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.

 

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

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
well, that peer review stuff may have just thawed. it appears, after a telephone conversation I had with NIST freedom of information, I think I may have a couple of DVD's of models of wtc7 collapse. but I wont know until they arrive and we want know what they sent until, A&E911 runs the models.
so, excellent news, we may be getting some models to examine ... I still say a stiff wind could cause their model to collapse.. because you can knock out 60% of the building and you would still have a huge rest of the building to demo... cause all steel doesnt fail at the same time unless they use explosives... I wonder how the models got around that catch 22.. and then we have the 6.3 second collapse.. very suspiciouos.

Linking NIST FOIA to this thread if they wish to defend their position, I believe they have a right to do so. I mean, well you know what I mean.



[edit on 19-11-2008 by BornPatriot]




posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BornPatriot
 


Don't get your hopes up. The modeling of the towers that they did was only of conditions required to get the building to start moving, and then that very first initial movement that their condition had caused.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't get your hopes up. The modeling of the towers that they did was only of conditions required to get the building to start moving, and then that very first initial movement that their condition had caused.

You obviously haven't read NISTs WTC7 report or the post you are quoting.

NIST took the WTC7 simulation as far as they could, it took something like 6 months for a typical model run to be completed.

BornPatriot, you have missed the most important part of NISTs collapse theory! Their model of the collapse is somewhat inaccurate, but an important validation is that by their method the following events happen:
  • Column 79 fails leading to deformation of east penthouse
  • East penthouse sinks in to building
  • Several seconds later, central and west sections of the roof begin to collapse
  • Global collapse begins

It is the several second gap between the east penthouse failure and the rest of the failure which is very important. There is absolutely no reason for a controlled demolition to include this feature as it would result in large quantities of steel smashing through the building for up to 7 seconds before other charges were set off. Controlled demolitions minimise building movement while major charges are going off to ensure that they do not become disconnected / cause the building to fail other than intended.

I look forward to seeing some WTC7 models released though, NIST did the same with their SAP2000 models and if you have access to a lot of powerful computers and a good FEA suite you should be able to recreate their results relatively easily.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You obviously haven't read NISTs WTC7 report or the post you are quoting.


No, I haven't, but you've completely neglected to tell me why anything I said was out of line. Have you seen the models already, or are you just so devout of a cheerleader that you just *know* these things?


NIST took the WTC7 simulation as far as they could


That really tells me a lot. They took the tower simulations so far, too, huh?

I don't need all the smart ass remarks. I've seen the tower simulations. I was very, very unimpressed. It barely moved. It only showed the initial conditions that they had decided upon by the NIST team as being necessary to get the building to move. Not a single floor "pancaked," nothing like that. You can't argue about that. That's how they decided to model it. It was stupid. It didn't go nearly far enough to show any of the interesting new collapse phenomena that we've talked to death so much here and all over the rest of the Internet, but I guess I couldn't expect so much considering they also completely neglected to investigate any of those things or even a global collapse mechanism.

I don't expect any different from WTC7. Maybe I'll be shown wrong; I seriously doubt I will be. I doubt I will be shown how such massive columns telescope into themselves all the way down, anything like that. I would bet lots of money they are going to be just as disappointing and incomplete as the tower models, which btw the vast majority of people have never even seen.

Took them 6 months, I'm not surprised. To you that apparently means this is hard work?, maybe that they have their geniuses stuffed in back rooms toiling long and hard to crack these awful mechanical conundrums. They are having trouble for a much more down-to-Earth reason than the physics is too hard to grasp, and in their offices they are just as incompetent as any other officials in their respective fields. I really hope you have never convinced yourself otherwise, you "debunkers" treat these people so much like gods and put them on pedestals at your own discretion (because we ALL know these aren't the only professional opinions here; just the only professional opinions that you agree with).

It took one of FEMA's structural engineers 2+ years of trying to model the towers before he finally gave up (Dr. Abolhassan), said that the original ASCE article must have used bad data, that most NY skyscrapers could have withstood the given damage (let alone the towers), and went to the AP about it. But I waste energy just trying to argue with you. You know better than to believe crazy things. Maybe you should spend more time watching TV, because there really are some crazy people here.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Here are the mathematical equations NIST uses for it's computer modeling.

Very Technical stuff involved here, I hope the advanced mathematics aren't too confusing for the "average joe."



