ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nist

Reply
Old 18th April 2007, 07:31 AM   #361
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Just answer the question, please. I strongly suspect that the answer is "no." After your answer, I'll be glad to explain why.
The answer is "yes".

It's around 700 pages of beautifully presented material. I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa must be buried in there someplace.

I think NIST and Applied Research Associates, Inc. did some impressive work and certainly examined the aircraft and building data thoroughly.

Repeatedly the NISTNCSTAR1-2B document emphasizes how complex the subjects were.

Given that this necessarily intricate model required an extreme case scenario to achieve a collapse initiation, I have to wonder again about the validity of the results?

I strongly suspect that I know how you will answer.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 08:38 AM   #362
Trifikas
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 301
I doon't think characterising it as "Extreme" is really aplicable. Using mid-range values in the simulation caused the collapse, If I recall, in addition to the high-range values. And all values used in the simulation were within parameters for the aircraft.

The simulation simply shows that Explosives, etc. Were not necissary for the collapse.
Trifikas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 09:01 AM   #363
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The answer is "yes".

It's around 700 pages of beautifully presented material. I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa must be buried in there someplace.

I think NIST and Applied Research Associates, Inc. did some impressive work and certainly examined the aircraft and building data thoroughly.

Repeatedly the NISTNCSTAR1-2B document emphasizes how complex the subjects were.
Wow, really? You did read it?

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain how you made these grave errors regarding its contents:


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The NIST WTC Report rejected the less severe case because they claim it “did not meet two key observables:

(1) No aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10), and (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167).

The problem with this point is, and I expanded on this in a previous post, is that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower.
This is false.

In the report, the second half linked again here for anyone who hasn't read it, please turn to figures 9-26 on page 229, and 9-47 on page 258. These two figures describe the evolution of simulated aircraft debris in the WTC 1 case for the baseline and more severe trials, respectively.

You will notice, clearly shown, the large amount of aircraft debris that exits at the right side of the figure. This contradicts your statement that no aircraft debris was calculated to side opposite impact.

Here's another example, most clearly seen here: (note to moderators: I apologize for dredging up a post from AAH; I promise to cite and respond only to the substantive portion of that post.)

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why would they say only the "less severe case" would not match the landing gear event? The plane entering the model should be identical in all 3 scenarios since that is not a variable. The landing gear should have exited at 105 mph in ALL 3 scenarios. What parameters are they tweaking that would result in a constant becoming a variable?
This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.

The similar table for WTC 2 is Table 9-10 on page 289. If you compare this table to 9-7, you will notice something interesting -- the "more severe" case WTC 2 is not as bad as it was in WTC 1! Why is this? Quoting from the report, on page 289:

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, pg. 289
The second exception was the failure strains for the aircraft and tower materials. For the more severe WTC 1 analysis, 125 percent and 80 percent of the baseline values were used for the aircraft and tower failure strains respectively. For the more severe WTC 2 analysis, 115 percent and 90 percent of the baseline values were used. The more severe WTC 2 analysis was the final global impact analysis performed. Based on the previous analyses, the variation in damage levels indicated that the WTC 2 more severe impact analysis would produce impact damage state that was not viable (e.g., the amount of debris exiting the north wall). To ensure that a viable damage state was obtained, the aircraft and tower materials were adjusted to the values presented in Table 9–10.
Paraphrasing, they attenuated the second "more severe" case because it would have thrown too much debris out the other side. This makes the first claim of yours, that I highlighted, not just misleading, but completely backwards.

So let me try to explain how the report works. NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification. They do this by first considering a wide range of scenarios, within the limitations of what they know about conditions prior to impact, and then try to refine and select what they find to choose the best guess about what happened.

There are many selection criteria, not just the two you incorrectly identified above. These criteria include impact seen on the outer walls, both in terms of location and predicted failure mode of each component; travel of debris through the structure; distribution of aircraft debris and furniture after impact; initiation locations and spread of fires; total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact); disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution; evolution of the exterior after fire simulation; and predicted collapse time of each tower. This is presented as a table in that report as well, I will leave finding this as an exercise.

The simulations will never agree with every parameter. They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated, and many simplifications were needed to make them converge at all. Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices, but I understand them. The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation, but it's not bad -- while they don't predict landing gear break-through, they do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion, and with only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear. But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.

The petitioners are, in effect, trying to prevent NIST from choosing a most-likely scenario. They are calling for all the input conditions to be treated equally! (Vroomfondle: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!")

This is nonsense. If they think the simulations are flawed, they can point out why. If they think NIST chose incorrectly, they can submit a different most-likely scenario. If they honestly think the cases are indistinguishable, they can perform a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate this.

But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

The stunts of Dr. Jones et. al. apparently play well with those who have no conception of the NIST report, but it won't fly with anyone in the scientific community.

MirageMemories, I suggest you re-read the report. I'll be glad to help if you have questions.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 09:12 AM   #364
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Airliners crashed into the towers and this was used as the pretext to completely demolish the buildings, thus exaggerating the magnitude and total psychological effect of the terrorist event.
Speculation.

