Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 31
79
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
No it doesn't! If all the supports failed simultaneously, the building would immediately accelerate at 'free-fall'.


Right, so it took an instant and then the rest all failed simultaneously.

That is exactly what the data implies.

I am not in disagreement about the time, or what the time implies. You are just not realizing the significance of any period of free-fall while the same body is still "collapsing" (ie performing work in the technical sense).

Still waiting to see that NIST justified this total lack of kinetic energy loss with objective calculations.


I have already explained why you are wrong on this point.


I don't think your attention span has stretched along far enough to even remember the entire discussion we just had.




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In other words if they couldn't use circular reasoning to prop up their models, it would cost too much to figure anything out? Do you think that excuse would ever change the objectivity of what "really" happened to that building?

I have no idea why you refer to this as "circular reasoning". I have explained in detail why NISTs selections are made, and illustrated how no investigation would be possible without doing this.


You should have kept going with that paragraph. I said the theory I come up with would be useless because it would have no specific data to back it up, ie that device x was placed on floor y. Just like the NIST report, which also has 0 evidence going for it, only an unsubstantiated theory that was produced using circular references and could very well still be describing the physics of a controlled demolition.

I have also explained why a theory is important, because it makes predictions. Why have you just quoted parts of my post without actually reading it?


I am not a part of any "community," unless seeking objective data is a "community," but I think you would even consider your own self a part of that one. In other words I am not in this to conform to a "movement," I don't care what anyone else says, my questions either can be answered or they can't. End of story. And so far they have not.

You have over 7000 posts on ATS, I would say that that makes you part of this community. You clearly believe in some sort of alternate theory, and so you should have a vested interest in developing this theory and showing it to be correct.


You mean like, if it were a demolition, people would hear explosions coming from the building? Oh wait, people did heard explosions coming from the building, and also testified to witnessing them inside the building, and were also picked up on seismographs after the Twin Towers collapses and well before WTC7's global collapse. If evidence is being able to make predictions accurately about what will happen, why don't any of those things count as evidence? Don't tell me it's because you can come up with unproven excuses to invalidate them.

Only one person specifically identifies an explosion within WTC7, and that is Barry Jennings, who's explosion was very likely the collapse of the south tower. Still, now you have something to go off, we know that WTC7 couldn't be taken down in that mechanism by a single charge, and so now you can develop your theory from here



They also ramp up heating and temperatures to levels that aren't substantiated. For example, in the Twin Tower reports, assuming some 70+ wood fire stoves' worth of total heat in a garage or living-room sized area, applied consistently for about 30 minutes iirc

Oh for the love of god. I have explained why this is wrong about 10 times on here to you and others. Would you read the freaking report in full instead of trying to pick out paragraphs you obviously do not understand?


Again, they just keep adjusting parameters until they get results that match what they see in videos. Not an objective method, only a circumstantial method at best, and intellectually dishonest.

It's entirely objective, because they're using the initial conditions to create these scenarios. The plausibility of the model rests on the plausibility of the initial conditions, which NIST detail nicely.


If I don't trust them it's because they aren't being objective themselves. They've made too many assumptions while lacking real data, which blows any chance of a real investigation since they've just made assumptions about the most critical parts of the investigation based on preconceptions.

But this 'real data' does not exist, so now your criticism extends to NIST not looking at steel they had no access to, and not using data that doesn't exist!


You can't think of any scientific studies that are 100% objective, yet you can't think of an analogy that demonstrates what is wrong with this, either. You can plug a schematic into a simulator, load the variables for each component into it, and it will tell you exactly what will happen when you apply power based on formulas alone.

exactly? I think you mean to say approximately. Unless resistors don't have tolerance bands anymore? Unless crystal oscillators are now based on atomic clocks? I don't think they are, and I don't think you are being honest about simulator accuracy.


But the problem is, what I am saying is what actually makes sense, and the methodology NIST used, is what doesn't make sense, and used fallacious circular references that re-enforced blind assumptions and was not objective.

But you've just suggested doing exactly what they did, building it in a simulator to see what it does. Honestly, your criticisms just do not make sense. You want them to do something they cannot do, with information they do not have, for reasons you cannot explain.


First of all, you've already admitted in a former post that my specific question, question #6, is not explicitly answered in the NIST report, and I have yet to see where it was implicitly answered, either. If I go back and dig up the post, are you going to be contradicting yourself?

Secondly, how many questions have you answered again? Even if you're now saying you answered 6 (though you really haven't, as NIST hasn't), then you still have 19 others. You have nothing but personal conjecture, and your conjecture isn't worth a hill of beans to me.

Guess what, I already answered this in a previous post too! I gave answers to all of your questions, some based on speculation, and some based on my knowledge of the evidence available.

I didn't do the research for you, because I am not your parent. I have given you enough information to find out the truth of the situation, but you seem obsessed with getting 'debunkers' to present everything on a platter to you.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, so it took an instant and then the rest all failed simultaneously.

That is exactly what the data implies.

No, it took 1.75s until all significant resistance was overcome. It says nothing about when any specific supports failed.


I am not in disagreement about the time, or what the time implies. You are just not realizing the significance of any period of free-fall while the same body is still "collapsing" (ie performing work in the technical sense).

Of course I do, I have illustrated this many times in previous posts, I am beginning to think you have some sort of memory problem as you are simply repeating yourself without actually paying any attention to what people are telling you.


Still waiting to see that NIST justified this total lack of kinetic energy loss with objective calculations.

They did not. Their simulation did not extend this far.


I don't think your attention span has stretched along far enough to even remember the entire discussion we just had.

I beg to differ.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I have no idea why you refer to this as "circular reasoning". I have explained in detail why NISTs selections are made, and illustrated how no investigation would be possible without doing this.


