|
Post by papageno on Jun 14, 2007 16:13:21 GMT -4
You say you read the reports, so it is up to you to show what is wrong with them. I already have. I already told you. You have shown little understanding of the relevant subjects, therefore your "If I ran the zoo" arguments are worth less than a sundried dingo's kidney. I've repeatedly pointed out to you what was wrong with NIST's steel collection criteria. It's quite obvious that you can't (or won't) address the issue. Do you agree or disagree with NIST's steel collection criteria? I am quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers, the ones that actually build stuff and are responsible if it fails. They don't seem to have problems accepting the validity of the NIST's investigation: maybe they know something that you don't? Sorry, are you saying that no data are presented in the reports? No. Certainly, there is some data in the reports. But a great deal of the data is not. Did you forget to include your specific and detailed list of data that are missing from the 42 volumes of the report, but are necessary for other engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? Or is this simply yet another "If I ran the zoo" argument? Where do you show that there are data necessary to replicate the simulations which are not reported? What about reporting the adjusted data? For example, the range of values for the "adjusted" pulling forces, and the sub-calculations used to derive those values (as noted below)? Are you claiming they aren't necessary to replicate the simulations? Be specific: where is this data supposed to be? And why would it be necessary for the evaluation of the NIST's work? Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports? NIST stated....... 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. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted within the range of values derived from the subsystem computations.wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (pg. 144) Did they publish the subsystem computations, and the range of values derived from them? Have I overlooked it all in the reports? Apparently you managed to overlook the whole of NCSTAR 1-6C (title: Component, Connection and Subsystem Structural Analysis). Research is not your strong point, is it? Where else has NIST "adjusted the input" when the simulations "deviated from the photographic...or eyewitness evidence"? You read the reports... well, at least you claim you read them. Maybe you should give it another try. And, can you point out where NIST has published the "range of values" and subsystem computations for these other "adjustments"? Sorry, but the burden is yours: show us where the data are supposed to be but are missing, after you have shown that those data are actually necessary.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 16, 2007 7:02:54 GMT -4
I asked... Do you agree or disagree with NIST's steel collection criteria?I am quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers, the ones that actually build stuff and are responsible if it fails. They don't seem to have problems accepting the validity of the NIST's investigation: Bravo. At long last, a reply. You obviously agree with NIST's steel collection criteria. But why? Because, you are "..quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers.." First of all, how are you so sure that NIST's report (and specifically, NIST's steel collection criteria) has been universally accepted and approved by peers within the engineering community? Do you know of anyone (or group), either outside of, or within, the "world-wide community of engineers", who has even addressed (and supported) NIST's steel selection criteria? Again, on these points... NIST'S STEEL COLLECTION CRITERIA[/u] Fire / impact damaged floors - only seek out and collect steel which has been affected by exposure to fire, and/or impact damage. Floors directly above and below the fire/impact damage - seek out and collect all steel. Are you able to make an actual case in support of NIST's criteria? All you've done is make an appeal to authority - ie: they are the "experts", so that in itself means they are right. Sorry, but that's not a valid defense. maybe they know something that you don't? But they just haven't come out and said what it is? This is one of the main problems with official story supporters. NIST's report is instantly accepted as the final word. It can't be challenged as flawed or invalid, in whole or in part, in any way whatsoever. Because they are the "experts". It's the standard fallback reply to any valid criticism of NIST that cannot be properly rebuked. Just shout out "They are the experts".
