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 911 debunking , 911 debunking resources , ae911truth , controlled demolition , richard gage , world trade center , wtc 7

Closed Thread
Old 1st April 2012, 06:32 AM   #3921
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
I'll make a deal with you Chris7. I'll avoid all future accusations of a personal nature (like when I said you lied) if you will do the same to me (such as calling my letter defamatory for not including one word). Deal?

Before I send out my more extensive letter (with your correction) to Michael Newman, I will post it here for any other corrections. I realize that "major fires" is subjective but will keep it for them to weigh in on. I will email this out late tonight (Sunday).


Hi Michael,

Please omit the first version of my email and pass this corrected version along to any relevant people. Thank you!

I do have another 9/11 question, this time about the fires in Building 7. As you may know, there is still debate going on about the severity of the fires in that building. Several 9/11 Truth people, including Richard Gage whom I debated, believe the fires were relatively small and even some of those had burned out well before the collapse. They also say that much of the smoke around Building 7 was being sucked in due to low pressure from other buildings such as Building 6.

Based on photographic and video evidence, I see smoke pouring out of most floors except for perhaps a few of the top floors, smoke obviously streaming out of the building and not just bunching up against the walls. In the attached photos and in videos I have seen, it looks like the this was a major fire attacking most floors of the building.

However, the 9/11 Truth activists cite the NIST Report as evidence of scattered fires. Here is what they cite:

"You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors. The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

"NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

"The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

"There were no fires on the upper floors [above floor 30] at any time.

"The fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, leaving fires on 5 floors and some of those were dying down."

So here are my questions:

1.) I believe that according to the standards of evidence applied by NIST (visible flames at windows, smoke issuing from broken windows etc.) there is no visual evidence of fire above floor 30 or on many floors below this for that matter. And you proceeded on that basis. Is this true?

2.) From your report is it proper for 9/11 Truth activists to conclude that Building 7 had there was no major fire, "just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors"? Or is it reasonable to look at the photos and videos and conclude that the fires in Building 7 were extensive and that this could be categorized as a "major fire"? Does your report allow for the possibility that there were fires inside the building on other floors which were not visible at the windows, or do you assert, as 9/11 Truth activists do, that there were only the few fires you mentioned in the report and no others?

3.) From your report 9/11 Truth activists conclude that "The only floors on fire in that photo [at 4:53 pm, Figure 5-141] are 8 and 13. If you were to take the time to study all the photos you would know that. The smoke [along the side of the picture] is being drawn up the side because the breeze from the SW created a low pressure area just like the opposite corner... there were no fires above the 13th floor..." In other words, they claim that smoke was coming out of the building only on the 8th and 13th floors because fires on other floors had burned out by that time, and that other smoke in that picture is moving up the side of the building from an outside breeze and low pressure conditions. Is this the correct conclusion to draw from your report, or is it reasonable to infer that much of the smoke's source in the left of this picture was probably coming directly out of Building 7, creating the effect of smoke blowing horizontally from many more floors than just 8 and 13? Does your statement about outside smoke hanging alongside the building imply that all smoke visible in these pictures comes from sources outside Building 7 except smoke emanating from the floors you specifically mention?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 08:35 AM   #3922
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Like you need a PhD to look at photos and see where the fires are.
LOL!!! Holy ****! You're completely ignorant, and foolish to even BEGIN to assume that is all NIST did! Holy crap man, go build a shed or something. Leave the science and such to people who know what the **** they're doing.

Wow. Ignorance at it's finest.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 08:48 AM   #3923
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I'll make a deal with you Chris7. I'll avoid all future accusations of a personal nature (like when I said you lied) if you will do the same to me (such as calling my letter defamatory for not including one word). Deal?
No deal. Your misquote was defamatory. That "one word" made all the difference in the world and you know it. It's like leaving a "not" out of the 10 commandments, it changes the meaning completely.

But thank you for making the correction. You have my respect for being willing to do that.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 09:21 AM   #3924
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
OK C7 it's no personal attacks from you or you go on Ignore. Words like "wrong" or "incorrect" or "inaccurate" are fine. "Defamatory," "lying," "deliberately misleading", "ignorant," etc. are unacceptable. Telling me I haven't read the NIST Report without asking me is not OK. If you ask me I will tell you what I have and have not read. Attack my ideas and claims as "wrong" all you want. I have never attacked you for being a carpenter and I will not tolerate your attacks against me for my nonscientific, journalistic background. How other people interact with you and how you respond to it is your business. How I respond to a personal attack against me is my business. I made an inaccurate summarization of your position, not a defamatory one (as in "harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign"), and I corrected my mistake per your request. Personal attacks are toxic and I won't tolerate them from you any more.

