Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Missing Steel...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:01 PM
Original message
Missing Steel...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. That piece of steel has always been at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute
It appeared in the recent BBC special on tower 7. It has NEVER been missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. the steel that's really missing is in the pieces
that contained the scientific data necessary to provide a mathematical model for the actual collapse sequence. all of the idiots posting here about "truthers" have no idea about engineering or what computer visualizations are all about. If they did they would question the fact that the structural steel was discarded before the official "pancake theory" was scientifically proven. Anybody who claims they know what happened is an intellectual lightweight or is jumping to conclusions for ideological reasons. No one KNOWS what actually happened because the evidence was discarded before anything of consequence could have been proven. AND THAT'S the SMOKING GUN!

http://www.nce.co.uk/wtc-investigators-resist-call-for-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No, that steel is not.
About 1% of the steel was saved and used to make sure the steel was built to specs. The tests done on that steel was used to build the computer modeling of the NIST reports on the towers.

And that steel is still in a hanger at JFK Airport. It was recently featured on the National Geographic special.

So you are quite wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. what a big fat non-sequitur!
I am talking about the pieces in the structure that would have allowed to provide a finite element analysis of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE SEQUENCE. What the NIST report has is a finite element model of the aircraft crash and the fuel dispersion ie events BEFORE the actual collapse. You are not only ignorant and intellectually dishonest but you didn't even bother to address my point. I doubt you even read the New Civil Engineer article I posted a link to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Why would anyone need to model the ACTUAL COLLAPSE SEQUENCE?
To get you to find the Cap Locks key on your keyboard? I can't think of another reason. Once you know why something that big gets started moving, the reason why things in its way are torn apart becomes obvious.

The NIST report also models the behavior of the structure up to and into the collapse initiation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. perhaps in ballet and busshit school that's all you need
in science and engineering when you make outrageous claims that are seemingly against all laws of physics you usually prove your point. Again, read the article and get a brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. NIST did prove their point beyond your feeble personal incredulity. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Wouldn't you model it to make sure it behaves the way the model says it will?
Is it not part of the scientific model to check your results????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Not the actual collapse sequence.
NIST modeled the behavior of the structure up to collapse, to find out what happened to get that upper section started. They used the actual steel to make sure the steel was built to spec. It was.

I don't think you understand just how sophisticated computer modeling in the engineering world has become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. But what if the top section did not fall the way it did in the video? Wouldn't that tell ..
them something was wrong with the model?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. How do you know it didn't? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Nobody knows because they did not model it. If i developed a vacine I would not..
just come up with it and say my model is correct. I would test it to make sure it worked as i thought it would.
This seems like a very basic point to be arguing about. If my model is correct the building falls as it did in the video.
But to know that you have to model it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. THERE IS NO MODEL OF THE PANCAKE THEORY
and that's the article's point. Yes, modeling has come far, we can even model huge non linear systems such as the whole planet's climate: orders of magnitude more complex than the pancake theory. Even the jet fuel dispersion model provided by NIST is more complex than the pancake, yet there is no model of how buildings "pancake". The NIST report actually explains why: they didn't have enough data for it. That's why some professionals are asking for it. It's a way of asking "why did you destroy evidence" without appearing to be political which could be bad for academic careers nowadays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. You understand the pancake explanation of how the collapses started is no longer operative, right?
You keep saying THE PANCAKE THEORY like it's something still being argued.