Quote:
Since airliners had never before been used to collapse a concrete and steel building, how could this be a simulation of a known effect? It was a test of an expectation maybe.
It doesn't follow that relevant experts would be fooled. In fact, I do remember reading that it was already significant that the towers didn't collapse immediately, considering the impact.

Quote:
The crashes and subsequent fires were a 'shock and awe' preparation of the public mind to accept the horrific collapse climax.
Speculation.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 09:17 AM   #365
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.
Not only that, but I would like to know why they expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.

Quote:
But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.
An astute observation, Mack.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 01:44 PM   #366
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Wow, really? You did read it?

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain how you made these grave errors regarding its contents:




This is false.

In the report, the second half linked again here for anyone who hasn't read it, please turn to figures 9-26 on page 229, and 9-47 on page 258. These two figures describe the evolution of simulated aircraft debris in the WTC 1 case for the baseline and more severe trials, respectively.

You will notice, clearly shown, the large amount of aircraft debris that exits at the right side of the figure. This contradicts your statement that no aircraft debris was calculated to side opposite impact.

Here's another example, most clearly seen here: (note to moderators: I apologize for dredging up a post from AAH; I promise to cite and respond only to the substantive portion of that post.)



This is also not true. Now please turn to Table 9-7 on page 255, which describes the input conditions for the three WTC 1 cases. You will notice that nearly all of the variables reflect the impacting aircraft. The variables include the aircraft speed, weight, pitch angle, and ductility of materials. As it turns out, the pitch angle is perhaps the most significant of all input parameters.

The similar table for WTC 2 is Table 9-10 on page 289. If you compare this table to 9-7, you will notice something interesting -- the "more severe" case WTC 2 is not as bad as it was in WTC 1! Why is this? Quoting from the report, on page 289:



Paraphrasing, they attenuated the second "more severe" case because it would have thrown too much debris out the other side. This makes the first claim of yours, that I highlighted, not just misleading, but completely backwards.

So let me try to explain how the report works. NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification. They do this by first considering a wide range of scenarios, within the limitations of what they know about conditions prior to impact, and then try to refine and select what they find to choose the best guess about what happened.

There are many selection criteria, not just the two you incorrectly identified above. These criteria include impact seen on the outer walls, both in terms of location and predicted failure mode of each component; travel of debris through the structure; distribution of aircraft debris and furniture after impact; initiation locations and spread of fires; total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact); disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution; evolution of the exterior after fire simulation; and predicted collapse time of each tower. This is presented as a table in that report as well, I will leave finding this as an exercise.

The simulations will never agree with every parameter. They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated, and many simplifications were needed to make them converge at all. Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices, but I understand them. The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation, but it's not bad -- while they don't predict landing gear break-through, they do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion, and with only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear. But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.

The petitioners are, in effect, trying to prevent NIST from choosing a most-likely scenario. They are calling for all the input conditions to be treated equally! (Vroomfondle: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!")

This is nonsense. If they think the simulations are flawed, they can point out why. If they think NIST chose incorrectly, they can submit a different most-likely scenario. If they honestly think the cases are indistinguishable, they can perform a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate this.

But they don't. Much like the rest of the "Truth Movement," they have no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals. This is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.

The stunts of Dr. Jones et. al. apparently play well with those who have no conception of the NIST report, but it won't fly with anyone in the scientific community.

MirageMemories, I suggest you re-read the report. I'll be glad to help if you have questions.





First of all, try and use the same page numbers that the NIST document uses in future replies. It makes it easier locating your references.

This is false? re: my statement; "No aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event.."

After examining Figure 9-26 (WTC 2) pg.231 and Figure 9-47 (WTC 1) pg.260 they show a small amount of debris exiting which may or may not be superficial aircraft debris.

For WTC 2;

“No landing gear debris exited the building in either the base case or the less severe simulations.”

“None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large
engine fragment exiting the tower.”

“In all three simulations...it was estimated that the building contents
would likely stop the engine fragments prior to impacting the northeast
corner of the exterior wall.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353)

Regarding my statement question why they failed to recreate the known landing gear 105 mph exit from WTC 1 in any of the 3 scenarios, I draw on these WTC 2 clues from the NIST report;

A portion of an engine also exited the tower at the northeast corner of the building and was found at the intersection of Murray and Church Streets.
From the damage to the building, it was believed that the engine exited the building in this corner of WTC 2. Based on this trajectory, it was estimated that the engine exited the building at approximately 120 mph....In the simulations, the engines were projected to stop short of this position, although they followed the extrapolated trajectory reasonably well. At the end of the simulation, the speed of the aft portion of the engine was below 80 mph, and it was more than 60 ft from the northeast corner of the building...None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower. However, the impact behavior suggests that only minor modifications (lowered 1-2 ft.) would be required to achieve this response. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353 So why not make the minor modifications?

In the global analyses performed, *the engine impacted the underside of the 82nd floor, as shown in Figure 9–136, pg 360. NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353

*Why not make this minor modification unless, maybe, it results in a significantly altered outcome.

Okay on to my lesson on how the report works.

Quote:
We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification.

Quote:
We have selection criteria;
Quote:
Impact on the outer walls can be substantiated by the video and photographic record.
Agreed.