If you don't understand where my line in the sand is you can ask me, privately or on this thread, where it is. I'm happy to clarify and would rather do it right on this thread so everyone knows. So far, Marokkaan is the only person I've put on Ignore here, so I don't take this move lightly. I'd rather not put you on Ignore if we can work this out. In the meantime from here on in I will keep all responses to you at a high standard of respect.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 11:10 AM   #3925
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
OK C7 it's no personal attacks from you or you go on Ignore. Words like "wrong" or "incorrect" or "inaccurate" are fine. "Defamatory," "lying," "deliberately misleading", "ignorant," etc. are unacceptable. Telling me I haven't read the NIST Report without asking me is not OK. If you ask me I will tell you what I have and have not read. Attack my ideas and claims as "wrong" all you want. I have never attacked you for being a carpenter and I will not tolerate your attacks against me for my nonscientific, journalistic background. How other people interact with you and how you respond to it is your business. How I respond to a personal attack against me is my business. I made an inaccurate summarization of your position, not a defamatory one (as in "harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign"), and I corrected my mistake per your request. Personal attacks are toxic and I won't tolerate them from you any more.

If you don't understand where my line in the sand is you can ask me, privately or on this thread, where it is. I'm happy to clarify and would rather do it right on this thread so everyone knows. So far, Marokkaan is the only person I've put on Ignore here, so I don't take this move lightly. I'd rather not put you on Ignore if we can work this out. In the meantime from here on in I will keep all responses to you at a high standard of respect.
I will chose my words carefully in the future but saying that Richard said the fires had gone out is incorrect and defamatory. It makes him look like a idiot right out of the gate.

defamatory [dɪˈfmətərɪ -trɪ]adj (Law) injurious to someone's name or reputation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defamatory


You also misquoted Mr. Gage in your video

"So let's finally investigate one of Richard's central claims, that the free fall collapse of part of the north face of building 7 …"

That is NOT Richard's claim and you know it. He says the entire upper part of the building came down at Free fall acceleration. Mr. Gage [and I] agree with NIST when we can see with our own eyes that they are correct. You injected your denial of the entire upper portion falling as a single unit into his position.

Perhaps you will correct that too. Note that I didn't say "deliberately misleading".

Last edited by Christopher7; 1st April 2012 at 11:12 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 08:32 PM   #3926
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
While I await an answer to my questions about the fires in Building 7 from NIST, I thought you all might be interested in NIST's recent answer to another FAQ: "WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Gee, that sure sounds like how I've been talking (the italicized portions are my emphasis). NIST also says in this FAQ that it "did appear to fall almost uniformly..." I don't think it fair to interpret the NISt Report as saying the whole top of Building 7 fell as a single unit 100.0%.

More info at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 1st April 2012 at 09:47 PM. Reason: spelling error
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 09:46 PM   #3927
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
PS Chris7 I just made the correction you suggested in my video 18 about 30 seconds in to more accurately reflect Richard Gage's claim re freefall collapse of Building 7.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 10:31 PM   #3928
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
While I await an answer to my questions about the fires in Building 7 from NIST, I thought you all might be interested in NIST's recent answer to another FAQ: "WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.
The final report did not use the words "appear to" or "almost uniformly". It said "in a single unit, as observed".

Note that NIST does not use the caveat "except for the part that had already collapsed" because that part goes without saying for reasonable people.

The FAQ response is careful choice of added qualifiers but it in no way disputes that the upper portion actually did fall as a single unit. It appeared to fall as a single unit because it did.

Quote:
This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core.
Not at both ends prior the the collapse, just the east end. The broken windows on the west end of the core begin after the building starts to fall.

Signs of internal failure do not reveal what caused that failure.

Quote:
The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
"Symmetric" is subjective and "appearance" tries to suggest that it wasn't symmetric. These are just wiggle words that do not dispute "in a single unit, as observed".
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2012, 10:37 PM   #3929
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
PS Chris7 I just made the correction you suggested in my video 18 about 30 seconds in to more accurately reflect Richard Gage's claim re freefall collapse of Building 7.
Thank you for the correction and the willingness to do so.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 03:34 AM   #3930
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...

That is NOT Richard's claim and you know it...

