Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well sure I can! The collapse - according to the manipulation of their model - was created by the worst case damage model of the jet at the highest speed and greatest strength and highest mass for the plane, the least strength model of the building

So far this all seems within the normal range of error analysis.


and temperatures far in excess of any temperatures sample testing showed to exist in the building.

Did they have justification for using these temperatures?


In addition, their model completely ignored the behavior of the central core section,

Cite please?


AND ignored the specimens they had collected which indicated the core section fell, pulling down the floors and the outer walls with them and failing the outer floor connections in a downward motion while keeping the core section floor connections intact, for the most part. I could go on, but I've discussed every bit of this in numerous threads on this board...so I'll quit for now.

This is not NISTs explanation.


Can you tell me what the NIST report states AFTER the initiation of collapse?

Sure, NIST references the work of Dr Bazant whos calculations indicate that the KE released by a single floor failure would be enough to overwhelm the next floor down. Because momentum is conserved this next floor will impact the subsequent floor with even greater KE and so begins a progressive or 'pancake' collapse.


P.S. I am a degreed Aerospace Engineer who has worked for 17 years in mechanical design, stress analysis, fatigue analysis and specialized in the metallurgical side of steel design.

Excellent, hopefully you can explain to the people I am debating how you can heat a rod and that area of heat will remain relatively local due to the difference in surface area. I assume you don't disagree with me on this?

Since you did not get NISTs failure mechanism correct, although you were aware of their modeling scenarios, I don't want to pick out any specific criticism of my own. I'll let you make the points and I'll rebut them if applicable?




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


(I don't know if this is trying to sarcastically say my posts are fallacies, or whether you've misunderstood the nature of my post. Your aggressive post about Mark Roberts is full of fallacies.)

No, I did not say your posts are fallacies and you know that!
You made the statement that my post is a fallacies.
So since you think my post is a fallacies please point out what the fallacies are.
Please point out with proof, what I said about Mark Roberts that is a fallacy?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Valhall
Well sure I can! The collapse - according to the manipulation of their model - was created by the worst case damage model of the jet at the highest speed and greatest strength and highest mass for the plane, the least strength model of the building

So far this all seems within the normal range of error analysis.


It IS, in fact, within the normal range of error analysis. The problem is the NIST ONLY reported the results of this worst case scenario because the lesser scenarios did not initiate failure. They were pressed by the families of the 911 victims to publish the others and refused. Not only did they refuse, they went in and rewrote key phrases of their reasoning for not publishing the other scenarios - thereby eliminating phrases that could be used against them in the report.




and temperatures far in excess of any temperatures sample testing showed to exist in the building.

Did they have justification for using these temperatures?


No, they did not. Other than the justification that the lower temperatures did not initiate failure (that's in the report and you should know that if you read it). They kept jacking the temperature up until they finally got failure of the floor connections.




In addition, their model completely ignored the behavior of the central core section,

Cite please?


What are you kidding me? NIST WTC failure report of 9/11/01. Read it.




AND ignored the specimens they had collected which indicated the core section fell, pulling down the floors and the outer walls with them and failing the outer floor connections in a downward motion while keeping the core section floor connections intact, for the most part. I could go on, but I've discussed every bit of this in numerous threads on this board...so I'll quit for now.

This is not NISTs explanation.


That pretty much goes without saying considering I started the statements with "AND ignored..." Right?




Can you tell me what the NIST report states AFTER the initiation of collapse?

Sure, NIST references the work of Dr Bazant whos calculations indicate that the KE released by a single floor failure would be enough to overwhelm the next floor down. Because momentum is conserved this next floor will impact the subsequent floor with even greater KE and so begins a progressive or 'pancake' collapse.


Right - they did nothing but jack with the numbers until they got initiation of failure. Which means they proved nothing that led to the resultant global collapse of the building. (Especially since their failure initiation model was bogus.)



Excellent, hopefully you can explain to the people I am debating how you can heat a rod and that area of heat will remain relatively local due to the difference in surface area. I assume you don't disagree with me on this?


