NIST Issues Official CT Smack-Down

[Cylinder]

NIST WTC Investigation FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis...

How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse...

How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?...

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?...

Cinch-up your Van Allen belt and head over to the grassy knoll, this easy-to-read FAQ covers 13 of the most common claims by the tin foil crowd regarding the NIST investigation of the WTC collapse.

[WildCat]

Won't matter to the militantly stupid CT'ers, I bet.

[Cylinder]

Won't matter to the militantly stupid CT'ers, I bet.

That's a safe bet.

[brodski]

Won't matter to the militantly stupid CT'ers, I bet.
Of course it won't, in fact they'll use this as support for their crazy theories. "See, we've got the NIST running scared". Or the classic "they wouldn't bother denying it if it weren't true". It does provide a handy guide to try and save those who have only just been exposed to the CT virus however, it may even work as an inoculation. ;)

[Brainache]

For what the Loosers are saying:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11861

[brodski]

For what the Loosers are saying:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11861
I'll take the million in crisp, new notes please. J

[defaultdotxbe]

For what the Loosers are saying:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11861

i think theyre all neurotic, the conversation digressed into a discussion of breakfast

[jhunter1163]

Wow... simple, clear and devastating.

I don't know what was for breakfast at Dylan's, but dinner will be crow with humble pie a la mode for dessert.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Someone's been taking lesons from Spooked911:

What a bunch of hogwash!

WTC buildings taken down by controlled demolitions. Period!

Take an large square milk carton. This will be the tower.
Now take an eyedropper and put two little drops into it. This is the amount
of fuel from the wings of the plane in relation to the volume of the building.

Don't make me laugh.


For those who have just tuned in, here's the latest update:

A wooden toy is not a 767.

A rabbit cage is not a skyscraper.

A pile of toilet paper tubes and colored paper is not a skyscraper.

The tree the Keebler Elves™ live in is not a skyscraper.

A milk carton is not a skyscraper.

[Stellafane]

I'd say it's all over but the shouting...but it never was anything but shouting in the first place, so I guess it's still not all over.

[DavidJames]

The quote below from FAQ is all the losers need to keep up the shouting.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

[jhunter1163]

Never mind that thermite was debunked in points 2, 4, 5, and 11...

[gumboot]

Looks like some of the NIST scientists have a hobby...

Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Doesn't it feel great when leading world experts say the same thing as you? :D

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Am I reading this wrong?

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Seems to me they're going to COMPARE the debris/fire induced collapse of WTC7 with the likely outcome of a bombing.

Now THAT could be interesting.

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

Looks like some of the NIST scientists have a hobby...

Doesn't it feel great when leading world experts say the same thing as you? :D

-Andrew

D'you reckon any of them ever come around here?

Hey NIST scientists, join up, you know you wanna.

[Yoink]

Ooh. Real science. Shiny....

[T.A.M.]

Gumboot:

Ya it seems interesting, and there intentions I think are to disprove the CTers theories, but in my readings of how the CTers are taking those comments, they see them as the NIST group actually considering CD as a possibility for the collapse of WTC7

[Yoink]

Gumboot:

Ya it seems interesting, and there intentions I think are to disprove the CTers theories, but in my readings of how the CTers are taking those comments, they see them as the NIST group actually considering CD as a possibility for the collapse of WTC7

Well, all to the good, really. Then, at least, when the conclusions come out they can't say "they never even considered CD, it's all a whitewash." Right?

[T.A.M.]

the LC Forum re NIST:

It is funny how they still think NIST thinks ONLY fire contributed to collapse, DESPITE the fact that on multiple occasions they have stated in the report that the "Plane impacts along with the wide spread multifloor fires INITIATED by the Jet fuel, resulted in the eventual Collapse.".

I think the CTers suffer from a reading disability or selective blindness.

I also noted how quickly after Loonbin spoke out against the critique they were giving, that the admin Crazyblade suddenly appeared and made a comment...his finger on the "Ban" button...lol

[gumboot]

the LC Forum re NIST:

It is funny how they still think NIST thinks ONLY fire contributed to collapse, DESPITE the fact that on multiple occasions they have stated in the report that the "Plane impacts along with the wide spread multifloor fires INITIATED by the Jet fuel, resulted in the eventual Collapse.".


Heresay seems to be a staple of the 9/11 movement. I am constantly coming across people who repeat false information as fact. Steel melted. Mutiple wargames. Florida state of emergency. Freefall speeds. These are common claims that just simply had no basis in reality, resulting in a strawman orgy or Roman proportions.