Perhaps you will correct that too. Note that I didn't say "deliberately misleading".
I'd ask you if you think Mohr knew the claim was incorrect at the time he made it, or if he could've just misspoke, but I know you won't answer.

Funny how you're so willing to call NIST liars with one breath, willing to take their word as holy writ the next, and willing to dance around the question of whether you called Mohr a liar when you said he made "misleading statements".

It's also nice of you to state that it is your opinion, not just NIST's, that the entire upper section fell as a single unit.

Last edited by 000063; 2nd April 2012 at 03:40 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 03:40 AM   #3931
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247]
12.8 seconds from girder failure to all core columns collapsed

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]

2 seconds for exterior columns to fail.

Best known estimate for roof line to ground:
6.6 seconds

Total 21.4 seconds
You seem to have forgotten something.

Oh, right, THE EAST PENTHOUSE.


Quote:
Like you need a PhD to look at photos and see where the fires are.
As others have said, that's not all NIST did.

Quote:
They interviewed firefighters. However, all the fires that they listed could be confirmed by the photos.
So you're admitting they did more than just look at photos. Thank you.

Quote:
Shadows are very inaccurate and NIST did not say what their methodology was.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 327 [pdf pg 281]

NIST appendix L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Nice backpedal.

Quote:
I delete insults and things don't need/deserve a response. You write what you want and I will respond as I choose.
You're deliberately avoiding clarifying your statement because it contradicts your claim that you did not call Chris Mohr a liar. I do not know whether your doing so is rationalization or active falsehood, but I am quite willing to call you a liar, or at least intellectually dishonest, and to support such a claim.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 04:59 AM   #3932
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
You seem to have forgotten something.

Oh, right, THE EAST PENTHOUSE.
That time includes the east penthouse.

Quote:
You're deliberately avoiding clarifying your statement
Correct, and I will continue to do so.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 05:43 AM   #3933
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
I still think it's funny that C7 thinks that all the fire science guys did to determine fire progression, etc. was to look at photos.

But, he will never try to back that up, because it will confirm he knows less than nothing about the subject.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 06:27 AM   #3934
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Well, he has claimed that they talked to firefighters, but the firefighters only confirm the photos.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That time includes the east penthouse.
Are you sure? If I check the report I won't say something different?

*checks*

I can't find which parts of the first reference say 12.5 seconds. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

The funny thing is that this is all a red herring. The collapse took a few seconds. The damage was ongoing for most of the day. You can't argue that the critical fires had burned out hours earlier and that the process of collapse was only a few seconds.

Quote:
Correct, and I will continue to do so.
So you will continue to avoid answering questions I have alleged would be self-contradictory to your argument.

Oh, and to quote-mine.

Thank you.

Last edited by 000063; 2nd April 2012 at 06:38 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 09:21 AM   #3935
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
OK C7 it's no personal attacks from you or you go on Ignore. Words like "wrong" or "incorrect" or "inaccurate" are fine. "Defamatory," "lying," "deliberately misleading",

Chris Mohr - you really don't have any idea what these people are all about, do you?

They're not interested in accuracy. They're not interested in learning or teaching.

They're interested in character assasination, disruption and ignorance. Please don't be so naieve as to think you can get through to someone like C7 or any of them. You're wasting your time.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 09:23 AM   #3936
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
it makes him look like a idiot right out of the gate.

he is an idiot!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 11:03 AM   #3937
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,600
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Chris Mohr - you really don't have any idea what these people are all about, do you?

They're not interested in accuracy. They're not interested in learning or teaching.

They're interested in character assasination, disruption and ignorance. Please don't be so nive as to think you can get through to someone like C7 or any of them. You're wasting your time.
Correct. I can't believe that Chris Mohr doesn't put two and two together. The same personality disorders and mental problems that feed their 9/11 delusions feed their interpersonal communications. Why waste time being cordial with delusional fantasists? It's all pretend games for these guys. Promising not to insult each other while arguing about pretend games is for 7 year olds.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 11:25 AM   #3938
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,753
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I will chose my words carefully in the future but saying that Richard said the fires had gone out is incorrect and defamatory. It makes him look like a idiot right out of the gate.

defamatory [dɪˈfmətərɪ -trɪ]adj (Law) injurious to someone's name or reputation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defamatory
No, you're right. This is what makes Gage look like an idiot:

Originally Posted by http://www.ae911truth.org/

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

...Etc. etc...
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 11:39 AM   #3939
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
You forgot this, which he has never retraced.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 06:37 PM   #3940
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I will chose my words carefully in the future but saying that Richard said the fires had gone out is incorrect and defamatory. It makes him look like a idiot right out of the gate.

defamatory [dɪˈfmətərɪ -trɪ]adj (Law) injurious to someone's name or reputation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defamatory...
The impact of defamation law varies between jurisdictions however two points of law are relevant:
1) In most jurisdictions it is a sufficient defence that the alleged defamaory statements are true; AND
2) Even if defamation is proven the extent of damages will depend on the actual status of the victims reputation and the amount of damage done to that actual current reputation. In Gages case what price his reputation at this stage of the game?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2012, 06:53 PM   #3941
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Man,I sure do love the ”pyroclastic like” dust cloud bit.

A sandstorm is closer to that than the dust cloud.....
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 05:47 AM   #3942
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Correct. I can't believe that Chris Mohr doesn't put two and two together. The same personality disorders and mental problems that feed their 9/11 delusions feed their interpersonal communications. Why waste time being cordial with delusional fantasists? It's all pretend games for these guys. Promising not to insult each other while arguing about pretend games is for 7 year olds.
Richard Gage is completely wrong about controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. That's my best discernment about the content of what he says. Judgment of him as a delusional psycho or sociopathic liar is literally against my religion. As I posted on another thread yesterday, I try to live by the ideal of loving all, no matter what, it will win all battles.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 08:37 AM   #3943
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Love him all you want. He's still a liar.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 08:52 AM   #3944
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,600
Love the sinner liar; hate the sin lies?

Other than maybe Scientology, I was unaware that someone's religion prevented them from recognizing personality disorders and mental illness.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 11:43 AM   #3945
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,340
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Richard Gage is completely wrong about controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. That's my best discernment about the content of what he says. Judgment of him as a delusional psycho or sociopathic liar is literally against my religion. As I posted on another thread yesterday, I try to live by the ideal of loving all, no matter what, it will win all battles.
Chris, as much as I admire your patience and your love for peace. People are judged on their beliefs, it's a fact. If you don't do that, that's fine, but it's tough to expect others to agree.

Richard Gage is a form of scum that willfully bleeds the lesser educated of their money by distributing lies HE KNOWS ARE FALSE. He tours around on other peoples dime in order to spread these lies because he doesn't want do real work. I don't know what religion you are, and I am not here to judge ones religion. However, I wouldn't join one that allows me to embrace someone that disgraces the deaths of 3,000 innocents.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind. - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 07:32 PM   #3946
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Chris,

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I don't think it fair to interpret the NISt Report as saying the whole top of Building 7 fell as a single unit 100.0%.
It's not only "not fair" to interpret the NIST report ... etc.

It is absolutely, 100% wrong to say that.

NIST doesn't say much directly, but it is easy to interpret from their data. If you know a bit about structures.

The proof is buried in the data regarding the loads held up by the peripheral columns during the progression of collapse.
___

There is no doubt that NIST describes the multiple phases of the collapse, and gives time references to each. It describes the horizontal progression of the collapse, and refers to it occurring on the "middle floors". (See note shown below in the middle of Fig 12-68, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 593, pdf pg 255)

The fundamental question is: when a group of columns fails at a lower floor, can the floors & columns above be held up & supported by their lateral connections? Or will the collapse of lower columns progress to the roof?

If, and only if, the columns & floors above a lower collapse can be supported by their lateral connections, can the remaining portion of the upper block "fall as a unit".

If the columns & floors above a lower collapse can not be supported by their lateral connections, but instead collapse as the lower columns collapse, then the upper block will NOT collapse as a single unit. But will instead collapse sequentially as the lower sections' collapse progressed. This will leave a hollowed out shell throughout the upper floors, with the upper floors.

There are two unequivocal proofs that NIST says that the upper core collapsed BEFORE the outer shell (i.e., NOT as a unit), and not simultaneously with the outer shell.

The first proof (and the place where I first realized that this had to be the case) is shown in Fig 12-61 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, pg. 587, pdf pg. 249. This drawing shows the loads on the outer columns (in groups).



IF the lower internal columns collapsed, but the lateral supports sustained the upper inner core, then the loads on the north & south outer columns would HAVE TO increase dramatically (about 50%), because these columns would be supporting not only their share of the upper block, but also the share that had been shed by the core.

Fig 12-61 shows that this is absolutely not the case.

