|
Post by turbonium on Sept 7, 2007 1:48:51 GMT -4
There is only one world, and the indisputable fact is that more and more engineers, architects, and experts in other fields related to 9/11, are continuing to come forward to dispute the official story. Yes, as was pointed out, that number has grown to three. Is that the best you can do? Sorry, but there are many more than three. Structural engineers, civil engineers, and architects - all professions with valid experts on the building collapses. Other aspects of 9/11 include valid experts in various fields - commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. Penn and Teller have an excellent response for this sentence, so I'll leave it to you to figure it out. The pre-eminent intellects of our day. No doubt their quotes will one day rank with those of Aristotle, Shakespeare, and Confucius. I DO NOT require a belief in conspiracy theories. I DO NOT require a belief in controlled demolition of the WTCs. And I certainly DO NOT make up theories trying to explain things I don't understand. I wasn't aware that some people "require a belief" in such things. I know I don't "require a belief" in them. Actually, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean! PhantomWolf, who has more patience in this subject than I, truly dismembers your claims. So, explain how I'm not right that your claims leak like a net. Sure, just cite specific examples, and I'll gladly explain them to you.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 7, 2007 7:09:24 GMT -4
Yes, as was pointed out, that number has grown to three. Is that the best you can do? Sorry, but there are many more than three. Structural engineers, civil engineers, and architects - all professions with valid experts on the building collapses. Other aspects of 9/11 include valid experts in various fields - commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. Weren't you asked about strutural engineers? The other fields you mention involve those that aren't involved in buildings of the scale of the WTCs. THAT'S your limiting factor. But moving along.... More so than you've shown yourself to be. Possible. In order for your theory of CD of the WTCs to be true, it involves many beliefs to be true. It involves your beliefs of how steel behaves in the conditions of the WTCs to be true. It also involves a motive for the US govt to do such a thing to be true. Get it now? I, on the other hand, go by emperical data and Occam's Razor. Your CD theory fails Occam's Razor. Read his post, then reply to him. I'm not going to repeat what he said when you can easily quote him yourself.
|
|
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 Sept 7, 2007 12:21:53 GMT -4
Oh yeah the number is growing by leaps and bound in 6 years it's gone from 0 - maybe 3. The only one who said anything publicly never worked on buildings. Another probably is a truther but he is quite elderly, never made any public statements about 9/11* and seems to have worked as an architect rather than engineer . There is no evidence he ever worked as an engineer or worked on buildings in either capacity The third works for a structural engineering firm but doesn't seem to have made any public statements*. We can't be sure someone else didn't him sign him up. His company seems to work mostly on low rise structures. There is no evidence he ever worked on tall buildings So the number of structural engineers with experience related to buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD has plateaued at ZERO for the last 6 years. *No statements that I could find presumably if they had they could be found on the AE911T site Let me remind you of what you were asking for, back in November of 2005... Re: 9/11, for the heck of it
Reply #906 on Nov 4, 2005,Foxx - One question of mine, that you have not answered yet is, if you can name a civil or structural engineer or architect who supports you theories about the failures of the WTC towers. Numerous engineers and other experts participated in the NIST/ASCE reports and countless others reviewed their findings. If the science of these reports is so wrong why haven't ANY people with the requisite technical training raised any questions? Corollarily there are very few scientists who believe what you do. The few exceptions ALL have degrees in unrelated fields. This should really make you wonder if your ideas are anything more than bunk based on ignorance [No offence I don't have enough knowledge about structural mechanics to speak authoritatively either] Since you love talking about unprecedented events, tell me about one time in history when ALL the scientists in a particular field were wrong and were proven wrong by a group of laymen This is a classic case of "moving the goalposts", if there ever was one!! In late 2005, you were asking for any "civil or structural engineer or architect" who supported a CD theory. Now, you're asking for "structural engineers with experience related to buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD." One of the structural engineers "doesn't seem to have made any public statements". But even if he had, it's obvious that you're already prepared to move the goalposts yet again.... "His company seems to work mostly on low rise structures. There is no evidence he ever worked on tall buildings." So, what you're really asking for is this.... "Structural