|
Post by papageno on May 27, 2007 5:00:45 GMT -4
From NIST's main report, section 6.4.3: These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.That's exactly what I said - it played no part in their conclusions. Read again: "These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." The analyzed samples showed where the temperatures were relatively low, and the simulations reproduced it. This means that the analysis of the steel samples were infact used to validate the simulations and did play a part in the conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 26, 2007 7:58:26 GMT -4
But - despite being the strongest physical evidence, with valid analysis, resulting in valid data - it played no part in their conclusions.From NIST's main report, section 6.4.3: These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 20, 2007 5:42:11 GMT -4
Anyway, samples exposed to high temperatures were not a necessary condition to validate the simulations. Then, could you please explain just what was necessary to validate the simulations? Jay has explained this to you at length and in detail on the BAUT forum: www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35175 . If you did not accept his explanations, there is no reason to believe you would accept mine.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 19, 2007 4:48:10 GMT -4
It was pointed out to me that it is possible that markings survived on an element exposed to high temperatures. Due to the relatively low thermal conductivity of the steel and the fact that the temperature was not uniform, it is possible that only one part of a structural element reached high temperature while the part with the markings remained relatively cool. Indeed, the analysis of the steel samples were carried out on several locations on a single element.
Anyway, samples exposed to high temperatures were not a necessary condition to validate the simulations.
Conspiracy theorists would cling to anything just to make the "official version" look bad. Just look at how they clung to Silverstein's "pull it".
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 17, 2007 15:20:06 GMT -4
I have been discussing on an Italian blog about the structural steel samples analyzed by the NIST engineers in their work about WTC1 and WTC2 collapse.
The conspiracist claims that the fact that no analyzed sample had been expose to temperatures above 600 degrees proves that there were no high temperatures in the impact zone. (Despite the fact that the NIST explicitly states that the results of the analysis cannot be generalized.)
My counterargument is that the selection of the samples to be analyzed introduced a bias that excludes most likely structural elements that were exposed to high temperatures. My reasoning is this: One of the selection criteria was that the element could be identified, by using paint, stampings or other marks, so that its position before the collapse could be determined. It seems unlikely that any markings can survive exposure to high temperature for a significant time, especially if the element is directly involved in the collapse initiation. Therefore it is unlikely that an element exposed to high temperatures would have been selected for the analysis.
Unfortunately I could not find anything in the NIST reports that supports explicitly my reasoning (although it is stated that the analyzed samples might not be representative of the whole spectrum of temperatures).
So, the question is if my reasoning is reasonable, or if I missed something. (It is of course no surprise that the conspiracist could not refute my argument, so I have to ask somebody who knows more than me.)
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 14, 2007 16:08:32 GMT -4
turbonium, have you read the report NCSTAR 1-6, available as a PDF file from the wtc.nist wedsite? (In particular, chapter 6.)
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 15, 2007 15:28:16 GMT -4
It seems more and more likely that Balsamo is at least just as interested in sales of his video as he is about forwarding any "truth" to the masses. You should see how he bragged about the increased number of hits his webpage was getting, and about the increased DVD sales to Italy.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 12, 2007 15:31:22 GMT -4
With somebody who said: " We share our results with the people that matter." ? I don't see the point.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 11, 2007 16:24:06 GMT -4
An Italian blog dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories caught the attention of a major member of the "Pilots for Truth" group. Here is the post.There is one excerpt in the comments I wanted to share with you: My response to this point was:
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 2, 2007 17:07:13 GMT -4
Sorry, I'm getting Lovecraft's original name confused with some of the attempts to make it authentically arabic (the form Abdul Alhazred apparently isn't). Don't worry. I'm just a purist. I actually managed to pick out one of Derleth's posthumous "collaborations" with Lovecraft from the first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 2, 2007 16:48:25 GMT -4
Howard Phillips (usually H.P.) Lovecraft was an American author of wierd pulp horror stories in the twenties and early thirties. To add verisimilitude to his stories he created a fictional library of occult books which he and his friends would refer to in their stories. The most famous of these was the dreaded Necronomicon, supposedly written by the mad arab Abdul Al'Hazrad. <geek mode ACTIVATE!>That would be Abdul Alhazred, thankyouverymuch! <geek mode off>
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 20, 2007 15:40:56 GMT -4
What I'd like to know, first of all, is what happened to make Jack angry enough to post his threat to Roberts? Jack believes that Roberts tried to break up his family. What is known about this accusation? Did it arise in an earlier post? It's still a threat of violence, of course. But did it stem from an attempt by Roberts to break up Jack's family, as Jack has asserted? It is not a death threat. Thats' why it is so cold here! It's the wind from you trying to spin this story into a blame-the-(potential)-victim defense.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 17, 2007 16:02:08 GMT -4
Is he justifying the "truth-seekers" support or non-condemnation of the threats on the basis of "others do it too!" ?No, he's trying to claim that the people who supported or didn't condemn are not representative of the so-called "truth" movement as a whole. To support this position, he's attempting to manufacture evidence of comparable behavior among debunkers and Bush Administration supporters. He is also attempting to conflate the latter with the former. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 17, 2007 15:32:34 GMT -4
Just so I understand turbonium's point.
Is he justifying the "truth-seekers" support or non-condemnation of the threats on the basis of "others do it too!" ?
What happened to the moral high ground the self-proclaimed truth-seekers claim for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Oct 11, 2006 14:34:13 GMT -4
Thanks for all the links. Due to the intervention of a third-party, the CT has made a step forward in the discussion and provided some numbers to estimate the forces (by the way, the figure for the force of the impact was estimated in 32000 N, before the base of the pole breaks). Although we both agree that the pressure of the pole on the wing spar exceeds the critical load of alluminium in the initial instant of the impact, there is no agreement on what happens next. The CT is convinced that the initial pressure is enough to damage significantly the spar. I, on the other hand, picture the alluminium deform under the pressure, increasing the area of contact with the pole and reducing the pressure of the pole below the critical load of the alluminium. At this point, the pole cannot cut through the spar and is ripped from its base. The wing bends the pole because of the inertia of the two end of the poles, and the pole breaks. An open question is whether the wing spars are solid alluminium or a tube-like structure. I could not find authorative sources on this. At last, this should be an aerial view showing the positions of clipped and intact poles. EDIT to add: For lenbrazil, the force in an impact is estimated from the change in momentum, non kinetic energy. (See, for example, classical kinetic theory of gases.)
|
|