Quote:
Travel of debris through the structure.
Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Distribution of of aircraft debris and furniture after impact.
Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Initiation locations and spread of fires.
Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Total moment added to WTC 2 (WTC 1 was not filmed with enough precision to estimate oscillation after impact).
Not substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution.
Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Evolution of the exterior after fire simulation.
Partially substantiated by video or photographic record. Requires some extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
Predicted collapse time of each tower.
Requires extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Quote:
I will leave finding this as an exercise.
Purpose of this gratuitous statement speaks for itself.

Back to your defense of the NIST simulations;

Quote:
They will never agree with every parameter.
Quote:
They are frighteningly complex and sophisticated.
Quote:
Many simplifications were needed to make them converge.
Quote:
Having worked with CFD and FEA to a limited extent, I personally have some issues with some of their choices.
Quote:
The best guess they constructed does not agree very well with the landing gear observation.
Quote:
They don't predict landing gear break-through.
Quote:
They do predict a large mass of aircraft breaking through in similar fashion.
Source please..large mass?

Quote:
With only minor tweaks that are inside the margin of observational error, that mass can be the landing gear.
?? Creative extrapolating based on "little hard data"?

Quote:
But the "less severe" cases will never match this, no matter how you tweak it, because it predicts no break-through of massive components. That's a pretty big distinction between cases.
Well I guess maybe less severe shouldn't be so less severe? It's all what they use after all. Less severe has to match some observable criteria or it's outside of the range of possibility. As I've indicated, selection criteria that is substantiated by the video and photo record has much more credibility than the majority of items in your criteria list that require significant extrapolation based on "little hard data".

Regarding the petitioners, I see them as trying to challenge the validity of NIST selecting a scenario that is being chosen because it's essential to validate a predetermined result.

I think you yourself have provided ample reason why the simulations can't be given our trust.
Quote:
We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification.
Claiming;
Quote:
the "Truth Movement" has no interest in coming up with a better answer. They just want us to reject all answers, because that way we'd be "forced" to consider them as equals and that this is equivocation of the most vicious and reprehensible kind.
That, is just vicious, petty speculation as to what motivates people who happen to disagree with your point of view. A clear case of attacking the person and not the argument!

I have no reason to believe that Dr. Jones considers his efforts to be "stunts". Of course, it's always possible he may be in error regarding some of his beliefs, but I see no reason to believe he is anything less than sincere.

R.Mackey, I suggest maybe you entertain the possibility that the beautifully presented NIST WTC Report is sufficiently flawed that you would be wise to not base your convictions on it.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2007, 01:52 PM   #367
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Airliners crashed into the towers and this was used as the pretext to completely demolish the buildings, thus exaggerating the magnitude and total psychological effect of the terrorist event.

snip

The crashes and subsequent fires were a 'shock and awe' preparation of the public mind to accept the horrific collapse climax.

And what is your evidence for this?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 04:27 AM   #368
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
MM, I would like to know why you'd expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 06:35 AM   #369
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,645
The petition of explosives. You know one time Dr Jones was just using thermite.

I think Jones is going nuts. This is why I think he is loosing it, and his petitoin is nutty too.

In his very first paper I found 9/16/2005, he puts forth his first Pulitzer Prize experiment to prove the WTC could not be real or as it happen. (yes it took our expert 4 years to come up with his ideas, it seem his hate for Bush was greater than him wanting to help figure out the WTC to protect others in the future. Our hero finally comes forward with his lies)
Quote:
5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

Our expert then lays out his precise mechanism for the demise of the WTC.
Quote:
6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

It gets worse as he tries to make up stuff all on his own about...
Quote:
Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)
What? Dr Jones is also one of the top KoolAid guys and is passing out the Kool-Aid like Fetzer. Funny how two nut cases have split on 9/11 truth. Thermite and Beam Weapons, oh my, now a petition with out merit.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th April 2007 at 07:05 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 06:35 AM   #370
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
MM, I would like to know why you'd expect the landing gear to exit the building in ALL scenarios. Such an assumptions requires an explanation.
Primarily because as R.Mackey has repeatedly emphasized; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification."

He then lists 9 possible selection criteria for the NIST Model.

Of the 9, only ONE, the impact on the outer walls can be substantiated by the video and photographic record.

3 others can be partially substantiated by the video and photographic record; "Initiation locations and spread of fires", "Disposition of floor damage and bowing after evolution" and "Evolution of the exterior after fire simulation." They still require extrapolation.

Since only ONE of the 9 selection criteria can be fully substantiated by the video and photographic record, it exists as primary selection criteria for verifying that the NIST WTC Model is performing reasonably accurately.

The fact that the landing gear exited the WTC 1 perimeter wall at 105 mph, suggests that it passed through the building on a path that did not seriously block it's passage.

NIST admits that minor aircraft entry corrections would significantly improve the match with the video and photographic record.

"None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower. However, the impact behavior suggests that only minor modifications (lowered 1-2 ft.) would be required to achieve this response." NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg353.

I think it is illogical to tweak a parameter so that it will result in the Model failing 100% to approximate the only conclusive primary selection criteria as observed video and photographic record.