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
the NIST 3D models are a total joke in my opinion, they have about as much to do with realistic physics as a road runner cartoon.









However I think the above 3D model of the twin towers being demolished with explosives by a complete amateur tells us more about the collapse than NIST experts have been able to come up with in 8 freakin' years.




[edit on 20-11-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I haven't, but you've completely neglected to tell me why anything I said was out of line. Have you seen the models already, or are you just so devout of a cheerleader that you just *know* these things?

The report contains details of the models, so I can easily tell that your claim they only had initial movement is wrong. How is it possible that you have still not read the WTC7 report?


That really tells me a lot. They took the tower simulations so far, too, huh?

Indeed, they did not take them as far as WTC7s.


It didn't go nearly far enough to show any of the interesting new collapse phenomena that we've talked to death so much here and all over the rest of the Internet, but I guess I couldn't expect so much considering they also completely neglected to investigate any of those things or even a global collapse mechanism.

Progressive collapse is not new. It was the initial failure that NIST sought to prevent in future. Perhaps you should read their objectives and findings.


I don't expect any different from WTC7. Maybe I'll be shown wrong; I seriously doubt I will be. I doubt I will be shown how such massive columns telescope into themselves all the way down, anything like that.

No report contains columns telescoping.


I would bet lots of money they are going to be just as disappointing and incomplete as the tower models, which btw the vast majority of people have never even seen.

If most people have never even seen the models, than that is their fault? They have been available for many years.


Took them 6 months, I'm not surprised. To you that apparently means this is hard work?, maybe that they have their geniuses stuffed in back rooms toiling long and hard to crack these awful mechanical conundrums.

Yes? When a single model run takes 6 months you are dealing with an immensely complex simulation. That they even reproduced the east penthouse failure alone is extremely strong evidence.


in their offices they are just as incompetent as any other officials in their respective fields.

Uh, many officials, especially those dealing with science and building safety are not incompetent at all. It takes a special kind of ignorance to claim this. If they are so incompetent, how is it they've produced such amazing structures which (other than in exceptional circumstances) fulfill their design requirements well?


I really hope you have never convinced yourself otherwise, you "debunkers" treat these people so much like gods and put them on pedestals at your own discretion (because we ALL know these aren't the only professional opinions here; just the only professional opinions that you agree with).

I don't treat them like gods, but I also don't treat them like lying imbeciles. They are well trained and experienced scientists. Would you tell the auto mechanic fixing your car that he's an imbecile and that you obviously know better despite his years of training and experience? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you do this when it comes to even more rigorous disciplines?


Maybe you should spend more time watching TV, because there really are some crazy people here.

There's plenty of crazy people everywhere. It's easier just to tune them out.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
However I think the above 3D model of the twin towers being demolished with explosives by a complete amateur tells us more about the collapse than NIST experts have been able to come up with in 8 freakin' years.


Is this a joke I am not privvy to? That is an awful awful model that reproduces nothing accurately. I doubt it has even been modelled properly, more likely the person manually set up each step rather than using software which calculates behavior.

If you're not joking, then I suggest perhaps you take a basic level FEA course, they will introduce you to modelling complexity, and will be able to explain to you why this model is so ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
As a follow up: I'm still looking to find which codes govern NIST. On NIST's web page they link to ASTM and ANSI. Unfortunately, you have to buy these codes and I don't feel like shelling out hundreds of dollars to find out I have the wrong code/codes.

If anyone finds out which code governs NIST, It'd be greatly appreciated.

Then we can narrow it down to which code specifically would govern their computer models.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

.. an awful awful model that reproduces nothing accurately. I doubt it has even been modelled properly, more likely the person manually set up each step rather than using software which calculates behavior.



Yup, that's a great explaination of the NIST model alright.



Courtesy of your NIST's 8 year research ^^

Yeah great model, great work. I have seen better 3D models from school children. And this is what you pay your taxes for?! If i had no idea of the sources I would say this with the amateur attempt!

IT'S A FREAKIN JOKE I TELL YA!



[edit on 21-11-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Yup, that's a great explaination of the NIST model alright.

Wow, what a great comeback.


Courtesy of your NIST's 8 year research ^^

Yeah great model, great work. I have seen better 3D models from school children.

