It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

letter to NIST

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If this were true perhaps it would be valid, but I don't believe it is. NISTs paper does not describe WTC7s construction exactly but there are not a huge amount of missing details. If you were to file a FOIA request for perhaps their LS-DYNA model, you would be able to get all the information needed to do everything NIST did I believe. I mentioned earlier I would like to hear specifics of what is missing, and when you requested the connection information it didn't take me long to confirm a typical beam failure with a typical connection.


Please point me to a non-NIST source of the structural information. Plus, even NIST states that they are lackig in specific information about connections.

I'm sure if I got their LS-DYNA model, I'm sure it would work just as they state. They aren't stupid.


What makes NISTs theory probable is simply the degree to which they have been able to replicate the failures through simulation.


What would make it more probable would be some real life to back it up. Otherwise, it has as much credibility (if not less) than Hutchenson's effect. At least he has shown it is possible, dispite he can't reproduce it all the time. NIST hasn't even gone that far.


The NIST report has yet to receive any substantial correction thanks to controlled demolition theorists,


How can anyone refute anything from NIST when NIST are the ones supplying the data? Are we to think they would publish anything that contradicts their hypothesis?


and in fact so far the more rigorous the calculations, the more people agree (from both sides) that gravity collapse is plausible.


Just to make sure. Controlled Demolitions are also a gravity driven collapse. Correct?


Have you had a chance to read any of NCSTAR 1-9 yet? Thoughts?


Some of it. Thoughts would be just as much speculation as anything at this point. I'm still looking into it though. It's going to take me some time.


What do you mean "what happened to fire load tests"?


I didn't read in the NIST report where they state a new code for fire testing. Granted, I could have missed it or overlooked it and forgot about it.




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Please show me where I have accussed anyone at NIST from not following Canon 1.


CANON 1.
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering judgments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.
Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents, reviewed or prepared by them, which are determined to be safe for public health and welfare in conformity with accepted engineering standards.
Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, or the principles of sustainable development ignored, shall inform their clients or employers of the possible consequences.
Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required.
Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities, and the protection of the environment through the practice of sustainable development.
Engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence to the principles of sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of life of the general public.


www.asce.org...



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Please point me to a non-NIST source of the structural information.

NIST and FEMAs original source is partially a paper by John Salvarinas which you can find here: www.debunk911myths.org...

Even so, there were post construction modifications you will need information on, this was obtained through Silverstein Properties I believe, and as such they will possibly be quite reluctant to release much information to the general public. Your qualifications as an engineer may help you out in that respect.


Plus, even NIST states that they are lackig in specific information about connections.

Could you cite? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know that I've read anything that specific.


I'm sure if I got their LS-DYNA model, I'm sure it would work just as they state. They aren't stupid.

Well you have to forgive me here Griff, because I have debated a fair few conspiracy theorists who have many different theories. Even if NISTs model does behave as they show, you can check their bounding conditions, and match up against available structural information. Having more information about NISTs theory can't be a bad thing, and I'm presuming you have easier access to FEA than me.


What would make it more probable would be some real life to back it up. Otherwise, it has as much credibility (if not less) than Hutchenson's effect. At least he has shown it is possible, dispite he can't reproduce it all the time. NIST hasn't even gone that far.

I'm not going to argue this much, I don't agree with you, but the Hutchinson effect is an entirely different kettle of fish. I am going to point out that NISTs theory doesn't require anything fundementally new with physics, and is a reasonably easy to understand failure mechanism. It's uniqueness amongst structural failures notwithstanding, they can hardly build a new WTC7 to replicate the scenario.


How can anyone refute anything from NIST when NIST are the ones supplying the data? Are we to think they would publish anything that contradicts their hypothesis?

If you believe some of the other members on this site, they most certainly have. I don't understand your argument though, if the NIST report is not accurate, there will be factual errors you can show. If it is accurate, and their models perform as expected, then it is a reasonably convincing theory in the face of very little evidence for Controlled Demolition of any kind. This may be a false dichotomy, so I welcome your alternate proposals.


Just to make sure. Controlled Demolitions are also a gravity driven collapse. Correct?

