|
Post by turbonium on Aug 6, 2007 5:14:00 GMT -4
Perhaps I am speaking too quickly. I am not sure how I can speak slowly enough to make this point, however. To be honest, I can't tell how fast or slow you've been speaking. Maybe you need to start shouting, because I've maxed my audio levels and I'm still unable to hear a single word. Or here's a new one for you to try - make a point by typing it here, in a post. What I assume is implied by the phrase "the simulation" is a robust mathematical model that is complex enough to allow simulation of more than one specific kind of incident. Which is to say, it is a method that should give a set of numbers. Flying a plane into a building was not an economical test to see if those numbers came close to observed reality. Apparently a coke can could fall within the limits of what the simulation could calculate. Is "apparently" good enough for you? Would you be less aghast if they checked the predictive ability of the model against real-world observation of something much less like the WTC impacts? Perhaps, testing to see if the model accurately predicts what happens if you drop a claw-foot bathtub four stories onto the roof of a late-model Pinto? Wow. I've heard that's exactly what they plan to do in their next test!! How'd you guess? The map is not the territory here. The coke can is NOT a model of the WTC. It is something that can be modeled within the same set of mathematical abstractions (or at least, so they are claiming with this test). It's accuracy at validation is limited by how many factors it shares in common, and by any errors (scaleability and other) that may be masked by the level of accuracy possible within the coke can experiment. Correct! The Coke can is not a model of the WTC. It's a model of the aluminum 767. And the coke inside it was the jet fuel. I've simulated 767 explosions countless times by shaking a Coke can and then opening it! Maybe they used a barstool or something as a model for the WTC. But I suppose you will continue to characterize this as assuming that there is no physics-based mathematical model at all, and the entire behavior of the model is just multiplying quantities as appropriate off of the measured performance of a coke can. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 6, 2007 6:21:12 GMT -4
Here's my attempt to make the point:
Turbonium, suppose you write a computer program to predict the dynamic behaviour of structures. In theory, your program should be able to predict a wide variety of situations, but you need to test it against a real-world example. Your testing budget is not infinite, so you pick several fairly small examples that you can do in a lab. The results match your predictions closely.
What makes you think that a much larger test is necessary? What is it about the physics and engineering written into your program that does not apply to a big structure?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 6, 2007 16:08:52 GMT -4
Shoot far, I remember once faced with a large compound curve that had to be plotted on a stage floor. We figured out a way to plot it with the usual combination of cord and tape measures. And tried the method on the surface of a shop table using short lengths of string and wooden rulers.
This is just...so basic. Testing the methods, testing the model, making indirect observations. When you get right down to it, few things in the world are usefully measured directly. You almost always have to measure something else and make assumptions, or find a method to measure, test it on a known object, then use the method on your unknown.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 6, 2007 17:17:57 GMT -4
Correct! The Coke can is not a model of the WTC. It's a model of the aluminum 767. And the coke inside it was the jet fuel. I've simulated 767 explosions countless times by shaking a Coke can and then opening it!
