Think NIST was wrong? Here's your chance to prove it!

[anigbrowl]

After arguing with someone who kept complaining about the lack of real data etc. etc. in another thread, I decided to call them on their bullshit, and after some thought I decided that an edited version of that call deserved its own thread. Here, as a public service to all those who complain about NIST and the Official Conspiracy Theory etc. etc., are all the tools you need to perform your very own analysis of what happened in the WTC and show the world why NIST and the OCTers are so very wrong. Or not.


The collection of NIST reports on the WTC is here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1 /

NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations

NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 *

NIST NCSTAR 1-9: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 *


Need the original data, but don't want to type it all in from the report? You can get lots of it here: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-sources-for-wtc-1-2

Not only does this include SAP2000 data files (which may have to be converted for use in other software), it also includes multiple spreadsheets breaking out all that data, and a ton of architectural drawings - eg the floor plans for every single floor of the WTC towers, and more.

Here's one at random...


You can go right up to huge resolutions of several megapixels.


Two Separate reports address the file and collapse in WTC 1 + 2 and WTC 7 respectively. The one for the towers is http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6C.pdf It goes into exquisite detail about source data, modeling methodology, formulas employed, finite element model construction, and just about everything else you would need. This is the one that the most people seem to have the greatest interest in. The other reports go into similar levels of detail.

Oh, you say, but without knowing how those formulas actually go into the computer software how can we possibly evaluate, you don't have sufficient time or graph paper to do all those calculations by hand or you can't type them all into Excel or translate the structural engineering data into some freely available modeling software like Blender.

What do NIST use? For structural stuff, the use SAP2000 and ANSys.
SAP2000 http://www.csiberkeley.com/
ANsys http://www.ansys.com/


Of course, these are hugely expensive pieces of software normally purchased only by large-scale engineering companies, but you know what, many engineering students would probably like to lay around with the industry standard software package in order to be more employable and so you can download a copy of Ansys at the Pirate Bay: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4767774/Ansys_11_Window... ...there are also Linux versions and so on available there. The latest one there is version 11 but I'm sure you'll cope, since that's probably what the NIST people used - I believe Version 12 was only released this year. Here's some basic info from Wikipedia:

ANSYS, Inc. is an engineering simulation software provider founded by software engineer John Swanson. It develops general-purpose finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics software. While ANSYS has developed a range of computer-aided engineering (CAE) products, it is perhaps best known for its ANSYS Mechanical and ANSYS Multiphysics products.
ANSYS Mechanical and ANSYS Multiphysics software are non exportable analysis tools incorporating pre-processing (geometry creation, meshing), solver and post-processing modules in a graphical user interface. These are general-purpose finite element modeling packages for numerically solving mechanical problems, including static/dynamic structural analysis (both linear and non-linear), heat transfer and fluid problems, as well as acoustic and electro-magnetic problems.
ANSYS Mechanical technology incorporates both structural and material non-linearities. ANSYS Multiphysics software includes solvers for thermal, structural, CFD, electromagnetics, and acoustics and can sometimes couple these separate physics together in order to address multidisciplinary applications. ANSYS software can also be used in civil engineering, electrical engineering, physics and chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

Need some 3d context for a reference? Numerous 3d models for popular packages are available for free or a modest purchase price.

http://home.earthlink.net/~alprojects/wtc/index.html
http://www.greatbuildings.com/models/World_Trade_Center_mod.html < free!
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=45751

Blender is a very powerul and free open source 3d modeling program, compatible with all major 3d formats. You can do physics simulation in it too, but bear in mind that it's primarily oriented for graphical rather than structural work so you shouldn't depend on it for serious analysis.

http://www.blender.org/

So now, you have all the structural data, you have all the methodological data, you have 3d data and I've even told you where you get the actual software NIST used for analyzing simulating the response of large building under catastrophic stress, so you have all the necessary tools too. Now, you have no more excuses. The data, the methodologies and the tools are mere mouse clicks away. By tomorrow, you could be examining a virtual WTC in your very own computer and performing your very own finite element analyses, simulating (or rendering pictures) of what would happen if it were thermite or missiles or or what-all else.

Go for it. I'm sure there will be a FLOOD of new material now that you have so much technical data to play with, and I invite DUers to keep this thread kicked so everyone can see the exciting new analytical material, complete with pictures.

[Ohio Joe]

1. Excellent

I'm sure those claiming all this is being hidden from them will jump right in and show us the correct model now. I'm having a hard time deciding which I look forward to seeing the most... the mini-nuke model or the laser beams from space model.

[szatmar666]

2. how does a 3 story high vertical beam "pancake" under vertical load?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x262795#266961

"WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (see page 10).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations."

http://www.nce.co.uk/wtc-investigators-resist-call-for-collapse-visualisation/537313.article

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Again with this story from 2005?