Just because they neglected to take a more objective route with their report doesn't mean one wasn't possible. Can you prove that NIST's methodology was the best and most sound methodology they could have chosen? I am already pointing out flaws with it, you just keep saying it's the best they could have done and I want to know why specifically you think this.


You have over 7000 posts on ATS, I would say that that makes you part of this community.


You mean part of the ATS community? So are you.


You clearly believe in some sort of alternate theory, and so you should have a vested interest in developing this theory and showing it to be correct.


No, that's someone else's job, and I don't know why you can't understand this. All I have to do is find problems with the government reports. I don't have to wipe their butts too and change their diapers, ie write a whole new report to replace their trash. I only come here and ask rhetorical questions that I know have no answers just to remind hard-headed people that they don't know everything already.


Only one person specifically identifies an explosion within WTC7, and that is Barry Jennings, who's explosion was very likely the collapse of the south tower. Still, now you have something to go off, we know that WTC7 couldn't be taken down in that mechanism by a single charge, and so now you can develop your theory from here


How does an explosion from the South Tower destroy the lobby and floors above that in WTC7, so as to trap Mr. Jennings there for an hour or more?



They also ramp up heating and temperatures to levels that aren't substantiated. For example, in the Twin Tower reports, assuming some 70+ wood fire stoves' worth of total heat in a garage or living-room sized area, applied consistently for about 30 minutes iirc

Oh for the love of god. I have explained why this is wrong about 10 times on here to you and others. Would you read the freaking report in full instead of trying to pick out paragraphs you obviously do not understand?


There is nothing wrong my understanding of how they reached their initiation state. They had to do multiple simulations. While increasing parameters. That were never proven to match reality.


It's entirely objective, because they're using the initial conditions to create these scenarios.


They assume initial conditions based on what they are seeing from the outside. Again, it could have been explosions doing all the damage, just like the one that trapped Barry Jennings inside WTC7. How do they prove one case over the other? They didn't. Instead, they dismissed one case entirely out of hand by erroneously claiming no one heard explosions in WTC7.


But this 'real data' does not exist, so now your criticism extends to NIST not looking at steel they had no access to, and not using data that doesn't exist!


The data I'm talking about exists just the same as the structural documentation for the building itself existed.

That they analyzed no steel from WTC7, again, is not an excuse, not a reason NIST is credible. It is one more reason their report is NOT credible.


exactly? I think you mean to say approximately.


Down to a tolerance of a very small margin of error, ie one that doesn't even register on your multimeter the majority of the time. I have done this hundreds of times. And this is without having to do it first and then go back and refer to it again and again to try to figure it out. It's all objectively pumped straight out from the formulas by the computer, simply reading the schematic as it was written. That is objective data prediction.


Unless resistors don't have tolerance bands anymore? Unless crystal oscillators are now based on atomic clocks? I don't think they are, and I don't think you are being honest about simulator accuracy.


You have no idea what you are talking about. For weeks on end every single morning of the week I would run a schematic through a simulator and then go measure the exact same numbers on multi-meters. The tolerances you are talking about are typically 0.1% to 1% of the entire value, outside of which a resistor is considered defective. Many/most resistors were well within their 0.1%-1% tolerance limit, ie they weren't even off that much.

I know civil/structural engineers do the same thing with their CAD software, they just don't go around measuring building loads directly as often. But they still know their margins of error just as well, and they should know how to pump through calculations and figure out what happens up to a point. It would take some familiar with dynamic systems in physics to work a collapsing building, not a civil engineer, though.


But you've just suggested doing exactly what they did, building it in a simulator to see what it does.


Except for all the in-between stages of the simulations where they pick and choose what happens next to make it superficially fit videos. Instead of determining it all objectively/independently.



You want them to do something they cannot do, with information they do not have, for reasons you cannot explain.


All this represents is your own confusion. Prove they can't objectively figure this stuff out, using structural documents and known laws of physics alone, without having to appeal to circular reasoning by bringing in the videos to justify erroneous assumptions (that are not OBJECTIVE). The reason, I should not HAVE to explain, because it should be obvious: if it isn't objective, it isn't going to settle anything.


Guess what, I already answered this in a previous post too! I gave answers to all of your questions, some based on speculation, and some based on my knowledge of the evidence available.


Which means none of them met the requirement set out in the OP. Some based on speculation, and the others based on speculation, too.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
A buckled or fractured column is presumably not 'structural' in this case. Seriously, don't assume you know what words mean, they very very often carry specific meaning that you may not be aware of. Note how bsbray was unable to even define free-fall to an acceptable standard, even though we all understand the concept of it.

You're right, exponent, let's not assume. Let's see how NIST used these terms before:

Structural Components:

wtc.nist.gov...
"Provide a database of the major fragments of the aircraft and destroyed structural components" - so they can be destroyed and still be called structural components.

"This report describes damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components from the World Trade Center (WTC) 1 and WTC 2." - failure modes? of structural components? so structural components experiencing failure modes and are still called structural components.

Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. (41265 K)
fire.nist.gov...
"Structural steel components recovered from the WTC towers include parial and complete exterior panels, core columns, floor truss members, channels used to attach the floor trusses to the core columns, and other structural components...." So they're talking about all the recovered parts from the Towers collapse and they are still considering them "structural components"

www.nist.gov...
"The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse"

wtc.nist.gov...
"When the North Tower came down there were large pieces of debris including structural components from the tower that fell on WTC 7." So even the pieces that flew over and hit WTC 7 they still considered and refered to as structural components.

wtc.nist.gov...
"Mr. Conrad Paulson has over 25 years experience in laboratory testing, research and failure investigation of structures, structural components and structural materials." To have a failure investigation a structural component must fail and they must investigate what they call the structural component

wtc.nist.gov...
"In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse." So it can be hit, burned and contribute to an abrupt collapse and still be considered a structural component.

wtc.nist.gov...
"Any analysis that suggests rapid loss of stability or collapse without the need for a sustained fire would be biased in favor of a critical collapse-initiating role for structural components damaged by aircraft impact (e.g., columns) and a lesser role for components weakened by fire (e.g., floor trusses and connections). Likewise, any analysis that delays loss of stability to well beyond the observed time-to-collapse for each tower would be biased in favor of a critical collapse-initiating role for structural components weakened by fire and a lesser role for components damaged by the initial impact of aircraft."

wtc.nist.gov...
"The initiating event may have included structural components severed or damaged by falling debris (I1.1) and/or structural components affected by fires (I1.2)" So a column could be severed and still be considered a structural component.


Free fall:

wtc.nist.gov...
"the computed free fall time was 3.9s." how'd they compute this "free fall"?

"A free fall descent at gravitational acceleration over approximately 8 stories" did the definition change in a half a page?

wtc.nist.gov...
"The computed time for free fall (i.e., with no air friction) was 3.9s." They're really specific here... not even including air friction.

www.nist.gov...
"This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions." So there's a connection between their computed "free fall" and this 3.9s.

And again, same page. "This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time" So there is a definite correlation between 3.9 seconds and what they consider "free fall" How'd they come up with this 3.9 seconds, that would be a good clue to their definition of "free fall".

Here it is in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 pg 601

"The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., at gravitational acceleration) was computed from, (image) wher t=time (s), h=distance(ft), and g=gravitational acceleration (32.2ft/s^2). Upon substitution of h=242 ft in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the roofline to descend 18 stories was approximately 3.9s."

From the above I gather they are considering free fall to be gravitational acceleration and that that equals 32.2 ft/s^2 and that they are not even including air friction. And this definition comes just one paragraph before the use of "free fall" to describe the second phase of collapse.

So, seriously, I think I'm now crystal clear on these meanings, exponent.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary. As everyone can plainly see, you cannot give us any reason to doubt NIST's conclusions, which, as you well know, includes the 2.25 seconds of free fall.

jthomas, you're still bumping the thread? Go right ahead!

What you continually fail to realise is that NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with the same acceleration as g.

They do not conclude on it, they merely state the result.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because they neglected to take a more objective route with their report doesn't mean one wasn't possible. Can you prove that NIST's methodology was the best and most sound methodology they could have chosen?

How exactly would I prove this? I have illustrated why it is, and you MUST be familiar with algorithm complexity. I cannot see what exact point you're trying to make? There were many more than 5 variables with 4 potential values, how would you like NIST to have conducted their investigation? Carried out thousands of tests with the appropriate variation in input criteria, then carried out another few thousand tests on each of the previous thousands of tests for the structural simulation? Specifics please!


I am already pointing out flaws with it, you just keep saying it's the best they could have done and I want to know why specifically you think this.

I don't know if it's the best, but I think it is acceptable. I have explained why many times.


You mean part of the ATS community? So are you.

I guess, I have a massive 750 post count including this one, so not really on the same scale, and I don't put forward any conspiracies, you are doing




You clearly believe in some sort of alternate theory, and so you should have a vested interest in developing this theory and showing it to be correct.

No, that's someone else's job, and I don't know why you can't understand this. All I have to do is find problems with the government reports. I don't have to wipe their butts too and change their diapers, ie write a whole new report to replace their trash. I only come here and ask rhetorical questions that I know have no answers just to remind hard-headed people that they don't know everything already.

This is tantamount to an admission that you have no interest in finding the truth, only discrediting the 'official story'. I also like mention that the questions are rhetorical, showing that you have already formed your opinion.


How does an explosion from the South Tower destroy the lobby and floors above that in WTC7, so as to trap Mr. Jennings there for an hour or more?

The lobby was not destroyed in WTC7 until the collapse of WTC1, but the collapse of WTC2 cut power in the area and filled the area with dust. I can look into this if needed, but it's still not correlated with any theory. Whatever Barry Jennings witnessed was 5-7 hours before the building collapse, and no demolition mechanism occurs over that type of timescale or would destroy a lobby.


There is nothing wrong my understanding of how they reached their initiation state. They had to do multiple simulations. While increasing parameters. That were never proven to match reality.

What you claimed was entirely wrong and you're still stating 'never proven to match reality'. How are you expecting them to prove it? Honestly, you're just throwing out "not proven"s without any consideration for the process. You want them to prove something that you have no idea how to prove, no criteria for accepting proof, and you believe you have no obligation to state them. It's a hopeless situation.


The data I'm talking about exists just the same as the structural documentation for the building itself existed.

Where does this data exist? Where are the fire temperature recordings, the internal cameras showing fire progression? The documentation of exact office contents, brands and heat output etc?

This data does not exist, and never will exist. NIST investigated to find acceptable values, and matched these results against any evidence available from the day. That you call this 'circular reasoning' is irrelevant. This is the only possible way to determine what likely occured on the day.


Down to a tolerance of a very small margin of error, ie one that doesn't even register on your multimeter the majority of the time. I have done this hundreds of times. And this is without having to do it first and then go back and refer to it again and again to try to figure it out. It's all objectively pumped straight out from the formulas by the computer, simply reading the schematic as it was written. That is objective data prediction.
...
You have no idea what you are talking about. For weeks on end every single morning of the week I would run a schematic through a simulator and then go measure the exact same numbers on multi-meters. The tolerances you are talking about are typically 0.1% to 1% of the entire value, outside of which a resistor is considered defective. Many/most resistors were well within their 0.1%-1% tolerance limit, ie they weren't even off that much.