Incorrect. The Coke Can was a test of the model to determine if it was able to accurately model an Aluminium container with a fluid inside it striking a concrete and steel target at speed. The only difference between the can and the plane as far as the computer was concerned is size. If it can accurately model the can impacting, it can model a 767 impact. The can was never meant to be a simulation of the plane, merely a test for the program that they could actually run as a real experiment and see if the result was comparable to what the computer predicted. Do you get it yet?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 6, 2007 23:45:42 GMT -4
I know this was a while back, at the time I has him on ignore and will likely return him to that state, but since at the moment I'm waiting for an answer to a presivous question, I thought I'd mention it. You're referring to the image of a large, unidentified slab, in his paper. The abundance of iron (rust) is quite evident, which he suggests is an indication that the object is quite likely solidified metal, with entrained material (ie: rebar). He has requested permission to obtain samples from this material, in order to find out the actual contents. His requests have been ignored / denied. You are claiming it is a compacted concrete slab with rebar and burnt paper. This material has never been analysed, so your claim is entirely unsubstantiated as well. Until (if ever) the material is allowed to be analysed, we won't know the actual chemical makeup. These are better images of Jones' "unanalysed material" www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912511.jpgwww.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912510.jpgwww.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912509.jpgwww.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912507.jpgwww.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912506.jpg
|
|
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 Aug 7, 2007 12:32:38 GMT -4
I was traveling and only had time to briefly lurk for the last 2 weeks Your logic as described above is a bit circular (You believe they didn’t see any signs because it was CD {rather than because reasons I have given), the fact they didn`t see signs is evidence of CD. That aside as I understand it, your reasoning is as follows: 1) FACT - The fire fighters who didn’t hear the evacuation order neither evacuated the building nor made any comments on the radio heard by anyone who survived about seeing signs of an imminent collapse. 2) Thus we can safely assume they didn’t see any signs of impending collapse. 3) Thus the buildings probably (definitely) collapsed due to CD not structural failure. OK with the caveat that since the radios were only working precariously it’s possible one of them did say something but was not heard I agree that 2) probably follows from 1). But it’s your leap from 2) to 3) that bothers me and if I’m not mistaken most of the others here. How do you explain the numerous other fires where buildings collapsed with firemen inside? I need to clarify this issue, since it's still being taken the wrong way. When I said I believe the firefighters saw no signs of imminent global collapse because it was a CD, I didn't mean that any and all buildings are CD's if firefighters died in them because they did not detect any signs of imminent collapse. All I meant was that if a building is going to be CD'ed (specifically in a covert operation a la 9/11), there will be no detectable signs of imminent collapse for firefighters (or anyone else) inside the building, before and up to the time it's demolished. OK so you seem to be admitting that the fact that the firefighters apparently didn’t see signs of imminent collapse proves nothing. Because building collapses can occur without firefighters seeing any signs. Also you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no record of there being any firefighters in the areas where NIST said the collapses initiated (i.e. where the trusses sagged and perimeter columns bowed). The closest fireman was Chief Orio Palmer in a stairwell on the 78th floor of the South Tower. He was at the bottom edge of the fire/impact zone. He said he saw small fires and NIST said the fires there were small. I notice that you have stopped saying his radio call contradicts NIST, is that a tacit admission you were wrong? The entire collection of firefighters tapes and survivor accounts casts serious doubts on the veracity of many claims made by NIST. That is, none of the first-hand accounts corroborate NIST's theory that the fires within the impact zones were intense enough to initiate the collapses. As for the specific firefighter in question, consider these comments from the same tape....... "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. 78 seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though." "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay." So the Op. Tower must have received information that the 80th floor {"floor above 79") was OK to enter for fighting local floor fires / rescue, if they ordered Bat. Nine to go up there. Again, there is nothing to suggest there were any signs of imminent collapse from these comments and order. Can you tell us when these reports were made, soon after the FD got there, just before the collapse? The 1st quote proves nothing we know there was a single stairwell that was passable; it wasn’t in the area where collapse was believed to have initiated. The 2nd doesn’t prove much either the part about Battalion Nine being “need(ed)” seems to indicate the presence not absence of fire “on floor above 79” And consider the survivor accounts from the area.... Three Euro Brokers employees on the 84th floor managed to walk down through the entire impact zone and survive. · Can you provide links to their accounts? · IIRC NIST did not theorize sagging on the 84th floor. Presumably they went from their offices to the stairs in the core from where sagging would not have been visible. · Do you know when they evacuated? Presumably they did so shortly after the crash thus well before sagging would have been noticeable even if they were in locations where it was supposed to have happened. Ditto above, show that any of the survivors were in the specific areas NIST said had strong fires and sagging trusses at the time they said this happened. Of those 18 only 4 escaped from above the impact zone. The fact that only 18 out the hundreds of people on those floors managed to make it down the only stairwell (out of 6) that wasn’t totally obstructed indicates damage and/or the intensity of the fires was greater they you choose to believe. 