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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Nutter
 


We are not talking about peace, we are talking about physics so what is your point?

www.nist.gov...

As far as the president, I think he uses his to roll blunts...


Could you name their specific roles in producing the NCSTAR1 report please and not just a list of 3 nobel prize winners?


I'm kinda curious esdad, why did you drop this argument? Please abstain from stereotypically rascist remarks while you do it.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Is there anything in the entire NIST Report which describes in detail the actual occurance and dynamics of the destruction of the twin towers of the world trade center after the point of "collapse initiation" or in other words, did they address the actual "collapse" and destruction of the towers itself..?


There is not. Their simulation technology is pointless in this sort of situation, they explicitly ran their analysis further for WTC7 as it was more unusual, but even then they only captured a few more seconds at the beginning.


Originally posted by ANOK
You're just making excuses for NIST.
What else is there to discus, your four points have been covered?
How about disusing one that is actually relevant to what happened?
How do you think the towers collapsed?
...
Your four points are irrelevant, as I explained, they prove nothing either way.

They're not irrelevant as they're critical to anyone's case, I'll bring up some more points later on and we'll discuss the actual fire behaviour inside the towers. I want to make absolutely sure there are no genuine objections to the original 4 points before we move on.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


First, don't tell me how to talk or describe anything, ok? Bush did coke and Obama got high in college. Take your race card and..well. be creative. Obviously you think all black people smoke pot based on your defensive stance and that is not what I did. I used fact. I did not drop an arguement, you started it with your initial comment. Deflection is the non OS'ers greatest weapon.

NIST is not comprised of psuedo-scientist as many in these forums state, Like Steven Jones who must pay to be published. They are filled with highly qualified people whos job it is to look at the damage from accidents and make recommendations for future buildings.

The fact that their staff has award winning engineers and scientists is very relevant here. If you think it is bunk, it is up to you to research and discredit each and every person on that staff. That is what a debate is. You cannot wave a hand and say, no, don't believe them.

This is a list of the awards that they have won...

physics.nist.gov...

The fact that most of you simply discredit NIST's report, especially some of you who do not read it or do not understand it, is laughable. You claim that they did not use proper physics and argue the 3rd law when that is not all that applies and there are variations that can occur based on outside factors. I would think these guys had a good handle of physics....



NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM FOR THE FEDERAL
BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER DISASTER
S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. (NIST), Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Ph.D. (NIST), Report Editor
William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D. (NIST), Associate Lead Investigator
Jason D. Averill (NIST)
Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. (NIST)
Stephen A. Cauffman (NIST)
David D. Evans, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST)
Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D. (NIST)
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST)
J. Randall Lawson (NIST)
H. S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST)
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST)
Harold E. Nelson, P.E. (Private Sector Expert)
Fahim Sadek, Ph.D. (NIST)
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation

National Construction Safety Team Draft for Public Comment
This page intentionally left blank.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE INVESTIGATION
National Construction Safety Team for the WTC Investigation
S. Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. LewRichard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman
Lead Investigator
Associate Lead Investigator; Project Leader, Project 4: Investigation of
Active Fire Protection Systems
Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and
Practices
Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire
Codes and Practices
Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Prediction
Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of
Structural Steel
Project Leader: Project 5: Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability
Environment
Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse
Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse
Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency
Communications
Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines
Fire Protection Engineering Expert
Program Manager
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee
Dr. John Bryan Philip J. DiNenno Dr. Kathleen J. Tierney
Dr. John M. Barsom Paul M. Fitzgerald Dr. Forman A. Williams
David S. Collins Dr. Robert D. Hanson
Glenn P. Corbett Dr. Charles H. Thornton
Contributing NIST Staff
Mohsen Altafi Dale Bentz Sandy Clagett
Robert Anleitner Charles Bouldin Ishmael Conteh
Elisa Baker Paul Brand Matthew Covin
Stephen Banovic Lori Brassell Frank Davis
Howard Baum Kathy Butler David Dayan
Carlos Beauchamp Nicholas Carino Laurean DeLauter
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation v