|
|
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 16, 2007 7:52:13 GMT -4
Turbo
Please quote NIST's selection criteria from the reports and provide a link. I haven't read most of the base reports but I imagine they went into the subject in more depth there.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 16, 2007 8:06:55 GMT -4
Bravo. At long last, a reply. You obviously agree with NIST's steel collection criteria. But why? Because, you are "..quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers.." First of all, how are you so sure that NIST's report (and specifically, NIST's steel collection criteria) has been universally accepted and approved by peers within the engineering community? Feel free to provide references to papers in peer-reviewed engineering journals that criticize the NIST's investigation. Do you know of anyone (or group), either outside of, or within, the "world-wide community of engineers", who has even addressed (and supported) NIST's steel selection criteria? You mean, apart from Jay WIndley? Again, on these points... NIST'S STEEL COLLECTION CRITERIA[/u] Fire / impact damaged floors - only seek out and collect steel which has been affected by exposure to fire, and/or impact damage. Floors directly above and below the fire/impact damage - seek out and collect all steel. Are you able to make an actual case in support of NIST's criteria? [/quote] Do you expect that steel samples far away from the impact zones and not damaged by the impact or the fire, would tell us something about the impact and fire damage? Are you able to make a case refuting the selection criteria? All you've done is make an appeal to authority - ie: they are the "experts", so that in itself means they are right. Sorry, but that's not a valid defense. Are you saying that the very people that build stuff and are responsible if it fails, don't have the expertise to judge whether the collection criteria are appropriate? In this case, the authority I am appealing to has the expertise and competence in the relevant fields. You, on the other hand, have shown no such expertise and competence. Basically, you are saying that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent. Care to support you accusation? maybe they know something that you don't? But they just haven't come out and said what it is? If you are too lazy, it is not my fault. From here: Also, have a look at this PDF. This is one of the main problems with official story supporters. NIST's report is instantly accepted as the final word. It can't be challenged as flawed or invalid, in whole or in part, in any way whatsoever. Because they are the "experts". Sorry, where do show that their expertise is not in the relevant fields? It's the standard fallback reply to any valid criticism of NIST that cannot be properly rebuked. Just shout out "They are the experts". Sorry, where have you proved that the world-wide engineering community is not competent? Now, how about addressing the points you left out? Did you forget to include your specific and detailed list of data that are missing from the 42 volumes of the report, but are necessary for other engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? [...] Be specific: where is this data supposed to be? And why would it be necessary for the evaluation of the NIST's work? [...] Apparently you managed to overlook the whole of NCSTAR 1-6C (title: Component, Connection and Subsystem Structural Analysis). [...] Sorry, but the burden is yours: show us where the data are supposed to be but are missing, after you have shown that those data are actually necessary. As you can see, you tried to sweep under the rug the fact that you cannot substantiate your complaints about the NIST's reports. Now, it is time for you to support you numerous claims about missing data from the NIST's reports.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 16, 2007 9:01:02 GMT -4
NIST'S STEEL COLLECTION CRITERIA [/u] Fire / impact damaged floors - only seek out and collect steel which has been affected by exposure to fire, and/or impact damage. Floors directly above and below the fire/impact damage - seek out and collect all steel. Are you able to make an actual case in support of NIST's criteria? All you've done is make an appeal to authority - ie: they are the "experts", so that in itself means they are right. [/quote] Seems eminently sensible to me, too. What is the point of examining steel that wasn't involved in the impact or the collapse initiation? By the way, I am also an engineer. Your problem with all this appears to be a desire to show that somewhere, somehow, the NIST investigation has missed the vital evidence of the "inside job", but you have no idea what this evidence would be so you are just throwing out any random accusation that occurs to you.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Jun 16, 2007 10:15:43 GMT -4
turbonium, have you ever bothered to verify your suspicions with a trained, licensed civil engineer? It shouldn't be that hard. I'm sure you're capable of picking up a phone and scheduling a meeting with an engineering professor at the nearest university.
Yes, I am appealing to relevant authority. You have not demonstrated the necessary expertise for any of the claims you make to have any weight. This makes me wonder why you haven't felt the need to verify your expectations and assumptions with someone who has the relevant knowledge and experience.
Or do you contend that the engineering community is either incompetent or untrustworthy? Frankly, I find this insulting, and I'm not even two years into my B.ASc. program yet.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 16, 2007 11:29:11 GMT -4
turbonium, have you ever bothered to verify your suspicions with a trained, licensed civil engineer? It shouldn't be that hard. I'm sure you're capable of picking up a phone and scheduling a meeting with an engineering professor at the nearest university. There was a long thread on the BAUT forum about the validation of the simulations. JayUtah, who has the relevant expertise, explained quite well why the NIST's simulations are validated. But that did not change turbonium's mind about the issue. Yes, I am appealing to relevant authority. You have not demonstrated the necessary expertise for any of the claims you make to have any weight. This makes me wonder why you haven't felt the need to verify your expectations and assumptions with someone who has the relevant knowledge and experience. That's not how CTs work. Despite their claims, they are not looking for the truth, but for a confirmation of their prejudices. And having to accept the opinion of experts in the relevant fields means to risk having their pre-determined conclusions challenged. That's why they re-define expert as "somebody who agrees with me". Or do you contend that the engineering community is either incompetent or untrustworthy? Frankly, I find this insulting, and I'm not even two years into my B.ASc. program yet. The incompetence or untrustworthiness of the engineering community is an inevitable consequence of the CT claims that the NIST's investigation is not valid but no expert has criticized it. Of course, they never bring any evidence in support of that accusation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2007 16:43:42 GMT -4