Matching the video and photographic record would necessarily lessen the internal damage in all 3 scenarios.

The fact that NIST achieve collapse initiation only using extreme parameter adjustments (extreme case scenario) while not adjusting for the exiting jet engine and landing gear observables, meant that these these heavy titanium steel components must have been included in the internal activity and stopped by the core.

This is highly significant because additional core damage in their extreme case scenario, aids in creating the resulting collapse initiation.

I don't see how; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification" can be equated with an acceptable margin of error, given the situation as we know it.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 06:38 AM   #371
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
He has drank the KoolAid, and is now passing it out. Thank you William for standing up for high school dropout like Charlie Sheen and putting them on your web page of 9/11 was an inside job. How many perpetrators did you catch during your rounds?

If William supports the 9/11 truth movement he is not a hero, he is a supporter of those who with out evidence make up lies about 9/11. The liars are now using William to promote their lies. These are the facts and no truthers can produce facts to support any of the conclusions of the 9/11 truth movement.
Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 07:04 AM   #372
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since only ONE of the 9 selection criteria can be fully substantiated by the video and photographic record, it exists as primary selection criteria for verifying that the NIST WTC Model is performing reasonably accurately.

The fact that the landing gear exited the WTC 1 perimeter wall at 105 mph, suggests that it passed through the building on a path that did not seriously block it's passage.
So, what now ? You want them to fudge their data until they can produce a set of simulations where that exactly same gear comes out the exact same point in the building ? What about the other observed elements of the impact ? Should they simulate them all exactly, too ? That's an impossibility.

Quote:
I don't see how; "We have a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification" can be equated with an acceptable margin of error, given the situation as we know it.
Er... beause it's a "highly complicated event" and we have "little hard data". What's the problem, here ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 07:49 AM   #373
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM
Then report it.


RE the modelling:
The parameters used in modelling represent a continuum of possible interactions and outcomes. Now, we know the landing gear went through the building, therefore any modelling should therefore include a statistical probability that the end result of the model has the landing gear existing the building. However, what we do not know what the probability was that the landing gear must exist the building, only that on that one particular instance it did. So long as a given model has a 1:N possibility of having the landing gear exist then the model could potentially be correctly representing the conditions at that time; the model does not need to have a 1:1 possibility of the landing gear existing the building.

The question that needs to be asked is, given the available modelling techniques and computational power, does the model used by NIST have a 1:N possibility of this event occurring and is it simply a matter of running the simulation enough times for it to show us a result that has the landing gear existing the building. Now, if the NIST model is insufficiently dynamic, or is set up wrong, so that the gear has no possibility of exiting the building regardless of the number of executions, then there is a valid criticism of it.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 08:22 AM   #374
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Posts like these should be redirected to AAH by the moderator in my opinion!

MM
This is so typical of the CT mindset. Never do anything yourself, but demand actions from others!

I have seen little to disprove my hypothesis that troofers feel powerless and worthless, but are filled with self-righteousness that prompts them to continuously declare, "Somebody should do something!"

Like saying that there needs to be an independent investigation. By whom? The government? No, can't be trusted. Experts? No, they're in on it. The troofers? [whine]Can't somebody else do it?[/whine]
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 09:35 AM   #375
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
This is so typical of the CT mindset. Never do anything yourself, but demand actions from others!

I have seen little to disprove my hypothesis that troofers feel powerless and worthless, but are filled with self-righteousness that prompts them to continuously declare, "Somebody should do something!"

Like saying that there needs to be an independent investigation. By whom? The government? No, can't be trusted. Experts? No, they're in on it. The troofers? [whine]Can't somebody else do it?[/whine]
This is not attacking the subject, but again is attacking the person!

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 09:37 AM   #376
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
This is not attacking the subject, but again is attacking the person!

MM
Then report it. Making posts about it in the thread does nothing to rectify the situation.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 09:52 AM   #377
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So, what now ? You want them to fudge their data until they can produce a set of simulations where that exactly same gear comes out the exact same point in the building ? What about the other observed elements of the impact ? Should they simulate them all exactly, too ? That's an impossibility.



Er... beause it's a "highly complicated event" and we have "little hard data". What's the problem, here ?
Because it was "a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification", I think it is important to recreate observed reality as much as possible before pressing the 'run' simulation button.

I realize and accept that "exact" = "impossible". When all 3 scenarios fail to reproduce the only clearly photographed observable, and when NIST admits that this observable can be created in the simulation with a minor adjustment, I have to question their not doing so!

My suggestion is they make that minor adjustment and then proceed with their less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

How is that unreasonable?

Of course that would eliminate the simulation damage this debris must have created when 'contained' by the model. This eliminated damage, especially in the crucial extreme case scenario, might result in the towers remaining standing!

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 10:24 AM   #378
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
Then report it.


RE the modelling:
The parameters used in modelling represent a continuum of possible interactions and outcomes. Now, we know the landing gear went through the building, therefore any modelling should therefore include a statistical probability that the end result of the model has the landing gear existing the building. However, what we do not know what the probability was that the landing gear must exist the building, only that on that one particular instance it did. So long as a given model has a 1:N possibility of having the landing gear exist then the model could potentially be correctly representing the conditions at that time; the model does not need to have a 1:1 possibility of the landing gear existing the building.

