|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2007 4:05:06 GMT -4
So what's so unbelievable about BFP+BFF, Turbonium?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 22, 2007 5:45:32 GMT -4
turbonium,
you do realize that "impact zone" is the gap in the structure left by the impact of the plane, don't you? That there can be no columns within this gap because the impact had severed them and thrown them around? That "directly above and below the impact zone" refers to the boundaries of the gap?
Now, how about you address the points you ignored last time *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*, and provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious.
|
|
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 22, 2007 13:22:41 GMT -4
"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."
How do expect columns from the impact/fire zone NOT to have been "exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft"? On the other hand it is reasonable to expect that columns “directly above and below the impact zones” not to have been "exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft". Even if such mythical unimpacted and unexposed columns existed it is not said they specifically excluded them. It could be nothing more than a poor word choice that would only make a difference to a hair splitting CT. You also choose to ignore the last category of steel collected.
Nothing was skewed except your ability to objectively understand what you read concerning 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 23, 2007 2:42:42 GMT -4
turbonium, you do realize that "impact zone" is the gap in the structure left by the impact of the plane, don't you? That there can be no columns within this gap because the impact had severed them and thrown them around? That "directly above and below the impact zone" refers to the boundaries of the gap? The "impact zone" refers to the impact floors. Not just "the gap in the structure". NIST sought out steel directly above and below the impact zones. If they really meant "impact hole", then why didn't they mention looking for steel beside the impact zone (hole)? Why didn't they just call it an "impact hole" to begin with, if that's what they actually meant? Do you think they really only wanted steel directly above and below the hole, but not elsewhere from the same floors? You do realize there is no logic in your argument, don't you? Now, how about you address the points you ignored last time *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*, and provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious. I never said that, and it's a lost cause if you still can't grasp that fact by now.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 23, 2007 3:39:43 GMT -4
How do expect columns from the impact/fire zone NOT to have been "exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft"? Because, as I said, the impact zone refers to the impact floors - the entire section of floors within that region. There was certainly steel within this zone that was not damaged by aircraft impact. And steel not exposed to fire, or only briefly exposed to fire (undetected in search). Even if such mythical unimpacted and unexposed columns existed it is not said they specifically excluded them. They don't have to, as I pointed out. Pretend that I asked someone to dig through a pile of M&M's, to look for and collect the red-colored ones. For anyone older than 3 years old, it would be understood that I only want red ones. Not red, blue, green, and yellow ones. By your argument, that isn't clear enough. I would have to say "Collect the red-colored ones. And, do not collect the blue, green, or yellow ones". Otherwise, you'd come back with M&M's of every color, and say "Well, you didn't specifically say I shouldn't, or couldn't, collect the blue, green, and yellow ones, also" Applying your argument to the steel collection, they could have collected virtually every piece of steel. Why? Well, because - going by your argument - NIST didn't specifically exclude any of the steel! They should have said something like this... "Do NOT collect steel from floors not directly above or below the impact zone".It could be nothing more than a poor word choice that would only make a difference to a hair splitting CT. You also choose to ignore the last category of steel collected. A "poor word choice"? Sure. They really meant to say "Collect all the steel from the impact / fire floors". But they goofed up by unwisely asking only for fire exposed / impact damaged steel from those floors. And then what? Wouldn't this result in a faulty collection process? I'll bet you'd say "No, it wouldn't have".. "All the engineers understood it was just a poor word choice by NIST, and knew NIST really meant "Collect all the steel from the fire / impact damge floors". Is that about it?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 23, 2007 7:28:09 GMT -4
turbonium, you do realize that "impact zone" is the gap in the structure left by the impact of the plane, don't you? That there can be no columns within this gap because the impact had severed them and thrown them around? That "directly above and below the impact zone" refers to the boundaries of the gap? The "impact zone" refers to the impact floors. Not just "the gap in the structure". So, that would then be covered by " Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft." NIST sought out steel directly above and below the impact zones. If they really meant "impact hole", then why didn't they mention looking for steel beside the impact zone (hole)? Why didn't they just call it an "impact hole" to begin with, if that's what they actually meant? Do you think they really only wanted steel directly above and below the hole, but not elsewhere from the same floors? What part of " Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft" is not clear? Do you have actual evidence that steel from the impact floors has been excluded? You do realize there is no logic in your argument, don't you? I am still waiting for you to provide a logical argument that does not start with "If I ran the zoo". Now, how about you address the points you ignored last time *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*, and provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious. I never said that, and it's a lost cause if you still can't grasp that fact by now. Of course you have not said that, but it is a unavoidable consequence of your line of "reasoning". It is not my fault if you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your unfounded claims. Now, how about actually addressing the points you tried to ignore? This is the post in question. Show us your detailed list of data missing from the reports, and prove that the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2007 7:55:28 GMT -4
What's so improbable about BFP+BFF, Turbonium?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 23, 2007 12:51:07 GMT -4
I'm still trying to see the loophole the selection described by turbonium leaves. So, I've got a beam with scorch marks. That goes in the truck. I've got one that's bent. How do I know that it was bent by airplane, not by falling building? Well, anyhow, it goes in the truck. Now I've got one with obvious thermate marks on it...oops, better not put that in the truck. Or tell anyone else I've seen it (better have my wallet ready to pay off the crane operator, the torch operator, the guys that helped sift and shift the pile, the guys that watched the pile, the other guys looking for burnt paperwork or bone fragments in the pile...)