Contributors to the Investigation Draft for Public Comment
Jonathan Demarest Chris McCowan
Stuart Dols Jay McElroy
Michelle Donnelly Kevin McGrattan
Dat Duthinh Roy McLane
David Evans George Mulholland
Richard Fields Lakeshia Murray
Tim Foecke Kathy Notarianni
Glenn Forney Joshua Novosel
William Fritz Long Phan
Anthony Hamins William Pitts
Edward Hnetkovsky Thomas Ohlemiller
Erik Johnsson Victor Ontiveros
Dave Kelley Richard Peacock
Mark Kile Max Peltz
Erica Kuligowski Lisa Petersen
Jack Lee Rochelle Plummer
William Luecke Kuldeep Prasad
Alexander Maranghides Natalia Ramirez
David McColskey Ronald Rehm
NIST Experts and Consultants
Paul Reneke
Michael Riley
Lonn Rodine
Schuyler Ruitberg
Jose Sanchez
Raymond Santoyo
Steven Sekellick
Michael Selepak
Thomas Siewert
Emil Simiu
Monica Starnes
David Stroup
Laura Sugden
Robert Vettori
John Widmann
Brendan Williams
Maureen Williams
Jiann Yang
Robert Zarr
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley
Valentine Junker
Department of Commerce and NIST Institutional Support
Michele Abadia-Dalmau
Arden Bement
Audra Bingaman
Phyllis Boyd
Marie Bravo
Craig Burkhardt
Paul Cataldo
Deborah Cramer
Gail Crum
Sherri Diaz
Sandra Febach
James Fowler
Matthew Heyman
Verna Hines
Kathleen Kilmer
Kevin Kimball
Thomas Klausing
Donna Kline
Fred Kopatich
Kenneth Lechter
Melissa Lieberman
Mark Madsen
Romena Moy
Michael Newman
Thomas O'Brien
Norman Osinski
Michael Rubin
Rosamond Rutledge-Burns
John Sanderson
Hratch Semerjian
Sharon Shaffer
Elizabeth Simon
Jack Snell
Michael Szwed
Anita Tolliver
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation

Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation
NIST Contractors
Anter Laboratories, Inc.
Renee Jacobs-Fedore
Daniela Stroe
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Steven Kirkpatrick* Marsh Hardy
Robert T. Bocchieri Samuel Holmes
Robert W. Cilke Robert A. MacNeill
Computer Aided Engineering Associates
Peter Barrett* Daniel Fridline
Michael Bak James J. Kosloski
DataSource
John Wivaag
GeoStats
Marcello Oliveira
Hughes Associates, Inc.
Ed Budnick* Matt Hulcher
Mike Ferreira Alwin Kelly
Mark Hopkins Chris Mealy
Indepdendent Contractors
Ajmal Abbasi David Parks
Eduardo Kausel Daniele Veniziano
John Jay College
Norman Groner
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
William J. Faschan* William C. Howell
Richard B. Garlock* Raymond C. Lai
Claudia Navarro
Brian D. Peterson
Justin Y-T. Wu
John Schoenrock
Steven Strege
Josef Van Dyck
Kaspar Willam
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation

Contributors to the Investigation Draft for Public Comment
National Fire Protection Association
Rita Fahey*
Norma Candeloro
Joseph Molis
National Research Council, Canada
Guylene Proulx*
Amber Walker
NuStats, Inc.
Johanna Zmud* Christopher Frye
Carlos Arce Nancy McGuckin
Heather Contrino Sandra Rodriguez
Rolf Jensen Associates
Ray Grill* Tom Brown
Ed Armm Duane Johnson
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Jacob Grossman*
Craig Leech
Arthur Seigel
Science Applications International Corporation
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Simpson Gumpertz Heger
Mehdi Zarghamee*
Glenn Bell
Said Bolourchi
Daniel W. Eggers
Omer O. Erbay
Heather Duvall
John Eichner*
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Jacquelyn Rhone
Ron Hamburger
Frank Kan
Yasuo Kitane
Atis Liepins
Michael Mudlock
Della Santos
Robert Santos
Bob Keough
Joseph Razz
Cheri Sawyer*
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou
Wassim I. Naguib
Rasko P. Ojdrovic
Andrew T. Sarawit
Pedro Sifre
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation

Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation
S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.
S.K. Ghosh*
Analdo Derecho
Skidmore, Owings, Merrill
Bill Baker
Bob Sinn
John Zils
Teng, Associates
Shankar Nair
Thermophysical Laboratories
Jozef Gembarovic
David L. Taylor
Ray E. Taylor
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Fred Hervey *
Joseph Treadway*
Mark Izydorek
University at Buffalo
Andrei Reinhorn
Joshua Repp
Andrew Whitaker*
University of Chicago Survey Lab
Virginia Bartot
Martha van Haitsma
University of Colorado
Dennis Mileti
University of Michigan
Jamie Abelson
Dave Fanella
Xumei Liang
Aldo Jimenez
William Joy
John Mammoser
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation


and the goals, again , will be repeated as it is relevant to this thread.