The question that needs to be asked is, given the available modelling techniques and computational power, does the model used by NIST have a 1:N possibility of this event occurring and is it simply a matter of running the simulation enough times for it to show us a result that has the landing gear existing the building. Now, if the NIST model is insufficiently dynamic, or is set up wrong, so that the gear has no possibility of exiting the building regardless of the number of executions, then there is a valid criticism of it.
A model is also constructed using as much known information as possible before starting a timeline and testing variables.

The less we know about the real situation being modeled, the less accurate will be any simulations run on the created models.

Because it has been strongly emphasized, how complex were the designs of the models of the 767 and WTC 1 & 2, then it would seem to make sense that the best observed data from the initial few seconds of the real event be given precedence before testing the remaining approximately, 3600 second (WTC2 South Tower) and 4200 second (WTC 1 North Tower) timelines. Prioritize 'observables' over 'assumables'.

If we create a model and test it from low to high extremes and in none of the cases does it reveal major observables that were photographed and recorded as video, and when the model designers say this can be easily corrected with a minor adjustment, but don't correct it, I think it's fair to see we have a "flawed model".

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 10:33 AM   #379
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
A model is also constructed using as much known information as possible before starting a timeline and testing variables.

The less we know about the real situation being modeled, the less accurate will be any simulations run on the created models.

Because it has been strongly emphasized, how complex were the designs of the models of the 767 and WTC 1 & 2, then it would seem to make sense that the best observed data from the initial few seconds of the real event be given precedence before testing the remaining approximately, 3600 second (WTC2 South Tower) and 4200 second (WTC 1 North Tower) timelines. Prioritize 'observables' over 'assumables'.

If we create a model and test it from low to high extremes and in none of the cases does it reveal major observables that were photographed and recorded as video, and when the model designers say this can be easily corrected with a minor adjustment, but don't correct it, I think it's fair to see we have a "flawed model".

MM
Would you care to address the bulk of my post, that being the probabilities involved?
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 10:54 AM   #380
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,645
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Because it was "a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification", I think it is important to recreate observed reality as much as possible before pressing the 'run' simulation button.

I realize and accept that "exact" = "impossible". When all 3 scenarios fail to reproduce the only clearly photographed observable, and when NIST admits that this observable can be created in the simulation with a minor adjustment, I have to question their not doing so!

My suggestion is they make that minor adjustment and then proceed with their less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

How is that unreasonable?

Of course that would eliminate the simulation damage this debris must have created when 'contained' by the model. This eliminated damage, especially in the crucial extreme case scenario, might result in the towers remaining standing!

MM
You have not even brought up a single fact.

The facts are the WTC were strong buildings, even the design was made to adsorb the impact of a jet aircraft with an impact energy of What?- Why do you not know the number?

The impact energy of 386,000,000 joules.

Then on 9/11 two jets come and they have an impact energy of 2,740,000,000 and 4,320,000,000 joules.

7 and 11 times more impact energy than the design could stand. Not once have Dr Jones or any truthers wondered why the buildings were able to stand 7 to 11 times the impact design energy. They just make up stories and lies out of thin air, no facts.

Then there were fires and steel performs poor in fire, that is why steel buildings fail in fire, sometimes more that simple wood. Fire burns uncontrolled. Buildings fall. The buildings fall due to gravity collapse, just as they would fall when a massive portion falls on the rest.

You ignore the total energy of the falling building totaled for one building was 1,020,000,000,000 joules. The energy of 500 1000 pound bombs.

The energy alone accounts for the WTC failures. Only the truth movement is in the dark on how fire makes steel fail? Why?

Why is every single member of the 9/11 truth movement not able to research 9/11 and find simple facts? You have not answered that question and you support a petition that only point is to claim explosives were used to bring down the WTC! All without a single fact.

Where are your facts? Where are the truth movement facts?

Funny you have no facts and the simple proof the towers fell due to impact and fire is proven twice on 9/11, and not any engineers or scientists have facts otherwise. So you have no facts, your petition support is not based on facts, and you have lost on facts. Facts beat lies. Every single time. Math and physics are the key, should have taken some hard stuff and got the grade, seems like Dr Jones tells lies even though he had an education he now mocks with lies on 9/11.

You should have taken some engineering courses in stochastic estimation and control, no amount of BS can save the veiled petition of explosives had to do it.

Engineers and scientist before NIST came out already knew that impact and fire brought down the WTC; even the real expert, the chief designer on the WTC knows. NIST is not needed to understand the WTC failure - Petition is a waste of time. Thermite, Dr Jones, kaput.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th April 2007 at 11:29 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 11:10 AM   #381
Trifikas
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

I realize and accept that "exact" = "impossible". When all 3 scenarios fail to reproduce the only clearly photographed observable, and when NIST admits that this observable can be created in the simulation with a minor adjustment, I have to question their not doing so!
Well, yes, but asked and answered: Because it would not significantly change the results of the simulation.

