Do NIST's computer models meet the International Building Codes?

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Granted, not all can be discerned about someone on a message board. But sometimes, it becomes more apparent once you read the bulk of someone's post's.

For instance, all of your posts contain grammitical errors and misspellings - using "your" instead of "you're", "someone" instead of "someone's", and so on.

That says something.

You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage.

Also, claims that nukes could have been used, cgi fakery was employed and all the eyewitnesses were hypnotized, holograms..... this also speaks about the grasp on reality that any particular poster that posts about this possibility, has.

So generalities CAN be assumed about any certain poster's intelligence level, or education, or level of mental health.

There's more points I can make, but I'm sure it'll be lost on you....

Lost to me? I think you need to stop your unwarranted personal attacks on me and everyone else in here.

Now can we get back on topic here and discuss the issues in this thread please.
Do NIST computer models meet the International building codes?

Seymour Butz what can you tell us about NIST computer models and do you think they meet the international building codes?

Originally posted by tezzajw

1-Yes NIST does state that, I've read the report.

2-However, the alleged point of collapse was column 79, not floors 12 and 13.

3-Where does NIST state that there was higher fuel loads around column 79?

1- then you know that they stated that the paper fuel was higher throughout the entire floor. Col 79 would be included in that area, right?

2- And what caused the buckling of 79? The floor failures, which led to a long unbraced length, right?

3- I thought you said you read the Report? I thought you said you were aware of their statements? Remember that the area around col 79 would be included would be included in the statement that the whole floor had a "very high" paper load, right?

So why are you dodging my on topic question? What do you have to say about Griff seemingly saying that NIST isn't expected to adhere to the ICC standards? You're just dodging because it's inconvenient to you, right?

Originally posted by Griff

1-If you had followed along in my calculations, I showed that without this magical number (600C), the calculations fail. And NIST nor Newton's Bit can prove that the exterior columns were 600C.

2-So, I guess I'm a cwazy twoofer then?

1- You want proof that would be impossible to supply. the only way to PROVE it would be if someone was there taking measurements. In lieu of that, you have to use engineering standards and make some assumptions, yeah? And fire science engineering would be part of that, not just structural engineering. And so, if fire science engineering says that the 600C is not outside the realm of previously recorded tests, then it is NOT unreasonable to assume that the 600C was achieved.

2- I wouldn't put you in THAT catagory Griff. Exceptions do apply, and you're one of them.

Originally posted by cashlink

Do NIST computer models meet the International building codes?

Looks like you missed Griff's post where he seemingly says that NIST isn't expected to meet those standards.

I CAN say that it would have been better if they did however. But I can also say that to troofers, it would make no difference, for they would find another reason to try and minimize the NIST Report on 7.

To me, it appears that NIST is aware of this unsavory fact about the troof movement, and as such, will not go down the slippery slope of jumping through all the ridiculous hoops that troofers want them to jump through, just because they have "questions".....

To answer your question simply, nobody knows...
NIST “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release for peer revue.
Also when information was pointed out that NIST "didn't have" John Gross (NIST lead engineer) asked for it to be emailed to him, yet when he was asked for his email address he refused to provide it.

NIST is guilty of fraud, any 10 year old with internet access could have performed a better investigation, and if you believe a single one of NIST's claims I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I would be interested in selling you.

NIST and Underwriters Laboratories constructed models of floor sections, and after they could not get them to fail, resorted to computer models... If that doesn't tell you how blatently absurd NIST's claims are watch Loose Change Final Cut

Google Video Link

And the Professor Steven Jones presentation at the American Scholars Symposium in 2006

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Or visit
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Or
Journal of 9/11 Studies
They are either some of the stupidest people alive, or blatently guilty of misprision of treason, either way not one single word that comes from NIST can ever be taken seriously ever again.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Seymour Butz what can you tell us about NIST computer models and do you think they meet the international building codes?

I ask “you” a question; please show us with your own research why you feel people that are looking for the truth are “wrong” about NIST models meeting the international building codes?

Looks like you missed Griff's post where he seemingly says that NIST isn't expected to meet those standards.