The vertical collapse happens between 14 & 16 seconds on this timeline. The horizontal progression of collapse happens between 16 & 21.5 seconds.

It is clear from this graph that the south outer wall's loads (black line) stay approximately constant, while the north wall's load (blue line) actually decreases.

The simple fact that neither of these walls' loads increase by approximately 50% (south wall from ~30 to ~45 MN & north wall from ~36 to ~54 MN) PROVES that the collapse progressed from the collapse floors to the roof AS IT HAPPENED.

One might also note comment 3 in Fig 12-61: "Unloading due to interior structure falling away from external columns." This is a clear give-away as to NIST's thoughts on the matter, although they are explicitly talking about "falling away from" the north & east wall in this comment. Regardless, the structure of the building was the same on the south & west walls as it was on the north & east walls. The structural response to internal collapse would be the same as well.

As a further note, it can be seen from this chart that NIST says that the east outer wall buckled partially first, then the north wall began to buckle slowly (phase I) about 2 seconds later. About one second after that, the south & west wall buckled together (the south wall completely & the southern portion of the west wall). About a second after this, the north wall started its global collapse (phase II) along with the remaining northern half of the west wall. Finally, the remaining portion of the east wall collapsed.

Here again, NIST explicitly shows that their models do NOT show all external walls collapsing simultaneously, but rather collapsing in a complex sequence, each releasing (in 1 or 2 steps) over a period of about 5 seconds.

One last thing to note: These graphs also show that NIST's structural modelers do NOT believe that the external walls went "into free fall". If they did, these load vs. time graphs would have an infinite (straight up) slope as the load reduced instantly to zero. The slopes are steep, but they are not anything close to vertical. Especially for the north wall.

These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall.
___

The second proof is the drawings of the "collapse of the core", Figures 12-66 thru 12-69. In these drawings, one can watch the horizontal progression of the core collapse, at each interval progressively taking down with it the internal upper core above the collapse zone right to the roof.

These drawings confirm completely the conclusions reached above.

It should be noted that these images do NOT show the outer shell. This is proven by the various beams & columns that continue to hang motionless, in free space, to the right of the collapse front throughout the collapse. These graphs are derived from a "physics based" program. Beams, girders & columns do not hang motionless in space unless they are attached to something. They are attached to the outer frame of the building.

Examine this drawing carefully, and compare the circled elements in the sequence below to see components that are "hanging in air".


Core Collapse sequence:







In these images, the collapse of the entire structure, floor to ceiling, under the east penthouse is complete at 2.3 seconds. (Note that these times are offset from the times noted in the graphs above. The number in parentheses above each graph corresponds to the time scale above.)

The global collapse has not yet begun at 13.5 seconds. (At 15.5 seconds, it is "underway".) So there is a stretch of 13.5 - 2.3 = 11.2 seconds during which the interior core, right to the roof, is collapsing.

This IS "what NIST says".

Regardless of Chris7's, or anyone else's, attempts to quote mine a single sentence.

Chris Mohr, I hope that this is clear and understandable. If you need any elaboration on any point, let me know.


tom

PS. Chris7, I note well that, as expected, you simple ran from the opportunity to back up your assertions. What a non-surprise.

Last edited by tfk; 3rd April 2012 at 07:34 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 07:48 PM   #3947
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Duplicate post deleted.

Last edited by tfk; 3rd April 2012 at 07:49 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 09:01 PM   #3948
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Tom,
I wrote again to Michael Newman at NIST with a link to your post 3946 above, asking if this is a good summary of NIST's actual position re the collapse of Building 7. I've read it twice so far and am digesting it. It seems like a very good explanation, and I will ask more about it as I understand it better. Thanks for your time on this.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 09:14 PM   #3949
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?

Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2012, 10:10 PM   #3950
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?

Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
I am explicitly talking about what NIST's models say. NIST engineers' conclusions were informed by their models.

They are sophisticated enough to know, and to express explicitly, that the models aren't exact, and that the further in time that one travels into the collapse, the greater the probable divergence between the model & reality.

Nonetheless, I stand by what I've written here.

NIST wrote two mutually exclusive statements about their opinions about the collapse. I cited them earlier.

One statement said:
Originally Posted by NIST
When all the exterior columns had buckled, as shown in Figure 12–62, the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7.
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, pg. 588 (vol 2, pdf pg 250), emphasis added

The second statement said:
Originally Posted by NIST
Once column support was lost in the lower floors, the remaining exterior structure above began to fall vertically as a single unit.
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, pg. 586 (vol 2, pdf pg 248), emphasis added

Taken literally, these two statements (only 2 pages apart) are mutually exclusive.