What have they said lately?

[szatmar666]

4. again: forget "the strory" ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[anigbrowl]

7. That was 2005. I believe the relevant data has since been released.

[szatmar666]

5. let me help you out

This is what I am looking for:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

This is a nice model of the pancake theory. Except it's not tied to any data from actual WTC samples. In other words when he explains that this is how 3 story high core columns buckled under vertical stress he does not have a statistically significant sample of actual WTC columns to determine that this particular failure mode was in fact what the WTC towers experienced. That's why this is just as speculative as simply stating that it was controlled demolition.

Both speculations could be correct, problem: neither is PROVEN! But in essence this is the type of explanation that would tie the "progressive collapse" theory to actual physics.

The reason such model cannot be constructed is because the evidence was since then destroyed & therefore as NIST will tell you such model CANNOT be created EVER!

"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

[szatmar666]

6. 1 more thing

of the 2 competing theories: "progressive collapse" vs. "controlled demolition" only the latter was ever seen to produce the results we saw on 9/11! So if anything the government's own speculation is the shaky one until another building collapses somewhere in the world just like the 3 towers that day and we are lucky enough to have all the relevant data collected before the steel is shipped and melted down in some communist country.

[anigbrowl]

8. Fine, make your own simulation, you have plenty of data now.

Talk is cheap, and now you have acces to the same kind of data and tools NIST had. So you don't need to reference youtube videos any more, you can conduct your own analyses and show us why your theory makes more sense.

[lovepg]

9. Hey where can I get access to same kind of funding NIST had? Then i could spend

ALL my time finding the holes in their report.

[anigbrowl]

10. Start a website, solicit donations

Amazingly, the vast bulk of software for Linux is written by volunteers working in their spare time, even though they didn't have access to the huge corporate resources that AT&T had while developing Unix. A few thousand people donating a few hours each can achieve amazing things. This is exactly what that WTC Modeling site linked to in the OP is doing, acting as an organizational hub for people who want to volunteer in order to create a public resource.

In the meantime, you do not need any big injections of cash to get started, as long as you have a few gigabytes of hard disk space free on your computer.

[lovepg]

11. So the government could have saved us all those tax dollars that went to the NIST

staff???? So just a little hard drive space and a few thousand volunteers is all you need?
Wow what do wanna bet if we come back with our results that question the Nist report you will say ..
How do expect me to take a bunch of volunteers with a little hard drive space seriously?

[anigbrowl]

13. It's up to you...keep grouching, or put in some work

Tell me, have you ever made any effort to deal with any data at all? Downloaded ANY 3d models, eg for Google Sketchup, which is free? Anything?

I will be perfectly happy to examine results that contradict the NIST report, or examine models that simulate alternative theories or simulations. If the methodology used is properly documented, then it will be just as worthy of study in my view. See, the essence of science is that you document your process and then keep improving it so that others can duplicate your results.

That's why I've aggregated the information in the OP, and I'll probably add more resources from time to time. Right now you have enough information in your hands to get started doing something. In fact, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth also have a ton of blueprints and even more (electrical drawings for example) on their website. They too are seeking volunteers, for everything from Web app developers to marketing coordinators. http://www.ae911truth.org/volunteer.php

Although you can get all sorts of stuff like DVDs and so on from them, for some reason they don't have any 3d models on their website. I wonder why? Perhaps you can help, or encourage them to produce some if you don't have the skills.

[lovepg]

18. Well that all sounds great and sign me up and all but ohhhh wait i am not an engineer..

well I guess that makes my opinion worthless because only self professed internet engineers get to know what the TRUTH is.
So I am the one "whining"even though you proclaim to have the truth the answers and the skill needed to see the real truth.
And when we ask questions you cannot answer the best you got is. Well you tell US what happened. Paragraphs complaining of our lazyiness
might serve to coverup the sloppiness of the original investigation in your book, but you might be better served directing your vitrial it at the people
who did the original lazy scientific work at NIST.Then you would not be stuck trying to defend lazy science by telling everyone else to redo their work for them.

[Ohio Joe]

19. But you are not really asking questions

You are making claims. First you claimed the model was not valid because you were not being shown the data, it was being hidden from you. That was untrue. The truth is you never looked for it. It has been in plain sight all along. Now you claim their work was lazy and sloppy. Prove it. You now have what they had, build the model that shows how lazy and sloppy they were and how the plane crash, the explosion of the plane and the resulting fires were not enough.

