9/11 Poll

.
I have emailed the NIST and Purdue already. No response from either one. Why can't you figure out what information is necessary to solve the problem? Why haven't you demanded the information long before now? It has been over SEVEN YEARS!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2278821&postcount=1114

I notice no one responded to my analogy. One paint can equals 10 stories of the WTC.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
Where did you spoonfeed anybody any information about the weights of exterior wall panels. Those wall panels all look alike in the floor plans. The south tower moved more than 12 inches at the level where the plane hit. There were 76 panels around the tower at every 3 levels. We don't know the weights of the panels at that level but at 10 tons per that would be 760 TONS. The plane was less than 150. I see why you said nothing about my paint cans.

So why do you respect the experts at the NIST who leave out the obviously necessary information?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and it is impossible for you to be overlooking anything, right?

i think it does tony. there was nothing found "painted" on the girders, the chips that were found had to come from such a source. nor was anything found in the rubble to indicate explosives despite raking through it looking for human remains.

everyone heard the phrase uttered by rather that day "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
the "people" you mentioned were firemen, cops, investigators, and reporters.
you are telling me that these people aren't going to be looking for something suspicious?
as far as "forensic testing" goes, a fireman can tell you if a blaze was intentionally set without any forensic testing. my van caught on fire, after the blaze was out the lead fireman ask me if i had insurance on the van. i asked why. he said it was intentionally set. no forensic tests whatsoever, no other signs either like an empty gas can. the decision was made right there on the scene, nothing sent to any lab.
i think it's over the top on your part to assume these people "weren't looking and therefor didn't see".

this can be explained if NIST "knew" the cause.
"it was a bomb" movement will automatically assume bombs.
i on the other hand submit that architects and engineers were well aware of this designs inability to resist a catastrophic collapse.
this scenario also explains psikeys "missing data".

like i said above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy, you asked psikey if he had ever considered asking NIST for certain information; he answers your question and you say it's not your problem. You're right, it's not. It is the answer to your question though. Perhaps you'd forgotten you'd asked?

Fair enough; however, how good of an understanding of structural engineering do you have? Have you written any peer reviewed papers on the subject, as Tony Szamboti has?

 

A few points:

1. I find nothing "mind numblingly stupid" about my statement.

2. I really don't think saying something so insulting is in any way helping this discussion.

3. The fact that you found the information on a conspiracy site suggests that their conclusions from the given data were radically different than your own.

Physicist Steven Jones and others have already made pointed out many flaws in NIST's report of the WTC collapses. Here's a good paper from Steven Jones to get you started:
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

Trippy, unlike Tony, who's a mechanical engineer with a good understanding of structural engineering, you're a chemist. That may be good for figuring out whether nano thermites may have been involved, but there are many structural issues where I think that Tony simply outclasses you. Admittedly, you have made arguments that have sounded plausible to me at first. However, I have seen that time and again Tony has sliced through them.

Trippy, are you even aware that the only people who apparently know the specifics of NIST's computer simulation settings is NIST itself? Steven Jones, in the aforementioned paper, addresses the issue quite well on page 37:

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very "severe" cases, called B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence", although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached... ​

(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is "poised for collapse", thus ignoring any data from that time on:

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...​

(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were "poised for collapse". Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are "adjusted", perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. A hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies all the evidence is most probably correct.​

 

I think it rather unlikely that you would be harassed by conspiracy theorists of any stripe; you're a chemist, not the president or even a politician it seems. It also seems that you weren't at all involved in the official 9/11 investigation; I haven't even seen any evidence that you've written a peer reviewed paper on the subject.

Trippy, last I checked -you- were the one accusing -me- of being 'mind numblingly stupid', but I only asked you if you'd written any papers on 9/11; you didn't have to cite them, I just wanted to know if you'd gone (or claimed to have gone) that far. I don't think anyone here is disputing that Tony has.

 

Clearly yourself, nor Stephen Jones understand what NIST was trying to do with its models... Instead you stand by like a creationist whinging about gaps in the fossil record. You don't need a COMPLETE record in science to understand a basic dominant theory.

Let this be a perfect example of how tin hatters like yourself twist and distort quotes to try to fit your irrational beliefs rather than what the person (or NIST) was actually talking about. You can read NIST's letter for yourself to read the comment put back into context, at 911proof.com/NIST.pdf (it's the last paragraph on page 3, continuing onto page 4):

"NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution. ... As we mentioned previously, we are not able to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

The 10,000 page NIST report describes in great depth exactly what caused the buildings to collapse, but ends when the top section of the buildings falls and "global collapse" begins. At this point, the collapse itself was so chaotic that it is IMPOSSIBLE for even the most powerful supercomputers to map exactly the distribution of each column as it fell, exactly what proportion of the concrete was pulverized on each floor, which parts of the building landed where, and so on. No enormous building has ever collapsed like this before. Nor would it be necessary to map the collapse itself to understand WHY they collapsed.