I must be out of date, because most of my resistors here are gold band, ie +/-5%! Anyhow, you initially state that it gets pumped straight out from the formulas, then you go on to admit there is a significant margin of error! What is it? Do you get the exact values, or do you get an approximation?


Except for all the in-between stages of the simulations where they pick and choose what happens next to make it superficially fit videos. Instead of determining it all objectively/independently.

Ok, here's a challenge for you. I have constructed a slightly more complex potential divider seen here:

(sorry for the bad resistor naming)

Each of those resistors is nominally 50 Ohms, with a tolerance of +/- 10%. I've given you 3 probe values. Because the tolerance is so lax (actually closer tolerances than many variables NIST had to investigate) the output voltage can vary by well over a volt.

There are 25 circuit elements here, and it would be reasonable to do a minimal, nominal, maximum test with each. If you were to do this iteratively, you would have to do 15,625 tests.
edit: I am really terrible at maths, the number of simulations is several hundred million, because it's 3^25, not 25^3.

From the output of this resistor group, another component is powered. If you like, I will give you that schematic with an output there. Considering you already have over 15,000 tests to conduct I won't post it yet.

My challenge to you, is to determine Vout and determine resistor values and then prove to me that these values are accurate. Considering you have the nominal value, and a fixed schematic, this is a completely trivial task compared to a multifloor fire simulation.


Which means none of them met the requirement set out in the OP. Some based on speculation, and the others based on speculation, too.

Not about to do your homework for you, sorry. If you want to know the answers, you can do the research yourself, if you don't, then keep posting denying that thousands of engineers know how to investigate a building collapse.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
You're right, exponent, let's not assume. Let's see how NIST used these terms before:
...
So, seriously, I think I'm now crystal clear on these meanings, exponent.

Except you posted a quote from a person, rather than from the report. Even so, if you feel that you know what was meant then go right ahead and believe it. You're obviously angling towards some sort of alternate theory here, but don't seem to want to come out and state it.

Like I said to bsbray, no conspiracy theorist has ever come up with a coherent alternate theory and I don't understand why every one seems to be so afraid of it.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

Another thought on your comment "A buckled or fractured column is presumably not 'structural' in this case." Let's examine what Dr. Sunder said again:

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to everybody ...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

It's obvious to me that he's trying to make an argument AGAINST free fall based on their model and their finding of 5.4 seconds in the video.

If buckled or fractured columns are not considered "structural components", and his model already showed that the columns had buckled or fractured, so that means his model all ready showed "no structural components below." So why would he use this to argue AGAINST free fall if his model all ready showed it was possible (i.e., had no structural components below) in this case?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Another thought on your comment "A buckled or fractured column is presumably not 'structural' in this case." Let's examine what Dr. Sunder said again:
..
It's obvious to me that he's trying to make an argument AGAINST free fall based on their model and their finding of 5.4 seconds in the video.

I agree.


If buckled or fractured columns are not considered "structural components", and his model already showed that the columns had buckled or fractured, so that means his model all ready showed "no structural components below." So why would he use this to argue AGAINST free fall if his model all ready showed it was possible (i.e., had no structural components below) in this case?

This was likely stated before Chandler petitioned NIST to elaborate on their analysis. I don't know the precise source of your quote unfortunately.

It's not a huge leap to assume 'structural component' means a component which contributes to the structure, but in this case it's hard to say.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

It was in response to Chandler's question at the news conference in the video on the front page of this thread.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How exactly would I prove this?


I asked if you could prove their methodology was the most sound route for an impartial/objective investigation as they could have taken. If you can't, then it's no skin off of my back. Doing a more objective report in my view would simply require not leaning on pre-conceived assumptions and using circular reasoning. When their "investigation" of why WTC7 free-fell consists of "well, we measured it, so... it happened".... that is not objective validation/explanation of how such a thing should happen according to their own theory.



You mean part of the ATS community? So are you.

I guess, I have a massive 750 post count including this one, so not really on the same scale, and I don't put forward any conspiracies, you are doing


So what? You sure are argumentative. All I am saying is that I never joined a "community" unless you are talking about ATS, and you need not try to force me into any groups besides that. What you are trying to do is the intellectual equivalent of racism, ie discriminate against me because you see me as no different than so many other people that I myself don't associate with the way you apparently think I do. Literally the only exposure to a "community" regarding 9/11 is here at ATS, and yes, you are just as much a part of it, if anyone is at all. And yes, the "official story" IS a conspiracy theory, thank you.



This is tantamount to an admission that you have no interest in finding the truth


How am I going to find the freaking truth by myself when I don't have ANY resources to do that? Again, all I have to do to show we don't yet have the full story, which is all I'm interested in doing at this point, is to show where these questions have still not been answered. Beyond that -- is for another time, another place, another day. Go look up who Congress charged with the investigations into 9/11. (Hint: it wasn't me.)


I also like mention that the questions are rhetorical, showing that you have already formed your opinion.


You still haven't answered them. Only proof finally resolves the questions.



How does an explosion from the South Tower destroy the lobby and floors above that in WTC7, so as to trap Mr. Jennings there for an hour or more?

The lobby was not destroyed in WTC7 until the collapse of WTC1


Not according to Jennings' testimony. Unless you are just changing it on your whim now to fit with your already-formed opinions.


Whatever Barry Jennings witnessed was 5-7 hours before the building collapse, and no demolition mechanism occurs over that type of timescale or would destroy a lobby.


Prove it. Prove that if a bomb goes off and destroys something now, then that won't count towards failing the entire structure later. I guess the building re-grows structure in other places to compensate in the hours that pass?



How are you expecting them to prove it?


Exactly like I have been describing. Use the structural documentation and laws of physics alone. Nothing else. Period. That is how you tell if your theory is bullcrap or if it actually produces something similar to reality. Not by forcing your theory to match reality every step along the way by just assuming the data that makes it work.


