9/11 Thread no. 2

[scott3x]

His objection to NIST not modeling the full collapse is a straw man. NIST's models due to the magnitude of the failures that were occurring were not able to converge on a solution. NIST did not have to model the complete collapse anyway. All they were paid to do was find out what caused the collapse, and they succeeded in doing so.

Suppose we created a computer simulation of something that we know could not happen in the real world?

Make a computer model of the north tower and then remove 5 levels, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96. This would leave a 60 foot gap with 14 levels in the air with no support. So 14 levels would fall straight down impacting the lower portion at 44 mph.

I think everyone would have to concede that the total elimination of 5 levels is more than the airliner and fires could possibly have done. But to analyze the result wouldn't the computer model have to know the quantity and strength of steel and concrete on every level? So if this computer model was accurately done and the entire building did not collapse then what would that say about this EIGHT YEAR debate?

I think the main thing here psikey, is that even with NIST's estimates of the quantity and strength of the concrete and steel on every level, the building simply wasn't going to collapse. Their own initial computer models made that abundantly clear. So, did they consider the possibility that perhaps something other than the planes and fires were involved? No. Instead, they "adjusted the input", as they state in their 2005 report:

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.​

It seems clear to me and many others, however, that the only reality they were thinking of was the reality that, as they state, "the collapse occured"; they seem much less interested in the reality that the fires couldn't have done it. This is clear when we see how they "adjusted" their model: "Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted", they state.

Steven Jones highlights the absurdity of "adjusting" the inputs in this way in his peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?:

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)​

 

[scott3x]

The site Patriots Question 9/11 has a long list of people who question the official story. Here is a summary of the people who they've found question the official 9/11 story:

190+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
670+ Engineers and Architects
200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

Tell me Stryder, you have a similar list for people who believe that "Elvis flew a UFO with an alien doomsday device weapon to wipe out the WTC to prove that Scientology is a Religion"? Somehow, I really don't think so.

Actually in all honesty "YES" if I was to go out and run a poll across the whole of the US and the UK, the numbers of people that would actually vote that was responsible, would probably be the same percentage as the numbers you have from your own wacked out story.

The above site is not a "whacked out story". It's a site dedicated for people who question the official story, with many testimonials of real people on the site itself. In other words, it's a fact. Your theory that "if" you were to go out and run a poll across the whole of the US and the UK, "the numbers of people that would actually vote that was responsible, would probably be the same percentage as the numbers you have", is mere conjecture, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

The reason for this is because some people will pick the wackiest answer in a poll just for the sake of it being wacky.

The people who responded to Patriots Question 9/11 wrote testimonials. I suggest you read some of their site.

It doesn't have anything to do with truth, polls never do. In fact with the correct Neural Linguistics any poll can be easily slid in favour of any singular result. This is proven many times with elections.

You seem to be assuming that most americans (and perhaps UK residents) will vote for whatever the pollsters want, with a touch of correct neurolinguistics. Wikipedia defines neurolinguistics as:

the study of the neural mechanisms in the human brain that control the comprehension, production, and acquisition of language.​

Not sure where you're going with this, but you then say that elections have "proven" this many times. Based on my understanding of what you're saying, I strongly disagree with that assertion, however. I certainly believe that George Bush was never elected president by the american people; rather, he was selected by the Supreme Court in his first "win" and then by more subtle means of vote fraud in the 2004 election.

The very fact that they had to resort to such tactics, however, clearly implies that people can't simply be led around by neurolinguistic tricks.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Actually in all honesty "YES" if I was to go out and run a poll across the whole of the US and the UK, the numbers of people that would actually vote that was responsible, would probably be the same percentage as the numbers you have from your own wacked out story. The reason for this is because some people will pick the wackiest answer in a poll just for the sake of it being wacky.

It doesn't have anything to do with truth, polls never do. In fact with the correct Neural Linguistics any poll can be easily slid in favour of any singular result. This is proven many times with elections.

Stryder, you are just using cliches here without a basis.

