|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 5:38:11 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? So, you are now nit-picking the wording in the report because you cannot prove that the NIST excluded from the analysis steel from the impacted floors that was not damaged by the impact nor exposed to fire. Basically, the NIST actually satisfied your selection criteria even though it did not say the way you wanted. What was the issue,a again?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 24, 2007 5:53:16 GMT -4
I looked closely at ALL of the point of the list, not just the first two, why don't you? I have. You should look back and see who actually posted all the points to begin with. No they didn't clearly exclude undamaged steel. They specifically asked for the damaged stuff. That's already been discussed. It results in the volunteers collecting every piece of steel at the debris sites. 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. Of course. I could also get a few 20 year olds, some 40 year olds, and wheel in a couple of seniors. It won't be my fault if junior has a crappy birthday, either, because you didn't tell me to specifically exclude getting anyone over 9 years old. 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. So far, your volunteers have collected 300,000 tons of steel for analysis, and your kid's birthday party turned into a drunken brawl. The next time my wife asks me to pick up a loaf of bread, I'll also get three dozen steaks, 20 pounds of cheese, and 40 boxes of Twinkies. She'll be ticked off, but I'l just calmly point out that it's all her fault, for not specifically telling me not to get anything else but bread. This could really have extreme ramifications. The next day, I might ask my wife.... "Can you get me a beer, honey?" She'll come back with my beer, alright......and also a tray of ice cubes, and a carton of eggs, and maybe a head of lettuce. My fault, of course. I didn't say "Can you get me a beer, and nothing else except a beer, honey?"
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 24, 2007 6:06:21 GMT -4
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. You can't conduct a proper investigation that way. If 45 of 47 core columns within the impact floors were undamaged and not exposed to fires over 250C, it would disprove the fire/damage collapse theory. If you only looked at the other 2 columns, which were damaged and/or exposed to extreme temperatures, you would make a faulty assumption and conclusion that fire/damage caused the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 6:14:15 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. 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. " Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!" If you don't have the balls to take responsibility for your claims, don't make them. Now, where is the evidence to support your accusation of incompetence? I said NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact. Sorry, but so far it is only your opinion, which is clearly uninformed (*cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*). If the NIST had not published all the data necessary to engineers to evaluate the investigation, the world-wide community of engineers would have pointed that out. You have not been able to provide evidence of such criticism in peer-reviewed engineering journals. And by claiming that the " NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact", you implicitly accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice, because finding flaws in the NIST investigation is the duty and interest of the engineers. Unfortunately for you, you have never provided any evidence in support of either accusation (incompleteness of the reports, or incompetence of the engineers). I believe data held by NIST is required in order for independent groups to conduct a thorough evaluation and validation of the simulations. You said it was a fact, not a belief. So, where is your evidence? 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. Like claiming that the NIST's report are incomplete, despite not having even looked at them? *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough* I explained the consequences of your claims: it is not my fault if you are to chicken to accept them. You still don't get it. NIST has the detailed list of missing data!! How cute... You claimed that there are missing data from the report, but you cannot make a list of the missing data. Ah yes, it's because you believe, not because you know... 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. Prove that independent engineers need those 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. We have already seen that you research skills are severly lacking *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*. But why don't you prove that independent engineers need those data to evaluate the simulations? 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" [ snip!Who was twisting the words of the other? Let me refresh your memory: I did not ask to comment on that report: I simply pointed you to the report which contained information that you apparently could not find. 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? Did I miss the part where you prove that those calculations are required by qualified engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? 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). We have already seen that you research skills are severely lacking. Why don't you have a look at peer-reviewed engineering journals? And what happened to the Iranian and North-Korean engineers? I assume you aren't aware of the existence of any such report, or you would have already cited it to prove me wrong.... Sorry, but the burden of proof is yours. 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. Thank you. Now it is clear that you have no factual basis for you accusation. It is time to withdraw it and apologize for wasting our time. 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. Your uninformed opinion has no bearing on reality. I let the engineers decide what they need to evaluate the NIST's investigation. 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. You have never seen a paper in a scientific journal, have you? The NIST's report are technical reports aimed at the engineers. The engineers don't need to see all the calculation steps, because they know how the methods used work. 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?? Yes, because they use the same methods. 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, you do not think, you believe because that's what you need to keep your prejudices unchallenged. No proof exists as yet, for either claim. It is a pity that you are so unwilling to learn.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 24, 2007 6:30:33 GMT -4
