|
Post by papageno on May 27, 2007 5:00:45 GMT -4
From NIST's main report, section 6.4.3: These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.That's exactly what I said - it played no part in their conclusions. Read again: "These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." The analyzed samples showed where the temperatures were relatively low, and the simulations reproduced it. This means that the analysis of the steel samples were infact used to validate the simulations and did play a part in the conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 27, 2007 7:15:00 GMT -4
That's exactly what I said - it played no part in their conclusions. Read again: "These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." The analyzed samples showed where the temperatures were relatively low, and the simulations reproduced it. This means that the analysis of the steel samples were infact used to validate the simulations and did play a part in the conclusions. It doesn't validate the simulations. The models which resulted in collapse required numerous core columns to reach over 600 C, in each of the towers. The only core columns analyzed never reached above 250 C. Why is it logical to assume or conclude that several core columns must have reached 2 or 3 times higher temperatures than the samples did, solely on the basis of largely undocumented computer simulations? NIST cannot validate their models (ie: for thermal response and impact damage) without disclosing their input data. They state in their report.... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Well, I'm really pleased to hear them say that! "Yes, it's true - we did have to adjust some of the inputs. But only within the realm of physical reality!" That's most commendable of you, NIST. Ummm....Now, please don't take this the wrong way, NIST. It's not that we don't trust you, or anything. But could you be so kind as to show us your documentation? Specifically, we'd really like to see the input data that was adjusted "within the range of physical reality." Exactly what is "range of physical reality" supposed to mean? Vague, abstract comments may have their place in such reports. But I'd really prefer to see the documentation.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 27, 2007 8:00:24 GMT -4
NIST created thermal models of floor 94 (WTC 1) and floor 97 (WTC 2)
If all the steel from those floors had actually been sought out for analysis, they wouldn't have had to make so many assumptions about the temperatures reached by 99% of the steel.
But since that could have led to their entire theory being trashed, I can understand why they chose to exclude looking for any such evidence.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 27, 2007 8:16:53 GMT -4
turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 27, 2007 10:15:15 GMT -4
IIRC they didn't collect many or any truss samples due to the inability to identify their “as built locations”. Also NIST only theorized that fires hot enough to weaken the trusses occurred on part of one side each (out of four) of each tower and on only 2 or 3 out of 116 floors. 4 x 116 = 464, 3 < 1% of 464. Thus they would have been looking for less than 1% of the trusses and an even smaller percentage of the total steel and an even smaller percentage of the total debris. Given that they only wanted samples whose location could be determined the analogy of a “needle in a haystack” seems quite apt, I imagine the thin hollow trusses whose total diameters were less than the wall thickness of typical columns would have been quite mangled by the collapses. From the above, it's apparent that you either forgot, or have never read, the relevant section of the NIST report which describes the criteria for steel examination and recovery. Nor did you look at the inventory lists, because you would have seen that ~25 items of truss material was recovered - partial or entire trusses. Among other things, the criteria included specifically searching for, and recovering, any steel components which had been exposed to fire (and/or impact damage). They didn't try to identify where the steel came from first, look for stampings, etc. and exclude it simply because they couldn't identify it among the unsorted debris at Fresh Kills, etc. Even unidentified samples were catalogued. Look at the report. Your right I should have said “tested” not “collected”. I guess “you either forgot, or have never read, the relevant section of the NIST report which” said the impact zone of the North Tower wasn’t “above the 82nd floor” From the Final Report - Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. Seven of the pieces were from WTC 5. The remaining 229 samples represented roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