Short Version: There is a random element to the simulation, and the conclusion they reached was based on the most likely results of the randomness, allowing for the fact that ANY given run of the simulation would result in anomolies.

Longer version: the report outlines the anomolies in the simulation; Simulated events that differ from what they could observe happened during 9/11. We don't know, however, how exact the rest of the simulation was.

There is essentially a randomness to the simulation, due to many unknown values and Margins of error. Even using the same known values and running the simulation several times will yield different results. Suppose they ran the simulation with every measureable value exctly as it was on 9/11, but didn't know it. And still the wheel only passes through 1 time out of 10 runs of the simulation with those numbers. If the Wheel is the ONLY measure of how correct the sim is, then you'd throw it out. Therefore, there was more to their decision to accept the simulations that they did accept besides just the ejected debris.

Trif
Trifikas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 12:08 PM   #382
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Because it was "a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification", I think it is important to recreate observed reality as much as possible before pressing the 'run' simulation button.
Oh. I thought my point was obvious. Let's try this again: SPECIFICALLY because it is a complex data for which little data is known... it IS IMPOSSIBLE to exactly replicate it via simulation. Is that easier to understand ?

Quote:
My suggestion is they make that minor adjustment and then proceed with their less severe, base and extreme case scenarios.

How is that unreasonable?
Because since it's a chaotic event, the simulation will give you various possible outcomes. If you try three times, the result that is closest to observations will be the prefered one. In this case the more severe.

Quote:
Of course that would eliminate the simulation damage this debris must have created when 'contained' by the model. This eliminated damage, especially in the crucial extreme case scenario, might result in the towers remaining standing!
Unlikely, since the fires is what ultimately resulted in the collapse. Perhaps under your scenario, less material beign ejected means more burning material and hence a shorter time before collapse.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 01:01 PM   #383
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
Would you care to address the bulk of my post, that being the probabilities involved?
Meanwhile you totally ignore my response.

I thought I did reply to your post.

"Bulk" best described the rest of it.

Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!

If you want to ignore important occurrences that are recorded as fact, where do you draw the line? Why not talk about the statistical probability that the plane never hit the building at all? And no, I am not a no-planer..let's not go there.

Statistical probability has meaning where factual evidence is missing.

We know the landing gear exited the building. We know this happened extremely early in the event. We know that the timeline conclusions resulted from what was initiated during these first early seconds.

NIST claimed the towers collapsed as a result of aircraft impact damage combined with further weakening of the steel due to the subsequent fires.
An approximately 3600 second event for WTC 2 and an approximately 4200 second event for WTC 1.

Obviously over those event timelines, NIST proposes the fires progressed and the structures were further weakened, so much so that at the end of each event's timeline, the extreme case scenario, which was applied to each model, lead to each tower reaching collapse initiation.

If those event timelines had progressed minus the damage caused by the titanium landing gear and jet engines, that we know exited the towers, it seems logical that the event timelines would have either been longer, or the collapse initiation would not have been reached.

The fact that collapse initiation occurred only for the extreme case in both towers only serves to emphasize that point.

I can only see an argument for ignoring the exiting aircraft landing gear and engines, if the collapse initiations were reached with the less severe, or even the base scenarios. That would indicate an easily reached collapse threshold. As a result, the validity of the non-existent damage caused by the exiting landing gear and jet engines would be inconsequential since the extreme case scenario's tweaks would no longer be needed.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 01:43 PM   #384
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Meanwhile you totally ignore my response.

I thought I did reply to your post.

"Bulk" best described the rest of it.

Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!
Reread what I wrote. Yes, we know that the gear exited, however, in the models, so long as the model has a probability of the gear exiting > 0 then that model may be accurately representing what occurred the model does not need to have a 100% chance of the gear exiting to be accurately representing what occurred.

Quote:
If you want to ignore important occurrences that are recorded as fact, where do you draw the line? Why not talk about the statistical probability that the plane never hit the building at all? And no, I am not a no-planer..let's not go there.
Strawman

Quote:
Statistical probability has meaning where factual evidence is missing.
It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 01:56 PM   #385
Papermache
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.
It looks like there's a word or two missing. I can't figure out what you mean. Could you clarify this? Thanks.
Papermache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 02:02 PM   #386
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Papermache View Post
It looks like there's a word or two missing. I can't figure out what you mean. Could you clarify this? Thanks.
"It has meaning [in] the modelling. Period. QED. " unless of course MM is seriously trying to say that the exiting of the gear from the building is a critical requirement for the collapse to have occurred.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 03:13 PM   #387
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
This is not attacking the subject, but again is attacking the person!

MM
I'm not attacking any one person. There's nothing special about you. You are simply typical of a member of an irrational subculture.