engineers with experience related to HIGHRISE buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD." How do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep on narrowing down and revising the standards and qualifications you "require" us to meet in your requests? What are you going to ask for next? Maybe the structural engineers will need experience related to "WTC-style" highrises? Eventually, you'll only accept people who were senior structural engineers involved in the planning and construction of the towers themselves! You had to move the goalposts, didn't you? Because you know that you'd look ridiculous if you still asked for any "civil or structural engineer or architect" who supported a CD theory. I guess you could call that moving the goalposts or you could call it resetting my position in light of changing events. The overwhelming consensus in the engineering/architectural communities seems to be that the towers collapsed pretty much as described by NIST with a small number raising questions or having slightly different view points but not questioning the thesis that a combination of impact and fire damage brought the towers down. With any subject we can place experts in concentric rings in the center would be people with specific experience related to the specific area. Around them we can put people with related but less relevant experience. For example the most relevant person to evaluate a lung cancer patient would be an oncologist specializing in that disease, next would other oncologists/cancer researchers, then MD’s in general, then other medical professionals (nurses, radiologists) who’ve treated cancer patients, then medical professionals in general then let’s say biologists, then natural scientists. The most relevant experts to evaluate the collapses of the WTC towers are structural engineers with experience related to similar buildings, next out would be structural engineers who’ve worked on different styles of building, then ones that worked on other types of structures. The less these buildings or structures were like the WTC the less relevant their expertise. Next would be architects and non-structural civil engineers, again the closer the projects they worked on were to the WTC the more relevant their experience. The bulk of AE911T members are from the peripheral rings electrical engineers etc. One of the civil engineers in the group specializes in irrigation and water drainage. Jay is correct that an architect must undergo similar training to engineers but the can’t design building on their own that’s why we have structural engineers. This probally explains why only a handful have joined Richard Gage’s group. Gage and other architects in his group can come up all sorts of ideas for building designs but they or whoever wants to build them would have to hire a structural engineer. Presumably they wouldn’t call in someone who had only worked on oil rings and and 1 – 2 story schools for a skyscraper. I don’t know why you think the requirement that the engineer made a public statement moving the goal posts. With out one 1) We don’t know if the really are “truthers” or if someone else signed them uo they used not to have a confirmation process IIRC ‘Leslie Robertson’ was a member until some figured out it was a prank. 2) Even if they are a “truther” we don’t know whether they question the collapses of the towers 3) Even if they question the collapses we don’t know why or how closely they looked at the evidence. So it’s true that a few people with more peripheral experience now publicly subscribe to controlled demo theories the number is very small especially the closer you get to the “bulls eye” where the number is still zero. According to a 2006 poll “16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed”* (IIRC 10% said this was “somewhat likely” and 6% said it was “very likely”. IF what you suspect were true wouldn’t you expect people with relevant expertise to be more likely than the general public to believe such things and come forward? But the converse seems to be true. Why are far more theologians and electrical engineers members of such groups than structural engineers? Why is it that the only structural engineer who we know for sure doesn’t believe the collapse theory - the only one who has said why, has no experience with structures remotely like the towers? Would you feel safe working or living in a high-rise for which he was the engineer? I wouldn’t**. Why is it that of the other TWO who are members of ae911t: - one is in his 80’s and seems to have worked as an architect rather than an engineer and the other might not even really be a member of the group - neither has made any public statements - neither has as far as we can tell ever worked on a building remotely like the trade center towers? Len * www.scrippsnews.com/911poll ** Conversely I wouldn’t feel safe in an oil rig for which Leslie Robertson was the engineer.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 8, 2007 3:57:06 GMT -4
