Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


What I mean by " actual collapse " is from the point when the building is obviously and irreversibly going down.

As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I think it is hard to simulate because there are so many factors and variables. I haven't seen any models coming from the truth movement either, which suggests its not easy at all.

As for your thought experiment, you seem to forget that the collapsed floors become part of the falling weight. That means that floors in the lower section have a lot more to endure than the floors in the top section, so chances are much higher those will fail.

reply to post by -PLB-


The NIST report itself lays out a sequence of events that have a very low degree of probability to occour. So debunkers of the truth movement would have to debunk the NIST report and come up with a better explanatiion thant that provided by NIST, which they currently defend.

Also that there is not enough data avaiable for a simulation is simply a lie. You had the building, you knew the plane, altitude speed upon impact, impact angle, fuel on board, all the materials involved, all you need to do is enter those variables in a simulation.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The NIST report itself lays out a sequence of events that have a very low degree of probability to occour. So debunkers of the truth movement would have to debunk the NIST report and come up with a better explanatiion thant that provided by NIST, which they currently defend.

Also that there is not enough data avaiable for a simulation is simply a lie. You had the building, you knew the plane, altitude speed upon impact, impact angle, fuel on board, all the materials involved, all you need to do is enter those variables in a simulation.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

reply to post by Cassius666


I wonder what events exactly have a low probability to occur according to you, and how you come to this conclusion.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

What I mean by " actual collapse " is from the point when the building is obviously and irreversibly going down.

As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.

The question is whether or not WHAT WE DO SEE can be caused by the fall of the top 15% of the building.

I think it is obvious that more energy sources were involved and that is why we can't see what is going on. A true collapse could not produce that much dust. So a TRUE SIMULATION would involve creating simulated components for most of those known to be in the towers. All of the columns and beams and perimeter wall panels and floors and trusses. So let the 15 stories fall on the 90 stories. So if it does not do what we saw on 9/11 then there had to have been energy sources in the buildings that we don't know about.

This NINE YEAR hullabaloo has been all because so many people don't want to accept that possibility. It would mean that the buildings did not really collapse even though people keep calling it that. People are believing what they prefer and rationalizing backwards but the laws of physics don't give a damn what people want to believe.

psik

Originally posted by Alfie1
We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

AE911.

In fact, that is the sole reason they even came into existence.

Next question?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Are you claiming that the bottom of the building didn't have to be stronger than the top to support more weight?

That's right! The "bottom" of the building needs to do only what the rest of the building is doing, transfering the load to the foundation.

Where is your model that is capable of total collapse by the way?

World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2.

Anyone can build mine and test it for themselves.

And discover the crushing limits of construction paper.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

As for your thought experiment, you seem to forget that the collapsed floors become part of the falling weight. That means that floors in the lower section have a lot more to endure than the floors in the top section, so chances are much higher those will fail.

People who BELIEVE the collapse could happen accuse others of forgetting things but then they don't talk about how much kinetic energy the falling mass had to loose in order to crush the levels below.

I say LEVELS because the columns in the core weren't on the FLOORS.

My physical model demonstrates the effect.

Crushing the paper loops takes energy. The only source for that energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Therefore it slows down in the process of crushing loops, including its own. So even though the falling mass gains mass from the stationary portion below it loses velocity so rapidly its kinetic energy declines faster due to reduced velocity being squared and mass only increasing linearly.

So the BELIEVERS choose to believe physics works the way they prefer.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
That's right! The "bottom" of the building needs to do only what the rest of the building is doing, transfering the load to the foundation.

ROFL

That is an interesting way to talk while saying nothing.

How strong it has to be depends on how much load it has to transfer. So since the bottom has to transfer more load than the top there must have been more steel there so it was heavier. So you are just trying to make a verbal dodge but it is obviously DUMB.

psik

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

AE911.

In fact, that is the sole reason they even came into existence.

Next question?

No, I don't mean AE911 which is a conspiracy site. It comprises all sorts of oddballs like electrical engineers, landscape engineers etc and others who retired in 1872. I mean current professional associations anywhere in the developed world.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


What happens is that as the crushing mass falls down, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. So the kinetic energy can keep building up as there is an abundant source of potential energy available.

I think I already spoke to you about it, and pointed out why your model is flawed. In your model the crushing mass must overcome the complete support, which was not the case in WTC towers. This already totally invalidates your model, and there are even more issues with it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

What happens is that as the crushing mass falls down, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. So the kinetic energy can keep building up as there is an abundant source of potential energy available.

I think I already spoke to you about it, and pointed out why your model is flawed. In your model the crushing mass must overcome the complete support, which was not the case in WTC towers. This already totally invalidates your model, and there are even more issues with it.

The Potential Energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the only force on the mass is gravity and the mass is falling through empty space. If the falling mass is in contact with and crushing some mass below then some upward force must be on the mass and it cannot be accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. So the equation does not apply.

Believing involves leaving out information that threaten the belief.

You know that olde, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

psik

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

AE911.

In fact, that is the sole reason they even came into existence.

Next question?

Not just AE911, any expert who is unbiased will tell you that those never before never again events ammount to a miracle.

Originally posted by Alfie1
As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.

And yet you take NIST's computer animation of WTC 7 as fact? Either you can or you can't. Take your pick, but to play each side is disengenious IMO.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So since the bottom has to transfer more load than the top there must have been more steel there so it was heavier.

So then, based on your worldview, the base of every structure in the history of mankind is heavier at the bottom then anywhere else.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Alfie1
As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.

And yet you take NIST's computer animation of WTC 7 as fact? Either you can or you can't. Take your pick, but to play each side is disengenious IMO.

Can you direct me to where I was talking about NIST's animation of WTC 7 because I have forgotten it ; thanks.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

AE911.

In fact, that is the sole reason they even came into existence.

Next question?

Not just AE911, any expert who is unbiased will tell you that those never before never again events ammount to a miracle.

And those experts would be who exactly ?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So the conclusion is that the resistance offered by the floors is not large enough to transfer enough kinetic energy into other types of energy in order to make the mass slow down. And there is no reason for the floors to be designed to offer this kind of resistance. The floors were not design for dropping top sections on them.

Anyway, I think it was you who for some reason didn't want to accept the concept of a floor, the part you walk on, and you insisted you should look at the support columns to determine the resistance. Hence your flawed model. I think with a couple of wooden blocks and a deck of playing cards you can make a more accurate model, where the playing cards function as floors and the wooden blocks as columns.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
We were actually talking about post initiation of collapse. But if you think that NIST's conclusions in general " have a low degree of probability " perhaps you can point me in the direction of engineering / architectural professional organizations worldwide who subscribe to that view ?

AE911.

In fact, that is the sole reason they even came into existence.

Next question?

Not just AE911, any expert who is unbiased will tell you that those never before never again events ammount to a miracle.

And those experts would be who exactly ?

Any I asked. Why dont you ask educated people yourself and see what they tell you.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the conclusion is that the resistance offered by the floors is not large enough to transfer enough kinetic energy into other types of energy in order to make the mass slow down. And there is no reason for the floors to be designed to offer this kind of resistance. The floors were not design for dropping top sections on them.

Anyway, I think it was you who for some reason didn't want to accept the concept of a floor, the part you walk on, and you insisted you should look at the support columns to determine the resistance. Hence your flawed model. I think with a couple of wooden blocks and a deck of playing cards you can make a more accurate model, where the playing cards function as floors and the wooden blocks as columns.

The floors were designed to hold up everything above them. They should have offered some resistance, yet they did not.