You want them to prove something that you have no idea how to prove, no criteria for accepting proof, and you believe you have no obligation to state them. It's a hopeless situation.


I can see how you might think it's a hopeless situation, since you apparently don't even know what an objective investigation would consist of.



The data I'm talking about exists just the same as the structural documentation for the building itself existed.

Where does this data exist?


NIST has it. If NIST didn't have it, then they couldn't do their investigation at all, end of discussion. Maybe you don't realize what civil/structural engineers work with? What their data and formulas look like and where they come from? The structural specs are critical. They detail every column, every beam, every width, grade of steel, cross-section. That's all you need to set up a computer model, apply external damage, apply realistic heat/temperatures, and see where it goes with no further manipulation.


Where are the fire temperature recordings, the internal cameras showing fire progression? The documentation of exact office contents, brands and heat output etc?


Determining realistic heat/temperatures from the fires based on how widespread they were, where they were at, etc., is the sole exception to not looking at videos to force theoretical data. The fire data is the only data that can't be derived from the structural documents.


NIST investigated to find acceptable values, and matched these results against any evidence available from the day.


Which would be fine if they waited until their theory played itself out, completely by itself, and then they compared results. But when they are forcing it to lock-step the whole way, including hand-waving the free-fall acceleration away as being "normal" with no independent verification or calculation whatsoever, is equivalent to sleight of hand. If you aren't going to see this, no one else is possibly going to be able to ever show it to you. It's easier to manipulate numbers and data and lie than with anything else, especially with all these under-handed applications of circular reasoning that you aren't even picking up on. Because I have to be the enemy when you respond in these posts, so of course you aren't going to ever stop and give a freaking thought to what I am saying. You must have been taught all of this same stuff in grade school. But now that I'm saying it, it must be wrong, of course.


That you call this 'circular reasoning' is irrelevant. This is the only possible way to determine what likely occured on the day.


No, it definitely isn't the only way to have done it. They could have done their investigation objectively, not subjectively. When they have already concluded that it was just primarily fire that brought it down, and they gear everything around trying to prove how that could have been possible, you already have your proof that the investigation could have been more objective. Instead of simply trying to reproduce the most realistic scenario from nothing but pure data, they actively mold and shape it the whole way, selecting one case over another and making assumptions until things work out a certain way that they had already decided upon. They are just building a house of cards out of preconceptions.


I must be out of date, because most of my resistors here are gold band, ie +/-5%!


Of course they are. You wouldn't be able to argue with every single point I post if they weren't, would you? Must have bought a value pack at Radio Shack, huh?


Anyhow, you initially state that it gets pumped straight out from the formulas, then you go on to admit there is a significant margin of error!


Uh, I specifically said there was NOT a significant margin of error, that you literally could not read it on a multimeter in lots of cases. Which means the number in the simulation is the number verbatim that you read on your multi-meter when you measure the circuit. When was the last time you did this stuff, again? From what experience are you speaking from? Because let me see... nope, I don't consider you more credible than weeks/months of personal experience. Sorry.



What is it? Do you get the exact values, or do you get an approximation?


There is literally no such thing as "exact," in sciences where you measure things. NEVER is there an "exact," except as an imaginary concept in your head. Engineers work with margins of error on a daily basis. There is a concept called "significant digits." It is widely agreed, by all engineers in all fields, that digits that are not "significant digits" ... aren't significant.


EOk, here's a challenge for you. I have constructed a slightly more complex potential divider seen here: ...

Each of those resistors is nominally 50 Ohms, with a tolerance of +/- 10%. I've given you 3 probe values. Because the tolerance is so lax (actually closer tolerances than many variables NIST had to investigate) the output voltage can vary by well over a volt.


But you can still obviously figure a maximum and minimum bounds based on nothing but the data given in the schematic, even though the tolerances are enormous and I would replace them all with more accurate resistors if I were ever going to build such a circuit. You can also then figure odds as to what particular voltages you are most likely to achieve out of a pool of all possibilities, for example, rather than just seeking 1 possibility above all others, and ignoring all others.

This is still just an excuse anyway. If it's hard to objectively verify something on paper, you can imagine what the odds would be that it would just happen to work out that way in real life.


My challenge to you, is to determine Vout and determine resistor values and then prove to me that these values are accurate. Considering you have the nominal value, and a fixed schematic, this is a completely trivial task compared to a multifloor fire simulation.


The difference is, I can give you a range and promise it will fall within it. NIST's case requires "best cases."


Not about to do your homework for you, sorry. If you want to know the answers, you can do the research yourself


Sigh... You keep back-tracking further and further. You already admitted you were speculating. Please remember that.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked if you could prove their methodology was the most sound route for an impartial/objective investigation as they could have taken. If you can't, then it's no skin off of my back.

So you asked me to prove something you don't know how to prove. How then would you know if I had proven it?

It seems to me that you don't even think about what you write, you are just trying to make sure that certain key words like 'prove' appear in your posts.


So what? You sure are argumentative. All I am saying is that I never joined a "community" unless you are talking about ATS, and you need not try to force me into any groups besides that.

You commit yourself to a group when you make positive claims, such as 'this is only possible through demolition'. If you do not want to be part of these groups, don't make the claims.


What you are trying to do is the intellectual equivalent of racism, ie discriminate against me because you see me as no different than so many other people that I myself don't associate with the way you apparently think I do.

Accusations of racism? Are you joking? Firstly, I have done the opposite of discriminate, I have spent my time and energy trying to help you. Secondly, I find it hilarious that you could compare this to a significant problem such as racism. For the love of god man get some perspective.


How am I going to find the freaking truth by myself when I don't have ANY resources to do that?