 

[KennyJC]

I think the main thing here piskey, is that even with NIST's estimates of the quantity and strength of the concrete and steel on every level, the building simply wasn't going to collapse. Their own initial computer models made that abundantly clear. So, did they consider the possibility that perhaps something other than the planes and fires were involved? No. Instead, they "adjusted the input", as they state in their 2005 report:

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.​

It seems clear to me and many others, however, that the only reality they were thinking of was the reality that, as they state, "the collapse occured"; they seem much less interested in the reality that the fires couldn't have done it. This is clear when we see how they "adjusted" their model: "Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted", they state.

Steven Jones highlights the absurdity of "adjusting" the inputs in this way in his peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?:

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)​

What a staggering display of ignorance by yourself and Steven Jones.

If NIST can't adjust their computer models, then there is no computer model to begin with. NIST were adjusting their models not based upon their own imagination, but based upon what was witnessed by hundreds of photographs and videos.

The buildings displayed obvious damage from the plane and multiple fires were observed, not to mention signs of imminent collapse such as the bowing or leaning of the structures. NIST tried to duplicate all of these effects with their models.

 

[Stryder]

Stryder, you are just using cliches here without a basis.

Funny, The same can be said about the Truther movement, Cliche's with no basis.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It seems clear to me and many others, however, that the only reality they were thinking of was the reality that, as they state, "the collapse occured"; they seem much less interested in the reality that the fires couldn't have done it.

.
But the point is to get EVERYBODY to understand that.

That does not seem to be the NIST's objective.

So the purpose of my 5 story gap simulation would be to show people that the top of the north tower could not have crushed the rest under conditions even worse than the plane could have produced. End this debate with a type of physics demonstration that grade school kids should understand.

psik

 

[scott3x]

I think the main thing here piskey, is that even with NIST's estimates of the quantity and strength of the concrete and steel on every level, the building simply wasn't going to collapse. Their own initial computer models made that abundantly clear. So, did they consider the possibility that perhaps something other than the planes and fires were involved? No. Instead, they "adjusted the input", as they state in their 2005 report:

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.​

It seems clear to me and many others, however, that the only reality they were thinking of was the reality that, as they state, "the collapse occured"; they seem much less interested in the reality that the fires couldn't have done it. This is clear when we see how they "adjusted" their model: "Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted", they state.

Steven Jones highlights the absurdity of "adjusting" the inputs in this way in his peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?:

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)​

What a staggering display of ignorance by yourself and Steven Jones.

If NIST can't adjust their computer models, then there is no computer model to begin with. NIST were adjusting their models not based upon their own imagination, but based upon what was witnessed by hundreds of photographs and videos.

I regret to inform you that the ignorance is all yours. Yes, NIST was "adjusting" the inputs in their models to fit the observed results. The problem is that when you "adjust" the laws of physics, you are no longer dealing with physics; you're dealing with cartoon physics. psikeyhackr brought up this video clip describing the principles of cartoon physics; you may wish to take a look.

The buildings displayed obvious damage from the plane

Yes, obvious damage. But as Bazant and Zhou state in a paper:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.​

Steven Jones concurs. The buildings were definitely not going to come down due to this. Furthermore, the plane damage was relegated to only a few floors.

and multiple fires were observed,

Fires have never taken down a steel framed building. The only time it was even claimed to do so, 3 times, was on 9/11.

not to mention signs of imminent collapse such as the bowing or leaning of the structures.

The bowing of the towers has been explained quite well by mechanical engineer Gordon Ross. Here is the relevant excerpt from his article How the Towers were Demolished:

Phase 1

The object of Phase 1 was to weaken the Tower by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the core structure columns at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

Effects of of phase one

The result of a failure of the core such as this prior to collapse initiation would be to allow the mass of the core and floors above the failure to act downwards on the hat truss and the load would then be transferred to act vertically on the perimeter columns.

The downward movement of the upper disassociated core structure would also allow a horizontal force to act on the mid wall perimeter columns through the floors to cause inward bowing* of the mid wall perimeter columns.​

*emphasis mine.