I guess you could call that moving the goalposts or you could call it resetting my position in light of changing events. I'll stick with the former. But hey - if you feel that you have to soften it up with some phrasal gymnastics, that's fine by me. The overwhelming consensus in the engineering/architectural communities seems to be that the towers collapsed pretty much as described by NIST with a small number raising questions or having slightly different view points but not questioning the thesis that a combination of impact and fire damage brought the towers down. First of all, remember that NIST only investigated the event(s) leading up to the initiation point of collapse(s). All they really said about what occurred after that point was that "global collapse ensued". In other words, NIST did not really investigate anything regarding the actual collapse dynamics. (That raises another critical issue in itself - NIST essentially treated the near free-fall collapses as a foregone conclusion, hardly worth the time to thoroughly investigate.) With that in mind, we need to consider exactly what is being agreed upon and / or disputed by these various experts. Are they just critiquing the material covered in the NIST report? Or, are they also speaking about aspects of the collapses that NIST did not address, as I've noted above? We also need to consider how thoroughly the NIST report has been studied by the experts. Another factor is if they are speaking from a position of impartiality -ie: is there a possible conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of the expert? But put all of that aside. To me, the bottom line is this... There are a number of experts who have publicly disputed NIST's account, subsequently making sure to include one caveat - that they "don't subscribe to any sort of CD theory." People such as Dr. Quintiere, for example. But, just like those of us who believe in a CD theory, many of these "non-CD theorists" are also calling for a new, independent investigation, and/or an independent review of the NIST report. Imo, that is - by far - the most relevant, critical point to consider right now. Because it gives much more credibility to the argument that we need a new, independent investigation - the first step towards uncovering the facts, the complete truth, of this event. A new investigation is not going to become a reality by depending on how many, or how few, of the experts support a CD theory, versus those who don't. Or whether they are more or less "valid" than the "experts" who don'tsupport a CD theory. As long as they agree with the need for a new, independent investigation, it doesn't matter - and it won't matter - whether or not they currently support a CD theory. Because the truth will still come out, which is all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 8, 2007 4:58:34 GMT -4
Sorry, but there are many more than three. Structural engineers, civil engineers, and architects - all professions with valid experts on the building collapses. Other aspects of 9/11 include valid experts in various fields - commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. Weren't you asked about strutural engineers? The other fields you mention involve those that aren't involved in buildings of the scale of the WTCs. THAT'S your limiting factor. I said this... There is only one world, and the indisputable fact is that more and more engineers, architects, and experts in other fields related to 9/11, are continuing to come forward to dispute the official story....to which you replied... "Yes, as was pointed out, that number has grown to three." That's why I said there are more than three in my post. A misinterpretation, no big deal. More so than you've shown yourself to be. Possible. I take great comfort in receiving criticism from someone who finds Penn & Teller as the intellectual equals of Aristotle and Shakespeare. In order for your theory of CD of the WTCs to be true, it involves many beliefs to be true. It involves your beliefs of how steel behaves in the conditions of the WTCs to be true. It also involves a motive for the US govt to do such a thing to be true. Get it now? My "beliefs" in how the steel behaved must be true? No, it's the established facts for how steel behaves which are true. It's the physical evidence - the steel - which helps to establish how the steel behaved in the collapses which is true. As for motives for the US gov't to do such a thing? They are substantial, numerous, and indeed, completely true. I, on the other hand, go by emperical data and Occam's Razor. Hey, I know you do. Like when the FBI said they recovered 95% of Flight 93, wasn't it you who kept insisting that you wouldn't believe them until they finally showed us the reconstructed plane? Sorry if I'm misquoting you, or if someone else said it, but I recall reading a comment at the time, that went something like this.... "Some of you require a belief in the word of the FBI to be true. I, on the other hand, go by empirical data!" I was really impressed by that. No empty words, you demanded physical evidence! Then, they finally showed us the reconstructed plane! Oh, sorry. I guess they never did show us. My bad. Your CD theory fails Occam's Razor. So what? I use Gillette Mach 3's.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 8, 2007 5:35:40 GMT -4
YOUR saying that, NOT me. I just find them as voices of reason in a crazy, CT filled world. And if you understood those characteristics, then you'd see why a structural failure due to the conditions is valid. I question the last one. The motives are also without evidence, and reek of typical conspiracy theorist ideals. Far more evidence supports the motives of terrorists conducting the disaster. You are thinking of someone else. I never said that. And lame-o was his name-o. I've got to take my leave of this thread, before my blood pressure gets the better of me. I can only deal with so much CTness.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 8, 2007 6:26:00 GMT -4