[lovepg]

24. The data I asked for is still not being shown.....

Why they made the fires hotter than they were to get the damage level to the steel to be greater?
People walked down the staircase in the south tower after the plane hit. And it was not very hot at all in the very area where NIST claims fires hot enough to weaken the tensile strength of steel were occuring.
On the floors where the plane hit. I want the data on how they arrived at the number of columns taken out by the plane in the south tower. More columns were taken out by that plane than the one that hit the north tower,
according to Nist. But a great portion of the plane exited out the side in the fireball after the plane hit.
I have not seen the answers YET to these questions in the NIST report.
These are the "claims" you claim I have been making. I call them questions.
And it is sloppy work on NISTS part to not have answers to these questions readily available which they must have known would be raised by their report.
If you can address these claims from the NIST report I would appreciate answers to these questions.
I have as of yet been unable to find them. The NIST report will often tell you what they did but not the reasoning for what they did.

[Ohio Joe]

25. Moving the bar again... sheesh

The google, it is your friend, at least make an attempt to find things. Endless demands for other people to do your searches for you is really tiresome... talk about lazy and sloppy.

[lovepg]

27. Time to put up or STFU...

Talk about tiresome you are a self described defender of the NIST report.
You portray yourself as someone who is knowledgable about this subject who has run the numbers has checked it all out.
So stop putting it off and answer my questions or admit you and NIST do not have them.
Its that frigging simple.

[Ohio Joe]

34. Time to learn to use google or STFU

Point to where I've claimed any of the things you say I did... Well... oh gee, I never claimed any of that did I. Typical truther bullshit, if you don't spoon feed them shit they are to lazy to do a five minute search on, they declare it does not exist.

[lovepg]

45. still no answer. you got nothing!

surprise.

[Ohio Joe]

46. So you still have claims you can't back up

Plus you are still unable to find what you have. Surprise.

[lovepg]

64. still no answer, Your mama, i am rubber your glue. ect ect ect.

[Ohio Joe]

65. Typical truther nonsense

Gonna back up your claims now or just post more random crap?

[lovepg]

67. Typical official story name calling, obfuscation and avoidance! .....

[Ohio Joe]

68. Your confused still

You have what you wanted, you just refuse to look at it. Right now, you made some accusations and we are awaiting your ability to back them up... but you can't so you fall into typical truther non-sense.

[lovepg]

69. My still is not confused. Its not capable of it.

[Ohio Joe]

72. Truthers never put up evidence

They make bullshit claims and instead of putting up their evidence or admitting they were wrong they play games. Go round and round, just like religious nuts, the similarities are amazing.

[lovepg]

73. hello is anybody in there?????

you seem to have a problem just like Bush apologists do with people asking you questions you cannot answer.
the simularities are amazing...

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. I'm invoking a variant of Godwin's law

Every DU flame war ends in someone spewing BS about "Bush apologists." Congratulations for making it there first.

Now, if you have a criticism of the NIST report, a credible thing to do would be to cite the portion of the report you're critiquing. But if that's too hard, hey, whatever.

[lovepg]

79. Hey he went all creationist on me!! nt

[Ohio Joe]

76. I can not make you look

Despite your refusal to look at what you seek, you have still to address you false claims at all.

[lovepg]

80. Oh please..

[szatmar666]

20. not just lazy: criminal!

Somebody should go to jail for destroying evidence before they collected enough data. By now people like Steven Jones and other independent academics should have unlimited access to core columns from consecutive floors so they can see for themselves that NONE of the columns were cut with thermite. We have all the right to accuse the gov with a coverup and reopen investigations.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. ?!

You've gone from requiring "a statistically significant sample of actual WTC columns" in post #5 (whatever that means -- can a sample be statistically significant?), to "a statistically relevant sample from thousands of core columns but at the very least 50-100" in #12, to "unlimited access to core columns from consecutive floors so they can see for themselves that NONE of the columns were cut with thermite" in post #20. I wonder where you'll be by post #50, if we get that far.

[szatmar666]

22. you give a new meaning to taking words out of context

I always said what I am saying now you can see it in other threads too, like the one titled "Missing Steel". Just because you have the attention span of a trout it doesn't mean I am the one who makes no sense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x262795#266533

[szatmar666]

23. show me 2 posts that are contradictory in your mind

when I said statistically "significant sample" that's a direct quote from the NIST report post #12 and #5 do not contradict each other. show me the information that's not accurate in any of my posts and we can talk. Everybody posting here will have a post #1-#X or now you require me to copy and paste every previous post I ever wrote into my new posts?! Are u nuckin futts?!

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. "that's a direct quote from the NIST report"

What is, exactly, and where is it from? I can't find that phrase in NCSTAR 1, in NCSTAR 1-3, or anywhere on wtc.nist.gov.

Less sputtering and more sense would serve you well.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. in other words, you misquoted NIST, and it's my fault

Oh-kay.