That's because this is not a 3d model. You are clearly ignorant of what this software is and what it does, and it's easy enough to find out:

Smokeview (SMV) is a visualization program that is used to display the output of FDS and CFAST simulations.

The program is available for download here: fire.nist.gov...

Please feel free to show up the NIST scientists, if it is so simple I challenge you to do it


[edit on 21-11-2008 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The report contains details of the models, so I can easily tell that your claim they only had initial movement is wrong.


Are you talking about the towers or Building 7? I'm talking about the towers. I have seen those models.

I don't know anything about the WTC7 models yet; I only said I wouldn't get my hopes up because of how pathetic the tower models were. That's all I was saying, and I'm not sure why that bothers you. Does it bother you to imagine the people behind these reports as incompetent, as opposed to geniuses?


How is it possible that you have still not read the WTC7 report?


Very easily. I spent a lot of time digging through the 10,000+ pages of the tower report, yet I found that all the relevant hypotheses could easily be summarized in a couple of paragraphs, and there were only a small handful of computer and lab tests attempting to validate what little they offered. I also found that a lot of information I would consider relevant was left out of that report entirely. Why have I not poured over the WTC7 report in a similar fashion? My best answer is "experience."

I knew before it even came out, for example, that NIST had failed to analyze a single piece of debris, and after it had already been published that there were pieces that had been partially evaporated before collapse, etc. You are already convinced everything was just as you were told by your TV. I am not so fortunate. So, try to understand, for me, when they ignore things like this, it isn't going very far to impress me. To the contrary, it only encourages me to believe that information is being withheld (which certainly it is; you can't argue that it isn't when I have just given you a piece of information that they completely neglected, yet which would provide evidence for other things going on within that building at that time). I know you like pounding your opinion into me and trying to get me to conform to it, but the way this information is being handled is a huge turn-off for me.



Progressive collapse is not new.


That's very easy to say, but doesn't mean much. The term "progressive collapse" is not new, but what happened to the Twin Towers that day was completely unprecedented. If you don't want to compare damages from similar skyscraper fires, etc., then you certainly don't have the right to compare the other examples of "progressive collapse" to the Twin Towers, and you know what I'm talking about. The closest happened at Oklahoma City, where explosives were involved, and that is still apples and orangutans just from the structural differences alone.

You might as well argue that buildings falling down in general is nothing new. It's been happening for thousands of years. That statement is also technically correct. You can argue it, but hopefully you also see the futility in arguing it.


It was the initial failure that NIST sought to prevent in future. Perhaps you should read their objectives and findings.


What difference should their objective make to me? Should I mold my concerns to fit their investigation? Just because they refuse to look at the mechanism behind >90% of the actual physical destruction, I should follow suit, cave intellectually, and ignore everything beyond the first instant, just like their investigation?


No report contains columns telescoping.


And that concerns me, because that's exactly the motion they imply when the building comes straight down into its footprint, and yet there are supposed to be columns there going all the way up the building and I shouldn't have to explain how rigidly they would have been braced at each floor on top of that. I want to see how these columns physically move, where they go and how they go there, as this accordion motion takes place with the whole building.


If most people have never even seen the models, than that is their fault?


I agree? I also think it was the German peoples' fault for allowing Hitler into power, even though the Nazis actively manipulated the population. Despite being constantly lied to and manipulated, I think it was ultimately their own responsibility to be able to see through it and do what they should have done. But they didn't, and foreign entities had to eventually come in and do it for them. I am a strong believer in personal accountability though. You are never a victim of circumstance, if you allow yourself to be placed in that circumstance to begin with.


When a single model run takes 6 months you are dealing with an immensely complex simulation.


I don't buy it. Like I said, Dr. Abolhassan spent 2 years before he realized what he was trying to do was actually impossible and went back on the entire assumption that fires and plane damage alone were not enough. He could have just fudged his numbers until his models worked, like NIST, but he had more integrity than that.

It wasn't a computer issue, but an issue of the basic assumptions he (and previously the ASCE) had made about the collapses. Models can be stripped down and simplified to mathematical equivalents if RAM is an issue. I assure you this happened anyway. There is absolutely no way they could account for every single piece of furniture, etc., so they had to have already done this to a certain extent anyway with most loads. NIST, unless they would actually admit to the same thing Dr. Abolhassan did, just keeps changing parameters until what they get matches what they see, no matter what those adjusted parameters imply. A lot of people seem to think this is acceptable, as long as there is a close visual match, but the importance of being able to support what they imply with their numbers isn't lost on me. The temperatures and heat they imply, for example, must be realistic. Not just theoretically possible, but realistic. I used to play with computer models and I know how it works. "Garbage in, garbage out" has truth to it, and when they're just changing numbers until they get what they want, that's another thing that has me hung up and I won't budge from my position until I see a better effort.