The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:
• To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that
contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.
• To serve as the basis for:
- Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
- Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
- Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
- Improved public safety.
The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
2. Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location,
including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and
emergency response;
3. Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
4. Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and
practices that warrant revision.


They accomplished all of this. Years of study, research and critical thinking to try to figure out the how, the why and to make sure it never happens again. Their study helped to provide vital safety information in the new WTC 7.






edit on 20-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by esdad71 because: spelling

edit on 20-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Then please, tell us how it collapsed? What is your theory? I think that is very relevant since you can discredit with one sentence but cannot explain anything. So, what is it?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
They accomplished all of this. Years of study, research and critical thinking to try to figure out the how, the why and to make sure it never happens again. Their study helped to provide vital safety information in the new WTC 7.


ROFL

Years of study cannot specify the total amount of concrete in the World Trade Center even though it was in tourist brochures before 9/11?

They can't figure out a grade school physics problem. Of course after NINE YEARS they will look pretty STUPID if they admit that it is easy to understand why airliners could not do it. What do you mean the amount of steel between the 71st and 91st floors of the south tower had something to do with it?

www.youtube.com...

All you are saying is BELIEVE WHAT AUTHORITY TELLS YOU!

Who cares if it is completely STUPID!

LOL

psik



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Is there anything in the entire NIST Report which describes in detail the actual occurance and dynamics of the destruction of the twin towers of the world trade center after the point of "collapse initiation" or in other words, did they address the actual "collapse" and destruction of the towers itself..?


There is not. Their simulation technology is pointless in this sort of situation, they explicitly ran their analysis further for WTC7 as it was more unusual, but even then they only captured a few more seconds at the beginning.


That is an incredible statement! Fantastic even!!!

All you have to do is watch the videos of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. But 7 is more unusual?

It looked like a normal controlled demolition. WTC 1 & 2 hurled debris and dust everywhere but that was not UNUSUAL? Oh right, being hit by airliners was not usual. 47 story buildings falling down without being hit by airliners is more unusual.

ROFLMAO

We have got people all over the place pretending that computers aren't powerful enough to do this or that. Like skyscrapers are SO COMPLICATED. The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year. It was designed before there were electronic computers. It is just a question of how detailed an answer you want about whether or not it it possible for the top of the north tower to come straight down down and destroy the rest. I bet every decent computer simulation will say NO WAY! The problem is how to get the simulations to LIE. But as long as they don't put in correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete and the strength of steel at every level and the amount of energy required to collapse that steel you can forget about getting an answer.

Of course physical models don't require the user to know so much math. Anybody anywhere can duplicate it and does not have to worry about being lied to.

www.youtube.com...

Maybe I can fake a video but if you build it yourself there is nothing I can do.

psik
edit on 20-4-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You have been shown good simulations in this thread and others and you discredit them. www.youtube.com...

You have been provided with the types and amount of steel that were used.

Somehow, you have a tourist brochure that states the amount of concrete used. I would take a look at this site as it brings alot of information together for review.

click here

Most of the simulations that are created by the 9/11 non OS believer show a pancake collapse which is not what happened. The floors did not fall exactly into one another. None of them take into account the angle of collapse.

What else do you want?
edit on 20-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is an incredible statement! Fantastic even!!!

All you have to do is watch the videos of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. But 7 is more unusual?

Yes 7 is much more unusual, it was fully fireproofed and only suffered relatively minor structural damage. It fell almost entirely due to fire. This is unusual.


It looked like a normal controlled demolition. WTC 1 & 2 hurled debris and dust everywhere but that was not UNUSUAL? Oh right, being hit by airliners was not usual. 47 story buildings falling down without being hit by airliners is more unusual.

You're exactly right.


We have got people all over the place pretending that computers aren't powerful enough to do this or that. Like skyscrapers are SO COMPLICATED. The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year. It was designed before there were electronic computers.