-Andrew

[Yoink]

Heresay seems to be a staple of the 9/11 movement. I am constantly coming across people who repeat false information as fact. Steel melted. Mutiple wargames. Florida state of emergency. Freefall speeds. These are common claims that just simply had no basis in reality, resulting in a strawman orgy or Roman proportions.

-Andrew

Although one thing that really did strike me in this report was that they pretty much endorse the "freefall speed" claim. I think they're using it pretty loosely ("sure, it was within a few seconds of "freefall""), but it was interesting to me that they have come up with such short times for the collapse.

Essentially they're saying that the towers were offering almost no meaningful resistance once the collapse started.

[kevin]

For what the Loosers are saying:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11861

I like the guy that posted the Thermal Analysis slides from a NIST powerpoint show. They think the chart is a maximum temp reached, but it's not -- it clearly states it's 100 seconds after impact. Less than 2 minutes after impact and they already had columns at 400 C. They also don't seem to realize the difference between C and F as they say 250 C is barely enough to cook steak. 250 C is 482 F.

If anyone is interested in what things looked like after 5400 seconds the full report is here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004CoupledFireDynamics.pdf

they have graphs for if there was 100% full fire protection, blown off fire protection and aircraft damage + blown off fire protection.

[kevin]

Although one thing that really did strike me in this report was that they pretty much endorse the "freefall speed" claim. I think they're using it pretty loosely ("sure, it was within a few seconds of "freefall""), but it was interesting to me that they have come up with such short times for the collapse.[quote]

They based it off seismic timings rather than videos. I'm not sure the end of the collapse was clearly shown that far away. The guys from the demo company said they had seismic recorders at various sites in the city, I wonder if they showed a longer collapse time.

[quote]Essentially they're saying that the towers were offering almost no meaningful resistance once the collapse started.

That's actually probably true. Once the top part of the building started collapsing the bolts and connectors would just snap on impact. If had started at the very top I might wonder about it but hitting a floor with 8-10 floors at once is going to overwhelm systems as if they weren't there.

[gumboot]

Although one thing that really did strike me in this report was that they pretty much endorse the "freefall speed" claim. I think they're using it pretty loosely ("sure, it was within a few seconds of "freefall""), but it was interesting to me that they have come up with such short times for the collapse.


Not really.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

My bolding.

-Andrew

[kevin]

Not really.

Good point. I missed that in my reading.

[gumboot]

Good point. I missed that in my reading.

What's interesting is this:

The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

That gives you a collapse time of of about 25 seconds for main debris, PLUS the collapse time for the 60 and 40 storey core sections.

-Andrew

[Yoink]

Not really.

-Andrew

Ya rly:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

They do say that large parts of the building remained standing after the initial collapse and then collapsed later. But they say--here in glorious black and white--that the initial collapse was "essentially in free fall."

[T.A.M.]

Yes; and I believe the reason they have no issue with saying that the main part of the building collapsed in near freefall, is because they also explain that the building did offer nearly no resistance, due to the overwhelming forces of the accelerating top section coming down. Why would they argue the freefall comments, when they state that there was virtually no resistance anyway.

[gumboot]

They do say that large parts of the building remained standing after the initial collapse and then collapsed later. But they say--here in glorious black and white--that the initial collapse was "essentially in free fall."


I think they are using the common usage "free fall" rather than the scientific "free fall" - that is - it fell continuously (without any significant resistance) as a result of gravity. I wouldn't use this as evidence of "free fall speed" in a scientific sense because as anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows free fall can only occur in a vacuum.

I don't think NIST scientists would make this mistake - the FAQ seems to have purposefully used very simple laymans language.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Ya rly:


By the way, my "not really" comment was in response to your statement:

but it was interesting to me that they have come up with such short times for the collapse.

As I showed, the short collapse time wasn't the actual collapse time - merely the time from initiation of collapse to first ground impacts.

-Andrew

[R.Mackey]

Ya rly:

They do say that large parts of the building remained standing after the initial collapse and then collapsed later. But they say--here in glorious black and white--that the initial collapse was "essentially in free fall."
In case you haven't already, you may wish to check out Greening's attempt to match the collapse times through an energy budget argument, found here (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf). Bottom line is that the collapse times are completely credible.

Think of it this way -- structural steel only compresses a few percent (3% strain is the rule-of-thumb failure point) before it buckles, after which point it offers no meaningful resistance at all. For the majority of the collapse time there isn't much resistance, just a series of very brief, punctuated jerks as the pile comes crashing down. You really would not expect the collapse to be spread over a long period of time. About 8 seconds is the minimum dictated by Newton and gravity, > 1 minute would be "long," and reality is right where you'd expect it, in the middle, around 15 seconds.