Once again, what's so implausible about the whole thing? I don't get it, Turbonium, I really don't. To me, it seems eminently reasonable to assume that a plane travelling at high speed with practically full fuel tanks smashing into a building and setting catastrophic fires would in fact cause building collapse. Why doesn't it make sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 16, 2007 23:07:57 GMT -4
Once again, what's so implausible about the whole thing? I don't get it, Turbonium, I really don't. To me, it seems eminently reasonable to assume that a plane travelling at high speed with practically full fuel tanks smashing into a building and setting catastrophic fires would in fact cause building collapse. Why doesn't it make sense to you? If it was just YOU who thought that maybe Turbonium would have a point. But, it's the basically the weight of the world's structural engineers who find no issue with it. That would make me think twice.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2007 7:24:55 GMT -4
I strongly suspect Turbonium and I have about the same level of education in the relevant fields--which would be none, of course. So I, too, am quite willing to trust people who've studied those very fields; I trust them to build the structures I walk in and out of every day, too. But even to an untrained eye, there doesn't seem to be anything suspicious so far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2007 18:14:25 GMT -4
Do you expect that steel samples far away from the impact zones and not damaged by the impact or the fire, would tell us something about the impact and fire damage? [Seems eminently sensible to me, too. What is the point of examining steel that wasn't involved in the impact or the collapse initiation? Arrgh! I'm not talking about steel "..far away from the impact zones.." Not now, not earlier, and not in the future. I thought that was abundantly clear already. To yet again try and make my point..... NIST's steel selection criteria included...... 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.Why would NIST specifically exclude steel from the most critical floors, while making no such exclusion for steel from much less important areas?What was rejected for analysis based on NIST's selection criteria? Did they locate more - or even all - of the 94 core columns from the fire / impact damage floors, for each tower (47 each), but only selected the two core columns that indicated fire and / or impact damage? We'll never know, because of their selection bias.
|
|
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 21, 2007 22:05:00 GMT -4
Turbo - Please give us the EXACT quote from the NIST report with a link. The problem is you have a proven tendency to misunderstand what you read. To adequately respond we need to know what they actually said and the context. I don't trust you paraphrasing. You're the one making a claim it's up to you to document it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2007 22:51:56 GMT -4
Turbo - Please give us the EXACT quote from the NIST report with a link. The problem is you have a proven tendency to misunderstand what you read. To adequately respond we need to know what they actually said and the context. I don't trust you paraphrasing. You're the one making a claim it's up to you to document it. Here's part of the actual page from NIST NCSTAR 1-3: wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf (pg.3)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 23:23:11 GMT -4
That doesn't say that they excluded peices that were on the same floors but weren't affected by fire or impact, just that they were looking for peices that fitted that criteria. However, since a peice on the impact floors that didn't show buring or impact still could have been "useful" in the "engineer's professional opinion" then it would have been included. If a piece wasn't included then it wasn't "useful" in "the engineer's profesional opinion." If a piece wasn't of use, why include it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 22, 2007 3:47:46 GMT -4
That doesn't say that they excluded peices that were on the same floors but weren't affected by fire or impact, just that they were looking for peices that fitted that criteria. May I suggest giving another, closer look into the first two "items" in the steel "Shopping List"? 1. Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. 2. Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above and below the impact zones. NIST clearly excluded unaffected steel from the impact zones in point #1. That is, by asking ONLY for steel specifically "exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.", they excluded the rest from being sought out, or collected. They don't ask for it - therefore, it is (apparently) not important at all for the investigation. The most important area to investigate - beyond any doubt - is the impact zone. The steel from this area is more critical than any steel from anywhere else. REGARDLESS OF CONDITION. NIST should have simply combined points 1 and 2 into one point... maybe like this..... Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above, within, and below the impact zones.Of course, that still includes looking for any steel exposed to fire and / or impact damage - steel "within the impact area" covers that. However, since a peice on the impact floors that didn't show buring or impact still could have been "useful"; in the "engineer's professional opinion"; then it would have been included. If a piece wasn't included then it wasn't "useful"; in "the engineer's profesional opinion"; If a piece wasn't of use, why include it? "Useful" is an entirely subjective, arbitrary term. Exactly what pieces of steel would an engineer consider "useful"? Would it be considered equally "useful" by all the other engineers? If an engineer found a core column section from the impact zone - that was unaffected by fire and impact damage - would he consider it "useful"? Why? If he went by NIST's list, it would be considered "useless". But ALL the steel from the impact zone is "useful". NIST knew that very well. So ask yourself why they would deliberately skew the investigation.
|
|