Uh, many officials, especially those dealing with science and building safety are not incompetent at all.


But many of them are. And the more people you have, the less each individual thinks for themselves, and the more they take for granted each others' work. That's almost the definition of group mentality, of group work. And if you think major blunders don't regularly occur in scientific or engineering work, you haven't been around much of it. Science is constantly bettering its theories, and before anything is ever actually built the plans are reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed again, until someone is finally confident enough to stamp it and put their own name on the line. I very seriously doubt you could find a single engineer who didn't go through school with several professors that even confused what they were teaching from time to time, every semester. Just like any field, this is not a field of geniuses, and I find it very hard to imagine that NIST employees should be any better off.


It takes a special kind of ignorance to claim this.


No, it takes a special kind of knowledge. I know how easy it is to sit around and watch everything build up as if on it's own and be amazed by the development. But you don't hear how much is screwed up all along the way like that. There are always difficulties you won't hear about.


If they are so incompetent, how is it they've produced such amazing structures which (other than in exceptional circumstances) fulfill their design requirements well?


Primarily because of over-engineering. Most structures that are important enough and are going to see a lot of use are over-designed from the start, and legal codes actually seem to enforce that well enough. Then you have the actual engineers that approve the final designs, reviewing and reviewing the work they're putting their name on to make sure they're not going to be liable for anything bad that may take place. Before then it's reviewed countless times in different components by different engineers. Even then, we're now starting to see more bridge collapses and etc. as the materials get older and things engineers haven't anticipated start taking their tolls. That kind of unforeseen degradation is just another one of the reasons why things are over-designed to begin with.


I don't treat them like gods, but I also don't treat them like lying imbeciles.


I never said they were necessarily lying. Just like I think you are completely wrong, but you aren't aware of it, so I can't say that you lie. I realize you may think I'm completely out of line for disagreeing with professionals like this, but you can't tell me these kinds of investigations haven't been overturned before.

There were several very famous investigations of the USS Maine incident around the early 1900's that were all completely contradicted by a modern re-investigation in the 1970's, showing the explosion from coming inside the ship instead of outside of it. The difference was that, while all the previous investigations had looked at one bent piece as if it showed signs of external puncture, it was actually proven that the piece was originally facing the other way.


Would you tell the auto mechanic fixing your car that he's an imbecile and that you obviously know better despite his years of training and experience?


Actually, yes, I've come across several incompetent mechanics, or worse. I have seen many instances of cars leaving garages with new problems that they didn't have before going in. Ask around here, start a thread about it, you'll see many people say the same thing, I 100% guarantee it.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
well there are a lot of theories, I try to weigh facts and the NIST report was so rediculous I cant think of a single thing said remotely resembles what the evidence shows... if their theory is remotely plausible then we would have to outlaw skyscrapers ok... so something is really seriously wrong here... and well the guilty will be prosecuted and it appears there are accessories to be dealt with.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Oh hey so bsbray has posted a quite gigantic post, I will have to split this up into two posts to even respond to it!


Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you talking about the towers or Building 7? I'm talking about the towers. I have seen those models.

I am talking about the WTC7 models as those are the models that BornPatriot recieved from NIST.


I don't know anything about the WTC7 models yet; I only said I wouldn't get my hopes up because of how pathetic the tower models were. That's all I was saying, and I'm not sure why that bothers you. Does it bother you to imagine the people behind these reports as incompetent, as opposed to geniuses?

It does bother me a little to think of them as incompetent, mostly because I am aware of the quality of work they have produced and am tired of seeing such ridiculous criticisms as Insolubrious made above. It's obvious he was/is completely ignorant as to the source of his image, and thought he could score points against the NIST report by claiming a child could make a better 3d model.


Very easily. I spent a lot of time digging through the 10,000+ pages of the tower report, yet I found that all the relevant hypotheses could easily be summarized in a couple of paragraphs, and there were only a small handful of computer and lab tests attempting to validate what little they offered. I also found that a lot of information I would consider relevant was left out of that report entirely. Why have I not poured over the WTC7 report in a similar fashion? My best answer is "experience."