The NIST FAQ reads pretty well from where I'm standing. They are careful to use precise language and exercise scientific caution, even with respect to things that they may be 99.9% certain of. Hardly surprising that the Loosers seize upon their scholarly language as "waffling," "got 'em on the run," etc. We're simply not dealing with a well-educated bunch.

[Yoink]

I think they are using the common usage "free fall" rather than the scientific "free fall" - that is - it fell continuously (without any significant resistance) as a result of gravity. I wouldn't use this as evidence of "free fall speed" in a scientific sense because as anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows free fall can only occur in a vacuum.

I don't think NIST scientists would make this mistake - the FAQ seems to have purposefully used very simple laymans language.

-Andrew

Gumboot. I don't know if you think you're disagreeing with me or not. Anyway, here's what I wrote in my first post:

I think they're using it pretty loosely ("sure, it was within a few seconds of "freefall""), but it was interesting to me that they have come up with such short times for the collapse.

So we seem to have been in agreement from the beginning.

[bduddy]

wtc.nist.gov appears to be down... Is this a temporary thing? Are there any mirrors or such?

[Kent1]

Some people I see aren't understanding "pancaking".
I see the LCer's and Hoffman make the same error.

A lot has been said on this:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

However I believe this has to do with INITIATION of the collapse. Where as the failure started by the inward bowing NOT by floors pancaking.

I think num. 6 further supports this.

As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

[Pardalis]

However I believe this has to do with INITIATION of the collapse. Where as the failure started by the inward bowing NOT by floors pancaking.

Exactly. This is where alot of the confusions originates. NIST never really studied the collapse itself, at least not in detail, they mainly focused on the events leading up to the collapse and its initiation, as you said.

[rwguinn]

Exactly. This is where alot of the confusions originates. NIST never really studied the collapse itself, at least not in detail, they mainly focused on the events leading up to the collapse and its initiation, as you said.

Sure- what is there to study. Once failure occurs, gravitational forces take over. The biggest difference between CD and what happened to the towers is the method of initiating the failure.
In CD, you chose which collums to fail to make it fall the way you want. You start at the bottom to ensure maximum momentum of the failed structure by having as much of the structure's mass as possible moving after failure has occurred. The WTC collapse had that happen because the amount of building above the failure point was pretty close to the amount of building that the Controlled Demolition teams usually bring down in total.
Once the first floor hits the ground, the momentum and energy equations are exactly the same as for the WTC, but with the signs reversed on velocity.

[T.A.M.]

I am naive to the physics of it. Are we saying that the "initiating" event that led to the collapse was not due to "pancaking" but that the collapse of the rest of the building was via "pancaking" of the floors one atop the other?

TAM

[rwguinn]

I am naive to the physics of it. Are we saying that the "initiating" event that led to the collapse was not due to "pancaking" but that the collapse of the rest of the building was via "pancaking" of the floors one atop the other?

TAM

In layman's terms, you are correct.

[Kent1]

In layman's terms, you are correct.

Yes and many CT'ers are making this error.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

[Pardalis]

Sure- what is there to study.

Exactly, you nailed it completely it your entire post. The problem is that the CTists see the lack of study of the actual collapse as a proof of foul play, or cover-up. They don't understand that for a structural engeneer (and that's my very layman interpretation, so if this is BS let me know :D ), the collapse, as you said, isn't that important. It's very spectacular, but for an engeneering point of view there's nothing more that can be learned after the building starts to crumble. No structure could have withstood the mass, so for them, once the top section started to fall, there's litterally nothing anybody could have done. NIST studied these events so that they wouldn't happen again, for engeneers, architects and fire-safety people to learn from that event so to prevent such a structural failure to happen again. It wasn't a criminal investigation as Childlike Empress would have wanted it to be.

[R.Mackey]

Exactly, you nailed it completely it your entire post. The problem is that the CTists see the lack of study of the actual collapse as a proof of foul play, or cover-up. They don't understand that for a structural engeneer (and that's my very layman interpretation, so if this is BS let me know :D ), the collapse, as you said, isn't that important. It's very spectacular, but for an engeneering point of view there's nothing more that can be learned after the building starts to crumble.
Absolutely correct. Also, studying the collapse mechanics itself is not only pointless (from a prevention and building safety perspective), but nearly impossible as well. The number of variables to account for in your models increases by at least a factor of three, and must be stepped forward in time. The dynamic equations of motion are far more complex than static equations of force balance. Mechanisms of impact and deformation relate to compression waves in the materials, which travel extremely fast and require very high fidelity to model accurately.