I'm not even getting what the importance of your point is. Heat conducts faster through a small cross-section than a large cross-section. I'm assuming that's what you want me to say.



Since you did not get NISTs failure mechanism correct, although you were aware of their modeling scenarios, I don't want to pick out any specific criticism of my own. I'll let you make the points and I'll rebut them if applicable?


Done...done in triplicate.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
No, I did not say your posts are fallacies and you know that!

Well I didn't, that's why I asked! Thanks for explaining that though.


You made the statement that my post is a fallacies.
So since you think my post is a fallacies please point out what the fallacies are.
Please point out with proof, what I said about Mark Roberts that is a fallacy?

Sure, I'll give an example of each, along with what Wikipedia has to say about it.


An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic called a fallacy. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it.
...
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.


Cashlink:
Oh no I can’t believe you are going to stand behind a tour guide LOL
...
Richard Gage, I’m a architect of 20 years currently working on a 400 million dollar project ...” “I’m Mark, I’m a tour guide”
Mark Roberts needs to go to school and get a life he of all people is not a credible source.
He think he is going to put a 20 year experience architect to sham with out any education
...
Mark Roberts lacks education in all these fields; he is by no means an expert in anything in the above.

Here you clearly point out the difference in qualifications between both people and claim that this means Mark Roberts cannot possibly make valid claims.



A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).


Cashlink:
Mark Roberts thinks he knows more about architect than any architect does.
Mark Roberts thinks he knows more about engineering than any engineer does.
Mark Roberts thinks he knows more about demolition than any demo expert dose.
Mark Roberts thinks he knows more about sciences than any scientist knows.
Mark Roberts thinks he knows more about fire than the firemen know.

This is a pretty evident Straw Man. Mark Roberts does not make these claims, you have made them for him in an attempt to ridicule him. Which brings us on to the third fallacy!


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem


Cashlink:
Mark Roberts lacks education in all these fields; he is by no means an expert in anything in the above.
...
Mark Roberts has it all WRONG!!
Mark Roberts tell a lot of lies.


There we go, three examples of you using fallacies in that post. I think I have quoted pretty much your entire post there. Now in exchange for me writing this post, please show me a single occasion I have not followed the civility rules here. If you cannot find one, please retract your claim that I have been uncivil.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It IS, in fact, within the normal range of error analysis. The problem is the NIST ONLY reported the results of this worst case scenario because the lesser scenarios did not initiate failure.

Actually this is also wrong, they never carried the lesser scenarios this far.


They were pressed by the families of the 911 victims to publish the others and refused. Not only did they refuse, they went in and rewrote key phrases of their reasoning for not publishing the other scenarios - thereby eliminating phrases that could be used against them in the report.

I am not aware of this claim. Can you cite please?


No, they did not. Other than the justification that the lower temperatures did not initiate failure (that's in the report and you should know that if you read it). They kept jacking the temperature up until they finally got failure of the floor connections.

I have read the entire report, so NIST did not conduct any tests to ensure their models matched the temperatures involved? Is this your claim?


What are you kidding me? NIST WTC failure report of 9/11/01. Read it.

I have read the entire NIST report, 11,000 pages in all. I will need you to be a little more precise than that!


That pretty much goes without saying considering I started the statements with "AND ignored..." Right?

Perhaps, but in that case you have ignored the question I gave you. We can get on to what evidence you believe they ignored (the core structures actually survived both collapses far longer than any other building component) if you like.


Right - they did nothing but jack with the numbers until they got initiation of failure. Which means they proved nothing that led to the resultant global collapse of the building. (Especially since their failure initiation model was bogus.)

But this is not what I was discussing. I told you what happened post-collapse initiation. Is the work of Dr Bazant wrong? How about the more recent work by Gregory Urich of ST911J (or a similar acronym, you'll forgive me for forgetting which one of the groups he's part of)


I'm not even getting what the importance of your point is. Heat conducts faster through a small cross-section than a large cross-section. I'm assuming that's what you want me to say.