The purpose of the NIST report is for engineers to better understand the events leading to the collapse, to design better buildings in the future. Once a building is in the process of collapsing, providing a map of the column distributions isn't going to help anything or help prevent future failures. But, again, even if someone did want to know the path each column took and so on, it would be impossible to investigate this. What the letter is saying is that their computer models are unable to provide a full explanation of the TOTAL collapse, not the events leading up to and including the beginning of the collapse.

Please stop ignoring the 10 story apartment building that also did this DUE TO FIRE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

You are continuing to ignore the fact that these "squibs" did everything that real squibs from demolitions do not do. This can only mean you are a liar.

Squibs from bombs are so fast as to be instant, accompanied by explosions heard for miles and also accompanied by flashes. None of this was observed with these "squibs" of yours. So any time you mention them in support of your tin hat beliefs, it simply makes you a liar.​

 

Look, if you think the comment was flawed, why don't you just say that? What is the point of using terms like 'mind numbingly stupid'? All they generally do is inflame a discussion or annoy the other person into leaving the discussion.

My point is that they have the data, and they have concluded that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. Don't you think this suggests that it was, in fact, controlled demolition? Furthermore, don't you think it strange that it's apparently easier to find important information on conspiracy sites then in government sites?

I had a feeling you'd say something like that, which is why I brought an excerpt of it in my last post as well as just linking to it...

If you want to hear the official story, there are plenty of sites for that. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is focused on serious work, however, not just something that that is politically correct. They certainly have many letters responding to various official story published articles. The founders of the Journal for 9/11 studies have certainly been published elsewhere. Steven Jones, for example, has been published in both Scientific American and Nature before 9/11 even occurred. Many of the authors of the papers at their site have certainly been published elsewhere as well. The fact that the mainstream media pays so little attention to their excellent work should be reason for concern.

Unlike you Trippy, I have not called any of your statements "mind numbingly stupid". If anyone is attacking here, it's you. I simply pointed out that I believe your understanding of structural engineering is probably rather limited. In any case, I'm glad that you have knowledge of how things deform and flow. Perhaps Tony would be able to assess how knowledge of such a thing would affect your understanding of structural engineering. I don't, but it seems clear from my limited contact with you that there are already some things that you don't seem to understand.

Did you notice -why- Jones brings up this point? It's all there in my post.

 

think again scott.
there are cast members of "star trek the next generation" that refuse to go to conventions because of nutballs.
terrorism, plain and simple.

 

Don't blow a gasket there Trippy...

I didn't say that, so please don't put it in double quotes. Single quotes would be better, but it's not even a good paraphrase so wouldn't even apply there. I said that I doubt that you have the knowledge concerning structural engineering that Tony has. I never said that this made you "automatically wrong".

I've read the work of physicists, such as Steven Jones. I quote a passage from a peer reviewed paper of his and all you can say is that he "laments" the fact that NIST doesn't model anything after the towers are supposedly "poised" for collapse? Next time, I hope you can actually read enough to determine why I bring up the point. It wasn't -that- much text.

Look Trippy, I made the statement. You can go on about how you were just commenting on my statement, but statements I make are a part of me. I think it's clear that you were dead wrong in your claim, but the most important point is, if you disagree with a statement a person makes, the best thing to do is to simply say that the statement is flawed (very flawed if you like) and then proceed to explain why. To use base insults such as the ones you used to describe my statement doesn't do anything but inflame the discussion.

 

Not again. Must you always use such crass language?

I'm attacking nothing; I'm simply stating that I believe your knowledge of structural engineering is rather limited. Do you see -me- use words such as "bullshit" and "mind numblingly stupid"? I think not.

Is the truth concerning 9/11 something that only I would benefit from?

Perhaps Tony can address this point; I know that Steven Jones brings up the fact that the WTC 7 had assymetrical loadings and yet the building fell down symetrically, but I don't know about the twin towers.

Perhaps Tony could, I admit I can't at present.

What, pray tell, do you believe he took out of context? I have a strong feeling you really didn't digest what you read. I will once once again quote the reason that he felt this point was so important, bolding the punchline:

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were "poised for collapse". Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are "adjusted", perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. A hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies all the evidence is most probably correct.​

Probably because you've read so little of Steven Jones' work, and truly understood even less.