18 made it out, more than 100X more people didn’t, less than 1% of the people on or above the impact floors surviving actually undermines your theory. The most famous of those four people is Brian Clark. He said that a woman came up the stairs saying “…you've got to go, you've got to go up, you can't go down, there's too much smoke and flame below” and that he “could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up” but was describing the 78th floor (at the bottom edge of the fire/impact zone of the South Tower “less than quarter of an hour after it had been hit” www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml No that`s your spin. Since load was efficiently redistributed we would not expect localized failures to cause the building to loose symmetry A localized failure does not "cause the building to lose symmetry"? Exactly what does that mean? I don’t know how to put it any more simply. A few columns or trusses failing on one side would not be expected to cause the building to noticeably tilt to one side or otherwise noticeably lose symmetry because their load would be redistributed to other parts of the frame. Not the best of analogies but I spent my first few months in Brazil sleeping in a hammock. Some of the support cords broke but it didn’t noticeably tilt of sag to one side even after more cords especially those next to other broken ones snapped. A friend of mine who spent weeks at a time in the jungle or on boats sleeping in hammocks told me I should either repair or replace mine otherwise it might give way without warning because it would reach a point the remaining cords wouldn’t be able to bear my weight. Loads weren’t redistributed evenly trusses and columns adjacent to the failed ones took up more of the extra load than ones further away making them more likely to fail especially if they had been damaged by the impacts and/or were weakened by fire. You're saying that after localized failures, the ensuing load redistribution weakens the adjacent (localized) structural components more than the rest of the structure further away. Yes Each additional failure put greater load on the remaining elements thus making additional failures more likely. A sort of vicious circle that finally got to the point where remaining elements were unable to resist the mass of the floors above them. But that still means a continued progression of localized failures, with subsequent adjacent localized weakening! You're actually making an argument much like my own - for asymmetrical, progressive, structural failure! It seems you just weren't aware of it. No that’s your spin. The structure would not have become very asymmetrical before collapse. The NYPD Aviation Unit reported the North Tower was leaning, buckling and unstable before it collapsed, this lead to NYPD personnel being ordered away . wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf (pg. 91 - the videotape is available on the Net) 1) You made the claim that no such collapse even happened previously it`s up to you to document that claim not for me to debunk it.2) Most of these collapses weren’t well documented so we have no way of knowing which if any of your conditions were met. Thus you have no basis for your claim that the cases I cited were invalid. In the Brazilian cases at least none of the buildings were obviously tilting to one side before collapse and debris distribution was roughly symmetrical.3) None of the WTC towers were “intact” your complaint breaks down there and only CT`s say they were in a “fully stable structural condition” since the bowing of perimeter columns was noted in both towers before they collapsed and the FD pulled (out of) it (7 WTC) due to it giving signs hours beforehand it was going to collapse.4) WTC 2 didn’t exactly collapse symmetrically since it tilted; in neither case was debris dispersal completely symmetrical. 5) There are very few cases of buildings being struck by large planes and none AFAIK buildings at all resembling the Twin Towers Point 5 is not relevant, for the reasons I explained earlier. I must be a bit slow then, run it by me again. And your point is? This seems to reinforce the notion asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical collapses unless you believe the tilt was corrected mid-demolition. It seems to have happened to a better part of a couple of floors of one side of each towers and thus would have effected most of the core columns connected to trusses on that side. As for the areas above and below that’s irrelevant, the former would not have resisted the floors below collapsing out from under them and the latter would have failed due to the dynamic load of the floors above collapsing on them. Your analogy is still false the towers weren’t “intact” before they collapsed. Points 1 and 2 - it should be easy to disprove my claim, if 3 collapses had those very same features all in one day. If I start citing examples that support my argument, how many would it take before you'd be convinced? 100? 1000? 10,000? I’d be very impressed if you could cite cases of buildings similar to the WTC towers surviving a similar combination of structural damage and fire that remained standing. Go ahead cite some examples that you think are applicable. You still haven't really dealt with point 2. No building collapses were anywhere as well documented as those of the WTC thus we have no idea about how long they took to collapse or what the collapses looked like. These are different cases. Do you deny that a local collapse in the Towers could have triggered a global one? I do deny it, as to collapsing in the same manner that the WTC buildings collapsed Too bad for you that the only structural engineer in the world to publicly agree with you never worked on buildings of any sort but rather spent his entire career working on deep sea oil rigs. I’d like to see your calculations showing that the floor connections below the impact zones should have been able to resist the dynamic load of the floors above collapsing down on them.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 19, 2007 10:16:05 GMT -4
It seems to me, Lenbrazil, that 9/11 CTers claim irrelevency to the fact that very other other cases like the WTCs have occured because it is the biggest hole in their theories.