[szatmar666]

30. I quoted NIST correctly you just don't have anything of substance to say about the paragraph itself

So you have to nitpick and try to get me on wording. Fact is the quote means that there is "no statistically significant amount of samples available to prove anything about the failure modes of the vast majority of the columns". That's what it means and that's all I was saying too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. it's difficult to converse with people who don't concede that words have meanings

First you used the phrase "statistically significant sample," which would have to raise questions in anyone's mind whether you've actually studied statistics -- but never mind that.

Then, you asserted, "when I said statistically 'significant sample' that's a direct quote from the NIST report," which appears to be simply false.

Now, you still insist, "I quoted NIST correctly," at the same time as you complain that I "have to nitpick and try to get me on wording." Maybe you aren't familiar with the meaning of the word "quote." Insisting that you "quoted NIST correctly," when you quite obviously didn't, is bizarre.

What you apparently intend to say is that you paraphrased NIST correctly. I think we can all agree that one can't statistically infer very much from four significant pieces of core columns. It is, whether you realize it or not, a long way from there to demanding proof to Steven Jones's satisfaction "that NONE of the columns were cut with thermite." How could that ever be proven?

[szatmar666]

32. you are lost in your own maze of bullshit

What the quote is saying is that there is no way to infer anything of consequence about the way the vast majority of core columns failed. Statistically 1% is not significant. If they examined 5-10% of all core columns in a specific area, let's say the impact zone, and a majority of them failed in a way that's consistent with some hypothesis of how the building collapsed that theory would be corroborated by forensic evidence. Not enough samples collected means no theory about a global collapse mechanism can EVER be corroborated. that's all.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. you're the one who blew the quotation and then insisted you didn't

I don't know why.

If they examined 5-10% of all core columns in a specific area, let's say the impact zone, and a majority of them failed in a way that's consistent with some hypothesis of how the building collapsed that theory would be corroborated by forensic evidence. Not enough samples collected means no theory about a global collapse mechanism can EVER be corroborated.

This analysis appears squirrelly in several ways.

1. NIST concluded that at least three of the four core column parts they actually were able to examine did fail in ways consistent with the aircraft impact damage analysis in 1-2A, and thus the prevailing hypothesis. That isn't proof, but it does corroborate the hypothesis. (Of course, you have your own personal, secret definition of "quote," so I suppose I really don't know what you mean by "corroborate." Hint: it is nowhere near "prove.")

2. Your example of "5-10%" makes very little sense. The power of a statistical sample depends essentially on absolutely how large it is, usually very little on the proportion. Perhaps you have in mind some absolute sample size, and perhaps you have in mind some effect size (how many columns would need to have been demolished?), but I can't read your mind.

3. Even if "a majority" of inspected columns failed in a way consistent with some hypothesis, a single column inconsistent with the hypothesis -- for instance, a column with unambiguous evidence of "highly engineered nanothermite" -- might suffice to reject it. On the other side of the analysis, it's not clear what you would count as evidence for the NIST hypothesis, apart from the absence of evidence for an alternative.

4. I'm not sure what your last claim is supposed to mean, but forensic analysis of core columns is not the only way to corroborate an explanation.

[szatmar666]

39. ok, I "blew the quotation" but you don't understand the substance of it

Let's try again.

"Due to the small number of samples, statistical data of the various damage features and failure modes would be irrelevant"
Meaning because there are not enough samples you can't possibly find out what percent of the core columns failed in what way making it impossible to prove any global collapse mechanism.

"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. "
Meaning the 4 columns represent 1% and they are not enough to extrapolate how the rest of the 325 most likely failed. I was just guessing that about 20 would be sufficient, but I could be wrong, perhaps 50 are needed anyway that's irrelevant because it's clear from the text: NIST thinks 4 ie. 1% is NOT enough!

"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".
Meaning there is no way these 12 columns are enough to tell us how a few thousand most likely failed. BTW if you have an idea about some alternative forensic evidence (an alternative to the main structural elements of the building itself) that could just as well corroborate a hypothesis about the building's progressive collapse I am all ears!

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

Which sentence you want me to explain more?! I think it's rather self explanatory. I am talking about how the towers came down, NIST prefers to avoid that topic and concentrate on the aircraft impact. I just pointed out the place in their report that explains why. The hypothesis I am looking to corroborate has to do with the collapse mechanism, not the aircraft impact. I also think Steven Jones has the same problem: not enough forensic evidence to prove his case, it's tough for him to establish a valid chain of custody for instance and 1 column is not enough because people would say it was cut by the cleanup crew or just make something up. He needs a sample large enough to prove columns all over the building were cut with thermite. It would be really hard to create 150 excuses.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. What was the primary reason NIST collected steel?

Since you have the PDF open and all.

[szatmar666]

51. NIST did NOT "collect steel"

at least not in a way anything of consequence could be determined from it. That was my point.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Yes, they did.

From the pages you were quoting, NIST explained their primary reason for doing so.

Can you tell me what that primary reason was? If you need to reopen the PDF and find your place again, we can wait.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. huh?