Of course, what has been shown rigorously is that failure and complete collapse of the building as viewed is plausible and probable (I hesitate to say this as I don't fully understand some of the maths) without the requirement for any explosives.

Many of NISTs detractors believe in controlled demolition theories that involve massive amounts of explosives. Claims of concrete pulverization in WTC1+2 would require drilling holes every few feet in the deck, and other such ridiculous requirements. I am simply covering my bases here as I am defending a quite extensively published theory, and you are somewhat promoting a theory which remains your own.


Some of it. Thoughts would be just as much speculation as anything at this point. I'm still looking into it though. It's going to take me some time.

That's perfectly fine, I appreciate considered opinion more than rash speculation.


I didn't read in the NIST report where they state a new code for fire testing. Granted, I could have missed it or overlooked it and forgot about it.

WTC1+2 or WTC7? You'll have to argue with Dr Quintiere over WTC1+2 as NIST requires structural damage and fire for collapse, with WTC7 they do make a recommendation though, it's quite generic.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Ran out of space in the last post to even edit in a oneliner! I didn't mean to imply you'd accused anyone, simply that there are ethical requirements for people to come forward. It seems unlikely an ASCE member would read the NIST report, find what they consider to be evidence of controlled demolition and then not report it or make mention in any way.

I can completely accept that many engineers may be undecided, but I can't exactly understand why, I don't have the required training to be authoritative, but I have a good all round knowledge of Physics, and a decent knowledge of structural performance (thanks to my 911 research acutually). I don't claim to be able to do the calculations, but I have a reasonable bull# detector I think



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
All that is left for you to do is admit it. If it is possible for a Denier to admit being a Denier, that is.


Denier, truther, debunker, eggman, koo koo katchoo. Call me all you will. I have gone beyond caring anymore and refuse to play the childish games.


We'll see if you give up playing the childish game of 9/11 denial. My bet is you'll refuse to.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I can completely accept that many engineers may be undecided, but I can't exactly understand why,


While looking for a simple answer to your question, I came upon a jref thread that I believe answers at least part of it.

I hope I'm allowed to post the thread from jref.


A few days ago, R. Mackey made several desperate attempts to explain why certain quotes from Dr. Quintiere and Dr. Astaneh-Asl were irrelevant to any argument in support of 9/11 truth. I would like to take a few moments to further demonstrate the absurdity of his claim.

First of all, nobody is claiming that either Dr. Quintiere or Dr. Astaneh-Asl are directly supporting 9/11 CTs. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter in this context.

Let's examine the quotes from Dr. Quintiere. Regardless of what he believes really happened, his comments add credibility to the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. It does not singularly prove the argument, but it supports it.

The quotes are all from the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, or here: commdocs.house.gov...

In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.
I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.
(bolding mine) His comments clearly suggest that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. Given the fact that Dr. Quintiere is a respected scholar, and a former division chief for the NIST fire program, he's speaking from a position of credibility. Once again, his thoughts on what really did happen are irrelevant, because this particular issue is black or white - either the NIST report lacks scientific integrity, or it doesn't.


_________________________________________________



Next up, Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments. Like Dr. Quintiere, his comments do not directly support 9/11 CTs. Instead, they corroborate the many eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten steel at Ground-Zero.

Whether or not molten steel is indicative of controlled demolition, or the use of therm*te, is outside the scope of this discussion. The relevance (or irrelevance) of molten steel to any particular argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was reported by eyewitnesses.

He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns: "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [1]
In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl said, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [2]
He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [3]
The fireproofing that had been used to protect the steel also showed evidence of extreme temperatures. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [4]
Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC7 (...), "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."[4]
[1] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[2] "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction." NewsHour, PBS, 5/10/2007.
[3] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel." CBS News, 3/12/2002.
[4] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies.", NY Times, 10/2/2001
_________________________________________________



The quotes from both men support small pieces of a much larger puzzle. I want to make that very clear, because debunkers will frequently claim that there is 'zero evidence' that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity, or 'zero evidence' that there was molten steel at GZ.