Okay, try it the other way. I got the ones that were in a fire. I got the ones that were hit by an airplane. I left out the ones that had explosives strapped to it. Woah, but I really want to see the computer model the original _demolitionists_ used. How wonderfully farsighted of them to leave the explosives off all the members that would be on that day hit by an airplane or involved in a fire! My mind boggles at the accuracy needed.
In short, although I understand the confusion over there being a selection process, I don't see how it creates a space for a smoking gun.
|
|
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 23, 2007 17:32:04 GMT -4
To me - "Columns from the impact zone not impacted by the planes or exposed to fire." and - "Columns from the fire zone not exposed to fire or impacted by the planes" are oxymorons. Please provide evidence for this claim. Why should they care about columns parts of the building that weren't effected by the impacts? Anything of interest would be covered by the last criteria - Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations. You speak of of NIST and the engineers as separate entities this is absurd, the group from NIST that carried out the investigation were all engineers they were the ones doing the collecting. Do you have evidence “the criteria” was a list given to the engineers who went to GZ and the landfills by higher ups rather than how the engineers who collected the steel reported the criteria they used? The latter sound more probable to me especially if you consider the last criteria the engineers who went to the sites were the ones who decided what columns to collect.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 23, 2007 18:06:38 GMT -4
Why should they care about columns parts of the building that weren't effected by the impacts? To look for evidence of thermite bombs, of course.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 24, 2007 0:30:08 GMT -4
Because, as I said, the impact zone refers to the impact floors - the entire section of floors within that regionPlease provide evidence for this claim. Why should they care about columns parts of the building that weren't effected by the impacts? Sure. Look at the very first point listed below.... wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf (pg.47) "Samples located in and around the impact floors", clearly applies to ALL the steel from these floors, whether or not affected by impact (and / or fire). This is exactly how NIST (and FEMA) should have put it to begin with, as part of the steel selection criteria. But no, NIST only said this after they had collected the samples. Why did they make such a distinction beforehand - for the steel collection? For the steel collection..... - Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
- Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above and below the impact zones.After the steel was collected, the pieces they considered "especially important", and of "special value", were... "Samples located in and around the impact floors"That means ALL of the steel directly above, within, and below the impact floors. So again - why did they make a distinction beforehand - for the steel collection?Anything of interest would be covered by the last criteria - Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations. I went over this earlier. "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, why would he consider it "useful"? You speak of of NIST and the engineers as separate entities this is absurd, the group from NIST that carried out the investigation were all engineers they were the ones doing the collecting. No. It was not exclusively performed by NIST. It was much more of a joint effort, involving FEMA/ASCE/NIST members, with a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers. The steel recovery began a year before the NIST investigation took shape... Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). SEAoNY offered to organize a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers to collect certain WTC steel pieces for future building performance studies. Visiting Ground Zero in early October 2001, SEAoNY engineers, with the assistance from the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), identified and set aside some steel pieces for further study...
SEAoNY appealed to its membership for experienced senior engineers to visit the salvage yards on a volunteer basis, and to identify and set aside promising steel pieces for further evaluation. Seventeen volunteer SEAoNY engineers started going to the yards in November 2001. www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf (pg.D-1) Do you have evidence “the criteria” was a list given to the engineers who went to GZ and the landfills by higher ups rather than how the engineers who collected the steel reported the criteria they used? The latter sound more probable to me especially if you consider the last criteria the engineers who went to the sites were the ones who decided what columns to collect. As I noted, the steel collection project was effectively a joint effort. The physical recovery of steel was (mostly or entirely) done by a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers. So, regarding your question about whether it was... A) "a list given to the engineers who went to GZ and the landfills by higher ups"
B) "rather than how the engineers who collected the steel reported the criteria they used" ...it's quite certain to have been a top-down process, such as a list given to the SEAoNY volunteers by higher-ups. Further evidence for this is also in the NIST report.... "The volunteers....specifically searching for..." the steel which meets the criteria list.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 24, 2007 1:50:59 GMT -4
May I suggest giving another, closer look into the first two "items" in the steel "Shopping List"?
I looked closely at ALL of the point of the list, not just the first two, why don't you?