So, you are now nit-picking the wording in the report because you cannot prove that the NIST excluded from the analysis steel from the impacted floors that was not damaged by the impact nor exposed to fire. Basically, the NIST actually satisfied your selection criteria even though it did not say the way you wanted. What was the issue,a again? It's not nit-picking. They made a specific list of what steel to look for and collect. The only steel from the impact floors sought out was fire exposed/impact damaged steel. They made that distinction very clear. No steel needed to be specifically excluded, because they only looked for specifically included steel. NIST did not satisfy my selection criteria, in any way whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 10:36:59 GMT -4
So, you are now nit-picking the wording in the report because you cannot prove that the NIST excluded from the analysis steel from the impacted floors that was not damaged by the impact nor exposed to fire. Basically, the NIST actually satisfied your selection criteria even though it did not say the way you wanted. What was the issue,a again? It's not nit-picking. They made a specific list of what steel to look for and collect. The only steel from the impact floors sought out was fire exposed/impact damaged steel. They made that distinction very clear. No steel needed to be specifically excluded, because they only looked for specifically included steel. Of course you are nit-picking. You are complaining about the wording in the report instead of providing evidence that undamaged steel samples from the impact floors were found and excluded in the selection process. Not to mention the contradiction in your "If I ran the zoo" requests: you accept only steel exposed to high temperatures as validating the simulation, but then you complain that the NIST did not search for steel not exposed to the fires. Make up your mind: either you accept the samples not exposed to high temperatures as significant to the validation of the simulations, or stop complaining about the selection process. NIST did not satisfy my selection criteria, in any way whatsoever. The NIST engineers are surely shaking in their boots out of fear of not having satisfied your criteria.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 24, 2007 17:56:39 GMT -4
It's quite obvious that Turbonium is under the belief that Engineers don't actually have any special education that would help them do their job. He believes that they, like him, wouldn't know what columns were important and which weren't, and so they'd either have to pick them all, or none. What he doesn't seem to realise is that Engineers have spend a number of years learning and and then applying their trade to the real world and they actually know a heap more then he does about what rates as important and what doesn't. Thus when NIST said, "Anything else that you deem important," they were able to rely on their training and work experience to determine what other pieces of steel where important and what wasn't. Since Turboium doesn't have any of this experience, he hasn't got a clue as to what was important and what wasn't, so he demands that they can't have know either. It's a classic case of "I can't do it so no one can" that we see from CT's time and time again. I guess since I can't build a jet engine, 747's are a hoax as well.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 25, 2007 1:57:07 GMT -4
Seriously, Turbonium, what makes you think you know enough to specify what criteria they should use when you can't even answer a simple question, one you've been asked at least three times in this thread alone?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 25, 2007 2:27:20 GMT -4
Seriously, Turbonium, what makes you think you know enough to specify what criteria they should use when you can't even answer a simple question, one you've been asked at least three times in this thread alone. He knows more about structural engineering than Structural Engineers do, didn't you know?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 25, 2007 3:09:56 GMT -4
Clearly. How foolish of me to assume that schooling in a subject was necessary in order to be an expert in everything to do with it.
|
|
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 25, 2007 15:29:44 GMT -4
Seriously, Turbonium, what makes you think you know enough to specify what criteria they should use when you can't even answer a simple question, one you've been asked at least three times in this thread alone. He knows more about structural engineering than Structural Engineers do, didn't you know? On the thread where we were discussing the blob from the stills from the Pentagon video that David is convinced is ‘too pointy to be a 757’ I asked: “So who's crazier they guy who thinks he's looking at a dog when he sees a horse and can't he convinced otherwise or the ostensibly sane people who continuously try to set him straight as if any evidence/arguments they present would make a difference?” I think the same logic applies here, Turbonium has convinced himself that he has found something damning and nothing will persuade him otherwise. I don’t think he is crazy but rather that cognitive dissonance comes into play when it comes to 'conspiracy theories'. I this respect he is not so different from Griffin, Ryan, Fetzer and (Steve) Jones.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 27, 2007 1:20:35 GMT -4
Of course you are nit-picking. You are complaining about the wording in the report instead of providing evidence that undamaged steel samples from the impact floors were found and excluded in the selection process. It's valid criticism, not nit-picking. You seem to believe that NIST's steel selection criteria would not lead to the exclusion of undamaged / unexposed steel from the impact floors. The only reason offered is that such steel would be collected because it would be "deemed important" by the volunteer group of engineers. But again, why would it be? What would make such unaffected steel stand out as worthy of their consideration? Make up your mind: either you accept the samples not exposed to high temperatures as significant to the validation of the simulations, or stop complaining about the selection process. How "significant" do you think NIST considered the samples were in validating the collapse models? Do you know the actual part they played in the validation of NIST's simulations? - NIST obtained four core column samples (two from each tower), and found that none of them had been exposed to fire temps above 250C. - Two of their thermal models resulted in collapse (B and D). - NIST compared the actual core columns to the computer model columns which corresponded by location. - The two core columns in the models were not exposed over 250C. - NIST said (IIRC) this corroboration helped (somewhat) to validate their collapse models. Of course, they also validated the non-collapse models just as much as they validated the collapse models. But I don't recall NIST bothering to mention that fact. So how do the steel samples validate the collapse models any bit more than the non-collapse models? Even NIST doesn't make that claim, AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 27, 2007 3:12:30 GMT -4