This is evidence. Your continued refusal to accept that simple fact is a sign of close-minded desperation.


The above external reference is from a poster named deep44 and I take no credit for the above information.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
While looking for a simple answer to your question, I came upon a jref thread that I believe answers at least part of it.

Don't get me wrong, I can certainly understand you being undecided. There are issues with the quotes presented, but I'm not going to argue them here, I was more looking for your specific reasons, but if you have a general distrust of the NIST hypothesis that's fine.

Lets not beat around the bush though, if you believe there is solid evidence of Controlled Demolition then your status as an engineer gives that more weight than normal. I would appreciate you answering my other questions, but I am also interested in where exactly you stand on this issue. As I mentioned before, my stance is extremely obvious and well published.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I would appreciate you answering my other questions, but I am also interested in where exactly you stand on this issue. As I mentioned before, my stance is extremely obvious and well published.


I'm not sure which other questions I haven't answered.

Where I stand:

NIST has failed to put their hypothesis to test (lab experiments) in real life. I could write a computer program that shows the sky is green, but that does not make it so. Unless we are to believe the movie "Shreck" is evidence of the existance of Ogres and talking donkeys?

All, and I repeat ALL, scientific hypothesis can only become theory which can only become law when we can reproduce said hypothesis consistantly in a lab.

And according to the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, NIST doesn't even come close to the theory stage.


Scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis (a testable conjecture) used as a tentative explanation of an observation, but which has not yet been fully tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory.[1][2] A hypothesis is used in the scientific method to predict the results of further experiments, which will be used either to confirm or disprove it. A successfully-tested hypothesis achieves the status of a scientific theory.[3]

Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler and more mathematically elegant tend to be accepted over theories that are complex (see Occam's razor). Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenonomena. The process of accepting theories is part of the scientific method. If developing a hypothesis for an experiment in high school, students may be asked to follow the formulae of: If...Then...


en.wikipedia.org...


The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.


en.wikipedia.org...


A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.

A scientific law concerns the physical world. It therefore must have empirical content and consequently be capable of testing and potentially of disproof. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.

While the concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory, it is important to realize that a scientific law does not grow from or supersede a related scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences and hence the term is used interchangeably with the term physical laws. The biological sciences also have scientific laws, such as Mendelian inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg principle found in genetics. The social sciences also contain scientific laws [1].


en.wikipedia.org...

In a nutshell, that is my beef with NIST's reports on both towers and 7. Basically, we are changing building codes based on an untested hypothesis. Which is extremely unscientific.





[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
NIST has failed to put their hypothesis to test (lab experiments) in real life. I could write a computer program that shows the sky is green, but that does not make it so.

Please write such a program, and I will show you where it is wrong. This is what I am asking people to do with NIST.

You talk about lab experiments, but what experiments would you like to be done? Lets not forget that NIST did conduct quite a few experiments in their original report, and nothing in the WTC7 report is new physics.

I understand your complaint, but I don't see how it applies, what tests need to be done before you will accept the report?

Also another question I may not have explicitly asked you is "What is your current hypothesis?"



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Please write such a program, and I will show you where it is wrong. This is what I am asking people to do with NIST.


Hypothetically, If I wrote such a program and you only have the data that I supply to you, how can you show it is wrong?


You talk about lab experiments, but what experiments would you like to be done?


How about something that shows that thermal expansion causes the connections to fail rather than the beams as every other lab experiment has shown?


Lets not forget that NIST did conduct quite a few experiments in their original report, and nothing in the WTC7 report is new physics.


And did their experiments show connection failures? Thermal expansion is not new, but connection failure as oppossed to beam buckling is and has yet to be proven.


I understand your complaint, but I don't see how it applies, what tests need to be done before you will accept the report?


See above.


Also another question I may not have explicitly asked you is "What is your current hypothesis?"


Too much speculation is involved to answer this question at the moment.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
In no situation by these criteria could it ever be "right". It becomes less accurate as it progresses, and matches the visual evidence until approximately 2 seconds after the main collapse phase starts.

So, after two seconds, the model is wrong.