This fidelity is impossible. Unlike the static case, where the building can be counted on to more-or-less match the "As Built" blueprints, you will never know exactly where all the pieces were as they fell. You will have to make assumptions, generalizations, simplifications. It is virtually impossible to predict which side of a thrown die will come up -- the collapse problem is many millions of times more complicated. Certainly not worth tying up the NIST, which is resource-constrained to the point they had to delay their WTC 7 analysis, something else the wackos have complained about (or even touted as evidence of a conspiracy).

Having said that, the problem is open for academics who want to treat it as research, and if there is anything sinister to be found, let them work on it. I again reference Dr. Greening's (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) paper as an example of such. This is about the level of detail that it is possible to model with any accuracy. So far, no credible collapse analysis inconsistent with the Official Theory has emerged.

[rwguinn]

Exactly, you nailed it completely it your entire post. The problem is that the CTists see the lack of study of the actual collapse as a proof of foul play, or cover-up. They don't understand that for a structural engeneer (and that's my very layman interpretation, so if this is BS let me know :D ), the collapse, as you said, isn't that important. It's very spectacular, but for an engeneering point of view there's nothing more that can be learned after the building starts to crumble. No structure could have withstood the mass, so for them, once the top section started to fall, there's litterally nothing anybody could have done. NIST studied these events so that they wouldn't happen again, for engeneers, architects and fire-safety people to learn from that event so to prevent such a structural failure to happen again. It wasn't a criminal investigation as Childlike Empress would have wanted it to be.
As the LC forum would have it:
:wave1
:bowl:

[rwguinn]

Absolutely correct. Also, studying the collapse mechanics itself is not only pointless (from a prevention and building safety perspective), but nearly impossible as well. The number of variables to account for in your models increases by at least a factor of three, and must be stepped forward in time. The dynamic equations of motion are far more complex than static equations of force balance. Mechanisms of impact and deformation relate to compression waves in the materials, which travel extremely fast and require very high fidelity to model accurately.
Absolutely! Every Finite Element Modeling Program (I-Deas, NASTRAN, Pro_E, ANSYS, ALGOR, etc) quit when buckling is indicated. The Auto Manufacturers have some stuff that goes on from there, for "crumple zone" analysis, but you get to the point where not only is the geometry of the problem non-linear, but the material properties are in the plastic range, and non-linear also. To relate, the computation time for a linear model of 480,000 degrees of freedom (80,000 physical points) (a motor coach) was 20 minutes for a static load case. for a part of that model (60,000 degrees of freedom (10,000 physical points) the load case took 6 hours, with only the material non-linear. With non-linear geometry added to the case, it would not run in any reasonable time (Mean time between computer re-boots was less than the time to run).

This fidelity is impossible. Unlike the static case, where the building can be counted on to more-or-less match the "As Built" blueprints, you will never know exactly where all the pieces were as they fell. You will have to make assumptions, generalizations, simplifications. It is virtually impossible to predict which side of a thrown die will come up -- the collapse problem is many millions of times more complicated. Certainly not worth tying up the NIST, which is resource-constrained to the point they had to delay their WTC 7 analysis, something else the wackos have complained about (or even touted as evidence of a conspiracy).
yeah--with 1" thick material (and thicker), you'd almost have to model as solids to get the equations to converge. Not sure any computers could model the whole thing. Just one floor would be outrageously large!

Having said that, the problem is open for academics who want to treat it as research, and if there is anything sinister to be found, let them work on it. I again reference Dr. Greening's (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) paper as an example of such. This is about the level of detail that it is possible to model with any accuracy. So far, no credible collapse analysis inconsistent with the Official Theory has emerged.

[T.A.M.]

Given I am a layman (College intro Physics - A+, Electronic Engineering Technology 15 years ago, but beyond that no further training in this field) in this area, I will take my "terms" and use them in further argumentation...lol

TAM

[Kent1]

Absolutely correct. Also, studying the collapse mechanics itself is not only pointless (from a prevention and building safety perspective), but nearly impossible as well. The number of variables to account for in your models increases by at least a factor of three, and must be stepped forward in time. The dynamic equations of motion are far more complex than static equations of force balance. Mechanisms of impact and deformation relate to compression waves in the materials, which travel extremely fast and require very high fidelity to model accurately.