That's what I was commenting on, somewhat off-topic, I admit.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 06:33 PM   #388
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
"It has meaning [in] the modelling. Period. QED. " unless of course MM is seriously trying to say that the exiting of the gear from the building is a critical requirement for the collapse to have occurred.
I think that relates to the quote from NISTNCSTAR2 (page ixxiii - exec summary)

Quote:
The global impact simulations provided, for each tower, a range of damage estimates. These
included a base case based on reasonable initial estimates of all input parameters, along with a less severe
and a more severe damage scenario. The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables:
(1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped
prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact
event and (2) The subsequent structural response analyses of the damaged towers indicated that the
towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.
As a result, this report
provides detailed description of the results of the analyses pertaining to the base and the more severe
cases, which were used as the initial conditions for the subsequent fire dynamics simulations, thermal
analyses, and fire-structural response and collapse initiation analyses. Only a brief description is provided
for the less severe damage results for comparison purposes.
bolding mine.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 07:02 PM   #389
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I think that relates to the quote from NISTNCSTAR2 (page ixxiii - exec summary)



bolding mine.

TAM
And based on that we have
less severebasemore severe
no exit??
no collapse??
with "less severe" throw out because it met no criteria, and "base" and "more severe" kept in.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2007, 07:34 PM   #390
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Yes I think they want the "less severe" case "On the Books" so they can say...

"See one of their models resulted in no collapse. So in that case, what might have made the towers come down....oh I dont know...explosives..."

They want the case where impact damage, fires, and removal of fire proofing DID NOT result in collapse to be exposed so they can use it to promote the "other forces were at work" theory.

They will say the video footage of exiting debris is not detailed enough to say it was Plane debris, and that the engine and landing gear found outside the towers, was planted...you know...they'll call into uestion any evidence that doesnt fit their theory.


TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 04:38 AM   #391
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Yes, we know the landing gear went through the building within the first few seconds of an event that had a timeline exceeding 3600 seconds.

It is not a statistical probability when it is on record as a factual occurrence!
Ah! So I take it you don't know how simulations work.

Simulations don't work backwards from a conclusion like CTers do. Instead, they are built from the beginning with the purpose of determining various outcomes to various scenarios. Of course, no simulation so far is sufficiently complex to completely model such a complex event as the plane crashes into the twin towers. However, they can give us a good approximaiton of what might have happened.

This "might" is very important, because if you were to crash the exact same airplanes, for real, into the very same buildings again, pretty much in the same spot at the same speed with the same pitch, the landing gear may simply not punch through the building, this time. So what ? The impact and the damage is fairly the same, and the simulation isn't supposed to model the exact same thing, as you've admitted, but merely show that the sequence of events that was observed is within expectations for the scenario in question.

Quote:
If those event timelines had progressed minus the damage caused by the titanium landing gear and jet engines, that we know exited the towers, it seems logical that the event timelines would have either been longer, or the collapse initiation would not have been reached.
I don't think the landing gear had so much impact on the final result, but feel free to demonstrate what difference it would've made. And please, don't answer that this is precisely what the simulation was supposed to show, because we know that it demonstrated that, even within a certain margin of error, the impacts would've destroyed the towers.

Quote:
The fact that collapse initiation occurred only for the extreme case in both towers only serves to emphasize that point.
An extreme case that was, admittedly, not as severe as actual reality.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 04:56 AM   #392
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
 
qarnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,984
OK... I haven't read any of this thread apart from the OP, so sorry if this has already been said, but:

I agree with the subject line.

The NIST Petition does demand correction.
__________________
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.
qarnos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 08:05 AM   #393
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
Reread what I wrote. Yes, we know that the gear exited, however, in the models, so long as the model has a probability of the gear exiting > 0 then that model may be accurately representing what occurred the model does not need to have a 100% chance of the gear exiting to be accurately representing what occurred.


Strawman


It has meaning the modelling. Period. QED.
But you are ignoring the meat of my post and giving all your attention to "> 0".

The model in all 3 scenarios doesn't exercise this probability and NIST themselves explain that the model absorbs these major aircraft components at the core where any damage is critical to the collapse initiation results.

Like I said, we know the length of time for each event, from the point of aircraft collision to the point of collapse initiation.

After the aircraft crashed, since the buildings didn't collapse, the computer simulation collapse initiation results are based on what happened due to fire in that intervening time.

Over the 1 hour and 1.5 hour WTC timelines, we have fire working on the damage caused by the aircraft impact.

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 08:12 AM   #394
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
But you are ignoring the meat of my post and giving all your attention to "> 0".

The model in all 3 scenarios doesn't exercise this probability and NIST themselves explain that the model absorbs these major aircraft components at the core where any damage is critical to the collapse initiation results.

Like I said, we know the length of time for each event, from the point of aircraft collision to the point of collapse initiation.

After the aircraft crashed, since the buildings didn't collapse, the computer simulation collapse initiation results are based on what happened due to fire in that intervening time.

Over the 1 hour and 1.5 hour WTC timelines, we have fire working on the damage caused by the aircraft impact.

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM
Your assuming the critical damage could not have occurred if the gear did not exit the buildling.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 09:17 AM   #395
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Snip>>>

Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM
There you go, making ASSUMPTIONS that second-guess the people actually qualified to make them.
The major and critical damage, it must be assumed, was done at initial impact. The LG and engine are small, compared to the area they must traverse to exit the other side, and the probability of them hitting something (else) critical is small (go look up "Big Sky, Little Bullet"--pilots will understand, as will Gunnery types 8-D). Merely exiting through the aluminum/glass skin of the building is non-critical to the building's security. In other words, poking a hole in the skin between columns doesn't compromise the structure. If the gear and engine do not exit the building, they their energy goes into the building, and may or may not compromise something critical. (Filing cabinets and desks are not critical, BTW)
The actual velocity of these things exiting the building is easily measurable by calculation--you know from whence they came, and how far away from the building the landed. The rest is physics--which troofers don't have a clue as to how it works.So there is aother known--the actual energy not expended in the building by two big lmps
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Last edited by rwguinn; 20th April 2007 at 09:20 AM.
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 09:20 AM   #396
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I've been away for a couple of days...

