9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Every one should know that...

Everyone should know that what weedwhacker typed has no bearing on a computer model outputting incorrect values.

Nothing that weedwhacker typed helps to explain why the NIST model failed to output consistent values.

The magnitude of the computer error is not important. The fact that there was an error is important, as it shows that the programmed algorithms are flawed by not checking for self-consistency.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Problem is that an angeny like NORAD is held responsable for protecting lives, so they can be held accountable.

I beg your pardon? NORAD's task is two-fold: early warning and detection of airborne threats and defense of US and Canadian airspace. Nowhere in their charter is protection of lives. NORAD is an alarm system, nothing more.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.

You're welcome to read the charter in full if you'd like to accuse me of selective editing.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Nothing that weedwhacker typed helps to explain why the NIST model failed to output consistent values.

The magnitude of the computer error is not important. The fact that there was an error is important, as it shows that the programmed algorithms are flawed by not checking for self-consistency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen the entirety of the NIST model released anywhere. If that's the case and the NIST model has never been released, how could you possibly claim that the model is inaccurate. Black box analysis of a computer model, especially a model charged with handling that many different variables isn't something that can be done. You can argue that the expected behavior of inputting some value would result in the output of another value, but unless you know exactly how the model is handling those two values, you would be incorrect in stating that the model was not behaving properly. Putting emphasis on any one value or the result provided by the model in relation to that value without knowing the entire structure of the model is an exercise in perpetuating ignorance.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it was very mature. I was trying to be fair with you and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Seems more like you are just being immature and trying to make yourself look better then others.

Nope. What I said is what I meant. When I said I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to increase your credibility with the group. I say what I mean and was not trying to imply anything. Does that clarify my position regarding this matter?

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen the entirety of the NIST model released anywhere. If that's the case and the NIST model has never been released, how could you possibly claim that the model is inaccurate.

Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel.
Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris.
Output = 196,700 pounds of airplane debris.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

That's how I can claim that the NIST model is inaccurate. It fails to check for self-consistency. It's flawed.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen the entirety of the NIST model released anywhere. If that's the case and the NIST model has never been released, how could you possibly claim that the model is inaccurate.

Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel.
Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris.
Output = 196,700 pounds of airplane debris.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

That's how I can claim that the NIST model is inaccurate. It fails to check for self-consistency. It's flawed.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by tezzajw]

Would you mind providing the link to the NIST model page? It sounds pretty interesting. Thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123
Would you mind providing the link to the NIST model page? It sounds pretty interesting. Thanks.

Sure, here it is.

Type in page 85/290, then 86/290 and you'll see the relevant parts pertaining to the distribution of jet fuel and airplane debris.

The results are not consistent. They are wrong.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris.
Output = 196,700 pounds of airplane debris.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

That discrepancy looks like a typical human failing - transposed digits.
If it's evidence of anything it shows that the model did not type up the final report, the figures were read and typed in by a person on a word processor.

The other 'error' is minute and probably happened the same way although rounding is also plausible.

Neither indicate an attempt to defraud or cover up a conspiracy and if we make enough noise about these errors I'm sure they'll comply by issuing the necessary corrections. There may be a spelling error in there as well.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This confirms exactly what I've been saying. NIST never said that the core columns failed due to heat weakening.

So if the plane impacts and fire did not casue the collapse, what did?

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Reserve capacity is ridiculous also. Sorry, but maybe you need to talk to an engineer about this. They do not overdesign buildings just because they want to.

You just agreed earlier to this statement.

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- my point is that your statement that the outer columns at the impact zone were no where near the strength of the columns near the base.

Ok, your point is my statement? Your sentence makes no sense.

Pretending that your sentence did make sense, and you meant what I think you did (that the perimeter columns at the base were significantly stronger than those near the top), then you are still wrong. I have a feeling you are talking out of your ass without even attempting to verify what you are saying.

Reserve capacity is ridiculous also. Sorry, but maybe you need to talk to an engineer about this. They do not overdesign buildings just because they want to.

Excuse me, this is from one of the engineering firms that designed the towers, talking about the towers:

The Engineering News Record (ENR) contained a number of articles on the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The article "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings" quotes lead architect John Skilling:

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964

stj911.org...


Seymour, I'm not even going to ask you what your engineering experience is, because I know you probably haven't graduated high school yet. Would you at least please stop making things up?

None of the rest of your alphabet soup was coherent enough to even respond to, so I'm not going to. What I said previously still stands for whomever to read as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel.
Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris.
Output = 196,700 pounds of airplane debris.
That's not only inaccurate, it's also wrong.