The Empire State Building is also about twice as heavy per area of floor space, and as a result more expensive, less usable etc. They designed the WTC with the best technology they had at the time, there wasn't much computer modelling then either.


It is just a question of how detailed an answer you want about whether or not it it possible for the top of the north tower to come straight down down and destroy the rest. I bet every decent computer simulation will say NO WAY! The problem is how to get the simulations to LIE. But as long as they don't put in correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete and the strength of steel at every level and the amount of energy required to collapse that steel you can forget about getting an answer.

Well you seem to have a range of reasonable values, why don't you test them and find out. The calculations for doing a simple floor by floor crush are relatively trivial, it's just stepwise iteration of at most 3 equations. You could do it in excel in about half an hour, and then tweak the parameters until you're happy they match observables.

Although I think I also mentioned you could do the heat transfer equations but you haven't done that either.


www.youtube.com...

I didn't have a chance to watch all of this, but I will do at a later date. My first and most major criticism is why do you think gravity scales? You need those blocks set up the same distance the tower floors were from each other, unless you've scaled them appropriately which seems pretty unlikely.

Still, actual experimentation is a rare thing and I would love to help you make this more realistic.
edit on 20/4/11 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, don't tell me how to talk or describe anything, ok? Bush did coke and Obama got high in college. Take your race card and..well. be creative. Obviously you think all black people smoke pot based on your defensive stance and that is not what I did.


Ok. Mr. "smoke pot" and not "roll a blunt". BTW, what you said could and should be considered rascist. Why not just say he wraps his watermellon with it? Why not just say he wraps his grape soda in it?

Because these ALL are considered stereotypically rascist.....including "rolling a blunt with it".


The fact that their staff has award winning engineers and scientists is very relevant here. If you think it is bunk, it is up to you to research and discredit each and every person on that staff.


You made the claim that nobel prize winners were part of the NIST NCSTAR1 investigation and report.....not me. The deflection of responsibility of proof is the "debunkers" MO though isn't it esdad?


That is what a debate is. You cannot wave a hand and say, no, don't believe them.


When did I wave a hand? YOU made the claim, now prove it or concede your claim was in error.


This is a list of the awards that they have won...

physics.nist.gov...


Only lists one Nobel prize winner who was NOT involved in the NIST NCSTAR1 investigation nor report. Please show his name in the list you provided.

Or concede that you're blowing smoke out your ass.

edit on 20-4-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Nutter
 


Then please, tell us how it collapsed? What is your theory? I think that is very relevant since you can discredit with one sentence but cannot explain anything. So, what is it?


So, I point out that the Purdue cartoon isn't based on real physics and now it's my turn to prove my theory of what happened? Sorry, but real life and science doesn't work that way.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Ok. Mr. "smoke pot" and not "roll a blunt". BTW, what you said could and should be considered rascist. Why not just say he wraps his watermellon with it? Why not just say he wraps his grape soda in it?

I have to step in here and say that in no way do I think this was racist. Obama's drug experiences are well known, and it makes much more sense that it would refer to that, than to any race.


So, I point out that the Purdue cartoon isn't based on real physics and now it's my turn to prove my theory of what happened? Sorry, but real life and science doesn't work that way.

The Purdue cartoon is based on real physics, but your description of a cartoon is pretty accurate.

What it is, is a visualisation framework. No FEA I am aware of outputs models directly, and instead the output has to be processed into graphs or any other appropriate illustration.

What Purdue are doing is hooking up a visualisation framework to their FEA, so what you see are the results of the FEA. You might as well accuse them of modelling the fire inaccurately as they just used SPH and some fire sprites.

It's supposed to give a good visual understanding, not to replicate in detail the physical interactions. If you want the actual results of their FEA you should ask them, but note that they did not model office contents, so the plane's penetration is significantly greater than reality.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I have to step in here and say that in no way do I think this was racist. Obama's drug experiences are well known, and it makes much more sense that it would refer to that, than to any race.


Then why the reference to the "blunt" which is stereotypically a black thing? He could have easily said a "joint", but no had to take it to "blunt".


It's supposed to give a good visual understanding, not to replicate in detail the physical interactions. If you want the actual results of their FEA you should ask them, but note that they did not model office contents, so the plane's penetration is significantly greater than reality.