"NIST thinks 4 ie. 1% is NOT enough!"

For what, specifically? Not to calculate meaningful sample statistics, certainly. Not to "give a full and accurate picture of the type and amount of damage sustained by the vast majority of core columns," indeed. What is necessary in order to accept a particular collapse mechanism? You seem very vague about this central topic.

"BTW if you have an idea about some alternative forensic evidence (an alternative to the main structural elements of the building itself) that could just as well corroborate a hypothesis about the building's progressive collapse I am all ears!"

Well, Jones and Harrit claim to have some.

"I am talking about how the towers came down, NIST prefers to avoid that topic and concentrate on the aircraft impact."

NIST tries to explain why the towers came down, or as you put it later, the collapse mechanism. I think it's nonsensical to say that it prefers to "concentrate on the aircraft impact."

There's something to your comment that if Jones found one column cut by thermite, people would not be convinced. (Well, it would go somewhat better if a credible scholar found one column cut by thermite.) But if that is the only way to support the thermite hypothesis, can't I infer that we don't need the thermite hypothesis to account for the available evidence? If so, I have to wonder why some people get so excited about it. If not, why not?

[szatmar666]

52. you seem to be unable to comprehend simple sentences

"For what, specifically? Not to calculate meaningful sample statistics, certainly. Not to "give a full and accurate picture of the type and amount of damage sustained by the vast majority of core columns," indeed. What is necessary in order to accept a particular collapse mechanism? You seem very vague about this central topic."

"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".

What does the expression "the vast majority of core columns" mean in your opinion?! If you don't know how a vast majority of teh main structural elements of a building failed how can you say anything of consequence about its collapse?!

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. you're not really very good at this discussion stuff, are you?

NIST states that the first of the four primary objectives of the investigation was to determine "why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

In szatmar666-world, apparently the relative paucity of core columns makes it impossible for the investigation to make that determination. The question is, why?

If you have an argument as to why it is necessary to be able to "give a full and accurate picture of the type and amount of the damage sustained by the vast majority of core columns" in order to determine why and how the towers collapsed, now would be a good time to present it. Your argument by assumption and mockery isn't working for me.

kthxbai

[szatmar666]

59. yes the global failure mode of the key load bearing structural elements is the evidence u need

to prove any theory about a building's collapse or any other global failure mechanism.
Actually that's the ONLY evidence you can have. That is a difference between theoretical speculation and a proven theory. Apparently you are not familiar with the concept.

U still haven't explained: if you need to chose between the NIST explanation and controlled demolition, what's the relevant forensic evidence that makes you chose between them?! Both have the same effect you saw on your TV screen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. do I need to recanvass all the questions you've ducked?

You may have a perfectly lucid argument in your mind, but as I've said, I can't read your mind.

Your discussion(?) of "theoretical speculation" vs. "a proven theory" is so, well, shallow that I really can't tell much about your training in inference. Doing my best to set that aside -- which is a gamble, of course -- the heart of your argument seems to be that no available evidence disambiguates between the NIST explanation and controlled demolition. So, I ask again, why are we even talking about controlled demolition? It seems a bit like complaining that it's premature to dismiss the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese because we haven't drilled core samples.

U still haven't explained: if you need to chose between the NIST explanation and controlled demolition, what's the relevant forensic evidence that makes you chose between them?! Both have the same effect you saw on your TV screen.

I don't even think that's the right question. What's the relevant forensic evidence that makes you choose between evolution and special creation? Surely an omnipotent God could easily produce the observed fossil record. Can you prove that no species was specially created, or even that a large majority of species in a sample of some 20 or perhaps 50 wasn't?

Whether controlled demolition would actually produce "the same effect" I saw on my TV screen is open to interpretation. "Controlled demolition," pitched at that level of generality, seems closely analogous to "intelligent design": no specific mechanism is postulated, so no falsifiable hypotheses follow. However, observed CDs typically produce a hell of a lot of noise. It actually seems to many of us that the social function of postulating thermite CD is to ensure that no one has ever seen the conjectured phenomenon, so no one can be quite sure how to test the hypothesis. This isn't how inference ordinarily proceeds.

Now, you may have in mind a trivial test of some particular CD variant that could be conducted if we had access to digital photos. But you've repeatedly and unaccountably declined to say what that is.

[szatmar666]

71. you are just bullshitting about god evolution and the kitchen sink

except answering a simple question: what's the empirical evidence in support of the progressive collapse theory put forth by NIST?! Page number would be helpful. Oh yeah: and I am not asking about evidence of initial damage. I am asking for evidence proving each floor was crushed the same way as we saw on the footage.

Simple question, it requires a simple answer.

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. you simply aren't engaging the substance of my posts

You are, however, moving the goalposts, in a most peculiar way: "evidence proving each floor was crushed the same way as we saw on the footage"? As opposed to what?