That's how I can claim that the NIST model is inaccurate. It fails to check for self-consistency. It's flawed.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by tezzajw]

So you basically took everything I said and disregarded it and continued to spew the same tired argument you've been using. My point, in case it wasn't already patently obvious is that unless you know *exactly* how the NIST model is constructed, you can't possibly claim that it is flawed, and certainly you cannot make such a claim by using two distinct variable inputs and their associated outputs. For that matter, most statistical modelling is done with an understanding of statistical margin of error. For the NIST model what are their published margins of error? What are the statistically significant margins of error for your model? You do have one don't you? You must if you're making all these blind claims of falsehood.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- my point is that your statement that the outer columns at the impact zone were no where near the strength of the columns near the base.

Ok, your point is my statement? Your sentence makes no sense.

Ha ha, yes I really mangled that didn't I?

Ok, to restate, my point is that your statement that the outer columns at the impact zone were able to "hold nearly as much weight as the columns near the base" is entirely wrong.

In a subsequent post, you mentioned a member here by the name of Valhall. I'd be willing to accept her appraisal of your statement, if she cares to post about it. Would you?

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
So you basically took everything I said and disregarded it...

When what you type is not relevant, then of course it will be disregarded.

For that matter, most statistical modelling is done with an understanding of statistical margin of error.

A well constructed, valid mathematical model that inputs 62,000 pounds of jet fuel should also output 62,000 pounds of jet fuel.

This is not the case with the NIST model. 200 pounds of jet fuel can not be created by the model.

I'm amazed at how many supporters of the NIST model are trying to believe, accept and justify that 62,000 = 62,200???

It defies logic to completely accept the results of a model that fails to check itself for consistent output results against the input parameters.

I just thought I'd post this example showing how kinetic energy can create immense damage when the energy is released. This is a proposed KED (Kinetic Energy Device).

Device name is:
Rod's of God
A satellite railgun that uses gravity to achieve destructive velocities. The rods themselves, each up to a foot in diameter and twenty feet long would simply be released and allowed to fall back to Earth (with a bit of remote guidance). By the time they reached the surface, they'd be traveling at a speed of 36,000 feet per second and carry the destructive force of a nuclear warhead, only with none of the radioactive fallout.
www.popsci.com...

So a rod approx. 1 ft in diameter x 20 feet can release as much energy as a nuclear bomb with enough velocity.


[edit on 11-5-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Seymour, I don't really care what you think. Talk to Val if you want, or even Griff. I'm just going to ask, which columns do you think they're talking about here?:

The Engineering News Record (ENR) contained a number of articles on the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The article "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings" quotes lead architect John Skilling:

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964

The ones on the very bottom, or the ones near the top? Which would make more sense?

That's a safety factor of 20. That's 20x redundant. And skyscrapers are built to be redundant. That's what the concept of a "safety factor" is: built-in redundancy, for obvious safety reasons. Again, Griff is a civil engineer. I don't care what you think, but if you don't want to come across so ignorantly, ask him, or even look up what a "safety factor" is.

Someone (I think it was WCIP) once posted an excerpt from the NIST report indicating that NYC building codes require skyscrapers to be able to hold something like 1.5x or 2x their design loads for a week, with no failures besides minor cracks. NIST stated that the WTC Towers were not legally subject to these codes because the PA property is technically neither in NY or NJ, but that the towers nonetheless would have met the codes (and then some, apparently). You can believe it or not, but I know what I've read, and I know what a safety factor is, and of the concept of redundancy in high-rises.



And because I know you're just going to post back argumentatively without even attempting to look into this stuff:

Factor of safety (FoS) can mean either the fraction of structural capability over that required, or a multiplier applied to the maximum expected load (force, torque, bending moment or a combination) to which a component or assembly will be subjected. The two senses of the term are completely different in that the first is a measure of the reliability of a particular design, while the second is a requirement imposed by law, standard, contract or custom. Careful engineers refer to the first sense as a factor of safety, or, to be explicit, a realized factor of safety, and the second sense as a design factor, but usage is inconsistent and confusing, so engineers need to be aware of both. The Factor of Safety is given to the engineer as a requirement. The Design Factor is calculated by the engineer.
[...]
Buildings commonly use a factor of safety of 2.0 for each structural member. The value for buildings is relatively low because the loads are well understood and most structures are redundant. Pressure vessels use 3.5 to 4.0, automobiles use 3.0, and aircraft and spacecraft use 1.4 to 3.0 depending on the materials. Ductile, metallic materials use the lower value while brittle materials use the higher values. The field of aerospace engineering uses generally lower design factors because the costs associated with structural weight are high. This low design factor is why aerospace parts and materials are subject to more stringent quality control.