This fact alone shows a lack of understanding that different structures and situations have different outcomes. For example, had the Empire State building been hit, it probably wouldn't have collapsed due to it's structure (a grid fashion steel framework, surrounded by concrete).
It's possible that either CTers are unaware of this fact, of that they are aware and see it as a threat to their theory. So, they brush it aside, confident in their error.
|
|
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 Aug 20, 2007 19:46:18 GMT -4
It seems to me, Lenbrazil, that 9/11 CTers claim irrelevency to the fact that very other other cases like the WTCs have occured because it is the biggest hole in their theories. This fact alone shows a lack of understanding that different structures and situations have different outcomes. For example, had the Empire State building been hit, it probably wouldn't have collapsed due to it's structure (a grid fashion steel framework, surrounded by concrete). It's possible that either CTers are unaware of this fact, of that they are aware and see it as a threat to their theory. So, they brush it aside, confident in their error. This is something they refuse to take into consideration. They like to harp on the uniqueness of the event(s), 3 steel frame buildings collapsing, but don’t want to acknowledge the uniqueness of the circumstances. At this point only the willfully ignorant or those intentionally wanting to deceive cite the example of the Empire State Build which in addition to being of completely different construction was struck by a much smaller plane, flying much slower and carrying much less fuel. I promised to post the video of bowing perimeter columns in the South Tower just before it collapsed a while ago, here tiz. I wonder how Turbonium is gonna explain this one away? I guess he’ll claim that it was faked. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546For those of you with difficulty accessing video these still also show strong fires an bowing of the columns
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 3, 2007 6:22:17 GMT -4
Too bad for you that the only structural engineer in the world to publicly agree with you never worked on buildings of any sort but rather spent his entire career working on deep sea oil rigs. Actually, it's too bad for you that there are (currently) 155 architectural and engineering (including structural and civil engs) professionals, who do dispute the official account, just on this website alone... www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php Are you aware that even one of NIST's top experts (during and after 9/11) has now come forward?.. James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.
NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htmI bolded some of his points above, because I've been saying the very same things all along. Why bother doing that? Well, because I want to make a point to those who kept saying that I didn't know what I was talking about, One of many such examples as follows... And around and around and around and around. This has all been explained numerous times before to Turbonium, both here and on the BAUT board. By Jay, myself and others. In minute detail. How FEA works. Why FEA is considered proof. What spot samples are for. How they are chosen and used to verify and validate the model and why a certain temperature range was used as validation samples, and yet he still comes back several months later as if he never bothered reading those posts. Indeed, many of the replies I received could be summed up like this.. "Tut, tut, turbonium. How many times have we tried to explain all of this to you? It seems you'll never learn!" I think just I heard the sound of some pompous pseudo-intellectuals fall off of their high horses. Not that I'm the type of person to stick someone's continually patronizing crap right back in their face, and shout "I told you so!". That would be downright crass.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 3, 2007 10:14:03 GMT -4
I doubt the objectivity of the first website you showed us. CT sites are notorious for being one sided, quote mining, misinterpretations, ect.
Reading the article you supply that featurs the quotes, the doctor is either being misquoted, misinterpreted, or not fully aware of the whole story. And again, I question the website you directed to.
No, the only sound you heard was your own desperation to seek sites that support your view, and people that do not wish to see the truth, not to mention holding double standards. You could only find what you wanted on CT sites.