The fire models were validated against both the test samples which were used to determine if the fire temperature in known points agreed with the what the computer models predicted (they did) The "test samples"? Do you mean the second series of physical tests (with the workstations)? If you do, then perhaps you are aware that NIST does not list the temperatures attained during those tests. They only list the heat release rates and mass loss profiles. wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf (pg.104 of 240) If you're referring to something else, then please specify what you mean, and which part of the report I can find it in. and with photos and video of the fire progression through the buildings. That's pure rubbish. First of all, there are no photos or videos which even show the core columns! There is no way of knowing whether any of the core columns are even damaged or severed, let alone determining where, or how many, of those columns are exposed to fires, let alone knowing or guessing what the temperatures of those columns are!! And even the steel we could see (perimeter columns, etc.) showed no evidence of reaching temperatures anywhere near 600C. None of this validates the fire simulation modeling results.
|
|
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 Sept 8, 2007 10:16:40 GMT -4
And even the steel we could see (perimeter columns, etc.) showed no evidence of reaching temperatures anywhere near 600C. Please quote where NIST ever said they did
|
|
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 Sept 8, 2007 10:25:16 GMT -4
I guess you could call that moving the goalposts or you could call it resetting my position in light of changing events. I'll stick with the former. But hey - if you feel that you have to soften it up with some phrasal gymnastics, that's fine by me. You can call it what you like but the number of even reasonably qualified people who back your theories is exceedingly small, smaller by degrees of magnitude than one would expect if they were valid. There is a biologist and a biochemist who doubt evolution, does this mean that creationism is a reasonable theory? Maybe someday a structural engineer who has actually worked on buildings even vaguely similar to the towers will say that he believes they were CD'ed and why and will demonstrate by his statements he has actually studied the NIST report. and his doubts aren't based on obvious misconceptions. He (or she) will still be at odds with the vast majority of their colleagues. But that day hasn't come yet
|
|
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 Sept 8, 2007 10:29:59 GMT -4
There are a number of experts who have publicly disputed NIST's account, subsequently making sure to include one caveat - that they "don't subscribe to any sort of CD theory." People such as Dr. Quintiere, for example. But, just like those of us who believe in a CD theory, many of these "non-CD theorists" are also calling for a new, independent investigation, and/or an independent review of the NIST report. The dispute are more over the details biologists dispute aspects of evolution only 1 (or 2 if you count the biochemist) dispute evoluion. Who besides Dr. Quintiere has called "for a new, independent investigation, and/or an independent review of the NIST report."?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 9, 2007 1:08:34 GMT -4
I mean that the steel samples that could be identified as to where they had been and were tested to see what temperature they reached, did reach the temperatures that the computer models predicted that they would. Now because I know your response to this will be "But those bits of steel never got hotter then 600°C", I'm going to deal with this right now. The computer model predicted that they wouldn't, the parts that were used were out lying from the main fires. One of the main reasons for this is because the columns in the main fire were unidentifiable as far as determining where they came from. While all the columns were marked with their location, these marks were done in a paint that was destroyed by exposure to flames over 250°C. That meant that most of the core columns in the main impact area had their identifications burn off and so while NIST could find the damaged and broken pieces they could not identify where they were from. This is the critical point. If they can't determine where they are from, they can't compare the temperature the steel reached with the position their model predicts, therefore it was not worth testing those pieces for temperature. The pieces they could identify were from the cooler parts of the fire where the identifiers still remained intact and they used those pieces to validate their models. That is the reason those pieces of steel were much cooler, and the computer models predicted that they would be found to be much cooler. There is no conflict between the low temps of the tested steel and the high temps of the model because the low temps in the steel matched the low temps in the model, the high temps in the model were elsewhere.