I know what Griff post says, however I am talking to “you” not Griff.

I CAN say that it would have been better if they did however. But I can also say that to troofers, it would make no difference, for they would find another reason to try and minimize the NIST Report on 7.

People that are looking for the “truth” do not need to find other reasons to minimize any report. Furthermore what dose *troofers* have to do with debating this subject.

To me, it appears that NIST is aware of this unsavory fact about the troof movement

How dose it appear to you?
What are the unsavory facts about this truth movement?
Can you please elaborate your finding with sources?

and as such, will not go down the slippery slope of jumping through all the ridiculous hoops that troofers want them to jump through, just because they have "questions".....

Insert( eye roll) So you are saying that the American people including other scientist and other engineers who have questions that NIST refuses to answer about their own work do not deserve an answer.

It is apparently clear, reading your post you do not know how to debate, name-calling and ridiculing, and insulting is never aloud in debating. Usually one resorts to belittling when one has nothing to debate.





[edit on 11/16/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- then you know that they stated that the paper fuel was higher throughout the entire floor. Col 79 would be included in that area, right?

NIST report, page 10 states that there was a higher fuel load across the entire 11th and 12th floors.

You specifically stated that there was a higher distribution of fuel at the alleged point of collapse, which is not so. There was nothing special about the fuel around column 79, compared to column 78, 80, etc... they all experienced the same alleged density of fuel, 32 kg/m^2, around them on floors 11 and 12.

2- And what caused the buckling of 79? The floor failures, which led to a long unbraced length, right?

According to the NIST report, it was alleged that 'thermal expansion' caused floor 13 to fail at column 79.

3- I thought you said you read the Report? I thought you said you were aware of their statements? Remember that the area around col 79 would be included would be included in the statement that the whole floor had a "very high" paper load, right?

Along with column 78, 80, etc... Your attempt to cover your mistake is noted, Seymour. There was no higher fuel load around the alleged collapse point, as you claim. Column 79 did not experience higher fuel loads around it than any other column did.

Floors 11 and 12 were alleged to have higher fuel loads, but those floors passed though 79 other columns as well.

So why are you dodging my on topic question? What do you have to say about Griff seemingly saying that NIST isn't expected to adhere to the ICC standards? You're just dodging because it's inconvenient to you, right?

I'm not a structural engineer. I'm not qualified to answer that question. I don't know how the ICC standards are governed.

Look, let me make this as simple as I can for you.

If all it took to drop a 100 story skyscraper into it's own footprint was a little jetfuel, why do demolition companies make MILLIONS to go professionally demolish them?
No steel-frame structure has EVER collapsed due to fire, and the temperature of jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel, even under laboratory conditions being fed pure oxygen.

Demolition experts have called the DEMOLITION of the twin towers and building 7 a "work of art" and have publicly stated that they don't think they could have done it that perfectly. This feat (a perfect vertical demolition) requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will even attempt it.

The laws of physics would tell any 5th grader that a building doesn't just fall into the path of MOST resistance. If it HAD collapsed due to fire it would have tipped over, following the path of LEAST resistance.

There are hundreds of reasons why the official story is total BS, and over 300 physicists, architects, engineers, demolition experts, etc. who can give you all of the SCIENTIFIC reasons why NIST is "full of it" up to their eyebrows. So stop touting NIST's fairytales as proof that the official story is in any way factual.

The EPA's own report stated that they found 1.3 Diphenylpropane in the air samples near ground zero, and that they had NEVER sampled that chemical due to a building fire or collapse before. 1.3 DPP is found in sol-gels used to hold thermite to steel girders. It wasn't even just thermite, but thermate, thermate is a patented high temperature incindiery which has no tag like most explosives, which means it can't be traced.

It really doesn't even matter if NIST's computer models meet international building codes, because their entire fairytale defies the known laws of physics. And as I stated before NIST and Underwriters Laboratories constructed models of floor sections that they could not make collapse no matter how hard they tried, so NIST resorted to computer models.

