Originally posted by bsbray11
Regardless of where it was published, it's on the NIST website and was obviously geared toward the WTC study:
www.fire.nist.gov...
Ok, so if this was not in the NIST report, why should we care about it? what possibility do you think I am hostile towards?
Look, I just told you I would look through the report myself and find it all myself if you give me time to do so. Are you not satisfied with
that?
I am satisfied with that, but don't you think you should verify evidence
before posting it to support your claim?
Because I personally trust Jim Hoffman but I don't expect YOU to.
Prepare to be disappointed.
My advice to you is don't believe everything NIST says, either. If this WAS an inside job, the federal government would be the last
place you would hear it, ok? Which is WHY you shouldn't take everything they say at face value, but actually use your own brain and think about what
they are saying they are doing every time they change parameters, assume things that didn't actually happen, etc.
I do use my own brain, and I have no reason to inherently distrust NIST more than anyone else. They are not "the government", they are a
governmental agency who contracted out to thousands of civilians during the course of their investigation. I have enough knowledge of the subjects to
see and understand how they conducted their investigation, and why it is a reliable conclusion.
Who is speculating? It sounds to me like you don't know that he is wrong, and without checking yourself, you are just assuming he is. At
least HE quoted the NIST report to support his claim, no matter if it came from a summary or not, they still said it, so one would assume they did
what they said.
Ah but you see, he did not actually take issue with what they said, only what he believes they did. Take note:
Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed
nothing to the structure.
Is this apparent? Well of course not, the section he quotes is talking about an isolated core analysis used to gain extra insight into the behaviour
of the core without having to run expensive trial runs on the extremely complex global model. If he were to have even read NCSTAR 1-6 he would have
found this quote:
In the structural models described in this report, elements corresponding to the heavily damaged and severed columns were removed, while those
corresponding to moderately or lightly damaged columns were retained without modifications
Clearly his assumption that a 10% reduction in load carrying capacity was equated to nothing is incorrect. Before you claim that the analysis is
invalid as a result of this, it should be pointed out that in this context, heavy indicates a deflection of many inches, rendering the column able to
hold only a miniscule fraction of its previous capacity.
You know all this stuff makes their data unrealistic, right? By definition, since it didn't actually happen that way?
Care to cite from a more reliable source?
What it IS is unsupported by data,
No it isn't, it's expicitly
supported by the data, because it was within the error margins for measurement. You tell me you're educated in
physics, and so you must know what the purpose of an error analysis is. NISTs use of the upper and lower bounds is absolutely normal and even expected
in a case as complex as the WTC impacts.
And I guess I'm still waiting on it. Which is fair enough, because I'm dreading digging through the report to find everything Hoffman was
talking about.
Why? It's well categorised and contains a lot of information. Start by just reading NCSTAR 1, and note down any areas you require more information
on. I am more than happy to help you locate specific info.
I should mention I don't like run-arounds either. I already think this report is pure trash and a whitewash, so having all this trouble
finding the right data to cite isn't impressing me much. So far all I have seen is they have shown a whole inch of deformation from a sagging truss.
I haven't seen the evidence of great heating of the perimeter columns, either.
...
Great! That's what I'm talking about. Now how do they prove that, is it reproducible, where is the data, etc. That's the next logical step
here.
I already gave you the page numbers to start reading on, what more would you have me do?
No PE being lost means the building is not doing the work.
Actually it means the visible portion isn't doing work. We can talk about the WTC7 structural behaviour if you like but I'm already having a hard
enough time linking you to what information you need on WTC1+2.