I contend that the observations made in that long post settles beyond doubt NIST's true interpretation of the events.

I contend that the first statement "... the entire building ..." is entirely inconsistent with all of the evidence that I presented and is therefore wrong.

I contend that the second statement "... the remaining exterior structure ..." is entirely consistent with all of the evidence that I presented and is therefore correct.

I contend that the above is true reflection of NIST's opinion about both the model & their opinion of reality.

tom

Last edited by tfk; 3rd April 2012 at 10:16 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2012, 12:35 AM   #3951
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
I am explicitly talking about what NIST's models say....
Thank you.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
NIST engineers' conclusions were informed by their models....
Sure.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
They are sophisticated enough to know, and to express explicitly, that the models aren't exact, and that the further in time that one travels into the collapse, the greater the probable divergence between the model & reality....
Understood.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2012, 04:48 AM   #3952
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Chris,



It's not only "not fair" to interpret the NIST report ... etc.

It is absolutely, 100% wrong to say that.

NIST doesn't say much directly, but it is easy to interpret from their data. If you know a bit about structures.

The proof is buried in the data regarding the loads held up by the peripheral columns during the progression of collapse.
___

There is no doubt that NIST describes the multiple phases of the collapse, and gives time references to each. It describes the horizontal progression of the collapse, and refers to it occurring on the "middle floors". (See note shown below in the middle of Fig 12-68, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 593, pdf pg 255)

The fundamental question is: when a group of columns fails at a lower floor, can the floors & columns above be held up & supported by their lateral connections? Or will the collapse of lower columns progress to the roof?

If, and only if, the columns & floors above a lower collapse can be supported by their lateral connections, can the remaining portion of the upper block "fall as a unit".

If the columns & floors above a lower collapse can not be supported by their lateral connections, but instead collapse as the lower columns collapse, then the upper block will NOT collapse as a single unit. But will instead collapse sequentially as the lower sections' collapse progressed. This will leave a hollowed out shell throughout the upper floors, with the upper floors.

There are two unequivocal proofs that NIST says that the upper core collapsed BEFORE the outer shell (i.e., NOT as a unit), and not simultaneously with the outer shell.

The first proof (and the place where I first realized that this had to be the case) is shown in Fig 12-61 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, pg. 587, pdf pg. 249. This drawing shows the loads on the outer columns (in groups).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5779

IF the lower internal columns collapsed, but the lateral supports sustained the upper inner core, then the loads on the north & south outer columns would HAVE TO increase dramatically (about 50%), because these columns would be supporting not only their share of the upper block, but also the share that had been shed by the core.

Fig 12-61 shows that this is absolutely not the case.

The vertical collapse happens between 14 & 16 seconds on this timeline. The horizontal progression of collapse happens between 16 & 21.5 seconds.

It is clear from this graph that the south outer wall's loads (black line) stay approximately constant, while the north wall's load (blue line) actually decreases.

The simple fact that neither of these walls' loads increase by approximately 50% (south wall from ~30 to ~45 MN & north wall from ~36 to ~54 MN) PROVES that the collapse progressed from the collapse floors to the roof AS IT HAPPENED.

One might also note comment 3 in Fig 12-61: "Unloading due to interior structure falling away from external columns." This is a clear give-away as to NIST's thoughts on the matter, although they are explicitly talking about "falling away from" the north & east wall in this comment. Regardless, the structure of the building was the same on the south & west walls as it was on the north & east walls. The structural response to internal collapse would be the same as well.

As a further note, it can be seen from this chart that NIST says that the east outer wall buckled partially first, then the north wall began to buckle slowly (phase I) about 2 seconds later. About one second after that, the south & west wall buckled together (the south wall completely & the southern portion of the west wall). About a second after this, the north wall started its global collapse (phase II) along with the remaining northern half of the west wall. Finally, the remaining portion of the east wall collapsed.

Here again, NIST explicitly shows that their models do NOT show all external walls collapsing simultaneously, but rather collapsing in a complex sequence, each releasing (in 1 or 2 steps) over a period of about 5 seconds.

One last thing to note: These graphs also show that NIST's structural modelers do NOT believe that the external walls went "into free fall". If they did, these load vs. time graphs would have an infinite (straight up) slope as the load reduced instantly to zero. The slopes are steep, but they are not anything close to vertical. Especially for the north wall.