I'm assuming here by "experience" you mean that you haven't read it because you don't expect to agree with it. Do you realise that this is part of Confirmation Bias and is one of the many reasons 911 truthers typically present the same material over and over again despite being told how wrong it is?


I knew before it even came out, for example, that NIST had failed to analyze a single piece of debris, and after it had already been published that there were pieces that had been partially evaporated before collapse, etc.

You are partially correct here, NIST did not have any steel positively identified as being from WTC7, but your second point is irrelevant. You're referring to the steel examined in FEMA 403 Appendix C I presume. Tell me, why would this have any bearing on the WTC7 investigation? If you've read FEMA 403 properly or the original NIST reports properly you should be able to tell me.


You are already convinced everything was just as you were told by your TV. I am not so fortunate. So, try to understand, for me, when they ignore things like this, it isn't going very far to impress me. To the contrary, it only encourages me to believe that information is being withheld (which certainly it is; you can't argue that it isn't when I have just given you a piece of information that they completely neglected, yet which would provide evidence for other things going on within that building at that time).

It's worthy of note that I barely watch TV and only watch our fine British panel shows. Besides my news source is the BBC, hardly a corporate controlled shill front or whatever you'd like to call any source that disagrees with you. What evidence do you believe you have that NIST has ignored? I suspect you'll be referring to the same piece of steel referred to in FEMA 403.


I know you like pounding your opinion into me and trying to get me to conform to it, but the way this information is being handled is a huge turn-off for me.

I don't quite see how posting information on the internet is pounding it into you, but hey if you feel that way spend the time doing the research yourself so I don't have anything to correct or argue with.


The term "progressive collapse" is not new, but what happened to the Twin Towers that day was completely unprecedented.

I guess I'll agree, there are examples of progressive collapse but as we all know nothing anywhere near as large as the WTC towers.


If you don't want to compare damages from similar skyscraper fires, etc., then you certainly don't have the right to compare the other examples of "progressive collapse" to the Twin Towers, and you know what I'm talking about.

I'm perfectly willing to compare damage from similar fires, as long as you also compare the construction. Typically these fires are compared by showing them and saying "THIS BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE SO WHY SHOULD THE OTHERS" when you're talking about an entirely different structure.


The closest happened at Oklahoma City, where explosives were involved, and that is still apples and orangutans just from the structural differences alone.

Oklahoma City is nowhere near the closest analog to the towers. Ronan Point is.


You might as well argue that buildings falling down in general is nothing new. It's been happening for thousands of years. That statement is also technically correct. You can argue it, but hopefully you also see the futility in arguing it.

It would depend on what your argument is, if your argument is that these building as so robust they cannot fail then the argument would not be futile.


What difference should their objective make to me? Should I mold my concerns to fit their investigation? Just because they refuse to look at the mechanism behind >90% of the actual physical destruction, I should follow suit, cave intellectually, and ignore everything beyond the first instant, just like their investigation?

I think it's unlikely you have developed a controlled demolition theory that doesn't require control over the initiating event, but if you have I would love to hear it. If not then NISTs report does cover important sections of the collapse for you.


And that concerns me, because that's exactly the motion they imply when the building comes straight down into its footprint,

Into its footprint? Surely you mean "over the entire WTC site"?

Continued in the next post.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
and yet there are supposed to be columns there going all the way up the building and I shouldn't have to explain how rigidly they would have been braced at each floor on top of that.

It depends which columns you're talking about, there was relatively little core bracing and the exterior walls worked to handle the rest of the lateral loads.


I want to see how these columns physically move, where they go and how they go there, as this accordion motion takes place with the whole building.

What you request is probably beyond our ability to simulate, so I'm afraid I cannot fulfill your request. If you were to take an engineering course however I am sure they would teach you about common plastic column deformations, and you would be able to tally this information with the videos and simulations produced.


I agree? I also think it was the German peoples' fault for allowing Hitler into power, even though the Nazis actively manipulated the population. Despite being constantly lied to and manipulated, I think it was ultimately their own responsibility to be able to see through it and do what they should have done.

I think I'm going to skip answering this extremely politically charged section.