Twenty-three pieces were identified as being parts of trusses, although it was not possible to identify their locations within the buildings. Final Report wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf pg 87 – PDF pg 137 Please cite evidence that the recovered truss parts were tested and if so the were from the floors were NIST’s fire models indicated temperatures above 250 C. With only 23 truss pieces even if ones from the impact/fire zone being sought out the chances that any of them were from the areas NIST predicted such high temps is pretty small. Also there was nothing about "entire trusses" I guess it is possible to fashion a semi-plausible theory along those lines that fits the known facts. Imagine a police department wants to frame a suspect for murder, which would they be more likely to do 1)falsely claim the bullets recovered from the victim’s body definitely came from the suspect’s gun 2) admit that ballistics test were inconclusive but try to convict him on other evidence? The fact that NIST was honest about the tests is 100% proof wasn’t part of a cover-up but it is strongly indicative that they weren’t. How do you or NIST know what temps were reached by untested samples
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 27, 2007 17:29:24 GMT -4
I see turbonium still is holding onto the tired old chestnut of "none of the peices of steel tested were over the 600°C mark. All this shows is that after having it explained at least 6 times over the past two years, he's still as imperivious to how the computer modelling was done and validated as he was at the start. Under Turbonium's belief system if one end of a steel bar was placed in a furnace and the other in a block of ice, then 4 random temperatures were taken from the centre of the bar giving results between 25°C and 100 °C, then none of the bar could ever have been hotter or colder than that, or at least that there is no proof that it was, regradlessof how the readings match the computer modelling of the bar.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 28, 2007 22:56:02 GMT -4
Will somebody please explain to me why it's so hard to believe that being smashed into by a big frickin' plane and set on fire is a reasonable explanation for a building to collapse?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 28, 2007 23:20:59 GMT -4
I believe I understand where he is coming from.
See, the first assumption you have to get rid of is that there were planes and fire. Then you can approach the steel collected without knowing if any of it could have become hot enough to bend. Turbonium is asking for that first test; "show me some pieces that got hot enough to bend -- then you can work on modeling the whole fire and the total effect on the structure." His problem is, essentially, that investigators weren't "open-minded" enough to immediately reject the obvious (aka the strongest best theory) and to spend extra work at the outset looking for anything that might support an alternate theory.
But, starting with this as a required first test blinds him to the result of going ahead and modeling the whole structure (and collecting the samples needed to validate the model), and finding out as part of the consequence that yes, indeed, some members were weakened by the fire. Which is to say; the investigators would, I strongly believe, have gone looking for those alternate theories if (and only if) their tests had falsified or at least thrown grave doubts on the first theory.
He will no-doubt reply to this post that in his opinion, plenty of problems with the detailed picture of the collapse that should by all rights have sent investigators to stop refining the model, dump all that work, and start coming the city for any hairs shed by the ninja monkeys.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 29, 2007 0:54:44 GMT -4
It just seems to me that the conspiracy theories don't make sense, and then people who espouse them pick on the simple explanations as not making any sense. What doesn't make sense about it? Is it the suicide bombers? Because I hadn't noticed a real dearth of those. Is it the pilot training? I thought that was amazingly well documented, and I also thought that one of the big reasons we are supposed to blame the administration (and one of the reasons I think there was a pretty serious intelligence failing, in fact) was that the warning about these guys not wanting to learn how to take off and land was ignored.
It doesn't make sense. Maybe that's me. But I'd really like it explained simply, and with all the players--even if it's just agencies--laid out in detail. If they can't be, how do we know that they did it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 1, 2007 2:30:16 GMT -4
Why would they specifically exclude steel from the most critical floors, while making no such exclusion for steel from much less important areas?
NIST's steel recovery wish list......
1. All the steel from the floors directly above the fire / impact damage floors.
2. From the fire / impact damage floors, only the steel which was affected by fire / impact damage.
It's quite curious to me that nobody else acknowledges the nonsense inherent in NIST's investigatory methods.
What was rejected for analysis based on NIST's selection criteria? Did they locate all 47 core columns from the fire / impact damage floors, for each tower (94 total), and selected only the two core columns that indicated fire and / or impact damage?
To ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis is flawed science.