These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall.
___

The second proof is the drawings of the "collapse of the core", Figures 12-66 thru 12-69. In these drawings, one can watch the horizontal progression of the core collapse, at each interval progressively taking down with it the internal upper core above the collapse zone right to the roof.

These drawings confirm completely the conclusions reached above.

It should be noted that these images do NOT show the outer shell. This is proven by the various beams & columns that continue to hang motionless, in free space, to the right of the collapse front throughout the collapse. These graphs are derived from a "physics based" program. Beams, girders & columns do not hang motionless in space unless they are attached to something. They are attached to the outer frame of the building.

Examine this drawing carefully, and compare the circled elements in the sequence below to see components that are "hanging in air".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5780

Core Collapse sequence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5776

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5777

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5778

In these images, the collapse of the entire structure, floor to ceiling, under the east penthouse is complete at 2.3 seconds. (Note that these times are offset from the times noted in the graphs above. The number in parentheses above each graph corresponds to the time scale above.)

The global collapse has not yet begun at 13.5 seconds. (At 15.5 seconds, it is "underway".) So there is a stretch of 13.5 - 2.3 = 11.2 seconds during which the interior core, right to the roof, is collapsing.

This IS "what NIST says".

Regardless of Chris7's, or anyone else's, attempts to quote mine a single sentence.

Chris Mohr, I hope that this is clear and understandable. If you need any elaboration on any point, let me know.


tom

PS. Chris7, I note well that, as expected, you simple ran from the opportunity to back up your assertions. What a non-surprise.

#000063bookmark
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2012, 06:19 AM   #3953
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No deal. Your misquote was defamatory. That "one word" made all the difference in the world and you know it. It's like leaving a "not" out of the 10 commandments, it changes the meaning completely.

But thank you for making the correction. You have my respect for being willing to do that.
C7,

Inferring that Chris Mohr meant to defame you is nonsensical, unless you had a reputation among engineering professionals to maintain, which you don't.

You know that, right?
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2012, 06:35 AM   #3954
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Love the sinner liar; hate the sin lies?

Other than maybe Scientology, I was unaware that someone's religion prevented them from recognizing personality disorders and mental illness.
I see and respect where Chris M is coming from. One judgment is factual and can be done by analysis of the data (CD at WTC), while the other is more subjective and dubious unless you involve mental health professionals ( personality disorder and mental illness)

Last edited by OCaptain; 4th April 2012 at 06:46 AM.
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2012, 06:49 AM   #3955
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
I love how he's still dancing around the question of whether a "misleading statement" = "lie". And the hypocrisy of complaining about the misquotes of others when he admits he doesn't respond to points he doesn't want to.

Maybe he's worried the other carpenters at the hardware store are gonna laugh at him.

Last edited by 000063; 4th April 2012 at 06:51 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2012, 01:56 AM   #3956
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
C7,

Inferring that Chris Mohr meant to defame you is nonsensical
Correct. Where did you get that? Go back and read my post again.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2012, 06:07 AM   #3957
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Correct. Where did you get that? Go back and read my post again.
Okay, fine, so are you Gage's lawyer? You're not doing a good job, if so.
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2012, 06:47 AM   #3958
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi Tom,

Looking at Figure 12-69 (the inside of Building 7) from the south, it is pretty easy to see a catastrophic collapse progressing under the east penthouse, with abundant columns holding on to the perimeter walls. Ryan Mackey once claimed in an email to me that 8 floors held on at one point inside Building 7 during this period, but I don't see evidence of this in the NIST Report.

It seems to me like a general buckling of columns east to west, which would cause first the visible collapse of the east penthouse, then the west penthouse as the rest of the building comes down immediately after the west penthouse disappears.

Michael Newman at NIST told me this is the most complex collapse sequence ever modeled, and that new computer programs and very fast computers had to be used to input all the data. When you see how all of this is modeled from an event that happened behind mostly-intact perimeter walls, it is pretty amazing, and easy to see why the model would not always reflect reality 100%, as NIST itself said.

A question: I can't reconcile your statement that "These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall." How does that statement, and the graph 12-61, reconcile with NIST's measurement of part of the roofline of the north face descending "at gravitational acceleration" for 2.25 seconds? Your statement seems to contradict that. David Chandler seemed to explain the discrepancy in terms of fraud on NIST's part. If I understand his claim, it's that NIST at first averaged out the collapse speed of the perimeter walls over a longer time in order to gloss over the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Their acknowledgement of 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration of the roofline of part of the north face came after the public comment period and appeared in the final report, but not the draft report.