[szatmar666]

77. so where is the page number?!

you pretend you don't understand english?! where is the evidence for the progressive collapse?!

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. huh?

Wait, are you actually disputing progressive collapse? Or are you skeptical about collapse initiation?

See, if you deigned to answer a question now and then, discussion might be possible.

[szatmar666]

81. I don't understand how NIST proved the progressive collapse theory

would you help me out and explain where can I find the evidence?! I understand the initiation part I just can't find the proof for the ACTUAL collapse.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. first you need remedial philosophy of science

Who said that "NIST proved the progressive collapse theory"?

Could you quickly walk me through your training? I'm looking for clues on how to communicate with you.

[szatmar666]

83. no, you are looking for a quick ad authoritem argument

I don't play that game: just a page number in the NIST report would suffice. NIST says that the sheer weight of the section above the initial impact crushed the floors bellow causing a total progressive collapse of the towers. I want to see the physical evidence of this progressive collapse, as opposed to a controlled demolition. Simple enough: all you need to prove is that support columns were in fact crushed not cut.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. that's two more questions you refuse to answer

Here's a third question: why do I need to prove that the support columns weren't cut? And a fourth: do biologists need to prove that species weren't specially created?

ETA: I saw the games you play back as far as post #28. Right?

[szatmar666]

85. the difference is that special creation is impossible while controlled demolition is real

I didn't ask you to disprove my theory.. I don't have one. I asked you to show me where did NIST prove theirs. It's sad that you don't see the need for physical evidence before you accept fairy tales. I bet you also believe in the magic bullet theory.

[Realityhack]

86. "I bet you also believe in the magic bullet theory."

That is a surprisingly common and surprisingly stupid insult thrown around by truthers.

[szatmar666]

88. both #86 & #87 are ad hominems: it's a surprisingly common "argument"

among those who don't have a point.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. you're accusing others of ad hominems?

What can I do except laugh?

ETA: By the way, if you ever get around to addressing the content of my post, let me know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. good luck with all that

On the first point, assuming that we rule out an omnipotent deity (I'm vaguely curious what sort of forensic evidence would suffice), it isn't inherently impossible that some civilization could design and deploy a genetically engineered species. From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, that would be the functional equivalent of special creation (speciation with an external cause). Of course there isn't likely to be much interest in this hypothesis unless it is needed in order to account for some evidence.

As for the statement that "controlled demolition is real," if you know of any buildings that have been destroyed using the thermite method that you conjecture, bring them on. Oh, wait....

I didn't ask you to disprove my theory.. I don't have one.

(emphasis added)

And that's why your position is, in one crucial respect, functionally indistinguishable from intelligent design theory, in that you criticize one explanation without offering an alternative beyond the broad conjecture of intelligent intervention. Your position is weakers, however, because ID theory at least attempts to demonstrate that the prevailing explanation is untenable, whereas you seem to argue the much less interesting position that "the NIST account is only a theory." You may not understand why critics analogize your position to creationism, but the parallels are hard to miss.

At any rate, the collapses of the twin towers don't much resemble any controlled demolition that I've ever seen, so the existence of "controlled demolition" in general isn't very persuasive.

I asked you to show me where did NIST prove theirs.

OMG! The words "prove" and "proof" appear nowhere in NCSTAR 1!! That might be devastating evidence that NIST's account is Just A Theory... or maybe you just don't know much about scientific method, or in this context you're forgetting what you know. Of course, your ignorance in itself has no bearing on the events of 9/11/01.

It's sad that you don't see the need for physical evidence before you accept fairy tales. I bet you also believe in the magic bullet theory.

Again, the comparisons with creationism are hard to miss. If we're going to characterize the NIST account as a "fairy tale()," there ought to be some stronger basis for doing so than the absence of forensic evidence that you believe could be used to test some vaguely defined alternative hypothesis. Creationists make such undisciplined leaps routinely, but we can do better here.

[szatmar666]

89. I noticed how careful you are in avoiding any substantive dicussion of the collapse itself

[szatmar666]

90. it's also obvious that I am the only one here making a point by quoting from the actual NIST report

with the exception of the original author of this thread everyone seems to have wild eyed ideas but no one seems to actually address the substance of the NIST report itself. Everything from evolution and creationism to philosophy of science is thrown around with pompous self assurance and arrogance except a valid point on the subject of progressive collapse is never even attempted.

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. not much of a point, for reasons I've stated

You seem to think that you're the only one engaging substance, but on the contrary, I don't see you engaging any.

So, are we done?