...and nothing has changed.

MirageMemories, we're going to have to do this one step at a time.

Do you agree that the "more severe" cases are the best fit to what we saw, out of the three cases simulated? Yes or no?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 10:33 AM   #397
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
On re-reading carefully, there's something I must point out:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
NIST is trying to reconstruct a highly complicated event for which there is little hard data, sufficient to permit quantification.
MirageMemories repeatedly misquotes me as follows:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"a highly complicated event, little hard data, and of questionable sufficiency for permitting quantification"
This subtle alteration misses the point.

The point is that the reconstruction must be used quantitatively, as opposed to qualitatively. I did not mean for that clause to refer to the data, I was referring to the reconstruction.

What this means is that for the model to be useful, it must provide testable predictions in both gross order effects (that's the qualitative part) and magnitude (that's the quantitative part). For instance, predicting the exact timing of collapse versus merely predicting that it will collapse.

If you want your model to be this accurate, you must select a "best fit" case. If you retain a broad spectrum of cases, you will not get consensus. Unless you have some way to estimate the error in your inputs, which we do not, we cannot propagate errors to say anything useful about the spread of results. That's why NIST is doing what it's doing, and that's why the petitioner's approach is useless, not to mention ignorant and misleading.

Also MirageMemories, your statement about how only one test could be applied to evaluate model results quantitatively:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I think it is illogical to tweak a parameter so that it will result in the Model failing 100% to approximate the only conclusive primary selection criteria as observed video and photographic record.
... is wrong. Please re-read what I wrote for you a couple of days ago.

Hopefully my clarification above will help you understand.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 10:43 AM   #398
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,645
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since the heavy titanium steel landing gear and engines constitute the most destructive aircraft components, their participation in the damage to the towers is critical to the simulated outcome.

Inclusion or absence of these components is obviously critical to Model's collapse initiation results.

MM
I think you are not an engineer. The biggest mass on the plane is the plane itself. 62 percent of the mass was airplane. Yes your little engines and landing gear were there but the 38 percent of total mass of people and fuel beats your tiny landing gear or engine mass. I doubt you know how much an engine weighs, nor the landing gear.

106,000 pounds of people, luggage, and fuel beats your engines and landing gear. You are not an engineer you are leaving out mass. At 600 mph mass and energy is important. You must think more like an engineer and less like a the nut case Dr Jones.

Your engines and landing gear have strength, but they are not the big energy sources for the impact. You are grasping straws and forgot it was a piece of straw in the tornado that is imbedded in the telephone pole due to energy, not the strength of the component.

Added, for mm, each engine was only 3.32 percent of the mass on 9/11. So your big part becomes a 3 percent small part, leaving the building as did many other parts (not all of the engine left the building!). I wonder how much the landing gear weighs (BTW not all the landing gear assembly left the building)? Do you even think of looking up this stuff before makeing up ideas about them?

Last edited by beachnut; 20th April 2007 at 11:26 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 10:45 AM   #399
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
On re-reading carefully, there's something I must point out:



MirageMemories repeatedly misquotes me as follows:



This subtle alteration misses the point.

The point is that the reconstruction must be used quantitatively, as opposed to qualitatively. I did not mean for that clause to refer to the data, I was referring to the reconstruction.

What this means is that for the model to be useful, it must provide testable predictions in both gross order effects (that's the qualitative part) and magnitude (that's the quantitative part). For instance, predicting the exact timing of collapse versus merely predicting that it will collapse.

If you want your model to be this accurate, you must select a "best fit" case. If you retain a broad spectrum of cases, you will not get consensus. Unless you have some way to estimate the error in your inputs, which we do not, we cannot propagate errors to say anything useful about the spread of results. That's why NIST is doing what it's doing, and that's why the petitioner's approach is useless, not to mention ignorant and misleading.

Also MirageMemories, your statement about how only one test could be applied to evaluate model results quantitatively:



... is wrong. Please re-read what I wrote for you a couple of days ago.

Hopefully my clarification above will help you understand.
I missed that change and was reading what I knew you ment into what MM said.
I attributed the lack of understanding to general lack of wanting to understand that seems to permeate the "truth movement"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 11:00 AM   #400
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 1,924
[/QUOTE=beachnut;2538173...106,000 pounds of people, luggage, and fuel beats your engines and landing gear. You are not an engineer you are leaving out mass. At 600 mph mass and energy is important. You must think more like an engineer and less like a the nut case Dr Jones. [/quote]

I thought mass and energy were always important

The only reason these guys would ever pick up a physics book is to boost themselves up to the dinner table of conspiracy nuts.
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.