No, because that is in fact the opposite of reality? The larger the surface area, the faster the heat conduction (at least as far as I am aware! Perhaps I am in the wrong!)


Done...done in triplicate.

Appreciated. These debates often turn out to be mudslinging (see cashlink's posts) but I am averse to that. I am more than happy to rebut specific points, but we need to ensure we stay on topic. At the end of the next post, could you please make a list of points you believe you have made, and questions you want answering? I will do the same, in order that we do not end up jumping from topic to topic. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Valhall
It IS, in fact, within the normal range of error analysis. The problem is the NIST ONLY reported the results of this worst case scenario because the lesser scenarios did not initiate failure.

Actually this is also wrong, they never carried the lesser scenarios this far.


I'll refrain from calling you a liar and just say - this is a terribly false statement.




They were pressed by the families of the 911 victims to publish the others and refused. Not only did they refuse, they went in and rewrote key phrases of their reasoning for not publishing the other scenarios - thereby eliminating phrases that could be used against them in the report.

I am not aware of this claim. Can you cite please?


Yes - I can cite. You can do a search of "Family of 911 victims" or you can do a search in the 911 Forum of this board. It's been discussed ad nauseum here.




No, they did not. Other than the justification that the lower temperatures did not initiate failure (that's in the report and you should know that if you read it). They kept jacking the temperature up until they finally got failure of the floor connections.

I have read the entire report, so NIST did not conduct any tests to ensure their models matched the temperatures involved? Is this your claim?


My "claim" is not a claim. It comes straight from the NIST report. They could not get the floors to fail at the temperatures for which they had data so they continued to elevate the temperature FAR beyond any data they had to support until the floors failed. THAT's what they did.




What are you kidding me? NIST WTC failure report of 9/11/01. Read it.

I have read the entire NIST report, 11,000 pages in all. I will need you to be a little more precise than that!


Again...ad nauseum...here on the board. I will not do your research work for you. It's all here. It's all been discussed too many times for me to even want to start over. Do a search here if you don't want to re-read the sections that didn't stick in your mind the first time. I stated to you before the contradictions between the failures of the connections and the lack of explanation in the model to agree with those connection failures.




That pretty much goes without saying considering I started the statements with "AND ignored..." Right?

Perhaps, but in that case you have ignored the question I gave you. We can get on to what evidence you believe they ignored (the core structures actually survived both collapses far longer than any other building component) if you like.


Ignoring the above because the first challenge you gave had no merit, so the second challenge you give has less....diminishing returns.




Right - they did nothing but jack with the numbers until they got initiation of failure. Which means they proved nothing that led to the resultant global collapse of the building. (Especially since their failure initiation model was bogus.)

But this is not what I was discussing. I told you what happened post-collapse initiation. Is the work of Dr Bazant wrong? How about the more recent work by Gregory Urich of ST911J (or a similar acronym, you'll forgive me for forgetting which one of the groups he's part of)


NIST did not model the global collapse of the buildings, nor did they even determine what initiated the failure. Since they couldn't achieve initiating the failure without going outside the envelope of data they had, I'm sure they were ecstatic to find some one who had done work they could grab hold of to attach to the ass-end of the Frankenstein they had created.




I'm not even getting what the importance of your point is. Heat conducts faster through a small cross-section than a large cross-section. I'm assuming that's what you want me to say.

No, because that is in fact the opposite of reality? The larger the surface area, the faster the heat conduction (at least as far as I am aware! Perhaps I am in the wrong!)


Please note - I said cross-sectional area...you're saying surface area. There's a really big difference.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Not to interupt into this conversation but I just wanted to mention they still have not updated one of their corrections. I downloaded NCSTAR 1-2 on August 31st of this year and it still says on page 281/462 "The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1)................ (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used."