[szatmar666]

35. BTW, the real issue is why couldn't NIST take photographs of each core column

as they were unloading them from the trucks?! that's a couple thousand digital photographs. Just catalog them and publish the photos to academic circles all around the world and the complete evaluation would have taken a few weeks. But it's even easier because in reality all they would have needed is 5-10% to convince everybody, ie. a few hundred photos.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. why is this "the real issue"?

Again, I can't read your mind. Would a few thousand digital photographs have provided decisive evidence? If so, how?

[szatmar666]

40. because that's what you do on a crime scene: you collect and catalog forensic evidence

You definitely don't write a report in which you explain you didn't have enough evidence because you discarded it. That would be a crime.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. There was no question who did this

The people who hijacked the airplanes did this. I don't understand why you think forensic rules needed to apply to Ground Zero.

[szatmar666]

42. what are you, 12?!

"The people who hijacked the airplanes did this. I don't understand why you think forensic rules needed to apply to Ground Zero."

There are 2 competing theories of progressive collapse:
A) the towers came down by gravity.
B) the towers came down via controlled demolition.

this is what we are discussing here. "who done it" has nothing to do with it.

If A) is true those terrorists probably worked for some foreign power or interest if B) is true they probably had US accomplices but this is not relevant to the physics of progressive collapse.

Forensic methods are used to collect evidence BEFORE investigations even start. And that's BEFORE we know "who done it".

[Bolo Boffin]

47. That's not helping a discussion progress.

There are 2 competing theories of progressive collapse:
A) the towers came down by gravity.
B) the towers came down via controlled demolition.

In what arena are these "theories" competing? Is it the same one that creationism and evolution is competing in? Yes, I do believe so.

There is no serious scientific contemplation of the choice between collapse and controlled demolition.

You're the one that mentioned forsenic science. That's used to investigate a crime in order to determine who did it. In this case, who did it is clear - the hijackers. How they did it is also clear - with airplanes. The study involves studying the structure to find out how and why the buildings succumbed to see if there are changes to the relevant codes that can perhaps help make stronger buildings in the future. That has been done and the lessons learned are being used.

In fact, several studies of the buildings have been done, not just the public one done by NIST. ARUP did their own before building the state buildings in Beijing, including the one that burned so spectacularly, the Mandarin Oriental hotel. Did you know that? Did you know that ARUP specifically studied the 9/11 building collapses before designing the Mandarin Oriental hotel building?

Forensic science has no place in this investigation. The most practical way to have investigated these collapses is just how NIST did it, checking a sampling of physical material to insure the building was built to its specs, and then running sophisticated computer modeling. They are under no CSI fantasies. They are dealing with real life.

[szatmar666]

55. it wasn't clear BEFORE the investigation started

that's the whole problem. How does anyone know if OBL didn't work with wealthy US real estate moguls or rogue intelligence assets or rogue elements in the US govt. Your fuzzy ideas of what an investigation should be does not change the fact what real investigations ACTUALLY ARE. Contrary to what you might think 9/11 was a crime and the rubble was a crime scene. The fact that investigators wrote a report in which they admit that they couldn't prove crucial parts of their theory because they had no access to evidence should be enough among adults to admit that there are problems here.

I am done with this thread, I have no time debating people with intellectually dishonest motives. I laid out what I believe, take it or leave it.

[szatmar666]

43. oops wrong thread

I answered bellow:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=267058&mesg_id=267558

[szatmar666]

44. this thread seems to be screwed up

can't respond to this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=267058&mesg_id=267554

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. meh

NIST obviously wasn't conducting a criminal investigation. But I actually don't care whether you think NIST (or others) butchered the investigation or not. I'm more interested in reasoning about the collapse of the towers. Do you actually think that thousands of digital photographs would provide decisive evidence of... something, and if so, how? Or do you just consider it Highly Suspicious that NIST doesn't have them?

[szatmar666]

53. I give up

you clearly have an agenda and don't seem to have the intellectual honesty to have a real debate. It's clear from my previous posts what I mean. Sorry if you can't accept the fact that there is no scientific way to decide how the towers came down because the forensic evidence necessary to back any theories was discarded.

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. when did you ever start?

If you have an intelligible critique of the NIST report, figure out how to present it. If not, it's not my fault.

[LARED]

58. Perhaps the more basic issue is your framing

the fact that there is no scientific way to decide how the towers came down because the forensic evidence necessary to back any theories was discarded.

I think when you say "how the towers came down" you mean to say there is no scientific way to determine if the towers were destroyed by controlled demotions because the evidence was discarded. That might be true, but......

there is abundant science that tells how the towers came down. Video analysis, sophisticated models of the fire and the structures response to the fire to name just a few that the NIST and academics have provided.

You want to debate a controlled demolition theory with serious minded people with absolutely zero evidence to support your claim. This automatically create an intractable tension if the intent is serious scientific discourse.

