation) calibration standard so important?
Well, to determine the actual rate of collapse of the towers we have to rely on the available photographic and video record.
Now the web is full of sites with still images and captured video frames of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. These sites will tell you the images are 1/2 a second apart or whatever,... but are they? When I check some of these videos against others I find serious timing discrepancies!
At this point I need an absolute collapse-time calibration standard.
Right now the best and only such standard I can find is Figure 8-101 of NCSTAR 1-5A stated by NIST (America's Standard's Institute!) to have been taken 1.4 seconds into the collapse of WTC 1. (See page 261 of NCSTAR 1-5A)
Now an analysis of certain videos of the collapse of WTC 1 taken from the same angle as Figure 8-101 shows that the roof line of WTC 1 had dropped 9.6 +/- 0.4 meters at this point in time.
And by the way, tipping, which was less than 8 degrees from the local vertical for times < 2 s, would have contributed a small apparent drop to these data which is in fact already included as a small correction to the measured vertical drop value quoted above.
Then, for an effectively constant accelerating force, and a tower roof line starting from rest:
9.6 = 1/2 acc (1.4)^2,
or acc = 9.8 m/s^2.
In other words, the collapse started at free fall!
This is a very important, if unexpected, result and I thank NIST for it......
yodaluver28
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 569
The NTSB investigated the incident in Florida because in the immediate aftermath it was unclear what exactly had happened or why. At that point it seemed quite possible that it could have been an accident of some kind, perhaps involving faulty equipment on the plane. It wasn't known to be a crime until after investigation got underway.
The NTSB is the automatic go-to agency in all airline crash cases except when it appears almost certain that the plane was brought down by criminal activity, in which case the FBI investigates with the NTSB providing logistical aide and mechanical expertise. That is what happened on 9/11. It was obvious from a very early stage that regardless the possible identity of the attackers, that a heinous crime was being committed with those planes. There were no accidents that day. As such, the planes didn't need to be meticulously recovered and reassembled in order to understand the exact mode of their destruction. That is the NTSB's specialty. As a crime, it was far more important for the FBI to lead the investigation in order to uncover the identities of the attackers and their co-conspirators. This was a no-brainer, especially since the FBI's counter-terrorism headquarters is located in the FBI's New York office. The best experts were already right there in the city. The FBI also headed the investigation into TWA Flight 800 because it first appeared to be a terrorist attack. The NTSB only took over in an effort to explain the crash after the FBI closed the case because they were unable to find any solid evidence of intentional sabotage or outright destruction.
NIST didn't investigate the Tampa incident because the building that was crashed into didn't collapse. Nor did it suffer any major structural damage that could compromise the safety of the building as a whole.
NIST didn't investigate the September 11th attacks, nor were they supposed to. The FBI investigated the attacks and the NTSB helped them investigate the hijackings and effects of the plane impacts. NIST was charged with just one task that was clearly within their expertise: to determine how and why the World Trade Center twin towers collapsed. They knew they'd been hit by planes and fires ensued but architects, engineers, and the construction and fire safety industries all needed to understand which aspects of the building's structure were damaged the most by the impacts and fires and which failed first and why. They knew that once collapse was initiated, global collapse was inevitable. They just needed to learn and understand the circumstances leading to initiation. And they did that to the best of their ability with the information they had.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
And you didn't? Come on now, you can be honest, I mean virtually everyone watching and all the media were saying it was an accident. Did you you have some special knowledge that told you it wasn't?
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Dr. Greening, you appear to have left your source link for this information out of your post.
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Last edited:
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Apollo's new post is huge. (Watch your step.)
Um...((((28 factorial)factorial)factorial)factorial) is - like - bigger that 100, so perhaps you are mistaken.
Maybe you meant post # 28282828
MaxMaxMaxMax
Um...((((28 factorial)factorial)factorial)factorial) is - like - bigger that 100, so perhaps you are mistaken.
Maybe you meant post # 28282828
MaxMaxMaxMax
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Damn that gravity, acting on objects that are no longer being supported. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!
This sounds like reverse-woo!
Is there a name for that?
And if anyone says "logic", you'd have to explain how all 47 core columns suddenly lost ALL support ability such that the top section began immediate free-fall decent.
Thanks
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Seriously? Wow... Well, first of all, it wasn't sudden. It took upwards of an hour of exposure to fire before the columns failed. Second, once enough of the columns could no longer support their share of the weight, it didn't matter how many others remained; it was a physical impossibility for them to support the full weight of the upper section. They would all fail extremely rapidly (fractions of a second).
I have to be honest, that was baffling stupid statement for you to make so late in your game. Have you looked at anything regarding 9/11?
Last edited:
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
And if anyone says "logic", you'd have to explain how all 47 core columns suddenly lost ALL support ability such that the top section began immediate free-fall decent.
Thanks
What you need to consider is the degree of error associated with those measurements and the conclusion you are trying to draw.
What are the upper and lower bounds on the acceleration due to gravity observed in the upper block? The upper bound is 9.81 m/s^2, what we would expect with no resistance. But what's the lower bound? Give me a figure you would accept that would prove no CD.