I don't buy it. Like I said, Dr. Abolhassan spent 2 years before he realized what he was trying to do was actually impossible and went back on the entire assumption that fires and plane damage alone were not enough. He could have just fudged his numbers until his models worked, like NIST, but he had more integrity than that.
...
It wasn't a computer issue, but an issue of the basic assumptions he (and previously the ASCE) had made about the collapses.

Can you list those basic assumptions, what do you think Dr Astaneh-Asl believes about the collapses? You said he went back on the assumption that impact damage and fire were enough to collapse the building, so does he believe in controlled demolition?


NIST, unless they would actually admit to the same thing Dr. Abolhassan did, just keeps changing parameters until what they get matches what they see, no matter what those adjusted parameters imply.

Uh, in a way they did, but not as reckless as you seem to be portraying. NIST established a range of input values that were plausible and then ran model scenarios throughout this plausible range. Adjusting values to match visual evidence is not somehow 'cheating', as long as you don't adjust values outside plausible limits.


A lot of people seem to think this is acceptable, as long as there is a close visual match, but the importance of being able to support what they imply with their numbers isn't lost on me. The temperatures and heat they imply, for example, must be realistic. Not just theoretically possible, but realistic. I used to play with computer models and I know how it works. "Garbage in, garbage out" has truth to it, and when they're just changing numbers until they get what they want, that's another thing that has me hung up and I won't budge from my position until I see a better effort.

Can you show me where they have predicted anything unrealistic or impossible? You're not entirely wrong in this section, which is why I have limited criticism, but I don't think NIST were anywhere near as sloppy as you're trying to make out.


But many of them are. And the more people you have, the less each individual thinks for themselves, and the more they take for granted each others' work. That's almost the definition of group mentality, of group work.

You go on to talk about how mistakes are common. This is true, but you're just trying to bias the field here a little bit. You don't actually know if there was any group mentality effect at NIST, but it would support your theories if there were. Please don't try and impose these criteria on to them without having some evidence. Yes it's well known that people can make mistakes, but assuming that someone has made a mistake, but it is not logically possible to go from "People make mistakes" to "This person made a mistake" without actual evidence.

The entire rest of your post continues on this way, and so I won't be replying to specific sections. Yes errors do occur, yes investigations can be shown to have incorrect conclusions and overturned. However, you cannot simply assume that because this has happened, that it will happen in NISTs case. NISTs theory is strong, well supported by evidence and there is little to no evidence contradicting any of it. You need to actually present this in a reasoned and logical fashion before anyone can consider their theory challenged.

Just go and look at the comments on the new NIST report, virtually none of them add anything of interest, and even Ae911truth pretty much resorted to quibbling over the accuracy of one of NISTs floor level fire simulations, rather than showing that NISTs proposed failure mechanism was not possible.

Once again I reiterate. NIST is not infallible, and they have certainly made mistakes already in their investigation, but none of the mistakes uncovered come anywhere close to jeopardising their findings. Because of this, it seems you simply assume that the mistakes serious enough to cast doubt on their report exist, even if you may not have evidence for them. That is not scientific nor logical. I hope you're not taking this view and that I am mistaken in my characterisation, but your attacks on NIST seem to stem from a position of "They're wrong, I just don't have good evidence to show how they're wrong yet". I hope this is not the case.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Just go and look at the comments on the new NIST report, virtually none of them add anything of interest, and even Ae911truth pretty much resorted to quibbling over the accuracy of one of NISTs floor level fire simulations, rather than showing that NISTs proposed failure mechanism was not possible.

Isn't that the crux of NIST's conclusion though?

For the 'thermal expansion' to have occured, then the fires needed to be hot enough to deform the steel. No hot fires = no expansion = no floor 13 collapsing = no buckling of column 79 = no collapse mechanism = no collapse.

It's absolutely critical that NIST modelled those fires as accurately as possible, otherwise, their theory won't work.

I looked over all of the comments earlier today - painful on dialup. There are some comments that are very critical of NIST's fire models, particularly with the estimated fuel loads.

These comments by FRGreening were probably the smartest that I remember reading about the fires and fuel loads. They question the input parameters that NIST used in the computer simulation model for the fires.

I mentioned the same concerns about fuel loads being 'guessed' in this thread about the draft report. I should have sent an email to NIST as well, the only thing stopping me was the thought of ending up on a terrorist watch-list.