Look at the evidence instead of requiring other people to do it for you.


Again, all I have to do to show we don't yet have the full story, which is all I'm interested in doing at this point, is to show where these questions have still not been answered.

What is the point of that? Not a single question, if unanswered, casts any doubt on the 'official story' unless you have contradictions or superior explanations. You have neither.


You still haven't answered them. Only proof finally resolves the questions.

There's that magical word again, notice how you fail to specify ANY standard whatsoever.


Not according to Jennings' testimony. Unless you are just changing it on your whim now to fit with your already-formed opinions.

What does Jennings say caused the explosion then?


Prove it. Prove that if a bomb goes off and destroys something now, then that won't count towards failing the entire structure later. I guess the building re-grows structure in other places to compensate in the hours that pass?

That's not what I said. What idiot would set off a charge 5 hours before they plan to take down the building? I could understand if maybe it was the magical eutectic reaction you believe can occur, but that would not cause an explosion. As usual, it is a claim that makes no sense, and has no hypothesis to back it up.


Now, we get onto the meat and veg of your post, your requirements for proof which you contradict. Here are some selected quotes, I haven't enough characters for context.


That is how you tell if your theory is bullcrap or if it actually produces something similar to reality. Not by forcing your theory to match reality every step along the way by just assuming the data that makes it work.



NIST has it.
...
The structural specs are critical. They detail every column, every beam, every width, grade of steel, cross-section. That's all you need to set up a computer model, apply external damage, apply realistic heat/temperatures, and see where it goes with no further manipulation.



Determining realistic heat/temperatures from the fires based on how widespread they were, where they were at, etc., is the sole exception to not looking at videos to force theoretical data. The fire data is the only data that can't be derived from the structural documents.



they actively mold and shape it the whole way, selecting one case over another and making assumptions until things work out a certain way that they had already decided upon.


For a start, you say they should "apply realistic heat/temperatures", and you go on to say that the fire data requires simulation. However, earlier in this very thread you were arguing against NIST's fire simulations.

You seem to want things both ways, in reality NIST did do what you ask, but they also simplified their models so they did not have to wait decades for reasonable results. This is the very reason I set you that challenge, because I know damn well that you will likely not be able to do it the way you want NIST to do within any sort of time period.

I actually posted the wrong image, that one has some accurate values, wheras I meant to give them to one decimal place, so that should help you. Still, the challenge is tricky, I will elaborate more below.


Of course they are. You wouldn't be able to argue with every single point I post if they weren't, would you? Must have bought a value pack at Radio Shack, huh?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, I have a whole tub full of resistors and diodes thanks



Uh, I specifically said there was NOT a significant margin of error, that you literally could not read it on a multimeter in lots of cases

Perhaps you do not consider 1% significant, I know it would appear on my multimeter but the purpose was to point out there are always margins of error, which you agree on later in your post.

However again you seem to want things both ways, you mentioned before that the structural specs existed for WTC7, but you have forgotten to take into account error again! For example, say a column is specified to have a yield strength of 50ksi. This is a minimum measurement and we have literally no idea of the actual yield strength. The same for the geometry of the building. It was vertical right? Just how accurate is that though? Is there an inch of deflection at the top? Two inches? The WTC towers could sway several feet in the wind.

You cannot both point out that there are errors in every analysis, and then ignore the results of this requirement!

In the example I gave you, resistors were always within 10% of their nominal value, but the resulting variation in the output actually exceeded this. There is over a 20% deviation in the output, and this is just the first stage. That is a doubling of the error margins already.


When was the last time you did this stuff, again? From what experience are you speaking from? Because let me see... nope, I don't consider you more credible than weeks/months of personal experience. Sorry.

Why does this matter? It's been a while since I did this for sure, but the reason I put this example to you is that I know for a fact you will require every step NIST took to solve this like you want them to. I've given you WAY more information than NIST had to go on, you have upper and lower bounds, actual in-circuit measurements and a full schematic.


The difference is, I can give you a range and promise it will fall within it. NIST's case requires "best cases."

This also is hilariously contradictory. If you can give me a range and promise it will fall within it, how is that any different to NIST using a range of values and picking one that falls within it? You say "best case" because you assume NIST were manipulating things for a fire induced collapse, but I could say the same about this, that you are manipulating values for a particular goal. It is meaningless, if it falls within error margins it is valid.

I did the initial simulation run for this challenge by the way. The simulator i'm using takes 0.005s per run, and I simplified this to 16384 runs. That's testing max and minimum values only, and I already get 404 matches to one decimal place. How should I continue?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
As a postscript, since I have no characters left in the original post. It's worthy to note that without simplification, and testing only 3 values per resistor, this would take my simulator well over 100 years to complete, and would give incredibly inaccurate values.

By simplifying the circuit, we can do quicker analysis, but we lose even more accuracy. I am going to do a 3 option run on the simplified circuit, but this alone goes from 16,384 simulation runs to 4.7 million runs, with a runtime of over 6 hours.

edit: As an idea of accuracy, with A, B and C matching to one decimal place, there is approximately a 10% deviation in output voltage. There are no 2 decimal place matches.

Of course, I have no doubt a modern simulator would be able to solve this analytically rather than iteratively, but such an approach I feel would contradict with how you claim things should be investigated.

I don't expect you to complete this challenge unfortunately, but if you are willing to, it will demonstrate very well how at every stage you are forced to do exactly the same as NIST did in order to investigate, and this is only a 25 element passive circuit!

[edit on 9-11-2009 by exponent]

edit: Another edit for accuracy, I just took a look at the actual values of A,B,C and the rounding on the image above is different for each value, so be aware of this. This is also something NIST has to deal with, so I don't think it's particularly unfair.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So you asked me to prove something you don't know how to prove. How then would you know if I had proven it?