Sorry to be offtopic from the computer model topic but you guys are getting ridiculous. Stop regurgitating what NIST spoon-fed you, don't take my word for it, investigate it for yourself and you will see clear as day that they are LYING to you. (and doing a horrible job at it too)


[edit on 16-11-2008 by ashamedamerican]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by tezzajw

I'm not a structural engineer. I'm not qualified to answer that question. I don't know how the ICC standards are governed.

So what was your point in asking in the first place?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm not a structural engineer. I'm not qualified to answer that question. I don't know how the ICC standards are governed.

So what was your point in asking in the first place?

I didn't ask anything. I agreed with Griff that NISTs computer models are dubious, as are their input parameters and their results.

Any computer simulated model that creates jet fuel, from nothing, has to have its validity questioned.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

I didn't ask anything. I agreed with Griff that NISTs computer models are dubious, as are there input parameters and their results.

And since, as you admit, are not an SE, how did you come to this conclusion, since it regards SE?

Just following along?

Not really vetting what Griff says?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
[And since, as you admit, are not an SE, how did you come to this conclusion, since it regards SE?
Just following along?
Not really vetting what Griff says?

One doesn't need to be a structural engineer to understand how a mathematical computer modelling process works, Seymour.

Computer programmers and people with mathematical training can discern the validity of computer models. Remember that NIST tried to model many things, that were not all in the domain of a structural engineer. Fuel and wreckage debris, fire simulations, etc...

Remember that the NIST model produced 62,200 pounds of jet fuel as an output parameter, with an input parameter of 62,000 pounds for the simulated spread of jet fuel in the WTC tower. That's a 200 pound mistake.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Remember that the NIST model produced 62,200 pounds of jet fuel as an output parameter, with an input parameter of 62,000 pounds for the simulated spread of jet fuel in the WTC tower. That's a 200 pound mistake.

Try to stay on topic, eh?

The thread is about the ICC codes.

If you have any evidence WHY NIST is required to use them please present it.

As stated, I wish they would, but there are other issues that aren't addressed. Namely, releasing the parameters used in the sim would also mean releasing details on the buildings, and it looks like the owners aren't down for that.

Regrettably, Constitutional law protects privacy in these matters, although I have agreed with Griff that I wish these would be released also.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Try to stay on topic, eh? The thread is about the ICC codes.

It is on topic, Seymour (Note the third and fourth words in the title of this thread and the bolding of the external quote in the original post - input data).

It's proving that the NIST computer models were flawed. You asked me in your previous post how I came to the conclusion that the NIST computer models were flawed - I provided you with an example of where the NIST computer model failed.

I don't see how flawed computer simulation models can meet any regulations at all?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

It is on topic, Seymour

FAIL

And what are the last 3 words?

IBC?

So, do you have anything to say about NIST using or not using the IBC codes? Did you notice my response before? Notice that I'm on topic? Can you post anything relevant to NIST using or not using the IBC codes?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
FAIL

Huh? Would you prefer to use more than a single word to explain? Why don't you appear to accept that the NIST models have produced output data that does not reconcile with the input data?

So, do you have anything to say about NIST using or not using the IBC codes? Did you notice my response before?

Whether or not NIST comply to any codes or regulations, their computer simulated models are flawed. As I stated in my second post in this thread, garbage in = garbage out.

Notice that I'm on topic?

Notice that I am too. It's great when we both agree, hey.

Can you post anything relevant to NIST using or not using the IBC codes?

Sure, look at this external quote from the OP:

Also, limitations and applicability of the model must be included as part of the documentation.

The NIST model isn't applicable, if it creates 200 pounds of jet fuel. The model fails.

Edit: Damned commas in the wrong spots. I can't have the grammar police telling me off, hey?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Alright everyone. Let's stop with the bickering and name calling and posting off topic.

Any further disrespectful posts will result in a post ban.

I realize emotions can run high when discussing 9/11 topics, but this bickering will no longer be tolerated.

Instead of retaliating and getting yourself in trouble, please use the alert button at the bottom of the offending post to bring it to the attention of the staff. Thank you.