That's the problem, they can't reproduce the collapse, beyond a couple of seconds. Perhaps, their initial collapse sequence is completely wrong, yet it appears to be correct for a couple of seconds, until we see it fail.


You can keep insisting that it be called "wrong" if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it matches observations throughout the important structural failures.

But it only matches for two seconds, according to you, and then it is wrong.


NIST also has accuracy issues because of the nature of their simulation, but for some reason you wish to ignore this and go simply with the "wrong" label.

NIST has more than accuracy issues with the simulation. It did not perform any tests on the steel and it could not verify the building's construction.

Those ommissions contribute errors in the initial parameters.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Also another question I may not have explicitly asked you is "What is your current hypothesis?"



Let me help.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because you have NO clue what I believe and what my case is. Want to know? Here is the jist of it.

The towers were helped in someway to collapse. Who, what, where, when and why would only be supposition on my part.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did you know that thermate burns without loud kabooms?
Did you know that severing just a few floors worth of horizontal bracing to the core columns would induce buckling ? ......Just one scenario that fits what was observed. Also, that the thermate would burn up leaving little trace unless pesky people actually wanted to test the steel (Dr. Jones)?
And if it's proof you are looking for, look into Dr. Jone's work.
Or look into FEMA's corrosion analysis of some of the steel. Which fits perfectly into thermate I might add.

Me talking here: Interesting that Griff proposes that removing just a few floors worth of horizontal bracing would induce collapse.... and then asks how buckling would collapse 7.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, Ihave already said I'm on the fence. So why the vitriol? Because you THINK I'm a twoofer? Typical.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Wildbob77 :
Interesting discussion points so far.
OBL is either dead or had nothing to do with 911 yet takes credit for them.
Israel had information about 911 prior to the first plane hitting.
CIA plants or fakes the OBL tapes.
Why would the CIA be planting the fake tapes if Israel was responsible for 911?

Griff:
Look into some of the people who run our country. And where they hold dual citizenship. (Da Jooz?)

Seen enough?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The reason the sims don't match visually is because the sim software exaggerates deformations so that they are visible on your computer screen. I've seen statements of 40x. Otherwise, a deformation of 2 ft on a building that has 200' sides would only be a pixel or 2 wide.

So while the sim may show a big twist or a big lean that isn't visible on videos, it means nothing unless you have access to the software and can edit out that factor.

Capiche?



[edit on 2-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Hypothetically, If I wrote such a program and you only have the data that I supply to you, how can you show it is wrong?

Well it obviously depends on how much data you disclose, and in the case of the NIST report we're talking about having an original paper on its erection, along with relatively extensive details on framing members etc. Obviously if you don't have all the information you need then you won't be able to show it's wrong by demonstration. I gave you the link you asked for a couple of posts ago but I didn't see you comment on it, so can you list any more information you would need from NIST or would you consider filing a FOIA request for the LS-DYNA model?


How about something that shows that thermal expansion causes the connections to fail rather than the beams as every other lab experiment has shown?

Well there's nothing particularly wrong with wanting this, obviously I suggest you write to them, but would this be everything you needed to believe their theory at this point? I hope you will continue with your calculations from Page 4 as this would be interesting to see.


And did their experiments show connection failures? Thermal expansion is not new, but connection failure as oppossed to beam buckling is and has yet to be proven.

It did not.


Too much speculation is involved to answer this question at the moment.

Again I can't really complain here.

Regarding the quotes posted by Seymour, If you believe removing horizontal bracing in the WTC towers would produce identical failure characteristics, you also need to spend a bit of time reading NCSTAR 1-6 as there are additional features you may not know of.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Me talking here: Interesting that Griff proposes that removing just a few floors worth of horizontal bracing would induce collapse.... and then asks how buckling would collapse 7.


Again, you are either not understandig me or directly putting words in my mouth.

I'm asking how beam buckling, beam buckling, beam buckling causes this collapse. I agree that removing some floors worth of horizontal bracing would cause column buckling, column buckling, column buckling. Notice the difference between beam and column?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Wildbob77 :
Interesting discussion points so far.
OBL is either dead or had nothing to do with 911 yet takes credit for them.
Israel had information about 911 prior to the first plane hitting.
CIA plants or fakes the OBL tapes.
Why would the CIA be planting the fake tapes if Israel was responsible for 911?