Can you clarify how to reconcile Figure 12-61 with NIST's graph showing gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2012, 08:18 AM   #3959
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
"To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?

Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
"
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
"I am explicitly talking about what NIST's models say. NIST engineers' conclusions were informed by their models.

They are sophisticated enough to know, and to express explicitly, that the models aren't exact, and that the further in time that one travels into the collapse, the greater the probable divergence between the model & reality.

Nonetheless, I stand by what I've written here.
"
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"...Michael Newman at NIST told me this is the most complex collapse sequence ever modeled, and that new computer programs and very fast computers had to be used to input all the data. When you see how all of this is modeled from an event that happened behind mostly-intact perimeter walls, it is pretty amazing, and easy to see why the model would not always reflect reality 100%, as NIST itself said..."
Computer Models are certainly useful tools, but their usefulness faces serious challenges when asked to create an accurate collapse portrait of WTC7, which was a huge, modern, 47-story office tower.

As with WTC1 and WTC2, the NIST were pioneering in their attempts to usefully model the collapse of WTC7.

Prior to 9/11, the NIST did not have any gainful knowledge from a previous steel-structured, highrise, total building failure, or from a previous successful modeling of a steel-structured, highrise, building failure--from fire.

Render times.

The more realistic the model, the longer the rendering time.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm

"A single computer simulation of the structural response to fires took about eight months to complete on powerful computing workstations and clusters [slaved workstations]."

Hmm...Given that each tweak to the model was so enormously costly in computer resources, I wonder how many different scenarios of those 8-month computer renders the NIST decided they had time and/or interest to run?

The time and computer cost of producing this extremely slow-rendering complex 'building failure' model does not make it a very useful, or neutral, tool.

And the knowledge that every time new-scenario data failed to conclude with a total collapse of WTC7, they had to re-adjust their input data and wait another 8 months.

I wonder if the NIST made note of how many of those 8-month computer renders they had time and/or interest to run, before they decided to use current results to base their conclusions?

Certainly the external model images that the NIST provided of the WTC7 collapse, fail to compare with what was actually observed.

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 Back to Top
Old 5th April 2012, 09:58 AM   #3960
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Computer Models are certainly useful tools, but their usefulness faces serious challenges when asked to create an accurate collapse portrait of WTC7, which was a huge, modern, 47-story office tower.

As with WTC1 and WTC2, the NIST were pioneering in their attempts to usefully model the collapse of WTC7.

Prior to 9/11, the NIST did not have any gainful knowledge from a previous steel-structured, highrise, total building failure, or from a previous successful modeling of a steel-structured, highrise, building failure--from fire.

Render times.

The more realistic the model, the longer the rendering time.


"A single computer simulation of the structural response to fires took about eight months to complete on powerful computing workstations and clusters [slaved workstations]."

Hmm...Given that each tweak to the model was so enormously costly in computer resources, I wonder how many different scenarios of those 8-month computer renders the NIST decided they had time and/or interest to run?

The time and computer cost of producing this extremely slow-rendering complex 'building failure' model does not make it a very useful, or neutral, tool.

And the knowledge that every time new-scenario data failed to conclude with a total collapse of WTC7, they had to re-adjust their input data and wait another 8 months.

I wonder if the NIST made note of how many of those 8-month computer renders they had time and/or interest to run, before they decided to use current results to base their conclusions?

Certainly the external model images that the NIST provided of the WTC7 collapse, fail to compare with what was actually observed.

MM
Now you're in my area of expertise, and as usual, you're in way over your head. First of all, NIST did not "tweak" the model; they used an entirely different method of modeling wherein several sets of assumptions were made beforehand, and each set of assumptions were input into the model and run to completion, regardless of the results. They then compared the results against the real world results to determine if their input parameters were correct. They selected the closest model that matched the real-world results, and studied the response of the building during the simulation run to see if it matched the responses indicated by other external evidence. In other words, the evidence proved the model, not the other way around. This is a very respectable method of using computer modeling, and it also saves a great deal of modeling time - at 8 months a run, you're absolutely right, there are only a few runs that they can afford to do in the interests of a timely investigation.

Last edited by thedopefishlives; 5th April 2012 at 10:00 AM.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 06:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.