And this is an argument in what way? You, yourself just agreed with me that it is a cartoon and not a simulation. Nothing close to using "real world physics" as claimed by esdad.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Associating watermelon with a black person is racist as you did and thereby I guess that you relate watermelon and pot to all blacks? Last I checked black people are not the only ones to roll a blunt. If I said roll a joint is that not racist...


Now, what I said was

"The NIST report is very long but there are several key parts anyone who is investigating the 9/11 events should read as well as the commission report. It is very thorough and as stated before, has nobel prize winners among their researchers as well as 1000's of published academics. Not people who 'pay' to be published"

NIST has nobel prize winners within the organization, not in the NIST report. I did not say Nobel prize winners wrote the NIST report I said it has them among their researchers meaning that these guys are not idiots and have a grasp of physics that I am sure would make you head swim. I was trying to show that NIST is full of academics not pay as you go players like Steve Jones, the almighty of the non OS'ers.

Most of the replies have involved how the government investigation did not inlcude people who understand physics and I was showing that the staff at NIST is more than qualified. It is perception.

and yes, if you say something is a cartoon such as the Purdue video it is your responsibility to prove why it is incorrect and not simply say "I don't believe it".

You should know when you step in here you have to be able to prove what you say just as you want me and other too. I guess you can't so you don't, huh?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
"The NIST report is very long but there are several key parts anyone who is investigating the 9/11 events should read as well as the commission report. It is very thorough and as stated before, has nobel prize winners among their researchers as well as 1000's of published academics. Not people who 'pay' to be published"


Read that paragraph again. "The NIST report.........It is very thorough and has nobel prize winners". The connection is there. You specifically claimed that the NCSTAR1 report and investigation was handled by people with nobel prizes. Which I have pointed out as incorrect.


NIST has nobel prize winners within the organization, not in the NIST report. I did not say Nobel prize winners wrote the NIST report I said it has them among their researchers meaning that these guys are not idiots and have a grasp of physics


Just having nobel prize winners in your organization doesn't automatically mean that the report you produced was a) written by one of those scientists, b) investigated by one of those scientists, c) had anything to do with those scientists.

You do know that the NIST has plenty of divisions and offices around the country correct? Just because some guy in India won a nobel prize doesn't mean that all my research and theories are 100% correct because I work in the same organization.


that I am sure would make you head swim.


Ad hom noted. BTW, mods, I would have been banned for far less.


and yes, if you say something is a cartoon such as the Purdue video it is your responsibility to prove why it is incorrect and not simply say "I don't believe it".


So, pointing out the discrepencies in their "real world physics" isn't enough? Do you need someone to hold your hand to pee also?


You should know when you step in here you have to be able to prove what you say just as you want me and other too. I guess you can't so you don't, huh?


What have I not proven?

Purdue has a cartoon showing thinly sliced and shredded aluminum plane covering slicing through heavy steel columns. Purdue does not show the office. Purdue does not take the deflection into account (which BTW really screws up their "real world physics because the deflection would have absorbed some of the energy).

But, according to you, I don't know physics while a bunch of computer animating students do.

edit on 20-4-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Perception. You are also paraphrasing me which many non OS'ers do. That's ok. I could truly care less but when you attempt to discredit people you should be able to back up why you would. If you leave out the Nobel prize statement, does that mean you can discredit the 1000's of staff who worked on the NIST WTC report as well as all of their employees.

I know what the organization is and what is does. It goes towards credibility. Sorry, but I think I would listen to a theory from an MIT/CIT type grad before i would something you stated about physics. Fact and is not rude.

Not sure what I said to be banned, I mean, making you head swim simply means that somethings may be hard to grasp, as you have shown in your posts. However, asking me if I need help to piss is a little off the subject.

You state that the simulation by the Purdue students is a cartoon and has no credit. Really? THis was not a few guys using a CryEngine mod or washers...




www.purdue.edu...

ven though details were added in this animation, Popescu says the visualization was intentionally kept "non-descript" so that they would not be exploitive of the horrific attack.

"For example, on the airplane there are no airline insignia or windows," Popescu says.

Still, Popescu says the visualization has a realism never seen before.

"The crashes and computer models you often see on television are not scientifically accurate," he says. "This provides an alternative that is useful to the nonexpert but is also scientifically accurate, so it provides a more realistic picture of the event."