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


When your kidneys malfunction, most people would consult nephrologists, not a policeman. When your toilet is leaking it make sense to consult a plumber, not an electrician. When one needs legal representation typically they higher an attorney proficient in the field of law at hand, not an auto mechanic. Just good common sense.

The information I post regarding 911 comes directly from accepted professionals in their respective fields. These maybe firemen, engineers, physicists, architects. I don’t need a degree in each field to form opinions about 911.

While Mark has his opinions, they seem to be nothing more than fairy tales base on the flimsiest information, much from the Government, lacking all logic. To make a scenario believable you need to be able to connect all the dots or at lease the majority of them. His story is totally ludicrous.

Regarding your breaking civility rules, your not so clever games of semantics is a start. What better way to draw attention away from the subject of the OP.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
"The NIST was tasked with determining what brought down the buildings. They did not do that. They DECIDED what brought down the buildings and then produced a report for that conclusion. "

Val and everyone, this is just like the Warren commission deciding (OR BEING TOLD) that Oswald did all the shooting, and producing a report that denied reality, twisted facts, omitted eyewitness testimony, and conveniently overlooked the TRUTH.
So NIST did not decide what brought the building down, they were told, and conducted themselves accordingly. They all got briefcases as a result of falsifying the facts, as well, you can guarantee that.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Can you tell me what the NIST report states AFTER the initiation of collapse?


exponent, I think what Val is after is this:

Three words. "Global collapse ensued." Repeated twice; one for each tower.

A slap in the face and an insult to one's intelligence.

A word of advice, quit while you're behind.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


Oh no I can’t believe you are going to stand behind a tour guide LOL
What a joke, please I laugh my head off watching this want Abe know it all!
Richard Gage, I’m a architect of 20 years currently working on a 400 million dollar project ...” “I’m Mark, I’m a tour guide”
Mark Roberts needs to go to school and get a life he of all people is not a credible source.
He think he is going to put a 20 year experience architect to sham with out any education



I will ask you cashlink... and I know I will not get an answer. But here it goes....

What did Mark Roberts get wrong during the debate?

After you're done ignoring or sidestepping that question I will ask you another.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Not to interupt into this conversation but I just wanted to mention they still have not updated one of their corrections. I downloaded NCSTAR 1-2 on August 31st of this year and it still says on page 281/462 "The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1)................ (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used."


Quick - grab a screenshot before they rewrite history!!! I actually have a copy saved, but it would be neat if we ALL had a copy..huh?

lol



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

If it was not the highjackers who blew up the WTC then who did?
www.ae911truth.org...


cashlink

AE911 isn't the truth movement. The organization as a whole does not have some kooky theory they are promoting. It is a group of architects, engineers and scientists who reject the tremendously flawed work and report of NIST and call for the investigation into the collapse of the towers to be reopened in hopes that complete and accurate work can be done.

So...what I'm saying is, NISTs report being rejected does not necessarily imply there were no hijackers, no planes, or that the fires and damage from same did not contribute to the final outcome.

(P.S. I find it curious you state they "blew up" the WTC towers...)



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I'm trying to respond to a few posts here, but this is quite difficult because of the lack of any actual citations. For example:


Yes - I can cite. You can do a search of "Family of 911 victims" or you can do a search in the 911 Forum of this board. It's been discussed ad nauseum here.



Originally posted by Valhall
I'll refrain from calling you a liar and just say - this is a terribly false statement.


My "claim" is not a claim. It comes straight from the NIST report. They could not get the floors to fail at the temperatures for which they had data so they continued to elevate the temperature FAR beyond any data they had to support until the floors failed. THAT's what they did.


Again...ad nauseum...here on the board. I will not do your research work for you. It's all here. It's all been discussed too many times for me to even want to start over. Do a search here if you don't want to re-read the sections that didn't stick in your mind the first time. I stated to you before the contradictions between the failures of the connections and the lack of explanation in the model to agree with those connection failures.

These are not citations, they are known as excuses. You're clearly not trying to have any sort of proper debate here and are just trying to score points against the NIST report. I have no interest in arguing against such a facile position.