 

[scott3x]

It seems clear to me and many others, however, that the only reality they were thinking of was the reality that, as they state, "the collapse occured"; they seem much less interested in the reality that the fires couldn't have done it.

But the point is to get EVERYBODY to understand that.

That does not seem to be the NIST's objective.

I've seen this cartoon bandied about and think it's fairly good; we just need to substitute creationist method for NIST's method:

So the purpose of my 5 story gap simulation would be to show people that the top of the north tower could not have crushed the rest under conditions even worse than the plane could have produced. End this debate with a type of physics demonstration that grade school kids should understand.

I believe that Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers has done something like this hasn't he? In any case, I think there is ample evidence that the WTC buildings could only have been brought down by controlled demolition. The main problem is in getting others to recognize it as evidence.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Busting Jeff King's chops on "pyroclastic flow" meme.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3532049

The laws of physics do not give a damn about memes or words. Changing the debate from physics to what words to use or not use is stupid psychological bullshit.

Someone on another site has called my physics demonstration models "toys" like that is going to affect the physics. This crap has dragged on for almost EIGHT YEARS because of this endless rhetorical, debating psychological crap instead of just dealing with the physics. The planes hit the buildings long before the cloud was produced and that cannot be analyzed properly without knowing distribution of mass. One nitwit has claimed that the mass doesn't matter, just the stiffness.

Lying is another debating technique that some people consider acceptable. Truth is irrelevant, just WINNING the DEBATE. but I presume that means keeping the people watching the debate ignorant and confused. Is that why the AUTHORITIES don't produce or even talkabout something as simple as a table with the steel and concrete specified for every level.

I get the impression that people on both sides want to talk about this forever rather than solve it so that most people can understand the solution.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

I believe that Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers has done something like this hasn't he?

.
Not that I have seen. I have not noticed his organization bring up any distribution of mass issue. I asked him about the steel and concrete on every level in May of 2008. He got a surprised look on his face and said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

In the instance of any Scientific investigation it would require people to do a job, a job they aren't being paid for. If you truthers put your money where your mouth is, then you could gain the information that you keep bugging people about, but alas you couldn't give that much of a crap about the information or you'd be out there with a bucket getting other truthers to delve into their pockets to get an "independent" study done.

.
I built two models and made two videos demonstrating the SIMPLE physics of these events.

The NIST spent $20,000,000 and they can't even tell us the quantities and weights of the perimeter wall panels and you have the nerve to talk about a "Scientific Investigation". You don't have the capacity to figure out what a scientific investigation would consist of.

This is more "meme thinking". It's all about "truthers" and "conspiracy theories". Physics ain't about memes.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

It doesn't have anything to do with truth, polls never do. In fact with the correct Neural Linguistics any poll can be easily slid in favour of any singular result. This is proven many times with elections.

Please allow me to give an example so that Scott may understand.

Let's pretend I'm a pollster, and I ask you these questions:

"Do you support a Government program to help feed underprivileged children?"

and

"Do you support giving away your tax dollars to people who refuse to work?"

In both questions, I am asking about the same program. Welfare. Both of these statements are true. Welfare does, in fact help feed needy kids, and there are a certain percentage of people on welfare who are just leeching off the system. The wording is key. Most people would be inclined to answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second.

 

[leopold]

Please allow me to give an example so that Scott may understand.

Let's pretend I'm a pollster, and I ask you these questions:

"Do you support a Government program to help feed underprivileged children?"

and

"Do you support giving away your tax dollars to people who refuse to work?"

In both questions, I am asking about the same program. Welfare. Both of these statements are true. Welfare does, in fact help feed needy kids, and there are a certain percentage of people on welfare who are just leeching off the system. The wording is key. Most people would be inclined to answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second.

this is why i suspect all polls.
they can be worded in such a way as to get the answers you want and appear unbiased.
there is no doubt in my mind the "it was a bomb" movement has used this very tactic.

yeah, "truth" movement my ass.

 

[shaman_]

Fires have never taken down a steel framed building. The only time it was even claimed to do so, 3 times, was on 9/11.

No there have been others. They have been presented to you before but you ignore what you don’t want to see and continue to spread lies.