The only pure rubbish is what you are saying. I never said the videos and photos showed the core columns of the damage to them, I said that the videos and photos showed the progression of the fires. They were able to track the fires by seen where the fires were burning in the images, by looking at which windows had been broken by the heat and by where the smoke was coming from. Try learning to read what was said.
Are you suggesting that a 767 slamming into the core columns wouldn't have harmed them? The programs used to simulate the damage are state of the art impact modellers and are use industry wide to simulate impacts and interactions. Are you suggesting you know more about these programs and how they work than those that use them on a regular basis and use then to design things like cars based on the results they give? Also I am sure that you are aware that NIST's impact results have been independently verified by other groups including Perdue University.
The core columns fireproofing was sheetrock (drywall.) Are you going to suggest that this material would survive a 767 impacting into it?
Again you are assuming that the models were simply guesses. They weren't. The models used simulate real fires and were given real fire information. If anything (and according to Dr Quintiere whom you like to quote) NIST actually under-estimated the fuel loads and thus the temperatures of the fire. Fires are very predictable things, they behave in very simple ways. Fuel burns at a certain temperature, air heats at a certain speed, as do other materials. Yes NIST did simplify things to a degree, but their results where then compared to the known situation. In some cases their models were more conservative than the real world situation. For example, the speed of impact that they used for Flight 175 was lower then the real world hit. We know this because the model predicted less material exit than actually happened, thus the real plane actually hit the south tower a lot harder than MIST modelled. The reason they didn't attempt to model the exact speed, apart from not being able to determine it from the video, was that they discovered that it didn't matter, that even with a higher or lower speed input (these are a high and low values based on the speed estimates from the video) they were getting similar damage done, thus there wasn't much point in trying to determine an exact speed. A second underestimate is that the truss deviation in their models was a lot less than what they could see in the images of the towers. This would indicate that they had cooler fires, less fuel loads, or less damage to the fireproofing than actually occurred. The simple facts of the matter is that NISTs figures and models are very conservative. Their results indicate that, but the results still point towards their theory being correct. The models show that the plane impacting the building at above a certain speed would destroy and seriously damage the columns (and yes they did find a number of these columns, they just couldn't locate where they had been from, only that they were impacted columns) regardless of the exact speed. That fires and damaged fireproofing would cause the trusses to fail and sag down resulting on inwards forces on the exterior columns, and that if the exterior colours bowed inwards too far, then the top of the building would fall down onto the rest of it. They also noted that from that point on that the collapse would be progressive, something that several reviewed and published papers, including at least one done prior to NIST's report, all agree with and show as possible, and not one reviewed and published paper has ever disagreed with, let alone shown why it is wrong.
NIST never stated that they had too. The temperatures of the known position tested steel match the temperatures modelled by the fire programme NIST used.