Please note - I said cross-sectional area...you're saying surface area. There's a really big difference.

Not if you actually read what I am saying. Cross sectional surface area. Now I may well be wrong, but I am pretty damn sure that the greater the cross sectional area the more heat will be transferred.


Originally posted by NIcon
Not to interupt into this conversation but I just wanted to mention they still have not updated one of their corrections.

Did you miss their Erratum? wtc.nist.gov...


Originally posted by cashlink
Regarding your breaking civility rules, your not so clever games of semantics is a start. What better way to draw attention away from the subject of the OP.

I notice you completely fail to contest any of the fallacies I showed in your post and in fact have returned to rhetoric in attempt to convince people that we should listen to Richard Gage's authority, rather than his arguments. Tell me, do Controlled Demolitions typically spread debris over a large area destroying nearby buildings? No? Why is it Richard Gage claims this is a characteristic of destruction by explosives?


Originally posted by gottago
exponent, I think what Val is after is this:

Three words. "Global collapse ensued." Repeated twice; one for each tower.

A slap in the face and an insult to one's intelligence.

A word of advice, quit while you're behind.

Unfortunately I have no choice but to quit, as rhetoric seems to be more important than actual debate here. You, along with many others are simply trying to ridicule the NIST report. I don't assume for a second you've actually done the calculations to confirm or deny Dr Bazant's model? Do you have any empirical data at all that shows global collapse would not ensue? I find it unlikely.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
From: 911missinglinks web page

"Now you will discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video. The facts will make it abundantly clear that the so-called 9/11 “Truth” movement has been infiltrated and is ultimately controlled by the same criminals group who masterminded the attacks. As they say, 'if you want to control the dissent you lead the dissent.' Utilizing evidence from the FBI, CIA, NSA, US Armed Forces Intelligence sectors, Foreign Intelligence organizations, local law enforcement agencies and independent investigators, Missing Links goes where no other 9/11 video has dared to."

See the video:

www.911missinglinks.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Unfortunately I have no choice but to quit, as rhetoric seems to be more important than actual debate here. You, along with many others are simply trying to ridicule the NIST report. I don't assume for a second you've actually done the calculations to confirm or deny Dr Bazant's model? Do you have any empirical data at all that shows global collapse would not ensue? I find it unlikely.


Val is right, the NIST report has been dissected here ad nauseum, but let's give it one last go, since you think your arguments are not getting their due.

Yes, NIST should be ridiculed for "Global collapse ensued." It is a blatant attempt to ignore explaining how both buildings fell, and did so identically and completely, into the sub-basements, and to account for the numerous staggering anomalies of both those collapses. And why Ground Zero would well, look like ground zero after the collapse. Bazant's work ignores these critical elements of the collapses as well, and is just as fundamentally flawed. So, quite bluntly, the NIST report was not a scientific investigation but a cover-up, a hack job, and an insult.

It's been discussed over and over, but once more to the well: The crux of NIST's report is explaining collapse initiation. Their final theory was that sagging floor trusses bowed, pulling in the exterior column screen enough to initiate collapse. They calculated that the floors had to deflect 52 inches to initiate collapse. To prove this, they first rebuilt a section of the floors and exterior columns, without fireproofing, with double the dead loads, and subjected them to 2000 degree heat for two hours. NB that already in the physical model all the parameters are far above those stated in their own report. In simple English, they stacked the deck. Big time.

So what did they get for all their trouble? A 2-inch deflection. Well, toss that out! They then turned to computer simulations. They ran eight sims, upping the parameters ever higher, until on the ninth they got the numbers they needed and this they took as vindication and put that in the report.

Now, if you were a high-school science teacher and a student handed you such a report, what grade would you give it? Thought so. You'd be insulted too, I'd hope.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
AE911 isn't the truth movement. The organization as a whole does not have some kooky theory they are promoting.