So have you conceded on the WTC7 squibs Scott?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No there have been others. They have been presented to you before but you ignore what you don’t want to see and continue to spread lies.

You wouldn't be trying to compare the Kader Toy factory collapse in Thailand or the McCormick Place warehouse style roof collapse in Chicago to the steel framed superstructure collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 would you?

 

[KennyJC]

I regret to inform you that the ignorance is all yours. Yes, NIST was "adjusting" the inputs in their models to fit the observed results. The problem is that when you "adjust" the laws of physics, you are no longer dealing with physics; you're dealing with cartoon physics. psikeyhackr brought up this video clip describing the principles of cartoon physics; you may wish to take a look.

I stopped watching that "cartoon physics" video when the guy said the buildings fell in LESS THAN 9 seconds. That's faster than even most troofers believe... cartoon physics indeed.. How ironic.

As for saying NIST adjusted their models beyond the laws of physics, I eagerly await your calculations on this. So far you have simply asserted their models are impossible without putting forward any evidence.

Yes, obvious damage. But as Bazant and Zhou state in a paper:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.​

Yes, well there's quite a bit of difference between a fully layden 767 going at 550mph and a 707 lost in the fog isn't there?

All engineering projects are designed not to fail, and yet, many do. Hindsight is 20-20.

Steven Jones concurs. The buildings were definitely not going to come down due to this. Furthermore, the plane damage was relegated to only a few floors.

What does this have to do with anything? It only takes a single floor to begin to collapse for the rest of the building to be in danger of complete collapse.

Fires have never taken down a steel framed building. The only time it was even claimed to do so, 3 times, was on 9/11.

Fire has taken down numerous steel structures. As for skyscrapers, Tony was only able to supply me with 2 or 3 examples of large fires in steel framed skyscrapers. I shouldn't have to tell you that 2 or 3 examples is not a large sample and shouldn't be extrapolated to 9/11.

The bowing of the towers has been explained quite well by mechanical engineer Gordon Ross.

It's also been explained quite well by NIST, the ASCE and agreed upon by just about every civil engineering organization as well as companies with expertise on testing steel with fire.

Atop of this, there are none of the booms associated with controlled demolitions, and absolutely nothing was found in the pile to indicate this. And no, paint isn't a demolition tool, numbnut.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Please allow me to give an example so that Scott may understand.

Let's pretend I'm a pollster, and I ask you these questions:

"Do you support a Government program to help feed underprivileged children?"

and

"Do you support giving away your tax dollars to people who refuse to work?"

.
But physics is incapable of caring about and is unaffected by psychological bullshit.

When the mass of the airliner hit the south tower would not the result be affected by the mass in the vicinity of the impact and progressively less so by more distant mass? So what is with this psychological bullshit of people not wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the vicinity of the impact. And then trying to give the impression that they are SCIENTIFIC.

Psychological bullshit indeed!

Of course after EIGHT YEARS how can they admit that it is important to a SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS?

psik

 

[KennyJC]

I believe that Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers has done something like this hasn't he?

Yes, just like psikeyhackr, Richard Gage enjoys playing with toys:

 

[MacGyver1968]

.
But physics is incapable of caring about and is unaffected by psychological bullshit.

When the mass of the airliner hit the south tower would not the result be affected by the mass in the vicinity of the impact and progressively less so by more distant mass? So what is with this psychological bullshit of people not wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the vicinity of the impact. And then trying to give the impression that they are SCIENTIFIC.

Psychological bullshit indeed!

Of course after EIGHT YEARS how can they admit that it is important to a SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS?

psik

Still spamming your same old shit Psi? Geez..broken record...like the rest of this thread. I really hope Stryder comes to his senses and shuts this inane waste of bandwidth down.

 

[Oli]

All engineering projects are designed not to fail

That is pure nonsense.
Engineering projects are designed to handle set conditions, and expected to fail if those conditions are exceeded or approached and combined with other factors (which may or may not have been considered or foreseen).
Why do you think engineers developed the concepts of "fail-safe", "safety factors" and "graceful degradation" among others?