Wrong, the steel temperatures match that predicted by the programme. The programme even predicted that floor 78 of tower 2 would have only a few small fires about it, something that matches the eye-witness reports. All you are doing is arguing from incredulity. Not a good place to be when you are opposing scientifically designed and operated modelling programmes that are used by people worldwide in real world situation everyday. You might as well try arguing against relativity.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 9, 2007 9:30:57 GMT -4
I mean that the steel samples that could be identified as to where they had been and were tested to see what temperature they reached, did reach the temperatures that the computer models predicted that they would. Now because I know your response to this will be "But those bits of steel never got hotter then 600°C", I'm going to deal with this right now. The computer model predicted that they wouldn't, the parts that were used were out lying from the main fires. One of the main reasons for this is because the columns in the main fire were unidentifiable as far as determining where they came from. While all the columns were marked with their location, these marks were done in a paint that was destroyed by exposure to flames over 250°C. That meant that most of the core columns in the main impact area had their identifications burn off and so while NIST could find the damaged and broken pieces they could not identify where they were from. This is the critical point. If they can't determine where they are from, they can't compare the temperature the steel reached with the position their model predicts, therefore it was not worth testing those pieces for temperature. The pieces they could identify were from the cooler parts of the fire where the identifiers still remained intact and they used those pieces to validate their models. That is the reason those pieces of steel were much cooler, and the computer models predicted that they would be found to be much cooler. There is no conflict between the low temps of the tested steel and the high temps of the model because the low temps in the steel matched the low temps in the model, the high temps in the model were elsewhere. Nonsense. The ID numbers were stamped right into the metal of the core columns... Where you got the idea that all the numbers were painted on, and that the numbers burned off if exposed to high temp fires, is beyond me! The only pure rubbish is what you are saying. I never said the videos and photos showed the core columns of the damage to them, I said that the videos and photos showed the progression of the fires. They were able to track the fires by seen where the fires were burning in the images, by looking at which windows had been broken by the heat and by where the smoke was coming from. Try learning to read what was said. I know exactly what you said. You said that the photos and videos helped validate their models. I'm saying that what could be seen of the fires, and the progression of the fires, in those photos and videos does not validate core columns being exposed to the intense fires, as depicted in their models. Even the fires we did see were not accurately modeled by NIST. Look at this fire model... Temperatures up to 1000C along the perimeter of one wall?!? Where did they come up with those figures? It sure wasn't from the photos and videos. Validation, my butt.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Sept 9, 2007 10:43:54 GMT -4
turbonium, you couldn't refute the validation of the NIST's simulations in the "Selection Bias" thread, and neither can you do it now.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 10, 2007 1:38:32 GMT -4
Hey, Turbonium, can you explain the "clunkety-clunk" lady to me? Specifically, why she thinks that's the length of time it would take a floor to collapse?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 10, 2007 3:42:25 GMT -4
Where you got the idea that all the numbers were painted on, and that the numbers burned off if exposed to high temp fires, is beyond me! Fair enough I cop to making the major mistake of not rechecking my source when posting in a hurry and getting two things mixed up, the idenification of the columns and the determination of the fire temperature on the column. I'll quote to make sure I get it right: The metallurgical overview report NCSTAR1-3 goes into further detail about the passage quoted by Dr. Griffin. In Section 6.8.5, it explains that the microstructure analysis was only applied to the perimeter sections, and not the core. As we have explained above, it is entirely expected for many perimeter sections to have been cooler than core sections. Regarding the core, this is treated very briefly in Section 6.8.6, where it is explained that only those sections with paint remaining could be examined, and few areas had any paint to test. The paint test is a much simpler one, with temperatures above 250 °C producing a “mud cracking” pattern, and temperatures below showing no effect. Temperatures well in excess of 250 °C will simply destroy the paint entirely, preventing the test.Your butt hmmm? Have you looked at the Photos of the North Tower 15 mins after impact? Note the strips on the sides of the simulation. See how they have orange and black? Black means the window would be broken, orange means fire would be seen through it. Now let's compare what the simulation is predicting to what actually happened. 9:01am Dang. The fires on the 94th floor at around the 14-20 minute mark look pretty spot on to me. I guess they just figured that out by pulling their figures out of your butt right? How about you deal in facts rather than just refusing to accept the science. I suggest that until you do, you better not fly in a 787 or stand under their flight paths, they were made using very similar systems, systems you claim don't work.
|
|