In summery, the response is "Nice try".
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 3, 2007 11:54:03 GMT -4
Just to be fair, until recently any bogus name could be added to that site. They changed it a little, now you just have to give a valid email address. Internet 'petitions'; gotta love 'em.
But, as far as I can tell, none of the degrees, names, or any other information on that list are verified . Many of them may be legitimate. Some may not. Who knows?
Turbonium, compare the list on that site with the contributor list for NIST. That list reads like a who's who of respected experts in their fields. See, I have never claimed that the truther side doesn't have a single expert on their side.
So, compare your list with NIST. We're not talking about a bunch of egg heads getting together and writing a report . These people represent some of the most brilliant minds in industry, academia, and government research. They are established, respected researchers who have staked their careers and reputations on the NCSTAR.
You could just as easily find a list like yours for ANY agenda, including the claim that the Holocaust never happened. The two lists just can't compare, and you lower yourself suggesting they do.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 3, 2007 14:02:57 GMT -4
On a quick scan of the155 names, I found only two qualified structural engineers. I don't consider any of the rest any better qualified that I am on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2007 17:53:04 GMT -4
And how many actually are Arcitechs or Structural Engineers? By the way, on that site even if you want to argue against 9/11 being an inside job, you still have to sign up to that membership page. ae911 is a joke and has been since it opened, it membership is the same bunch of loosers you find on LCF.
First you are wrong. Dr Quintiere was NOT part of the 9/11 report he left NIST well before that. Secondly are you aware of Dr Quintiere's opinions? He believes the following:
1) There was no explosive devices 2) The damage to the structure from the impacts and the resultant fires brought down the buildings 3) The fireproofing was not up to the required standard and so it didn't matter if it was removed or not 4) That NIST claimed it was the core columns that failed leading to the collapses (they don't, they say it was the trusses that failed, sagging and draging in the exterior columns causing them to give way.) 5) That the PANYNJ has some liability because of the shoddy fireproofing and that NIST is covering them by claiming that the Fire proofing had to be removed to cause the collapses.
In other words, even if we accepted his work (personally I don't as he makes a num,ber of mistakes in his claims about what NIST did and didn't do) it actually makes the Official story stronger because it removes the need for the loss of the fireproofing, something that NIST had to guess at. By entering Quintiere into the argument you actually damage your own claims of a CD because Quintiere refutes that and shores up the holes in NIST you could be using. It really is a case of Truthers not having the brains they were born with and not looking at their source before cherry picking a hand full of quotes from them. Poor Poor Poor and very shoody work. You just shot yourself in the foot big time. That and you are about 3 weeks late bringing it here. We already slice and diced the Truthers who tried it on JREF and apart from one that valiently struggled on until it was suggested that since he seemed to agree with Quintiere we would as well and settle the argument all togther, then he went silent. So how about it Turbonium, since you reference he here, you obviously agree with his conclusions. If so shall we agree he was right and determine that the Towers came down from Impact and Fire? Or do you not agree with him anymore now you know what he really thinks? Oh, and don't try the "I don't agree with his conclusion, but I agree with his attacks on NIST." His attacks on NIST were based on his conclusions differing from NIST's conclusions. Without one, the other is worthless.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 3, 2007 18:04:56 GMT -4
I've said this before. I would be surprised if there weren't reputable professionals with the appropriate experience who disagreed with the NIST findings. To my knowledge, these people do exist, and have publicly questioned details of the NIST findings.
But that is far from having the room to drive the size truck you want through there. "We think the collapse started with the floor joists" is not "We think there was a mini-nuke in the basement."
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 4, 2007 9:04:22 GMT -4
I am totally SHOCKED that anybody would claim Dr. Quintiere's issue with the NIST constitutes a former member of NIST 'coming forward' to support an inside job conspiracy.
Well, probably not as shocked as he would be, but shocked nevertheless.
Franky, anybody who would do that has no business investigating anything, much less accusing people of mass murder.
|
|