Anyway, they've got away with it. The Final Report is the Final Report. May NIST rot in academic hell.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Isn't that the crux of NIST's conclusion though?

It depends on intention I suppose. I certainly don't disagree that fires need to be modeled as accurately as possible, but this does nothing to address the actual collapse mechanism of WTC7.

Let me firstly address the fire issue. The problem is that NIST has only the rather inexact details of fire loading and a limited number of photographs to determine fire progression. As such they have to make an educated guess as to when fires started and where they were, in order that their simulation can then work out the logical progression of these fires. Because of the inherent differences between the model and reality, inaccuracies will always occur. These can only be compounded by the lack of hard data on floor layout vs combustible loading etc.

This is quite important when you're dealing with fire protection and revising codes in order to ensure buildings are designed with this in mind. However, this is not as important when you are trying to distinguish between a "natural" collapse and one initiated or assisted by explosives. In that case the evidence is clear, we are very aware there were fires in the building and NIST has also produced a collapse mechanism which closely matches what we saw on that day. Unless their actual mechanism for collapse can be seriously called into question, we can resolve the issue of "natural" vs explosives quite easily.

It's a hard position to articulate, but I don't entirely disagree with AE911Truth, or many of the other comments, but these comments attempt only to cast doubt on the accuracy of NISTs fire simulations, rather than trying to show how NISTs collapse mechanism was not possible.

Hopefully you can see what I am saying, it is important that fire simulations are accurate, but they can never be completely accurate. NISTs initiation and collapse mechanism explains what occured well and does not contradict any information we have. It is possible that with further refining they may be able to tell more accurately what occured, but this accuracy is not strictly needed for anyone's purposes. Not to mention I've seen several criticisms from truthers about NIST manipulating values to match what was seen (see bsbrays' post above)



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   


You are partially correct here, NIST did not have any steel positively identified as being from WTC7, but your second point is irrelevant. You're referring to the steel examined in FEMA 403 Appendix C I presume. Tell me, why would this have any bearing on the WTC7 investigation? If you've read FEMA 403 properly or the original NIST reports properly you should be able to tell me.


You are incorrect here. See this thread for more information:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It does bother me a little to think of them as incompetent, mostly because I am aware of the quality of work they have produced


Can you give me an example of something from one of their reports that illustrates your idea of the quality of these reports?


I'm assuming here by "experience" you mean that you haven't read it because you don't expect to agree with it.


No, I only meant what I said: they leave out information that I consider very relevant to the investigation (ie evaporated steel columns, for example?), and the way they went about doing simulation after simulation on the towers until something "looked right" didn't impress me, either, because it isn't a water-tight method of deducing something.


Do you realise that this is part of Confirmation Bias and is one of the many reasons 911 truthers typically present the same material over and over again despite being told how wrong it is?


You have to do more than just tell me that I'm wrong, you actually have to make sense to me, a crazy person. I am very aware of how bias functions, even on the physiological level (you get a burst of endorphins when you feel you have successfully defended what equates to your intellectual territory -- and it feels good). I promise you that you have the same things going on in your own head. Everyone is like this that has any opinion on any controversial subject. The question is whether or not you lie to yourself about it.


You are partially correct here, NIST did not have any steel positively identified as being from WTC7, but your second point is irrelevant. You're referring to the steel examined in FEMA 403 Appendix C I presume. Tell me, why would this have any bearing on the WTC7 investigation?


I don't remember off the top of my head where the data came from, but I know Griff has seen it and can corroborate it. It was a piece of evaporated steel from WTC7 (not from the towers). Further, the professional who was analyzing it had been able to conclude that the evaporation had taken place before collapse. What bearing would this have on the investigation of WTC7's collapse? They say you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, but I'm not even going to lead you to the pond on that one. I want to know you're putting more consideration behind these posts than just what it takes to put the text on the screen.

Evaporated steel. Maybe you've just seen those two words together so many times on ATS, you've somehow convinced yourself that there is nothing unusual about them? I would love to hear your experience with steel that has been evaporated, or even melted, for that matter.


It's worthy of note that I barely watch TV and only watch our fine British panel shows.


That is worthy of noting. At least now I'm aware I'm talking to a Brit. I don't like any mass media, honestly. The fact that it's for "the masses" isn't lost on the producers or anchors no matter what the company is.