Does anybody seriously consider NIST's steel selection criteria sound and valid scientific method?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 1, 2007 4:03:17 GMT -4
Evasion noted. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Jun 1, 2007 7:48:39 GMT -4
It's quite curious to me that nobody else acknowledges the nonsense inherent in NIST's investigatory methods.
This is the point where an unqualified but rational person will examine their expectations.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 1, 2007 8:28:47 GMT -4
Why would they specifically exclude steel from the most critical floors, while making no such exclusion for steel from much less important areas? NIST's steel recovery wish list...... 1. All the steel from the floors directly above the fire / impact damage floors. 2. From the fire / impact damage floors, only the steel which was affected by fire / impact damage. It's quite curious to me that nobody else acknowledges the nonsense inherent in NIST's investigatory methods. What was rejected for analysis based on NIST's selection criteria? Did they locate all 47 core columns from the fire / impact damage floors, for each tower (94 total), and selected only the two core columns that indicated fire and / or impact damage? To ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis is flawed science. Does anybody seriously consider NIST's steel selection criteria sound and valid scientific method? I don’t get your point what exactly do you think was wrong with their selection process? What items did them exclude that you think they should have included and vice-versa? Your non-reply to our rebuttals your silly “no steel reached 600 C” complaint is noted
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 5, 2007 21:32:58 GMT -4
Why would they specifically exclude steel from the most critical floors, while making no such exclusion for steel from much less important areas? NIST's steel recovery wish list...... 1. All the steel from the floors directly above the fire / impact damage floors. 2. From the fire / impact damage floors, only the steel which was affected by fire / impact damage. It's quite curious to me that nobody else acknowledges the nonsense inherent in NIST's investigatory methods. What was rejected for analysis based on NIST's selection criteria? Did they locate all 47 core columns from the fire / impact damage floors, for each tower (94 total), and selected only the two core columns that indicated fire and / or impact damage? To ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis is flawed science. Does anybody seriously consider NIST's steel selection criteria sound and valid scientific method? I don’t get your point what exactly do you think was wrong with their selection process? Many sources on scientific method describe common mistakes made by scientists / investigators..... As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.
Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.
Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.htmlNIST claimed that their investigation would be completely open and impartial. And, that it would be based on all the available evidence. But, they clearly ignored and/or ruled out evidence (data) which did not support their hypothesis. Why they did this is an open question, but it's not nearly so important as is the fact that they did. What items did them exclude that you think they should have included and vice-versa? Quite clearly, they excluded any steel from the most critical floors if it wasn't affected by fire / impact damage. They should have included all the steel from those floors. All the steel from directly above / below those floors was included, which I agree with. It's not what they included that I find to be the real problem - it's what they specifically excluded.Your non-reply to our rebuttals your silly “no steel reached 600 C” complaint is noted It's far from "silly". The counter-argument is that NIST's computer models - specifically, the models which resulted in collapse initiation - were fully validated, without any corroborating physical evidence. But, it's an argument largely based on NIST's unsupported claims, and unreleased data, from those models. Furthermore, those who support NIST on this issue won't address NIST's failure / refusal to release the "adjusted" input data, (which they claim is still completely "within the realm of physical reality") .
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 6, 2007 6:36:22 GMT -4
Ah. Just so we're clear, then. You do accuse NIST of deliberately lying. (And by extension, that other investigative bodies and engineering and architectural firms are deliberately lying: because if there was no place within the range of possible input assumptions that led to the collapse, then alternate methods of determining if there was a collapse would reveal the secret. Since large buildings continue to be designed and built -- with great effort made to simulate what would happen to them under a variety of scenarios, including of course duplication of the 9-11 incident -- it must be then determined that for some reason large numbers of people are going against their pride, work ethic, the needs of their employer and the future of those who will inhabit their buildings....for some undisclosed reason.)
(Again, I'd hate to live in your world. In mine, there are some people with a conscience, and with pride of workmanship as well.)
|
|