Look up the definition of "proof" and your mystery will be solved. If I knew how to prove it beforehand then I would already agree with you, having seen your proof, obviously. As it stands I do not agree with you and don't think you can prove it because it's wrong.


You commit yourself to a group when you make positive claims, such as 'this is only possible through demolition'. If you do not want to be part of these groups, don't make the claims.


Sorry, you don't get to pick what "groups" I'm in, except in your biased head, which doesn't amount to anything.


Firstly, I have done the opposite of discriminate


Trying to force me into a group I myself don't claim to be a part of, that you think of derogatively, is trying to discriminate against me.


I have spent my time and energy trying to help you.


Well you are doing a piss poor job about it because I am only asking 1 question and all you are doing is claiming you don't think it needs to be answered because NIST didn't answer it. They just assumed there was nothing worth addressing about it, which doesn't make sense given how many people have had a problem with it. I don't care if your next excuse is that it isn't a report for "laymen." Whip out your slide-rule and break it down for me, then. You haven't been able to do that, either.



How am I going to find the freaking truth by myself when I don't have ANY resources to do that?

Look at the evidence instead of requiring other people to do it for you.


The evidence DOESN'T EXIST. That's why you can't answer any of the 20 questions with positive evidence!!! Your posts are turning into an ignorant mantra that you refuse to put any more thought into. Are you stuck in a loop?


What is the point of that? Not a single question, if unanswered, casts any doubt on the 'official story' unless you have contradictions or superior explanations. You have neither.


The simple fact that they are unanswered casts doubt.



Not according to Jennings' testimony. Unless you are just changing it on your whim now to fit with your already-formed opinions.

What does Jennings say caused the explosion then?


Sorry, this is supposed to read, "I apologize for twisting Jennings' testimony to fit to my own pre-conceived ideas."


That's not what I said. What idiot would set off a charge 5 hours before they plan to take down the building?


And I asked, what the hell difference would it make in terms of failing structure within the building? It would still be failed. The difference is small-minded people (cough) now can give themselves an excuse to say the explosions weren't part of an obvious demolition sequence as if they had all gone off in regular intervals just seconds before the building dropped. But even if that happened I have a feeling you would be here saying it was a series of transformer explosions.



For a start, you say they should "apply realistic heat/temperatures", and you go on to say that the fire data requires simulation.


Already you are putting words in my mouth. I said they would have to judge that based on what was seen in photos/videos, that this would be the sole exception of having to look for this data as opposed to just pumping it out through formulas. They could also simulate the fires in a lab much the same way the Cardington tests or even the smaller-scale tests for the WTC Towers they did. Here's another idea: allow the WTC investigation more money than the investigation into Bill's BJ. I know, something else NIST had no control over, what a convenient excuse. No steel, no money, damn, I guess I should be praising them for even being able to afford the paper they printed these things on, huh?


However, earlier in this very thread you were arguing against NIST's fire simulations.


Because they plug in arbitrary parameters to find a "best case" for their theory. There is nothing objective about that data when they are pruning it.


You seem to want things both ways


No, again, you have put words in my mouth. And even if computer simulation was the best route to go with this, that doesn't give you free right to plug into it any numbers you see fit.


Perhaps you do not consider 1% significant


Again, 1% tolerance does not mean the resistor is going to consistently be 1% off. It means if it's any more off than that, then it's defective. Approaching that limit is "bad." There are standards for deciding "significant digits" that depend on the margin of error and have already been agreed upon.


However again you seem to want things both ways, you mentioned before that the structural specs existed for WTC7, but you have forgotten to take into account error again! For example, say a column is specified to have a yield strength of 50ksi. This is a minimum measurement and we have literally no idea of the actual yield strength.


Right, it could actually be greater. There are actual legal limits that are required to be met, but can be surpassed without any problem obviously, and it is good/common engineering practice to factor extra redundancy into skyscrapers since they would pose a greater potential for disaster if they had problems.


The same for the geometry of the building. It was vertical right? Just how accurate is that though? Is there an inch of deflection at the top? Two inches? The WTC towers could sway several feet in the wind.


And those several feet had no impact on the over-all integrity of the building and were actually a design feature to help stress in hurricane winds, etc. A few inches displacement in a building that runs several hundred feet high falls into another instance of a very small margin of error, of less than a single percent displacement laterally per elevation.


In the example I gave you, resistors were always within 10% of their nominal value, but the resulting variation in the output actually exceeded this. There is over a 20% deviation in the output, and this is just the first stage. That is a doubling of the error margins already.


You set that problem up specifically to have horrible tolerances. The one you just mentioned in relation to WTC7, again, is less than a 1% displacement of a moment arm.


I've given you WAY more information than NIST had to go on, you have upper and lower bounds, actual in-circuit measurements and a full schematic.


Just having the schematic gives me all of that information alone. You basically said the same thing three times. NIST had the structural documents. That is all they would have needed to apply relevant laws of physics. You have not provided any more technical data for the circuit than they would have had for the building. It's just a single document/set of documents in either case.



The difference is, I can give you a range and promise it will fall within it. NIST's case requires "best cases."

This also is hilariously contradictory. If you can give me a range and promise it will fall within it, how is that any different to NIST using a range of values and picking one that falls within it?


Because NIST did not provide the whole range of collapse possibilities and try to see which ones were most realistic, they simply set out to prove that what happened was the result of fire and debris alone. And by using circular reasoning to try and build their case they failed to even do that.


You say "best case" because you assume NIST were manipulating things for a fire induced collapse


What criteria would you say they used to select one case of data over another?



I did the initial simulation run for this challenge by the way. The simulator i'm using takes 0.005s per run, and I simplified this to 16384 runs. That's testing max and minimum values only, and I already get 404 matches to one decimal place. How should I continue?