The visualization begins with a Google Earth map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows the damage caused by the aircraft as it hit the north tower, follows the disintegrating plane through the interior, and then shows the airplane metal, ignited fuel, dust and smoke exiting the building on the opposite side.

The simulation found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

As with an earlier simulation developed by this team that examined the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center simulation showed that it was the weight of the 10,000 gallons of fuel more than anything else that caused the damage.

"It is the weight, the kinetic energy of the fuel that causes much of the damage in these events," Hoffmann says. "If it weren't for the subsequent fire, the structural damage might be almost the same if the planes had been filled with water instead of fuel."

Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.

"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."



However, I am sure that you would read something like this and see it as truth, right?

www.infowars.com...

Perception...

Also, please explain what 'deflection' you are speaking of that makes the video incorrect. You did not point out any discrepancies you just said it was a cartoon. Also you stated it that a plane could not have severed the columns. It is fact that 12-15 % of the columns were 'severed' and less than half damaged. The plane uses composite materials(graphite and others) and aluminum. It is not all aluminum as you are stating which is incorrect but it is what you believe. You can use the words 'thin' and then 'heavy' but it does not work. Perception...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Then why the reference to the "blunt" which is stereotypically a black thing? He could have easily said a "joint", but no had to take it to "blunt".

I think you're mixing up stereotypes, 'blunt' is a common cannabis term and I have heard it from black and white people alike, especially americans. I see no reason to believe that this person was being racist and I think it's a pretty big stretch on your part.


And this is an argument in what way? You, yourself just agreed with me that it is a cartoon and not a simulation. Nothing close to using "real world physics" as claimed by esdad.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

No, what I said was that it was a cartoon generated from real world physics. Where you see a 0 thickness plane wall impacting a column would in reality be an inch or two of structural aluminium elements travelling at hundreds of mph.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You have been shown good simulations in this thread and others and you discredit them. www.youtube.com...


You are contradicting yourself. If I discredited them then they cannot have been good simulations.

How can the core columns not move in the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact and yet the NIST provided empirical data in their 10,000 page report that the south tower moved 15 inches due to the impact? One of them has to be wrong. Since skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind it is pretty certain the Purdue sim is wrong.

But we all know the north tower was hit by a plane so why should we give a damn about the simulation anyway other than THE FACT that they got it wrong. That simulation does not demonstrate or prove anything about the collapse.

psik



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How can the core columns not move in the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact and yet the NIST provided empirical data in their 10,000 page report that the south tower moved 15 inches due to the impact? One of them has to be wrong. Since skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind it is pretty certain the Purdue sim is wrong.

Well for a start, it's extremely unlikely that they included any columns above or below the impact zone in their simulation. That would massively slow it down and make working harder. It's common practise to focus only on the part that you care about, because that way you can increase grid density or use more complex elements.

For a second, Purdue didn't model office contents, so the momentum transfer was not as significant or as early as in reality.

All simulations are wrong to some extent, Purdue's sim shows that the plane would indeed penetrate walls and do significant internal damage, despite them not having the time or money to simulate office contents.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
However, I am sure that you would read something like this and see it as truth, right?

www.infowars.com...


Who's paraphrasing and prejudging whom now?


It's ok. You can admit that you mispoke about the NCSTAR1 team consisting of nobel prize winners.

Since you claim to listen to people who have a degree from MIT, do you agree with Jeff King?

So, I guess your appeal to authority kinda backfired didn't it?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I think you're mixing up stereotypes, 'blunt' is a common cannabis term and I have heard it from black and white people alike, especially americans. I see no reason to believe that this person was being racist and I think it's a pretty big stretch on your part.


I can't believe we are going on with this. Jeez.


No, what I said was that it was a cartoon generated from real world physics. Where you see a 0 thickness plane wall impacting a column would in reality be an inch or two of structural aluminium elements travelling at hundreds of mph.


So, this shreaded inch or two that has already put most of it's energy toward crashing through the outer columns still had enough energy to slice through core columns? Which "real world physics" is this coming from again? Who performed the actual "real world physics" simulation that this is animated after anyway? How did they get the correct information to do their FEA when everyone else is denied the information to perform a correct one?

Answer those questions and we might be able to get to the NIST report.

Also. I can't believe you guys are still claiming "real world physics" when we all know that in the "real world" the towers deflected when hit and that is definately not shown in the Purdue simulation.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join