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.
No they didn't clearly exclude undamaged steel. They specifically asked for the damaged stuff. If I ask you get get me a group of kids for a birthday party, and it'd be great to get as many 5 and 6 years olds as possible because that's the age of the birthday boy, that doesn't mean you can't get 4 or 7 year olds as well. There is a difference between wanting cartain parts specifally and exculding other parts entirely. If you can't understand this, there isn't a lot of point trying to make you understand anything else.
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.
Actually I disagree. Damaged materials tell you far more then undamaged. Materiials that have impact damage or burn damage tell you about where the impact and fire was, they tell you about the forces invoved and the heat of the fires. An undamaged piece only tells you that area was untouched which you can already determine from other things.
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.
Yes and if I ran the zoo I'd have a pink and white poka dot zebra too
Of course, that still includes looking for any steel exposed to fire and / or impact damage - steel "within the impact area" covers that.
Which is the predominate information you want to know about. If there is a car accident and the evidence suggests brake failure, would you claim that the investigators were biased because they checked out the brakes rather then if the airbags went off prematurely?
"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.
And you got your Engineering degree where? Because if you don't have one, this is entirely speculation and not worth the phosphore it used on my screen.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 24, 2007 1:56:09 GMT -4
They don't have to, as I pointed out.
Pretend that I asked someone to dig through a pile of M&M's, to look for and collect the red-colored ones.
For anyone older than 3 years old, it would be understood that I only want red ones. Not red, blue, green, and yellow ones.
By your argument, that isn't clear enough. I would have to say "Collect the red-colored ones. And, do not collect the blue, green, or yellow ones".
Otherwise, you'd come back with M&M's of every color, and say "Well, you didn't specifically say I shouldn't, or couldn't, collect the blue, green, and yellow ones, also"
NIST didn't say they wanted just the red ones though.
They said, We want the red ones, the green one and any other colors that you think might be interesting. As a result they'd have gotten a lot of red, a lot of green and a splattering or other colours, exactly what they needed. It's only you that is claiming that they'd have gotten nothing else because of the way they asked.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 24, 2007 3:45:16 GMT -4
What's so implaubisble about BFP+BFF, Turbonium?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 24, 2007 4:41:02 GMT -4
I was asked... ...provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious. And I replied.... I never said that, and it's a lost cause if you still can't grasp that fact by now. Of course you have not said that, but it is a unavoidable consequence of your line of "reasoning". It is not my fault if you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your unfounded claims. The only "unavoidable consequence" of my comments on certain issues (such as this one) is that someone will inevitably misinterpret / twist them, then leap to a faulty conclusion(s) of monolithic proportions. I said NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact. I believe data held by NIST is required in order for independent groups to conduct a thorough evaluation and validation of the simulations. You've somehow twisted that into "the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious" as what I "believe". It's amazing how far afield some people will go on nothing. Show us your detailed list of data missing from the reports, You still don't get it. NIST has the detailed list of missing data!! They state in their report that..... The input files for the computer model contained about 20,000 records..Dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations, plus hundreds of smaller, shorter calculations...performed to assess the sensitivity of the input parameters.So please point out where to find each and every one of the dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations. And the hundreds of smaller calculations. And the 20,000 records of input files. Because I haven't. I have found no more than a small percentage of them within the entirety of NIST's WTC reports - some 10,000+ pages in total. You cited NCSTAR 1-6C and asked me to comment on it. This is a 252 page report titled "Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis" Throughout the report, they mention that various calculations were done (including some "hand calculations") to establish the structural response to the fire, etc..... (pg.iii) Some analyses employed either hand calcs or FEA.... (pg.39) They didn't specify which analysis used hand calculations and which ones used FEA, to my knowledge. More to the point - I couldn't find the calculations for most of their analyses, anywhere in the report. There are various tables, charts, etc. with data, which is great. But where are all the calculations which produced their results? and prove that the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation. First of all, AFAIK, no independent peer group has yet conducted a thorough analysis and full evaluation of NIST's investigation (ie: the computer simulations). I assume you aren't aware of the existence of any such report, or you would have already cited it to prove me wrong.... So now, to address your challenge - can I "prove the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation"? The simple answer is no. I can't prove it. At least for now. But what about the opposite? Can it be proven that the missing data isn't necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? No, it can't, imo. You can get every answer right in a calculus exam, but you'll still fail if you didn't write down all the work to show (prove) how you arrived at your answers. Would the engineers know how NIST derived all of their results? That is, would the engineers know all the sub-calculations, aggregates, etc. used by NIST, without the benefit of seeing the calculations in print?? Would the engineers know all the input variables and parameters established by NIST to derive their results? Would they need to know anything more than what is found in the NIST reports? You don't think so. But I certainly do. No proof exists as yet, for either claim.
|
|