[szatmar666]

60. what you are talking about as "evidence"

like video footage the existing samples etc are not enough to scientifically prove the how the key structural elements failed throughout the towers according to NIST, again, this is not my opinion, this is NIST telling you that they cannot explain EVER how the vast majority of key structural elements throughout the buildings failed, but trust their intuition or godly powers because they have a theory. Sorry, if you buy that one I have a bridge to sell you.

[LARED]

61. If has been established a number of times the

evidence believe is required does not exist. I was not addressing evidence of the type you demand.

[szatmar666]

62. fine, so i am too demanding, what's the empirical evidence in your opinion then?!

If you think video evidence is what proves it, how do you prove the NIST theory of progressive collapse vs controlled demolition?! If you can't even tell whether or not the load bearing columns were crushed or cut throughout the towers, how can you say you proved anything?!

[LARED]

66. Do you understand much of the NIST

work is empirical?

I would suggest you go to the NIST website to see for yourself the extensive scientific based analysis.

Also if you insist upon bring up the theory that the columns were somehow cut throughout the towers, it would be useful to provide evidence that this could have happened. I not even asking for evidence it did happen, just that it could of happened.

[szatmar666]

70. You make no sense at all. please read my posts

I read the NIST report. Have you?!

[szatmar666]

12. LOL! wtf r U talking about?!

My point was that according to NIST, not me(!), according to NIST(!!!) THEY don't have the data necessary to prove jack shit beyond the aircraft collision, the consequent fuel dispersion and fire. They don't have ANYTHING on the actual collapse only conjectures and hypotheses! I even gave u the frickn page number! Your whole post on the simulation software proves my point, you clearly don't even understand what you posted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x267058#267064

Why should I come up with yet another model?! I already said that a perfectly good model exists it's just not by NIST and it is not based on actual data. Tell you what, you find me 1 of the 12 core columns sampled by NIST consistent with the pancake theory as described in the Bazant paper (Fig. 3 page 310) and I'll believe that you are not a complete loser, deal?! I am being EXTREMELY generous since you would need a statistically relevant sample from thousands of core columns but at the very least 50-100 to prove the pancake theory or the "controlled demolition" theory as a matter of fact.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

[anigbrowl]

14. I'm talking about your ability to back up your theories, if you even have any

You can whinge about the limitations of the NIST studies all day, don't let me stop you. I would certainly like them to be more complete than they are. And yes, they are limited to conjectures and hypotheses. That's one of the tough things about science, you often don't have as much data to work with as you would like.

Meanwhile, I wonder how closely you have read the paper you linked to from Northwestern U.

The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4
larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account

Bažant and Zhou 2002a. This fact, along with the fact that
during the progressive collapse of underlying stories Figs. 1
d
and 2 the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater
than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and
Zhou
2002a to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the
tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through
the height of one story
or even 0.5 m. It was also observed that
this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive
collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous.
The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to
the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without
any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have
been much longer
say, twice as long or more than the duration
of a free fall from the tower top.

Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that
the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.
However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics
beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could
nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for
learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding

and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives.
Its formulation is the main objective of what follows.

These researchers are seeking to improve on the existing models and analytical tools to go beyond the limitations of NIST's report. I applaud this. Nevertheless, they seem quite sure that there was no kind of controlled demolition or explosives used, and that the damage done by the planes slamming into them was severe enough that gravity caused them to collapse and disintegrate.

So you can 'LOL wtf' all you like, but it's just so much noise. The point of this thread is not to say NIST is right and cannot be questioned, but to tell people where they can get data, tools, and information to engae in their own research, either individually or as part of a team.

[szatmar666]

15. there is a difference between statements and facts

the Bazant paper sets up a diff equation that stands even if the collapse was due to controlled demolition. their paper speculates that gravity alone was sufficient to bring the tower down it does not prove that with forensic evidence. It's pure speculation. I am sorry if you can't understand the difference.
Again, show me 1 recovered column that buckled the way they describe!

[anigbrowl]

16. Is the purpose of this thread to validate NIST? No.

You can complain endlessly about them if you see fit. The purpose of this thread is to direct people to resources which enable them to perform their own analysis. If you do not wish to do that, that's fine too.

[szatmar666]

17. I am making an actual point

which is that all the angry posers and fake experts posting here have no clue what they are talking about. no theory was proven by anyone and that includes NIST or Steven Jones. the reason is that somebody destroyed evidence, which is a federal crime. that's all you need to know about 9/11. I might have personal beliefs as to why that happened but it's irrelevant given the allegation which is supported by the NIST report and clear as daylight for anyone who read it and has at least basic understanding of engineering science including some minimum civil engineering on the level of the 2 basic mandatory engineering classes: statics and dynamics and some basic materials science.

[pfloydguy7750]

33. What nonsense

[anigbrowl]

38. Thank you for your penetrating and closely reasoned analysis.