Much to my surprise (and amusement) papageno is apparently convinced that I..... "accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice"Whoa! I Did I say that? Of course you have not said that, but it is a unavoidable consequence of your line of "reasoning". Yikes. An "unavoidable consequence" of my "line of reasoning"? How so? It is not my fault if you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your unfounded claims. .Uh oh. I'm not taking "responsibility" for a claim I didn't make, that is the unavoidable consequence of my line of "reasoning". If you don't have the balls to take responsibility for your claims, don't make them. Don't make claims that you never did make, if you won't take responsibility for them. That makes sense. Now, where is the evidence to support your accusation of incompetence? Lest ye be flogged to death. If the NIST had not published all the data necessary to engineers to evaluate the investigation, the world-wide community of engineers would have pointed that out. All the data necessary to validate and duplicate the findings? And by claiming that the "NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact" you implicitly accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice, because finding flaws in the NIST investigation is the duty and interest of the engineers. NO. Your "line of reasoning" here is warped and twisted beyond all hope. You assume that the entire NIST report has been taken apart from top to bottom by "the world-wide community of engineers" (whatever that's supposed to mean) with a fine tooth comb. That this "WWCOE" has carefully reviewed and / or replicated all the tests, simulations, analyses, etc. They've pored over 10,000 pages of material, looking for any flaws, omissions or inconsistencies. And, that the "WWCOE" has fully agreed with the entire NIST report, since there appears to be no significant complaints raised by this group, at least online. Therefore, you've come to the conclusion that I am accusing the "WWCOE" of incompetence, or maliciousness. Or maybe a mixture of both. I am not making any such accusations. Not directly, not "implicitly". Not by my "line of reasoning". I don't have any such belief, in whole or in part. Not in the past or presently. I've known (and/or know) hundreds, possibly thousands, of engineers. I've worked with them, day after day, month after month, for 25 years. They are not a bunch of incompetents, or "evil-doers". They also are much too busy with their own work and businesses to devote months or years of their time, and spend a fortune (from Lord knows what budget) doing a full-blown study of peer group reports / investigations, such as NIST's. What engineering firm has the resources to conduct such an enormous project? What private company would willingly sacrifice all of its main interests in such a pursuit? Is this the way you think it works in the real world? It's nothing remotely like that. Time for a serious reality check, papa......
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 27, 2007 4:21:01 GMT -4
Much to my surprise (and amusement) papageno is apparently convinced that I..... "accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice"Whoa! I Did I say that? Well, yes, now you mention it. Oh, I know. You didn't say the words. You just implied real good. And if you don't realize that you implied it, you need to review your own arguments and the purpose that engineers serve. You see, engineers would know if the reports were wrong. They, unlike you, have the training for it. (Yes, I know. I don't, either. But then, I'm willing to take the word of structural engineers over physics professors who are laughingstocks in the physics community.) They must know if the NIST report shows the correct conclusions or not. So let us examine the only two realistic possibilities. (Having all the engineers in the world be under the control of the US government in some way is not realistic.) A. The world's engineering community knows the report is wrong. However, since they are using its findings as further information in building better, more resistant skyscrapers (not my fault if you don't understand that they do), they are making changes that may well put the building in greater danger. Certainly they are failing to make changes that will improve the safety, because they know the findings are incorrect and therefore meaningless to show what changes really need to be made. This is malice. B. The world's engineers don't know the report is wrong. Sure, its findings get used in improving building standards, and sure, they'd know better than you or I what evidence is needed to prove the findings, but they're somehow too stupid or incompetent to. There are no other options. This report gets used, Turbonium. It doesn't just sit on a shelf. Think of it in the same vein as a Supreme Court precedent--it keeps getting hauled out to influence further cases.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 27, 2007 7:10:04 GMT -4
Why would they need to take apart NIST's analysis in detail? The world's engineering consensus BEFORE the collapses was that such events were possible -- indeed, were enough of a danger to require multiple measures (fireproof cladding, fire suppression systems, et al) to mitigate them. The consensus by engineers who have briefly looked at the assumptions made by NIST, or by PM, or by any other attempt to study the collapses, is that this may not be the complete story and it is likely wrong in several details, but overall the collapses were the result of plane+fire.
Again, it is the business of anyone putting down a new buildings....or designing a sprinkler system...or working up training for first responders...or developing forensic tools...(and I could go on for a while here)...to understand the how and why of the collapse of the twin towers. If NIST's work was unusual in any way; if their disclosure was less complete than usual, if their work showed assumptions or spaces, then it is the professional obligation of all these various people to point this out and ask for a clarification.
They haven't. So there are only two characterizations possible; either NIST did as was expected by the community, or the community (the world wide community of engineers architects et al) suddenly turned into incompetent cravens.
|
|