What evidence do you believe you have that NIST has ignored?


Evaporated steel. There's one. And no, it is not trivial or irrelevant.


I don't quite see how posting information on the internet is pounding it into you,


I was figuratively pointing out the way opinions are "presented" here, again and again and again.


but hey if you feel that way spend the time doing the research yourself so I don't have anything to correct or argue with.


It doesn't matter how much "research" you do if you don't understand what the words you are looking at actually mean.


I'm perfectly willing to compare damage from similar fires, as long as you also compare the construction. Typically these fires are compared by showing them and saying "THIS BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE SO WHY SHOULD THE OTHERS" when you're talking about an entirely different structure.


Not the case here:












This fire burned longer, was against much thinner sections of steel (thus less able to transfer heat, and requiring much less total heat to reach any particular temperature), etc. Nothing catastrophic happened with any of the steel. It wasn't hit by a jet, though, so there's not much use in me trying to stress any of those facts and the fact that the steel was able to hold up fine. There always has to be a jet first. It's in the formulas somewhere.


Oklahoma City is nowhere near the closest analog to the towers. Ronan Point is.


Ronan Point didn't even come down, some of its balconies did. I always thought this was some kind of bad joke:



If you can draw a closer similarity between those balconies and the WTC towers than the Murrah Federal Building (which had much more substantially supported floors) and the WTC, that's fine. I see very, very little of a similarity between any of them, honestly, and you really don't have many examples of "progressive collapse" to choose from anyway, and they are all very different.


It would depend on what your argument is, if your argument is that these building as so robust they cannot fail then the argument would not be futile.


I can't find where I said they couldn't fail. Can you show me? And something more important that I'm wondering now: whenever I contradict one of your views, do you always assume that I must instead believe the most absurd and opposite thing imaginable?


I think it's unlikely you have developed a controlled demolition theory that doesn't require control over the initiating event


When was it my job to develop a theory as to what happened? Am I supposed to write a report about it, too? Where's my budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Where's my access to the crime scene? Where's my physical evidence? What have you got for me?


If not then NISTs report does cover important sections of the collapse for you.


So the reasoning is, if you can't do better yourself, then NIST is best, and therefore, I assume, correct by default. Or at least, I might as well not even try thinking for myself, because they've already done this report for me, and of course there's no way I can compete with that so I better just believe it. I got you. I have to keep in mind I'm talking to a Brit, I guess. No offense, it's just where I grew up, the mentality was never as submissive, to put it one way. 2nd amendment rights and all that.



And that concerns me, because that's exactly the motion they imply when the building comes straight down into its footprint,

Into its footprint? Surely you mean "over the entire WTC site"?


I think my choice of words more accurately reflect reality than yours. WTC7 was across the street from the whole rest of the complex. It fell down, and when it was done falling, most of the mass was still there in the footprint. So, no, I would not say it landed "over the entire WTC site." It barely made it across the street.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It depends which columns you're talking about, there was relatively little core bracing and the exterior walls worked to handle the rest of the lateral loads.


This is also incorrect. The core columns had their own system of lateral bracing inside the core.

Going by how you describe it, the only lateral bracing would be from the floors and the only columns that were laterally braced would be the core perimeter columns. And only on one side. What about the interior core columns? How where they braced in your scenario?


NISTs theory is strong, well supported by evidence and there is little to no evidence contradicting any of it. You need to actually present this in a reasoned and logical fashion before anyone can consider their theory challenged.


There is little evidence at all period. I challenge NIST's findings because they started with little to no (WTC 7) evidence at all. But, I do not blame NIST for this. The person who decided to "scoop and dump" is to blame for that.


Just go and look at the comments on the new NIST report, virtually none of them add anything of interest, and even Ae911truth pretty much resorted to quibbling over the accuracy of one of NISTs floor level fire simulations, rather than showing that NISTs proposed failure mechanism was not possible.


Without said fire levels, their failure mechanism is not possible. Therefore, quibbling over floor level fire simulations is right on target.


I hope you're not taking this view and that I am mistaken in my characterisation, but your attacks on NIST seem to stem from a position of "They're wrong, I just don't have good evidence to show how they're wrong yet". I hope this is not the case.


And you stem from a position of "They're correct, I just don't have good evidence (other than NIST's own computer simulations) to show how they're correct".




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join