This fidelity is impossible. Unlike the static case, where the building can be counted on to more-or-less match the "As Built" blueprints, you will never know exactly where all the pieces were as they fell. You will have to make assumptions, generalizations, simplifications. It is virtually impossible to predict which side of a thrown die will come up -- the collapse problem is many millions of times more complicated. Certainly not worth tying up the NIST, which is resource-constrained to the point they had to delay their WTC 7 analysis, something else the wackos have complained about (or even touted as evidence of a conspiracy).

Having said that, the problem is open for academics who want to treat it as research, and if there is anything sinister to be found, let them work on it. I again reference Dr. Greening's (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) paper as an example of such. This is about the level of detail that it is possible to model with any accuracy. So far, no credible collapse analysis inconsistent with the Official Theory has emerged.

Boy, try telling that to guys like astare who accuse Bazant of being part of the "coverup" LOL!!
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=2025

[kevin]

Absolutely! Every Finite Element Modeling Program (I-Deas, NASTRAN, Pro_E, ANSYS, ALGOR, etc) quit when buckling is indicated. The Auto Manufacturers have some stuff that goes on from there, for "crumple zone" analysis, but you get to the point where not only is the geometry of the problem non-linear, but the material properties are in the plastic range, and non-linear also. To relate, the computation time for a linear model of 480,000 degrees of freedom (80,000 physical points) (a motor coach) was 20 minutes for a static load case. for a part of that model (60,000 degrees of freedom (10,000 physical points) the load case took 6 hours, with only the material non-linear. With non-linear geometry added to the case, it would not run in any reasonable time (Mean time between computer re-boots was less than the time to run).

We'll frequently run such calculations for bridge designs on parallel systems to reduce the calendar time such calcs take. Not unusual to have 10 computers running simultaneously over a weekend to analyze a fairly complex bridge.

[rwguinn]

We'll frequently run such calculations for bridge designs on parallel systems to reduce the calendar time such calcs take. Not unusual to have 10 computers running simultaneously over a weekend to analyze a fairly complex bridge.

You actually do plastic analysis on bridges under design? May I ask why? (it seems a bit scary, to me...)

[TK0001]

Curiously, I can't get a CTist to look at the NIST data.

The two replies, verbatim, from the two CTists I've presented the link to thus far:

NIST is the agency most critisized for its omissions in it's handling of the investigation.


Gee, wonder why they're so heavily criticized by the CTists? Hmmm....


you read it and post the strongest evidence it contains-- im betting all you will produce nothing but a phrase equivalent to "because the govt said hundreds of experts drew these conclusions after analyzing all their data"

No, YOU read it. As if I haven't. :rolleyes:

Apparently, this toofer thinks the gubment posted a message at the start of the article stating:

You will believe this information. Because we said so.

-Gubment

[mamapajamas]

the LC Forum re NIST:

I think the CTers suffer from a reading disability or selective blindness.



It's my personal CT that the CT-ers were all dropped on their heads in early infancy. Nested inside the CD theorists are the mathematically challenged "the Mossad did it" group whose evidence is that some 5,000 (exact number depending upon who's doing the telling) people of Jewish persuasion did not show up at work that day, therefore the Mossad called them and told them to stay away. That one is really hot in the Middle East.

They're "mathematically challenged" in the sense that there were some 50,000 people who weren't in the WTC at the time it went down, and they're bellyaching about a mere 5,000 of them?

The word was that there were 75,000 people who worked in the Towers, and that there would be a few thousand tourists and business visitors in the buildings at any given time during normal work hours. That was why the original death estimates were so outrageously high... only 25,000 or so people were safely evacuated. But only a bit less than 3,000 were unaccounted for.

So what happened to the 50,000 "missing" people? Answer: They weren't there. They weren't due at work until some point after 9:00 am. Most of the businesses in the building had 9-5 work hours. The planes struck before 9:00, so those people were not yet there.

Problem solved. So much for the 5,000 "missing Jews". No big mystery at all!

The only mystery about this is the number of people in the world who can't count!

[kevin]

You actually do plastic analysis on bridges under design? May I ask why? (it seems a bit scary, to me...)

not plastic analysis, static load anaylsis on bridges (and I merely support the people that do this, I don't do the calcs myself), it can get pretty complex for some of the fancier bridge designs (especially if they're evaluating multiple deisgns). I work for a company that does bridge design (among many other civil engineering projects).

I do know that after 9-11 they started doing explosives assesments on bridges, but the software was pretty simplistic. I'm not sure if the software has grown since then.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/security/brp05.htm

[kookbreaker]

It's my personal CT that the CT-ers were all dropped on their heads in early infancy.

I'm going for 'punted like a football on a regular basis' myself.

"Ready Dylan? KICK THE BABY!"