A design factor of 1.0 implies that the design meets but does not exceed the design requirements, with no room for variation nor error. A high design factor implies "overengineering" which results in excessive weight and/or cost.

en.wikipedia.org...

All emphasis mine. Note where it says, "The value for buildings is relatively low because the loads are well understood," which is talking about conventional buildings, because skyscrapers are held to higher standards, for obvious reasons. A house will not cause a mess like a 110-story skyscraper will, if it fails. The WTC Towers in particular were the tallest buildings on Earth when they were constructed, not to mention they were built in one of the most densely-populated places in the world (Manhattan)!


Another source in case the "debunker" in you feels as though that Wiki article was fabricated by a "truther":

Safety Factors
None 1.00
Prayer 1.25
Large Aircraft 1.33
Naval Architecture 1.50
Decent 2.00
Wooden Housing 3.00
Tank 5.00

Safety factor is the structural strength divided by the minimum structural strength required. The greater the safety factor, the lower the likehood of structural factor and the more stress cycles the structure can take.

www.spacearium.com...

Compare those numbers to the 2000% (FoS of 20) John Skilling's firm was quoted at putting certain perimeter columns. Again, I wonder which those were? (Hint: if it were the bottom-most columns, that would be a pretty ridiculous ultimate strength that they were be rated for, huh? 20x the weight of the entire building above them? I don't think so.)

[edit on 11-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Seymour, I don't really care what you think. Talk to Val if you want, or even Griff. I'm just going to ask, which columns do you think they're talking about here?:

So why spend so much time argueing your statement? Is it because you're wrong, and you know it?

Ok then, Griff, or Val, or any qualified structural engineer, will you please give your opinion about bsbray's statement that "the exterior columns at the impact zone were able to hold nearly as much weight as at the base"?

I have proof of just how misguided you are about the 2000% thing. You are apparently woefully misinformed about that. Live loads were mainly wind loading, not gravity loads for the towers.

But until we get clarification about your claims about the strength at the impact zone, I see no reason to give proof to anyone that's either -

a- woefully misinformed, and just repeating the standard truther script without doing any research

b- knowingly makes wildly erroneous statements

Here is an interesting website I found talking about the Pentagon.
snopes.com...



I would post an excerpt but, well, it doesn't allow that.

And lookie here.
It's PLANE DEBRIS!!!!
Ooooo ahhhhhhhh..........


[edit on 11-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And lookie here.
It's PLANE DEBRIS!!!!
Ooooo ahhhhhhhh..........

Has that piece of scrap metal been positively identified to the alleged plane used for AA77?

Has the image been verified as authentic, with the identity of the photographer known and verified?

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza, your're an Aussie, and obviously far-removed....and seemingly influenced by all of the back-and-forth theories that have cropped up in the last six years.

Since the most recent posts on this thread involved the Pentagon, and specific questions about the support columns, and the engineering of the building, I thought it appropriate to, once again, offer a personal observation.

On that Tuesday, I was glued to my TV.....did I mention that my house was in Arlington, VA....about three miles away from the Pentagon??

It was around 1000....I had told the workers building my backyard deck to go home, after telling them about NYC....there were frenzied reports about explosions on the Mall in DC (all incorrect).....the report of the hit at the pentagon came in AFTER I felt my house shake, as I stood on the second floor, and looked east towards DC...looking for smoke. please note, the Pentagon is mostly North and east from me, so the smoke would not have been visible from my window.

It was later that I realized the 'tremor' I felt at my house was from the upper floors of the Pentagon collapsing....some time after the initial impact.

You should also know, since I live in the area, I saw the destruction at the Pentagon, you could see it from the Highway. Another thing....a person I know, who lived in an apartment along a route called 'Columbia Pike' (you can google map it) was on his balcony, and told me he saw the jet fly past, down low....

A lot of eyewitness testimony seems contradictory, on the surface...but that is usually the nature of 'eyewitness' reports...humans perceive, and then report, things differently.

Happens at car crashes, bank robberies, you name it...

You can show ten people the same three-minute video clip, and they will all see something different....it's the consensus that matters, as all is pulled together.....

So, this is the genesis of these '9/11 conspiracy' ideas.....someone, somewhere, who doesn't have a full understanding, decides to question.....and then it takes on a life of its own....like a shark feeding frenzy!