Hi Val,

Nice to see you back. In regards to Richard Gage, he is a joke. He is often showed his errors yet fails to correct them. (although he backed away from the squibs in WTC-7 weeks after he was shown the mistake.)

He has been caught manipulating videos to persuade others.

Richard actually said this:

"Ninety thousand tons of structural steel has been pulverized to a fine talcum powder through these intense explosions”

Members from his site state things like this:

"I could never understand the 'convenient' vertical collapse at the BASE due to an extreme event at height." -Robert T. Mote

Structural engineer Dennis Kollar -“For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.”

Donald Messerlian-
“Seismographic evidence proved pre-planted explosives destroyed WTC 1, 2 and building 7 before the planes struck buildings 1 & 2.”

One of Aerospace Engineers actually stated this:

"After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers. No commercial plane impacted the Pentagon. No commercial aircraft buried itself in Pennsylvania terra firma."

I ask that if interested you go to this site:

ae911truth.info...

This site is dedicated to show the flaws and lies of Mr. Gage.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Could you cite where this truss model is from?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'm trying to respond to a few posts here, but this is quite difficult because of the lack of any actual citations. For example:
These are not citations, they are known as excuses. You're clearly not trying to have any sort of proper debate here and are just trying to score points against the NIST report. I have no interest in arguing against such a facile position.


Your citations:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Please note - I said cross-sectional area...you're saying surface area. There's a really big difference.

Not if you actually read what I am saying. Cross sectional surface area. Now I may well be wrong, but I am pretty damn sure that the greater the cross sectional area the more heat will be transferred.


The more mass the more capacity for heat. I'm still unclear what you are asking, but does that get us to the same point? I initially read your statement as asking which would conduct heat from one place to the next fastest - of course, the smaller the cross-section the faster the heat will conduct from one side to the other. But if you are asking which will absorb more heat, the greater the mass the more heat can be absorbed...BUT the slower the increase in the temperature of the body. i.e. a big piece of steel is slower to heat to a given temperature than a small one.



Originally posted by NIcon
Not to interupt into this conversation but I just wanted to mention they still have not updated one of their corrections.

Did you miss their Erratum? wtc.nist.gov...


I hope you understand that the threatened re-writing of the report is probably the most devious and unethical thing the NIST has done so far. They essentially are trying to cover their tracks.




Originally posted by gottago
exponent, I think what Val is after is this:

Three words. "Global collapse ensued." Repeated twice; one for each tower.

A slap in the face and an insult to one's intelligence.

A word of advice, quit while you're behind.

Unfortunately I have no choice but to quit, as rhetoric seems to be more important than actual debate here. You, along with many others are simply trying to ridicule the NIST report. I don't assume for a second you've actually done the calculations to confirm or deny Dr Bazant's model? Do you have any empirical data at all that shows global collapse would not ensue? I find it unlikely.


The "it can be shown" statement (waves hand to classroom as if it isn't worth showing) of "global collapse ensued" is exactly the point. Yes, I have empirical data that shows global collapse would not ensue. I was given it by the NIST in their report...unfortunately they did the triple dot thingy and just completely dismissed their own data and jumped over to the "it can be shown - global collapse ensued".

A shame really - considering the taxpayer was paying for the "it can be shown" part.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by Valhall
AE911 isn't the truth movement. The organization as a whole does not have some kooky theory they are promoting.


Hi Val,




Thank you.

Yes, I understand what you are listing there - please note though that each reference you gave are specific theories to individual people - not an organization. Here's the deal. After several years of researching this and arguing with kooky no-plane people and manipulative panhandling truthers, I felt that signing my name to the AE911 petition was a way to voice along with other professionals (irrespective of whether we are like thinking beyond the specificity of the petition) to try to get the investigation re-opened.

In other words, I don't have to believe like any given person in that organization past the point of this "the NIST and 911 commission work was grossly flawed, manipulated, and had tremendous data gaps...we need a new report".

So, it doesn't bother me if a given signator has some theory I can't accept - that's not why I joined the group.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]





new topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join