Griff:
Look into some of the people who run our country. And where they hold dual citizenship. (Da Jooz?)

Seen enough?


Ah, very tricky in trying to show that I am anti-semitic/jew hating. Again, typical of your postings here.


BTW, it is very decietful for you to add to my quotes to make it look like I said that.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The reason the sims don't match visually is because the sim software exaggerates deformations so that they are visible on your computer screen. I've seen statements of 40x. Otherwise, a deformation of 2 ft on a building that has 200' sides would only be a pixel or 2 wide.

So they don't match, huh? Thanks for the admission.

The best that NIST could do was to provide a report that according to you, doesn't match, but according to exponent matches for the first two seconds only.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Well there's nothing particularly wrong with wanting this, obviously I suggest you write to them, but would this be everything you needed to believe their theory at this point?


Yes, it would show that it is physically possible despite the already known tests of Cardington et al.


I hope you will continue with your calculations from Page 4 as this would be interesting to see.


Some things to note about my calculations thus far. The force that I computed would also be acting on the column as well as the bolts because it would be a linear force going through (contracting) the bolts and ultimately wanting to bend the column out of line and thus try to buckle it (btw, isn't that the going theory of the towers?).

Edit: Before I hear "nah, uh, NIST says the columns were pulled not pushed" from the naysayers (not you exponent), I'll say that pushing and pulling are both forces and would be acting on the same axis of the column.

Another thing is the thermodynamics involved. NIST states that the fire went approximately 20 minutes per cubicle and then moved on to the next. Thus only a cubicle's worth (and probably a few feet more taking the transition amounts on both ends into affect) would be burning at one time. NIST's computer model has the fires raging the entire time.

Last thing. I need more time. NIST had how many years/people/money to do this? It's going to take one person without as many resources a lot longer to achieve what you want. Also, the original structural documentation would be hepful. But, I will say thank you for the link to the latest paper you gave me. I read in the NIST report about that paper, but I didn't have it.



It did not.


I'm not sure what you mean here.



Regarding the quotes posted by Seymour, If you believe removing horizontal bracing in the WTC towers would produce identical failure characteristics, you also need to spend a bit of time reading NCSTAR 1-6 as there are additional features you may not know of.


Could you paraphrase which parts please? Thanks.

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Ah, very tricky in trying to show that I am anti-semitic/jew hating.



Feeling defensive? I never said that you are anti-semetic, nor am I implying that. It's just that it's obvious you believe the Israelis had a hand in it as an answer to your who, what, why, where statement I linked.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess everyone has forgotten the dancing Israelis?
Or that they "were there to document the event"?
Or that their van tested positive for explosive residue?
Or that there are dubious connections with some Israelis, WTC basement level passes just prior to 9/11, false identifications, and let's not forget the murder of at least one person who was set to testify against them?
[sarcasm]
No, nothing to see here folks. No connection what-so-ever[/sarcasm]




There's more like this, I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

So they don't match, huh? Thanks for the admission.

The best that NIST could do was to provide a report that according to you, doesn't match, but according to exponent matches for the first two seconds only.


Of course they don't, visually.

In the computer software however, they would be MUCH closer.

You're just unable to understand that, or are unwilling to admit that you do.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
So, after two seconds, the model is wrong.

No, two seconds after the main collapse portion starts, and that was just an estimate. This occurs at least 10 seconds into their analysis.


But it only matches for two seconds, according to you, and then it is wrong.

It becomes less accurate as it progresses, there's nothing you can do to stop this. Imagine you take a measurement of a voltage, your result is 1.5v, this is accurate +/- 0.1v, what happens when you multiply this by 10,000?


NIST has more than accuracy issues with the simulation. It did not perform any tests on the steel and it could not verify the building's construction.

Why couldn't they verify the building's construction. I saw Griff paste this and haven't properly contested it yet, but I'll be surprised if you get the reason right



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join