It was never a secret that you intentionally used horribly inaccurate resistors in your example. What I would do is rebuild the entire circuit using more accurate resistors. You still haven't shown how a 10% tolerance over and over and over many times relates in any way to how WTC7 must have been investigated.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This is a very enlightening thread, thanks to both of you.
Setting aside the NIST computer simulations for a moment, has anyone ever attempted to build a scaled model and duplicate the collapse characteristics we saw happen to WTC7? How about for the twin towers?

I for one would find the official story a little more credible if these symmetrical collapse characteristics could be duplicated. I honestly don't think anyone could ever duplicate this with a physical model. No physical collapse model would be able to duplicate the collapse characteristics, especially of wtc1 and 2:
1. Symmetrical collapses cannot happen due to asymmetrical damage.
2. Gravitational collapses would not hurl multi-ton wall units hundreds of feet outside.
3. The 20% upper part able to crush the 80% lower mostly undamaged part, the lower being progressively thicker stronger?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by superleadoverdrive
 


Different building materials would have to be used because the materials properties of steel and concrete don't scale down with size.

But given that, there is a thread here challenging anyone to reproduce a collapse with a scaled model using any materials so desired:

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

"Progressive collapse" challenge: 4+ years and still no takers


It was designed to challenge someone to reproduce the WTC Tower collapses, using any materials, with a scale model:


CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.



The challenge, originally from 911research.com, also requires the model be able to withstand 100 mph winds, but I only ask that it have enough lateral strength to not be blown apart literally when someone blows on it. So literal houses of cards will be unable to provide an accurate scale model of the tower collapses.

I'm sure this could be modified for WTC7. So far it hasn't even been done for the towers, though. They can't even produce a similar computer model because it's "too complex," yet as you mention there are definite patterns of regularity and symmetry in the collapses, even the Tower collapses.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Thanks bsbray, I wasn't aware a challenge had been issued already, I'll check out those links.

BTW, your postings are well thought out and researched, impressive work.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Epistemological confusion and the illusion of validity.

Exponent is to be complemented for his succinct and rational illustration of bsbray11's convoluted and contradictory thinking.

Bsbray11 illustrated one of the characteristics of 9/11 TruthThink that should be evident to all on both sides. In his OP, Bsbray11 set up the rules and constraints under which the discussion would take place about the supposed 20 "unanswered questions." He was very clear:


"Let me stress that personal speculation regarding any of these questions is not going to settle any of them definitely, so they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation."
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Bsbray11's statement is based on several premises which none of us should accept as given:

1. The "questions" are automatically legitimate because bsbray11 says so. Any objectives standards are ruled out by fiat.
2. There is no legitimate answer to any of bsbray11's questions since "they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation." So, is there is any reason to attempt to answer them?
3. Answering his "questions" violates stipulation #2. Any legitimate answer by rational standards can be dismissed as "personal speculation."
4. We are required, according to bsbray11, to accept his "conditions" of evidence and proof and his stipulation that he is sole arbiter.

In other words, bsbray11 has constructed his own rules by which everyone else has to play. He wrote the law, he is the judge, and he is the jury.

But bsbray11 cheerfully doesn't play by his own rules. Why should he have to? He can do anything he wants. He does so by stating:


"I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition. You know, literally pushing everything out of the way with some type of explosion. For which I can provide witness testimonies (from a police officer no less), seismic data, etc."
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So while none of us can use evidence since bsbray11's questions "...will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation," he applies no such restrictions to himself. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, bsbray11 will claim his "questions" have not been answered -- and cannot be answered until and unless there is another investigation -- HE allows himself to "answer" them by making claims he doesn't have to support.

Bsbray11 reveals the fraudulent nature of his self-appointment as lawmaker, judge, and jury, the very assault on the scientific method he claims to champion but tries to crush under his boots, and the true nature of 9/11 TruthThink, in this response to exponent:


Exponent:
You clearly believe in some sort of alternate theory, and so you should have a vested interest in developing this theory and showing it to be correct.


BB11:
No, that's someone else's job, and I don't know why you can't understand this. All I have to do is find problems with the government reports. I don't have to wipe their butts too and change their diapers, ie write a whole new report to replace their trash. I only come here and ask rhetorical questions that I know have no answers just to remind hard-headed people that they don't know everything already.


But we haven't let bsbray11 get away with it. He doesn't get to play by his rules. No way. He doesn't get to claim his "questions" are valid or that they have no answers. In the reality that he avoids and rejects at all costs, bsbray11 still has to play by the same rules we all do. No matter how much he whines and hand-waves, he does not get to exempt himself from the rules.

Has bsbray11 "found problems" with the NIST report as he claims? No. He just claimed there were problems but could not articulate any reason to reject the NIST report on WTC 7. He flew into a fury at the admonition that he has to support his own claims and refute NIST. Of course, bsbray11 cannot refute NIST, so he runs and retreats to his own rules: "Nobody can answer my questions. I don't have to do anything!" In turn, we do the obvious: we reject his unsupported claims. Is bsbray11 too dumb to understand that? YOU decide.

Has bsbray11 demonstrated "...the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition?" No. He just claimed it. And he did so by violating his own rules that he requires everyone else to follow.

Our little dictatorial emperor indeed wears no clothes. Bsbray11 ducks and dodges but he fell victim to the illusion of validity and it's come back to bite him.

Exponent has done the best job here in exposing through reason, logic, and patience the inane irrationality of a 9/11 "Truther." It's high time bsbray11 recognize that his own game is up and concede his intellectual defeat graciously - if that's possible for a "Truther."


[edit on 9-11-2009 by jthomas]






top topics



 
79
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join