Of course, after the collapse started, the floors started pancaking. There was nothing else for them to do. But the collapses didn't start because of pancaking. You do understand that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. read the article
"There was nothing else for them to do." that's exactly what has to be proven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I read the article - back in 2005.
Tell me, has the fuss by engineers grown or subsided in the four years since that article was published?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Hmmm. That's not what I remember the NIST report saying.
I thought they couldn't get their post-initiation collapse model to converge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I am not at all surprised about that either.
It seems horrifically unlikely that they could get much of anything worth a damn out of the model post initiation. Way too chaotic. Loads of stuff going on.
Besides which, once the collapse is initiated I am not sure what question you are supposed to be answering. The engineering community knows quite well what happens next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Exactly - it's not that interesting of a engineering question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. The question that would be answered is, IS YOUR MODEL CORRECT!
I mean this seems dumbassed to the extreme. Its not too complex to take into account fires you do not really know the peak temp of that weakened steel to an extent you do not know.
Planes that did damage that nobody really knows the extent of to base your model on. But it is TOOOOOOOOO complex to see if that model works out the way
you think it should? What if the towers top section indeed falls according to the NIST model but it falls sideways instead of straight down?
That would mean the models numbers were wrong. But we will never know because NIST did not take it that far.
And THIS IS THE SCIENCE YOU BASE THE OFFICIAL STORY ON?
Science that cannot be verified is BS science and thus cannot stand up to scrutiny.
FAIL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. dumbassed to the extreme"?
That's quite amusing, even if misplaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. I am very sorry that...
you do not understand the first thing about the complexities of FEA modeling of something like the WTC collapse. However, yelling and bellyaching about it will not increase your understanding of them in any way. Nor will it make you look intelligent.

In point of fact if someone modeled the full collapse of the WTC I would be immediately extremely suspicious of their results.

If you ask nicely AZCat might help you understand the issues of modeling a chaotic highly non-linear system.

In addition I agree that it would not answer any interesting engineering question. Your personal opinion aside it would not in fact verify the existing model for the collapse initiation. And the engineering and scientific communities know quite well what happens after the collapse begins. While it might be entertaining and an interesting modeling problem to create a working model for the first seconds after the initiation it would be strictly an exercise in improving modeling and quite likely it is theoretically impossible. Certainly a full collapse model is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Is it more complex than the FEA modeling of the entire Earth's Climate Balance?!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2l6182m77p590515 /

Is it more complex than computational electromagnetics to determine the scattering of a cell tower signal in an urban environment?! I don't think so. As a matter of fact their models describing the aircraft impact is more complex than the model of a "progressive collapse" would have been. You don't need absolute prediction accuracy for the whole model. I would have been happy with the 1st 3 seconds ;)

One would think it's an extremely relevant engineering discovery that 100% of the buildings weakened by random fires collapsed into their footprints that day. I for one would be fascinated to see a couple hundred runs of such model under different input data to see what are the odds of that happening. Perhaps demolition crews can learn not to waste all the time and money figuring out how to place demolition charges with mathematical precision so that the results look exactly like we saw that day...just a thought but perhaps I am just too stupid to get all the official sounding sophism and bs science ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I see you think the buildings collapsed into their own footprint.
Seeing as you are completely deluded as to the most basic facts I do not think I will be taking your personal word for it that the FEA of even the first 3 seconds of the collapse is even possible much less wither it would be of interest from an engineering standpoint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I see, so you have nothing to say
thanks for playing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. What an interesting way of admitting you are wrong about a basic factual issue. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. you are obviously deluded
there is no professional demolition team that could have brought down those 3 buildings with more precision and less collateral damage in the middle of Manhattan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Even if I gave you that...
your statement that they fell within their own footprint would be factually incorrect and misleading.

If you throw around statements like that it is no wonder people do not take your criticisms seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
szatmar666 Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. again: you are refering to the structural impact damage models
Edited on Wed Sep-09-09 08:29 AM by szatmar666
of the core subsystems in WTC1 and 2. Those did not converge. I am referring to the complete lack of modeling when it comes to the actual collapse sequence itself. For instance NIST admits that they couldn't do any statistical analysis on the failure modes of the core columns which would have been necessary for such modeling because they only recovered parts of 12 core columns, 4 from the damage zone.

"Due to the small number of samples, statistical data of the various damage features and failure modes would be irrelevant"

"In the two buildings, there were 329 core columns, each three stories tall, traversing floors involved in the impact and pre-collapse fires. NIST has portions of four of these columns, which represent 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with damage from the impact or fires. Thus, while these pieces allow for some assessment of damage, the following forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a full and accurate picture of the type and amount of damage sustained by the vast majority of core columns".

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components page 197
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm


In other words "the dog ate my homework"...now, correct me if I am wrong but we had 100% of the steel recovered from the site. It's not like finding an o-ring in a 100 mile debris field after the Challenger disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC