MM, Let's Discuss NIST

[The Almond]

I took engineering in college. Structural engineering was my best grade. I wouldn't for a moment expect people in the profession to challenge the NIST findings without some assurance that it wouldn't bite them in the ass.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2289453&postcount=159

I'm glad to find that another engineer is among the ranks. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss some of your objections to the NIST report. I recall you saying that you didn't find it "convincing" enough. What, specifically, are your objections?

[Gravy]

:popcorn2

[uk_dave]

Pass the twiglets.

[WildCat]

Pass the twiglets.
I had to look that up. I'll have some chips and salsa myself. Frankly, I'll be shocked if MM actually responds in a meaningful way.

[Quad4_72]

Yes I have started a thread like this before. I actually I have done it on other forums as well. You will not get a SPECIFIC answer for what their objections are. You will get trash like "Well I don't think it is possible for it to happen like that" without any scientific proof whatsoever. You may also get some crappy link dumps to CF websites that completely take the NIST report out of context and they try to analyze it using bad science. I am willing to bet $10,000 that MM does not respond with an answer that can be backed up by science and evidence. Any takers on that bet?

[The Almond]

Now now gentlemen, there is no reason to be combative about this. This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely.

[The Almond]

Yes I have started a thread like this before. I actually I have done it on other forums as well. You will not get a SPECIFIC answer for what their objections are. You will get trash like "Well I don't think it is possible for it to happen like that" without any scientific proof whatsoever. You may also get some crappy link dumps to CF websites that completely take the NIST report out of context and they try to analyze it using bad science. I am willing to bet $10,000 that MM does not respond with an answer that can be backed up by science and evidence. Any takers on that bet?

I was hoping that someone who took engineering in college and got his best grades in structural engineering would be able to provide a more scientific set of objections.

[Quad4_72]

I was hoping that someone who took engineering in college and got his best grades in structural engineering would be able to provide a more scientific set of objections.

You would hope so, but I doubt it. Just because someone goes to college does not mean that their mind can not be polluted with WOO.

[Mince]

Gotta love this quotation:

I'm forever amused by how often skeptics make the claim that if the story is wrong the professionals will come running, screaming "no way!"



That's how science works, you idiot uninformed individual.

The "paid-off, fear for safety and/or livelihood" argument is rather overworked and tiresome. However, it might be very interesting, say, if anyone who claimed such had any evidence in any capacity. Certainly, if tens of thousands of scientists are being paid-off or cowed into compliance, the crack investigators that are the CTs could find one, just one, who will say so. They might have to leave the confines of the internet to do so, however. So it may not be feasible after all.

[CHF]

Certainly, if tens of thousands of scientists are being paid-off or cowed into compliance, the crack investigators that are the CTs could find one, just one, who will say so. They might have to leave the confines of the internet to do so, however. So it may not be feasible after all.

I love how this "paid off" coverup apparently extends across all politcal/ideological barriers spanning the entire planet.

Apparently even the structural engineers in China, Venezuela or Iran are unwilling to speak out. Yup - NONE of them want to be the hero who uncovers da twoof.

:rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Just bumping for MM. He's been logged in, but either hasn't seen or is ignoring this thread.

[Firestone]

Well I think it's time to take a break from you folks.

Your repetitious crap gets very boring and it's such a waste of time responding to your baiting when it's apparent most of you aren't interested in intelligent creative dialogue.

For most of you it's a goal of 'break' anyone that challenges your smug dogmatic beliefs.

Well my beliefs are certainly vulnerable, but not to lame attacks by those who sacrifice individual thought for the sanctuary of insults and hiding behind the published works of those whom they believe cannot be criticized.

I'll drop by in a couple of weeks when I get bored and you folks need another feeding.

MMMiragememories has thrown in the towel ... :)

[WildCat]

Miragememories has thrown in the towel ... :)
Remember the "Sir Robin" song?

When facts reared their ugly heads
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Brave, brave MM!

[DavidJames]

I wouldn't expect MM to show up, unless of course if it's just to continue his obfuscation. He's had ample opportunity to express his concerns about any perceived engineering issue with the NIST report, but so far either won't or (more likely) is can't.

I also have doubts about his educational claim. Of course, as usual MM can prove me wrong but I have my doubts. Every CTist I've encountered as lived down to expectations.

[DavidJames]

Miragememories has thrown in the towel ... :)
Just saw this. Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes. I suspect he never attended college or if he did, never took any engineering or advanced math classes.

[Mashuna]

I asked on the other thread, what, specifically it was that convinced him that 9/11 was an inside job. What one piece of information altered his view from thinking it was the hijackers, and subsequent fires that caused the collapse.

His response? WTC 7.

[The Doc]

I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage :(

[WildCat]

I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage :(

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

[LashL]

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!


I could practically hear Jim Nabors' voice when I read that! :)

[The Almond]

Eh, I suppose I didn't expect much from the thread. The whole, "I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy. Call them on it, and they flee.

[Firestone]

I've seen the method of this thread used before, and it generally works fine.

Take a specific claim of a truther and start a new thread about it, with the very clear intention of keeping the thread on-topic.

My experience is that this kind of thread is in general quite short. (Guess why. :D)

But it can then be used as a reference when another truther (or the same truther actually) makes the same claim a few weeks or months later.

[Miragememories]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2289453&postcount=159

I'm glad to find that another engineer is among the ranks. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss some of your objections to the NIST report. I recall you saying that you didn't find it "convincing" enough. What, specifically, are your objections?

Ranks of what?

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."
"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."




I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM

[WildCat]

Ranks of what?

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."
"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."




I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM
Does this mean you can't find fault w/ anything in the NIST reports and so are just going to rant about getting your feelings hurt?

[The Almond]

Ranks of what?

The ranks of JREF regulars.

Discuss? Now that's truly funny.

This was an honest question. You're an engineer; I'm an engineer. Why can't we discuss the technical aspects of the NIST report in an open, honest way.

I said I would be away for a few weeks but communication requires thought and that's not what your really into.

Now that's not very nice.

Having a discussion with folks who wallow in preconceived notions is a fool's game;

Firestone
"Miragememories has thrown in the towel .."

DavidJames
"Not surprising at all. He knows he stepped in it with his easily refutable claim about taking engineering classes."

Wildcat
"I scrolled down to find no posts by Mirage" "He bravely turned his tail and fled"

Why should I care what these people said about you?


The Almond
"This is an honest question and I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I wanted to get this topic away from the other thread so that we could start politely."

I'm still looking for a fruitful discussion. But you've been rather combative about this issue thus far. I took this thread away from the others to get away from the name-calling that devolved the other threads.

"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."

It's unfortunate, but it's true. I've personally debated with conspiracy fantasists who claimed to have engineering credentials. When called on it, they never managed to show their capacity to solve engineering equations or debate on a technical level consummate with myself and other engineers.

If you're a technically savvy, educated person, you can be the first one to debate me on that level. You show me your equations, and I'll show you mine.

I never said I was a structural engineer but then no one here listens anyway.

MM

Quit whining. You said your best grades were in structural engineering. That means you took classes and understood the material. You've made specific, material claims about not being convinced that the NIST NCSTAR is valid. Tell me why, and use your technical background.

[Miragememories]

Does this mean you can't find fault w/ anything in the NIST reports and so are just going to rant about getting your feelings hurt?

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

MM

[R.Mackey]

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

I'd like to see you support this, because it's wrong.

It also appears you aren't familiar with the use of bounding envelopes in event reconstruction, like many other non-engineers who've posted similar misinterpretations of NIST.

So show us where you got this, and we'll see if we can't find your problem for you.

[beachnut]

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

MM

You are using the same old CT stuff on this post. How many times has this junk been posted at JREF?

Do you have some facts? Or are you like the rest of the CT world, no facts?

There are a few engineers who support the theories of the CT world of lies. Most use no calculations and those that did calculations are wrong and have been corrected when their work actually bared a semblance to reality.

So you have zero engineering work that support the lies of the 9/11 truth movement. Why would your efforts, which you bragged about in engineering, have any thing new to offer? Can you support the lies of 9/11 truth movement?

What new stuff are you holding out on with Charlie Sheen which are indisputable facts on 9/11? Where is your stuff?

So far you have just rehashed old lies. Got some new ones?

[WildCat]

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.
Funny, a certain banned poster likes to call me that over at the SLC forum...

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.
...and has been going on and on about that lately.

Socks anyone?

[T.A.M.]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM

[Free Thinkr]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM
Methinks the purpose behind the hiatus was to "review his notes on" (read: google) the NIST report.

[The Almond]

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

False.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

And how did they get those data? Did they do experiments? Did they look at video footage?

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility.

Do you have a reference for that?

Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

How does reduced accuracy mean that NIST is wrong? How much was the accuracy reduced by?

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

False

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

False

Five and a half years after the fact, NIST has yet to provide a public explanation accounting for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

So, let me get this straight. NIST made too many approximations and too coarse of a design inference to make their WTC 1 & 2 models valid, yet they haven't come out with the WTC 7 model fast enough? What are you basing your performance metrics on?

That's a few NIST issues off the top of my head.

I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.

[WildCat]

Methinks the purpose behind the hiatus was to "review his notes on" (read: google) the NIST report.
Either that or pdoherty miragememories got called on a lie (having taken engineering classes) and ran away.

[Free Thinkr]

Either that or pdoherty miragememories got called on a lie (having taken engineering classes) and ran away.
Or perhaps a combination of the two: he ran away and, while away, happened across this oft-posted/debunked "argument," and was sufficiently emboldened to return and stick it to those rascally JREFers.

[negativ]

Never mind, it's like asking what Santa Claus is going to bring me.

[Miragememories]

10,000 pages of reports later...that must be one helluva computer model if they took 10,000 pages to explain it...

The lies continue...surprise surprise.

TAM

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM

[WildCat]

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM
Do you have any specific problems to report, using your engineering education pdoherty Miragememories?

[Arus808]

the content of what is in that report of 10,000 pages is more important than the content of your thus far, 80 posts of nothing.

[Miragememories]

False.

And how did they get those data? Did they do experiments? Did they look at video footage?

Do you have a reference for that?

How does reduced accuracy mean that NIST is wrong? How much was the accuracy reduced by?

False

False

So, let me get this straight. NIST made too many approximations and too coarse of a design inference to make their WTC 1 & 2 models valid, yet they haven't come out with the WTC 7 model fast enough? What are you basing your performance metrics on?

I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.

Gee you really squeezed your engineering brain to reply "false" to my assertion that the NIST computer model was the crux of their case. I can see you are really relishing the opportunity for an exchange of thoughts with another engineer. BS. Your so-called serious offer of discussion is just another ploy to entertain your JREF cronies.

Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.

Once you start fudging the numbers, the results are effectively guesswork. NIST is a U.S. government organization and they were working on a scenario that never seriously considered anything but plane crash and fire.
Yes this is old news but the news is the news...get over it..sorry rehashing is so boring.

I will say, for my own amusement, that 5.5 years is awfully long time to explain or decide they can't explain the collapse of WTC7! If Gravy's WTC7 Report is so gooood; why not send it to NIST? Save them alot of hard work and money.

MM

[Pardalis]

Nothing impresses more than lots of paper!

Obviously it worked on you.

MM

As opposed to a few compressed videos on Youtube?

[HeyLeroy]

Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.



:i:

[Miragememories]

Do you have any specific problems to report, using your engineering education pdoherty Miragememories?

Your shooting blanks WildCat.

I'm sorry to disapoint you but I'm not pdoherty. I'd admit it if I was. I have the same alias in the LC Forums.

MM

[HeyLeroy]

Yep, MM hasn't started one single thread; not very doperty-ish.

[Miragememories]

the content of what is in that report of 10,000 pages is more important than the content of your thus far, 80 posts of nothing.

Gee and I bet your 1,181 posts are all gems Arus808.

MM

[Pardalis]

MM, could you tell us your impressions on this video?:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75018

[Miragememories]

As opposed to a few compressed videos on Youtube?

It's going to take a lot more compression to mask the truth Pardalis.

I may not be a structural engineer but I am a qualified expert on video compression.

MM

[Arus808]

Gee and I bet your 1,181 posts are all gems Arus808.

MM

I'd say about 75% of them are gems (meaning, i do bother to research in order to give answers) 25% were mostly jibes, jokes and meaningful banter with other forum members

However, 84 posts of yours are nothing more than repeated claims of woo-woo (hence boring) and unsubstantiated conjecture, ad hom arguments, and of course far out claims that you have provide no proof for.


In your 84 posts; you've only proved that you're nothing more than a troll.

[Arus808]

I may not be a structural engineer but I am a qualified expert on video compression.

MM

oooh. and now he lies.

btw, you're far from a being an "expert" on video compression.


Making Anime Music Videos in your spare time doesnt make you an expert on anything video related.

[Totovader]

It's going to take a lot more compression to mask the truth Pardalis.

I may not be a structural engineer but I am a qualified expert on video compression.

MM

One of Merc's cronies made the same claim.

*scratches head* But gosh golly, how are we gonna know you're telling the truth?

Hmm, how about if you actually make an argument and support it, instead of a fallacious ipse dixit? It's clear you already claimed to have sufficient knowledge in engineering to challenge NIST, and then you backed down. Now you're an expert in "video compression" (what degree is that)? How long is this claim going to last?

[Pardalis]

It's going to take a lot more compression to mask the truth Pardalis.

I don't know what that means.

[WildCat]

How long is this claim going to last?
Until he's found out to be another pdoherty sock.

[Miragememories]

MM, could you tell us your impressions on this video?:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75018

Nice to see some new video. I to get tired of the same old footage.

Steve puts his own spin on what he sees. I don't see the same thing.

I see lots of smoke. I see ONE floor with 8 windows displaying flames.

I don't see a 47-storey conflagaration!

MM

[Pardalis]

I see lots of smoke.

What usually generates smoke?

[Arus808]

yet smoke coming out of nearly all the floors indicate that there fire was widespread. The fires could have been centered on each floor (not by the windows). Just because you dont see the fire, doesn't mean there wasn't any.

[Panoply_Prefect]

One of the absolute best things about Jref, as opposed to a lot of other boards, is it actually got people who know's what they are talking about. This thread bears the promise of an actual debate on a high level around NIST (As opposed to "Fire couldn't have melted all that iron"-claims) - hopefully in the end with a short summary for us laymen.

I think its a good initative and I'd really like to see Almond and MM get on it. May I suggest for forms sake - and to avoid a lot of namecalling and mush - MM to make one particular claim on a defined portion of the NIST-report and then we (Ah, well Almond and MM at least) could stick to that for as long as it takes?

Seriously, it would be interesting.

Cheers,
SLOB

[The Almond]

Gee you really squeezed your engineering brain to reply "false" to my assertion that the NIST computer model was the crux of their case. I can see you are really relishing the opportunity for an exchange of thoughts with another engineer. BS. Your so-called serious offer of discussion is just another ploy to entertain your JREF cronies.

Wait, let me get this straight:

Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.

You can make unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims to the NCSTAR, and when I call you on them, you resort to childish name-calling. You want to debate like an engineer, start writing like someone who finished high school. Reference your claims, provide evidence and show me your equations.

Once you start fudging the numbers,

When did NIST fudge the numbers? How do you know?

the results are effectively guesswork.

According to whom?

NIST is a U.S. government organization and they were working on a scenario that never seriously considered anything but plane crash and fire.

Why should NIST consider explosive demolition? Do you have some evidence that bombs were placed in the towers?

Yes this is old news but the news is the news...get over it..sorry rehashing is so boring.

No, it isn't old news. It's the same off-the-shelf, moronic drivel CFists have been saying for years. Not a single one of the statements you made is backed up by anything other than your own opinion, and frankly, you've simply parroted the opinions of others. So, I guess what I'm criticizing is the fact that you've rehashed someone else's opinion, portrayed it as your own, and then refused to provide any references or evidence.

I will say, for my own amusement, that 5.5 years is awfully long time to explain or decide they can't explain the collapse of WTC7!

Is this based on your years of experience doing collapse forensics? Or is it based on the class in structural engineering you took? I'll note that you didn't respond to my point. You criticize (invalidly) NIST for making too many approximations based on material constraint, and in the same statement, criticize them for not working fast enough on the WTC7 issue. That's a flawed paradigm.

If Gravy's WTC7 Report is so gooood; why not send it to NIST? Save them alot of hard work and money.

Gee, I guess it's because Gravy's work focuses on exposing the lies, fallacies and out of context quotation inherent to the CF argument about the WTC7. Gravy is at least wise enough not to claim to be a structural engineer and not to present his work as equal in magnitude to that done by NIST.

[Miragememories]

oooh. and now he lies.

btw, you're far from a being an "expert" on video compression.


Making Anime Music Videos in your spare time doesnt make you an expert on anything video related.

Unless you know me in real life, you are the liar Arus808 for claiming knowledge you don't possess.

I have 35 years of professional experience in the field of video..believe it or not.

MM

[WildCat]

I have 35 years of professional experience in the field of video..believe it or not.
You've been caught red-handed lying about taking engineering courses in school, why should we believe you now?

[Pardalis]

Steve puts his own spin on what he sees.

You mean his veteran fire photographer "spin" ?

http://stevespak.com/aboutme.html

[Miragememories]

Wait, let me get this straight:

You can make unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims to the NCSTAR, and when I call you on them, you resort to childish name-calling. You want to debate like an engineer, start writing like someone who finished high school. Reference your claims, provide evidence and show me your equations.

When did NIST fudge the numbers? How do you know?

According to whom?

Why should NIST consider explosive demolition? Do you have some evidence that bombs were placed in the towers?

No, it isn't old news. It's the same off-the-shelf, moronic drivel CFists have been saying for years. Not a single one of the statements you made is backed up by anything other than your own opinion, and frankly, you've simply parroted the opinions of others. So, I guess what I'm criticizing is the fact that you've rehashed someone else's opinion, portrayed it as your own, and then refused to provide any references or evidence.

Is this based on your years of experience doing collapse forensics? Or is it based on the class in structural engineering you took? I'll note that you didn't respond to my point. You criticize (invalidly) NIST for making too many approximations based on material constraint, and in the same statement, criticize them for not working fast enough on the WTC7 issue. That's a flawed paradigm.

Gee, I guess it's because Gravy's work focuses on exposing the lies, fallacies and out of context quotation inherent to the CF argument about the WTC7. Gravy is at least wise enough not to claim to be a structural engineer and not to present his work as equal in magnitude to that done by NIST.

Ever hear the expression that "passion rules reason"!

That's what I see here on JREF.

You folks are too emotionally attached to your beliefs. Regardless of how valid or well thought out your arguments are, you are so convinced and heated about how right you are, you can't relax and open your minds to the possibility that you got it wrong.

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM

[WildCat]

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
This thread was started because you claimed to have knowledge of engineering. You lied about that, and refuse to actually discusss anything. You've proven yourself to be a troll who lies about his credentials, what did you expect?

[Pardalis]

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

This thread was created for you, btw, to allow you to have a discussion.

Please proceed.

[Arus808]

I have 35 years of professional experience in the field of video..believe it or not.

MM

ahah, yeah, you claimed that you had "engineering" experiences and were caught in that lie.


since you've provided nothing on your "Expertise" about engineering, when you were posed with questions concerning engineering, I dont think we can believe anything you say about your "other" credentials.

[Augustine]

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.



First, it wasn't a "coarser design" it was a coarser mesh. We are talking about finite element analysis. Coarser mesh does not necessarily reduce accuracy; it really depends on what behavior you are modelling. For areas away from the impact, where local effects are not so significant as the global ones, a coarser mesh is insignificant. Matching the behavior of a model to observed behavior is a very well established and recognized means of checking the accuracy of the model.

Please define "extreme case". Expand on which data is "unsubstantiated" and "speculative".

Finally, which UL test are you referring to? The ones performed in 2004 under a contract from NIST which are richly documented in 200+ pages of the NIST report?

[Brainache]

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM

You can expect discussion at the LC forums? Shame you won't get it.

What you can expect is a lot of juvenile back slapping, censorship, insults and paranoid delusions.

What you can expect is a bunch of frauds and conmen squeezing every last penny that they can from an ignorant audience.

[Miragememories]

You've been caught red-handed lying about taking engineering courses in school, why should we believe you now?

I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM

[Miragememories]

You mean his veteran fire photographer "spin" ?

http://stevespak.com/aboutme.html

Veteran or not. I looked at his video and listened to his voiceover.

I didn't buy what he was selling.

MM

[Panoply_Prefect]

I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM

MM, cant you just ignore everyone but the thread-starter? Its no point in going into ad hominem vs ad hominem and Almond hasn't been anything than courteous. I really would like to see advanced critisicim towards the NIST report. I havent seen much of it so far so I thought, finally a truther with the right skills.

Seriously,
SLOB

[HyJinX]

Ever hear the expression that "passion rules reason"!

That's what I see here on JREF.

You folks are too emotionally attached to your beliefs. Regardless of how valid or well thought out your arguments are, you are so convinced and heated about how right you are, you can't relax and open your minds to the possibility that you got it wrong.

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM

Passion does not rule science or facts however, MM. What you'll find here are people passionate about logic and proven truths. In fact, we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed. They've been proven through scientific evidence and complete explanation by experts who have nothing to gain by falsifying thier findings. They know what they're talking about and the basis of their findings are wrought with logic, sound math and expertise. Your views are wrought with emotion, political bias and "gut" feeling. The two sides are simply not compatible. We don't argue what we feel is right...we argue what cannot be disproven because you cannot change facts based on science. It's easy to stand by what has been proven to be true...not what you think happened because a video leads you to believe it. Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope. After 5 years...all we hear are cocky amateurs, with a chip on thier shoulders, say "ARE YOU BLIND...CANT YOU SEE THAT!!???". The experts have seen what you've seen...and they simply DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!.

At the LC forum you get discussion because you bang heads with other people who buy into what you believe. Anybody who goes there with tough questions get booted. I was booted after one post that simply asked what hard evidence the CTs had to back up their claims. A simple question...and a neccessary one, too. You surround yourselves with like-minded people and think that you're having meaningful debates...you're not.

Unless you people come here with evidence contrary to what the experts say...you'll never get what you're looking for. Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts...so don't think people here aren't willing to discuss civily. What you need to arm yourself with is sound judgement, a willingness to change your thinking, a willingness to accept facts that you're not qualified to comment on and a boatload of evidence that proves the experts wrong...or at least shows something they've missed.

Good luck.

[Comsat Angel]

"I took engineering in college. Structural engineering was my best grade. I wouldn't for a moment expect people in the profession to challenge the NIST findings without some assurance that it wouldn't bite them in the ass. "

"I have told no lies.
You are just a typical JREF slanderer.
I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!"

This bears closer examination. No, MM, you haven't actually *lied*. However, your usage of information about engineering courses you took, and the practices of the structural engineering community which you comment upon, is highly ingenuous - to say the least (that is, vague enough to be denied if challenged about yet seemingly well up to speed if unchallenged). Apropos that second post, did you actually qualify as an engineer, and then change careers? Or change to a different graduate discipline whilst still in higher education?
I notice you haven't given any details of what your presumed university qualifications are, not any subsequent professional qualifications - that would be useful, and presumably verifiable for the JREF members over there in the US.

Finally, I think your posts here could stand as models of CT thinking and posting - longggg pauses, ad hominem posts, strawman posts and Avoiding The Question posts. How about some precision "math" (as I believe you Americans call mathematics) to confound The Almond, contradict NIST and contumelise* JREF?


* This may not be a proper word, but I was on a "con-" roll.

[HeyLeroy]

It's a common Fantasist tactic; don't ever actually come out and say anything, just insinuate 'til the cows come home.

[beachnut]

I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM

Every time you repeat a CT truth movement idea is it a lie.

I doubt there is really anything typical about anyone here.

Talking about slander? They (which you called *%*&%*&) did not have closed minds, they had logical minds which you are void. You do not fit in as an engineer; you have to use your brains and facts.

How can truth never fail to throw in the ironic stuff in their post. Do you truthers take a course on how to be ironic without really trying?

[Totovader]

Veteran or not. I looked at his video and listened to his voiceover.

I didn't buy what he was selling.

MM

There's 2 possible explanations that you "didn't buy what he was selling [sic]":

1) He's not telling the truth.

2) You refuse to accept evidence that contradicts your claims of conspiracy theory.

If 1 is true, please explain why- completely. It would need to involve video fakery, as far as I see it. You claimed to have expertise in a similar field, so what is your scientific analysis? Furthermore, if you have no scientific analysis- why should we reject Mr. Spak- who is well-known for capturing much of the details of that day, providing much evidence, in a very expedient process. If he's lying- he would have to be a very good liar- he would have to be part of the Grand Conspiracy, and I see no rational reason to conclude he is.

But that's just my take. What's yours?

[The Almond]

Ever hear the expression that "passion rules reason"!

That's what I see here on JREF.

You folks are too emotionally attached to your beliefs. Regardless of how valid or well thought out your arguments are, you are so convinced and heated about how right you are, you can't relax and open your minds to the possibility that you got it wrong.

So, let me get this straight:
1) You claim to have advanced knowledge of structural engineering, and you have specific criticisms of the NCSTAR.
2) I ask you to list them
3) You rephrase Griffin, without citing, or referencing anything. You write your opinions as facts, and provide nothing in the way of technical criticism.
4) I call you on it.
5) You respond that NIST made too many approximations to be valid, but that the WTC 7 investigation is taking too long. You post this assertion for your own amusement.
6) I call you on it.
5) Your response is an insulting generalization about JREF and the forum members.

So, do you expect to change minds? Do you expect to have a fruitful discussion? You have failed at both. Now grow up and answer my question:
What are your specific, technical criticisms of the NIST NCSTAR?

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
Rather, you like LC because everyone there agrees with you. This is accomplished through Avery's fascistic dominaiton of the forum and policy of banning anyone who does not tread his CF line. If you believe that the quasi-fellative back-slapping and agreement that goes on at LC constitutes a "discussion," then you are sorely mistaken.

[Miragememories]

ahah, yeah, you claimed that you had "engineering" experiences and were caught in that lie.


since you've provided nothing on your "Expertise" about engineering, when you were posed with questions concerning engineering, I dont think we can believe anything you say about your "other" credentials.

You folks are awfully casual about the calling people liars!

It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!

It's rather ironic how you display the traits of those you despise the most.

You accuse at will without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims.

The university I attended had a common engineering year. The idea was that first year students would be exposed to all the engineering fields so they would be sure of their choice when they specialized in the second year.

My best course results were in Statics.

I majored in electronics.

My passion was photography.

My career was public television.

My future as a human being is the same as yours.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, I will be most relieved. My ego doesn't need the gratification of knowing I was right about 9/11. I much prefer to be proven wrong and that amazingingly those 19 arab terrorists were able to perform what we have been told they did.

You folks have been doing this so long it's become a game for you.

It's no longer a matter of thoughtful discussion, it's all about winning at any cost.

What do you win?

We all lose in the end.

Over population, global warming, peak oil, yadda yadda yadda...you can run, but you can't hide!

You really think the government think tanks haven't considered what's obvious to the rest of us?

You really think they haven't considered contingency plans?

You really think oil reserves aren't a global issue?

You really think Middle East oil reserves aren't a major consideration to those who control the reins of the world's only super power?

Determining the truth behind 9/11 won't resolve these issues.

I could say f**kit and join the JREF general belief but that won't improve the future.

It's all about power!

The U.S.A. is currently the world's No.1 power..we all know that.

Whether we admit it or not, we all know there isn't enough oil to sustain the growth occuring in the U.S. as well as China and India.

It won't be long before things come to a boil and 9/11 will be old news.

You folks can have your smugness but the greater reality is going to give you an early grave while the power structure you have so much faith in protects itself.

MM

[Totovader]

You folks are awfully casual about the calling people liars!

It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!

It's rather ironic how you display the traits of those you despise the most.

You accuse at will without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims.

The university I attended had a common engineering year. The idea was that first year students would be exposed to all the engineering fields so they would be sure of their choice when they specialized in the second year.

My best course results were in Statics.

I majored in electronics.

My passion was photography.

My career was public television.

My future as a human being is the same as yours.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, I will be most relieved. My ego doesn't need the gratification of knowing I was right about 9/11. I much prefer to be proven wrong and that amazingingly those 19 arab terrorists were able to perform what we have been told they did.

You folks have been doing this so long it's become a game for you.

It's no longer a matter of thoughtful discussion, it's all about winning at any cost.

What do you win?

We all lose in the end.

Over population, global warming, peak oil, yadda yadda yadda...you can run, but you can't hide!

You really think the government think tanks haven't considered what's obvious to the rest of us?

You really think they haven't considered contingency plans?

You really think oil reserves aren't a global issue?

You really think Middle East oil reserves aren't a major consideration to those who control the reins of the world's only super power?

Determining the truth behind 9/11 won't resolve these issues.

I could say f**kit and join the JREF general belief but that won't improve the future.

It's all about power!

The U.S.A. is currently the world's No.1 power..we all know that.

Whether we admit it or not, we all know there isn't enough oil to sustain the growth occuring in the U.S. as well as China and India.

It won't be long before things come to a boil and 9/11 will be old news.

You folks can have your smugness but the greater reality is going to give you an early grave while the power structure you have so much faith in protects itself.

MM

Holy red herring.


It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!

(This is my favorite part...)

Pot, have you met kettle?

[Miragememories]

MM, cant you just ignore everyone but the thread-starter? Its no point in going into ad hominem vs ad hominem and Almond hasn't been anything than courteous. I really would like to see advanced critisicim towards the NIST report. I havent seen much of it so far so I thought, finally a truther with the right skills.

Seriously,
SLOB

This is Almond being courteous?;

"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."

I don't think so.

MM

[WildCat]

Holy red herring.
Is there such a thing as a red whale? :eye-poppi

[The Almond]

This is Almond being courteous?;
MM

I rather think it is. Notice how that statement did not mention you, nor did I call you a conspiracy fantasist. How about proving that you're not one?

Edited to add:
And it's an entirely true statement to boot!

[Miragememories]

Passion does not rule science or facts however, MM. What you'll find here are people passionate about logic and proven truths. In fact, we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed. They've been proven through scientific evidence and complete explanation by experts who have nothing to gain by falsifying thier findings. They know what they're talking about and the basis of their findings are wrought with logic, sound math and expertise. Your views are wrought with emotion, political bias and "gut" feeling. The two sides are simply not compatible. We don't argue what we feel is right...we argue what cannot be disproven because you cannot change facts based on science. It's easy to stand by what has been proven to be true...not what you think happened because a video leads you to believe it. Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope. After 5 years...all we hear are cocky amateurs, with a chip on thier shoulders, say "ARE YOU BLIND...CANT YOU SEE THAT!!???". The experts have seen what you've seen...and they simply DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!.

At the LC forum you get discussion because you bang heads with other people who buy into what you believe. Anybody who goes there with tough questions get booted. I was booted after one post that simply asked what hard evidence the CTs had to back up their claims. A simple question...and a neccessary one, too. You surround yourselves with like-minded people and think that you're having meaningful debates...you're not.

Unless you people come here with evidence contrary to what the experts say...you'll never get what you're looking for. Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts...so don't think people here aren't willing to discuss civily. What you need to arm yourself with is sound judgement, a willingness to change your thinking, a willingness to accept facts that you're not qualified to comment on and a boatload of evidence that proves the experts wrong...or at least shows something they've missed.

Good luck.
"Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope."

BS

Why would you want to be proven wrong??

In your own words, "..we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed.." your convinced of your infallibility!

"Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts.." because no one here is capable of a 'maybe' response.

NIST admits they didn't have all the necessary data to create an unquestionable computer model. They made assumptions because they had no data to prove how much damage occured from the aircraft collisions.
They didn't know what temperatures were reached, how long they lasted and how extensive they were distributed. They knew there was a plane crash and there was a subsequent fire. They had no proof of CD so they could comfortably eliminate it, especially since it lead in directions no sane person would want to go.

NIST wouldn't have tried lesser, medium and extreme case scenarios if they were so sure of one set of data.

Ultimately they went to the extreme scenario (their own words) in order to make a non-CD explanation fit.

Yet you folks think it's a matter of equations, math etc. That even though NIST realizes data modeling is critical, you folks think it can be resolved by a few math calculations. Now how smug and over confident is that?

MM

[Pardalis]

"Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts.." because no one here is capable of a 'maybe' response.


There. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2350081#post2350081)

[Miragememories]

There's 2 possible explanations that you "didn't buy what he was selling [sic]":

1) He's not telling the truth.

2) You refuse to accept evidence that contradicts your claims of conspiracy theory.

If 1 is true, please explain why- completely. It would need to involve video fakery, as far as I see it. You claimed to have expertise in a similar field, so what is your scientific analysis? Furthermore, if you have no scientific analysis- why should we reject Mr. Spak- who is well-known for capturing much of the details of that day, providing much evidence, in a very expedient process. If he's lying- he would have to be a very good liar- he would have to be part of the Grand Conspiracy, and I see no rational reason to conclude he is.

But that's just my take. What's yours?

He showed the same south face of smoke that has been shown in numerous other videos.

He showed 8 windows of fire.

I've seen ample footage of the other WTC7 building sides that showed no total involvement and I have to believe the claims of a building totally involved by fire are an extreme exageration. I'm sorry but lots of smoke does not necessarily equate to lots of fire.

AND

Even if he was correct. IF the WTC7 was a friggin' towering inferno..it still is not reasonable to believe the fire would exert such control as to bring the whole 47-storey building down, rapidly, ALL at the same time!

Man works that way..nature doesn't!

MM

[The Almond]

"Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts.." because no one here is capable of a 'maybe' response.

So, basically, we should admit Christophera has made a point because we don't feel like arguing it anymore? Or is it that JREFers are the ones who are supposed to submit to all arguments? Or do you think Christophera will stop and go away if we all agree with him, regardless of how vapid or illogical his arguments are?

NIST admits they didn't have all the necessary data to create an unquestionable computer model.

And where do they say that?

They made assumptions because they had no data to prove how much damage occured from the aircraft collisions.

Oh? No data at all? So those steel beams sitting on NIST's campus right now are, what? We can't look at them and determine what damage took place? How did NIST produce all of those lovely images of exactly what columns were damaged, how much, what their load bearing capacities were, and their thermodynamic responses without data? Or did you mean to say they don't know "exactly" how much damage occurred?

They didn't know what temperatures were reached, how long they lasted and how extensive they were distributed.

I beg your pardon? The most technically advanced fire research facility in the US does not know any of those variables? Yes, they did know that, and I would highly suggest reading NCSTAR1-6 to find out exactly how they calculated all of that.

They knew there was a plane crash and there was a subsequent fire.

And how did they know that, I wonder...

They had no proof of CD so they could comfortably eliminate it, especially since it lead in directions no sane person would want to go.
I think I'm forever going to quote you on that. NIST also had no proof of space aliens, microwaves, mini-nukes or the spirits of the Hopi Indians, either. So why should they consider all of the competing theories that are backed by no evidence?

NIST wouldn't have tried lesser, medium and extreme case scenarios if they were so sure of one set of data.

False, bracketing scenarios is meant to show that the hypothesis is still true within extremes of reason. If none of the columns were damaged, but the fireproofing was still stripped away, would the towers have fallen? Consider your answer to that question very carefully.

Ultimately they went to the extreme scenario (their own words) in order to make a non-CD explanation fit.

Please quote NIST in their own words.

Yet you folks think it's a matter of equations, math etc.

Shouldn't you? After all, you took that statics class. Can you calculate the load on a beam by watching a YouTube video?

That even though NIST realizes data modeling is critical, you folks think it can be resolved by a few math calculations. Now how smug and over confident is that?

MM
Wow! Science, engineering and the real world can be explored using mathematics and logic! Amazing!

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry but lots of smoke does not necessarily equate to lots of fire.

How so?

Even if he was correct. IF the WTC7 was a friggin' towering inferno..it still is not reasonable to believe the fire would exert such control as to bring the whole 47-storey building down, rapidly, ALL at the same time!

The fire was not fought, and the building had massive structural damage.

[Miragememories]

Holy red herring.



(This is my favorite part...)

Pot, have you met kettle?

You'd rather I just out and called you a hypocrite Totovader?

MM

[Pardalis]

Why would you want to be proven wrong??

That's how science works.

[Miragememories]

How so?



The fire was not fought, and the building had massive structural damage.

The extensive fire was not shown!

The massive structural damage was not proven and is still not a valid explanation for a symmetrical CD-like building collapse!

MM

[Arus808]

The extensive fire was not shown!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Just because you dont see images of any "raging" or "extensive" fires doesn't prove that there wasn't any


Try again.

And where is your extensive knowledge of Engineering MM? I've yet to anything substantiative from you.. Show us your calculations and proof. Stop parroting the inane claims of kooks.

[twinstead]

The extensive fire was not shown!

The massive structural damage was not proven and is still not a valid explanation for a symmetrical CD-like building collapse!



Says YOU. Not a valid explanation, huh? Exactly who does it have to be a valid explanation to for it to be legit? You? Dora the Explorer? Alexander the Great? The American Medical Association?

Exactly how many real engineers need to accept and understand the findings for you to agree? A thousand? A million? A trillion?

[Miragememories]

So, basically, we should admit Christophera has made a point because we don't feel like arguing it anymore? Or is it that JREFers are the ones who are supposed to submit to all arguments? Or do you think Christophera will stop and go away if we all agree with him, regardless of how vapid or illogical his arguments are?

And where do they say that?

Oh? No data at all? So those steel beams sitting on NIST's campus right now are, what? We can't look at them and determine what damage took place? How did NIST produce all of those lovely images of exactly what columns were damaged, how much, what their load bearing capacities were, and their thermodynamic responses without data? Or did you mean to say they don't know "exactly" how much damage occurred?

I beg your pardon? The most technically advanced fire research facility in the US does not know any of those variables? Yes, they did know that, and I would highly suggest reading NCSTAR1-6 to find out exactly how they calculated all of that.

And how did they know that, I wonder...

I think I'm forever going to quote you on that. NIST also had no proof of space aliens, microwaves, mini-nukes or the spirits of the Hopi Indians, either. So why should they consider all of the competing theories that are backed by no evidence?

False, bracketing scenarios is meant to show that the hypothesis is still true within extremes of reason. If none of the columns were damaged, but the fireproofing was still stripped away, would the towers have fallen? Consider your answer to that question very carefully.

Please quote NIST in their own words.

Shouldn't you? After all, you took that statics class. Can you calculate the load on a beam by watching a YouTube video?

Wow! Science, engineering and the real world can be explored using mathematics and logic! Amazing!

I expect you to defend your beliefs.

If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it. That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point. On your nemesis, the LC Forums, I see concessions made to skeptics all the time. A concession doesn't mean a capitulation but you folks don't seem to understand that difference.

NIST didn't have all the data for an unquestionable computer model because they had to work with video evidence and what remained in the ruins. If you wish to argue they were able to fully re-construct the scenario then I'll leave you to that fantasy.

A few steel beams extracted from the debris pile does not constitute a complete and accurate picture of what damage they sustained where and when!! The building's steel took some damage from the aircraft most certainly. Enough to remove almost all the fireproofing for a complete floor? NIST speculated yes in order to make their model work, yet how could they know since the collapse distorted the evidence? The steel took an enormous amount of damage from the subsequent collapse of their buildings. You expect it was easy to seperate aircraft damage from collapse damage?

NIST had fire testing by Underwriter Labs. The tests proven inconclusive!

Your BS about space aliens, Hopi Indians etc. is the usual crap. CD would do what was observed which makes it a relevant consideration. Suggesting the absurd only reveals how locked your mind is to your dogmatic beliefs.

Bracketing also reveals that NIST didn't have an absolute set of data parameters. They did admit to adjusting input data and had to use an extreme case scenario with parameters adjusted to what they said was still realistically possible in order to obtain collapse initiation. If that's not guessing I don't know what is!

Maybe Greening can sit at home and calculate with equations exactly what occured on 9/11 but even his supreme ego could not know the precise data that related to the unseeable internal damage of the towers. Like NIST, he accepted the plane crash and fire as the cause and proceeded to make the math work accordingly.

Statics gave me an appreciation of force vectors. Dynamics gave me an appreciation of moving forces. Imagination, which is appallingly absent amongst JREFers allows me to see beyond the box.

As a documentary video editor and a viewer, I've seen an enormous amount of footage relating to explosions as well building destruction. From footage of WWII bombings, to controlled demolitions, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, natural gas explosions etc., I've got a fairly good idea of what looks typical and what looks odd. WTC 1 & 2 didn't just gravity collapse because they were physically damaged by aircraft collision and weakening fire; they ERUPTED! I see it..you obviously don't. I can only assume you don't want to see it because you fear the conclusion you have to draw and you'll miss the comradry of the JREF gang.

Then I watch the multiple videos of the WTC7 collapse.

Yes it had significant damage from the collapse of WTC1. Undoubtedly it had unfought fires. Even allowing for the non-structural engineer firefighters who had never before that day seen concrete and steel buildings felled by fire calling out in advance that WTC7 was coming down.
The firefighters allowed for a topple collapse zone. They never allowed for, or showed any expectation of a footprint-type collapse. They never once were quoted as saying they expected the whole building to collapse as one.

As an engineer, do you ever consider how unlikely it would be for a building to collapse like that without artificial assistance?

Buildings left to self destruct, collapse piecemeal and usually leave a shell standing. Even the extensive bombing of WWII rarely leveled a building like we saw with WTC7. WTC7 was modern construction to boot. Yet you folks can't even acknowledge a "hmmm" You are so dogmatic and blind in your beliefs.

MM

[beachnut]

NIST had fire testing by Underwriter Labs. The tests proven inconclusive!
MM This statement proves you did not read very well; do over!

Maybe Greening can sit at home and calculate with equations exactly what occured on 9/11 but even his supreme ego could not know the precise data that related to the unseeable internal damage of the towers. Like NIST, he accepted the plane crash and fire as the cause and proceeded to make the math work accordingly. You use talk Greening used numbers to show global collapse as seen is possible. Ross missed the value by just a little. Ross would be dead, Greening would be alive. You did not do the numbers! You trust idiots.

Statics gave me an appreciation of force vectors. Dynamics gave me an appreciation of moving forces. Imagination, which is appallingly absent amongst JREFers allows me to see beyond the box. Does this mean you did some work with numbers on 9/11? Can you share your great work now? My brother and I are both engineers and we both knew what happen on 9/11 just by looking at the video and fires. Your engineering stink did not stick very well, did it?

As an engineer, do you ever consider how unlikely it would be for a building to collapse like that without artificial assistance? As I said, I know only a few nut case engineers who agree with the truth movement; and you can find them. I count physics also, there a few nuts on that too. These are facts about the experts of 9/11; only a fool would not see how wrong they are. As I said, I know that 99.99 plus engineers in the United States disagree with you. Why?

It is because you are wrong.

Buildings left to self destruct, collapse piecemeal and usually leave a shell standing. Even the extensive bombing of WWII rarely leveled a building like we saw with WTC7. WTC7 was modern construction to boot. Yet you folks can't even acknowledge a "hmmm" You are so dogmatic and blind in your beliefs.MM Showing your lack of experience on this point. How can your research be so shallow. Your entire theories backed with no facts are proved wrong over 5 years ago.

[twinstead]

MM I can't stress enough that the VAST majority of experts from around the world disagree with you. Even if you think they are all wrong, you need a reason why. It's only right.

So...why?

[Pardalis]

I've got a fairly good idea of what looks typical and what looks odd. WTC 1 & 2 didn't just gravity collapse because they were physically damaged by aircraft collision and weakening fire; they ERUPTED!

You're kidding, right?

[T.A.M.]

This arguement about the NIST Reports, too me, boils down to this.

Take a 1000 piece puzzle that is a picture of a basket of fruit.

900 pieces fit together nicely. The rest are either missing, or are placed incorrectly.

A JREFer and a CTist walk by the puzzle.


JREFer: "That looks like a basket of fruit."

CTist: "With those pieces incorrectly placed, and others missing, even though it may look like a basket of fruit, it is almost certainly not, and someone has just put it together to look that way to make you feel comfortable with the world."

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM
In other words, you figured out you couldn't BS your way through, so you switched to something where facts weren't important.

[T.A.M.]

Do I hear...Philosophy major.

TAM;)

[Totovader]

He showed the same south face of smoke that has been shown in numerous other videos.

So, he's not lying?

He showed 8 windows of fire.

In a couple of shots. He also showed the entire building smoking, as well as a large portion of the building missing.

I've seen ample footage of the other WTC7 building sides that showed no total involvement and I have to believe the claims of a building totally involved by fire are an extreme exageration. I'm sorry but lots of smoke does not necessarily equate to lots of fire.

And since you have not called him a liar, what would those other pieces of footage tell you? That they were not taken at the same time? That they were not as close? Do you have any footage which CONTRADICTS this video?

No- you can't.

Even if he was correct. IF the WTC7 was a friggin' towering inferno..it still is not reasonable to believe the fire would exert such control as to bring the whole 47-storey building down, rapidly, ALL at the same time!

Nor is that the claim, Mr. Strawman.

You neglect that the collapse was progressive. You neglect the damage to the building. You neglect that the building was known to be unstable- and was not addressed with firefighting efforts.

It is irrational to ignore these facts to support a conspiracy theory.

Man works that way..nature doesn't!

MM

Nature, dear sir, is not about ignoring evidence you do not like. Science is the discovery of nature- and science includes relevant facts- facts which you have ignored.

[Totovader]

In other words, you figured out you couldn't BS your way through, so you switched to something where facts weren't important.

http://www.anni80.info/movies/images/bender.jpg

Without lamps, there'd be no light!

[Totovader]

You'd rather I just out and called you a hypocrite Totovader?

MM

Wouldn't matter to me- your character assassinations are pointless and only serve to deflect attention away from your lack of an argument. You switched from an appeal to pity to an ad hominem in a matter of a few posts.

[DavidJames]

Even if he was correct. IF the WTC7 was a friggin' towering inferno..it still is not reasonable to believe the fire would exert such control as to bring the whole 47-storey building down, rapidly, ALL at the same time!

Man works that way..nature doesn't!

MMSpoken like a true tin hatter. You guys have taken the argument from ignorance to new heights. You don't understand it so it's impossible.

You're so smart that you know what is "reasonable" behavior in such a situation, tell me about about your background.
What engineering degrees to you have?
What practical structural analysis experience do you have?
What fire fighting experience do you have?
What architectural education and experience do you have?

Certainly, your education and experience must be vast as you know what's reasonable. Please share it with us.

At some point when you have chest pains, will you go to doctor or the hospital or will you consult with someone who has watched videos of patients with doctors and find out what they believe is a reasonable explanation for your pains?

[stilicho]

What's an "unquestionable computer model"?

I don't know much about the Permian extinction, but there are models to explain it by, variously, extraterrestrial object impacts, vulcanism, and climatic change. This kind of diversity of scientific opinion is not true of the WTC collapses (including the 'mystery' of WTC7). There is simply no scientific discord on the subject.

In fact, laymen such as myself would have been satisfied with "planes hit building >> damage from planes caused collapse". NIST provided models (and a lot of engineering tests) to insert "fires produced these conditions" into the equation. It seems the layman's objection to that is "well, paper and burning office chairs just doesn't seem to be hot enough".

Isn't that similar to saying that plate tectonics is far-fetched because granite doesn't float in water?

[Gravy]

I expect you to defend your beliefs.

If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it. That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point.If our shape-shifting overlords presented themselves in their true reptilian form, we should set aside our preconceptions about shape-shifting reptillian overlords.

Since Christophera does not have a valid point, I will continue to assert that the Twin Towers did not have concrete cores. That is not a "small point." I do not capitulate to massive, raging delusions, simply because they are repeated.

[Panoply_Prefect]

words

I seriously had my hopes up there for awhile, but alas. I'd say put up or shut up.

*sigh*

SLOB

[Firestone]

"Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts.." because no one here is capable of a 'maybe' response.


If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it. That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point. On your nemesis, the LC Forums, I see concessions made to skeptics all the time. A concession doesn't mean a capitulation but you folks don't seem to understand that difference.
Can you explain why Christophera was banned on the LC Forums after a few posts?

[Miragememories]

I'd like to see you support this, because it's wrong.

It also appears you aren't familiar with the use of bounding envelopes in event reconstruction, like many other non-engineers who've posted similar misinterpretations of NIST.

So show us where you got this, and we'll see if we can't find your problem for you.

I am familiar with bounding envelopes in modeling but I fail to see how your bringing that up argues a counterpoint to my case about NIST using excessive assumptive data to make their model comply with the desired result?

MM

[Miragememories]

This statement proves you did not read very well; do over!

You use talk Greening used numbers to show global collapse as seen is possible. Ross missed the value by just a little. Ross would be dead, Greening would be alive. You did not do the numbers! You trust idiots.

Does this mean you did some work with numbers on 9/11? Can you share your great work now? My brother and I are both engineers and we both knew what happen on 9/11 just by looking at the video and fires. Your engineering stink did not stick very well, did it?

As I said, I know only a few nut case engineers who agree with the truth movement; and you can find them. I count physics also, there a few nuts on that too. These are facts about the experts of 9/11; only a fool would not see how wrong they are. As I said, I know that 99.99 plus engineers in the United States disagree with you. Why?

It is because you are wrong.

Showing your lack of experience on this point. How can your research be so shallow. Your entire theories backed with no facts are proved wrong over 5 years ago.

Being an engineer doesn't place a crown on your head beachnutter.

Go polish your preening mirror.

You toss around numbers and claims in the typical manner of the smug and arrogant playing to a crowd guaranteed to never question the group dogma.

Sheep go "baaa"...I hear a lot of that sound in the replies here.

MM

[Miragememories]

If our shape-shifting overlords presented themselves in their true reptilian form, we should set aside our preconceptions about shape-shifting reptillian overlords.

Since Christophera does not have a valid point, I will continue to assert that the Twin Towers did not have concrete cores. That is not a "small point." I do not capitulate to massive, raging delusions, simply because they are repeated.

You are still using that avatar that suggests; excessive self release spasm. I would have thought embarassment would have lead you to remove it by now Mark?

Regarding my comment about Christophera, I said "if" and not did. There's a big difference in meaning between the two words. You might want to crack open a dictionary.

MM

[Miragememories]

Can you explain why Christophera was banned on the LC Forums after a few posts?

I have no idea.

I'm sure if the same admins ran the JREF Forums, I would have been banned here long ago.

I can say that people presenting their view in an open, honest, non-beligerant manner, seem to survive there.

People who exhibit the JREF arrogant, unconstructive, 'disrupt rather than engage' style; are top candidates for dismissal.

MM

[Miragememories]

What's an "unquestionable computer model"?

I don't know much about the Permian extinction, but there are models to explain it by, variously, extraterrestrial object impacts, vulcanism, and climatic change. This kind of diversity of scientific opinion is not true of the WTC collapses (including the 'mystery' of WTC7). There is simply no scientific discord on the subject.

In fact, laymen such as myself would have been satisfied with "planes hit building >> damage from planes caused collapse". NIST provided models (and a lot of engineering tests) to insert "fires produced these conditions" into the equation. It seems the layman's objection to that is "well, paper and burning office chairs just doesn't seem to be hot enough".

Isn't that similar to saying that plate tectonics is far-fetched because granite doesn't float in water?

Well I'm sure some folks believe a flock of birds trained by terrorists could have done it as well.

MM

[Miragememories]

Spoken like a true tin hatter. You guys have taken the argument from ignorance to new heights. You don't understand it so it's impossible.

You're so smart that you know what is "reasonable" behavior in such a situation, tell me about about your background.
What engineering degrees to you have?
What practical structural analysis experience do you have?
What fire fighting experience do you have?
What architectural education and experience do you have?

Certainly, your education and experience must be vast as you know what's reasonable. Please share it with us.

At some point when you have chest pains, will you go to doctor or the hospital or will you consult with someone who has watched videos of patients with doctors and find out what they believe is a reasonable explanation for your pains?

And you davidjames are so smart...you don't even have to bother thinking at all any more.

If you folks are so right in your beliefs, why do you evade explaining the valid points about the WTC7 collapse being 'forced'?

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.

Just the fact that no one here will entertain 'doubt' is symptomatic of your inability to think as individuals.

As individuals your afraid of the reaction from the rest of the JREF club if you make a minor concession.

And you ask me why engineers are afraid to come forward and challenge the status quo?

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.

Talk about a herd of sheep.

MM

[twinstead]

Well I'm sure some folks believe a flock of birds trained by terrorists could have done it as well.

MM

All the excellent points brought up to you above, and THIS is all you have?

To me your entire point is a layman's "it doesn't look right to me". The vast majority of real experts on Earth disagree with you. That makes it a tall claim, sir.

You are the sheep because you believe conspiracy sites no questins asked. MAKE YOUR CASE.

[twinstead]

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.


You can't be that dense. Go read the politics section, and tell me what a bunch of sheep we are.

Shame on us for asking you to put up or shut up. You are the one "falling back" on calling us sheep.

[JimBenArm]

You can't be that dense. Go read the politics section, and tell me what a bunch of sheep we are.
Don't make me go there! It's full of scary people!

[The Almond]

I expect you to defend your beliefs.

If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it.

Ad hominem. You're falsely attributing to bigotry what is actually the rational decision not to accept a concrete core as part of the WTC.

That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point.
Sorry, but a concrete core is not a small point. It is a massive falsehood upon which Christophera bases all of his conclusions. We refuse to accept that which ammounts to the tooth fairy causing the WTC towers to collapse.

On your nemesis, the LC Forums, I see concessions made to skeptics all the time.
And yet, how many are banned for being skeptics?

A concession doesn't mean a capitulation but you folks don't seem to understand that difference.
So, if I understand your point, we should conceed arguments regardless of whether or not someone makes an accurate statement, but because we don't want to appear bigoted to the likes of conspiracy fantasists. Notice how nowhere in your statement have you claimed that Christophera made a good point, or has made an accurate analysis of the WTC collapse. If you even acknowledge that he's wrong, why should we conceed the point to him?

NIST didn't have all the data for an unquestionable computer model because they had to work with video evidence and what remained in the ruins.
Ok, how do you define an "unquestionable" computer model? The fact that people don't accept it (a small minority of people, I might add), does not mean that the model is invalid. Questioning something, whether it is relativity, evolution or the self-initiation theory has no bearing on whether or not the model is accurate or represents the truth.

If you wish to argue they were able to fully re-construct the scenario then I'll leave you to that fantasy.
That's precisely what I started this thread to argue. I believe NIST has conclusively modeled the collapse initiation state and proved how damage from the airplanes caused it. Thus far, you have failed to provide any counter-evidence other than a globalist, hand-waving criticism, parroted from David Ray Griffin.

A few steel beams extracted from the debris pile does not constitute a complete and accurate picture of what damage they sustained where and when!!
Would you care to define "few?" I suppose you won't, because you have no idea what NIST has got.

The building's steel took some damage from the aircraft most certainly.
No one was debating this fact. I'm amazed, however, that you take it upon yourself to qualify the damage as "some" without referencing your analysis, your evidence, or your facts. How do you know that the WTC towers took "some" damage?

Enough to remove almost all the fireproofing for a complete floor?
You are arguing from personal incredulity. Evidence, mathematics, rational argument, if you please.

NIST speculated yes in order to make their model work, yet how could they know since the collapse distorted the evidence?
Gee, I wonder where they addressed this. Could it be somewhere in that 10,000 page report? NIST bracketed what they though was the likely damage by assuming that very little fireproofing was actually stripped. They showed that under the conservative case, the towers would still have fallen. How does that invalidate their conclusion that if more fireproofing were displaced, the towers would still have fallen?

The steel took an enormous amount of damage from the subsequent collapse of their buildings. You expect it was easy to seperate aircraft damage from collapse damage?
You're arguing from personal incredulity again. And actually, yes you can. Metallurgists do this all the time.

NIST had fire testing by Underwriter Labs. The tests proven inconclusive!
Would you care to cite that?

Your BS about space aliens, Hopi Indians etc. is the usual crap. CD would do what was observed which makes it a relevant consideration.
Space aliens used a space laser to melt the towers. It was made to look exactly like a controlled demolition. Since the space laser would do what was observed, it, too, is a relevant considerations. And don't get me started on the Hopi Indians...

Suggesting the absurd only reveals how locked your mind is to your dogmatic beliefs.
Ad hominem.

Bracketing also reveals that NIST didn't have an absolute set of data parameters.
An absolute set of data parameters? They knew how much the plane weighed, they had video evidence of the areas of the towers damaged, they had the external properties of the building and the time from impact to collapse initiation. They also had the size, strength and locations of all columns, beams, trusses and the amount of fireproofing on all of them. How are those not absolute data parameters?

They did admit to adjusting input data and had to use an extreme case scenario with parameters adjusted to what they said was still realistically possible in order to obtain collapse initiation. If that's not guessing I don't know what is!
This is now the second time I'm going to ask you to reference this. Where does NIST claim they had to use an extreme case?

Maybe Greening can sit at home and calculate with equations exactly what occured on 9/11 but even his supreme ego could not know the precise data that related to the unseeable internal damage of the towers.
Third argument from personal incredulity.

Like NIST, he accepted the plane crash and fire as the cause and proceeded to make the math work accordingly.
Man! Thank God all the theory, the mathematics, the experiments and the computer model supported that hypothesis! You've reverted back to your first irrelevant point. NIST does not need to consider alternative hypotheses for which there is not evidence. Don't make me get the Hopi Indians on you!

Statics gave me an appreciation of force vectors. Dynamics gave me an appreciation of moving forces. Imagination, which is appallingly absent amongst JREFers allows me to see beyond the box.
So, your Statics professor would give you a problem. The first thing you did was imagine what the answer would be, right? Or did you find an answer mathematically, and then imagine a different one? At what point did you use your imagination to solve these problems?

Also, ad hominem

As a documentary video editor and a viewer, I've seen an enormous amount of footage relating to explosions as well building destruction. From footage of WWII bombings, to controlled demolitions, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, natural gas explosions etc., I've got a fairly good idea of what looks typical and what looks odd. WTC 1 & 2 didn't just gravity collapse because they were physically damaged by aircraft collision and weakening fire; they ERUPTED!
This is your 4th argument from personal incredulity. You represented yourself in another thread as having knowledge of strucural engineering, and when pressed for information, you've decided to produce nothing but arguments from personal incredulity.

I see it..you obviously don't. I can only assume you don't want to see it because you fear the conclusion you have to draw and you'll miss the comradry of the JREF gang.
You're not addressing any of my points. You've attacked me no less than three times in this response, and you've provided no evidence, no references and no facts to support your conclusions.

As an engineer, do you ever consider how unlikely it would be for a building to collapse like that without artificial assistance?
As a real engineer, unlike you, I know that the forces of fire, wind, earthquake, floods and falling debris can cause buildings to collapse and fail. The majority of unplanned, unexpected failures of structures in the world is a result of natural forces, not artificial assistance.

Buildings left to self destruct, collapse piecemeal and usually leave a shell standing.
Really? Perhaps you could cite this or provide a reference to this little factiod.

Even the extensive bombing of WWII rarely leveled a building like we saw with WTC7.
Wow! Perhaps you have statistics to back up this claim.

WTC7 was modern construction to boot.
And yet, a building fell on it, causing massive fire and structural damage. So modern buildings aren't invincible, eh?

Yet you folks can't even acknowledge a "hmmm" You are so dogmatic and blind in your beliefs.

MMThat's yet another ad hominem attack in this post.

I must say, I'm really disappointed with you. I asked for references, you reply with insults. I ask for proof, you rant about the evils of the government. I ask you for specific criticisms on the NCSTAR, you have yet to produce any. Try harder.

[ShowMe]

Yesterday, on my way home from work I was caught in a traffic jam caused by a major accident. After a long wait & slow drive I passed the scene; it was horrific. When I arrived home I recounted to my wife what the scene was like. How incredibly impressive it was that the ambulance folks were already there, the injured had been cared for & taken to the hospital, the police were directing the traffic as the tow trucks were removing the wreckage, etc.

She remarked that I’m the only one she knows that would pay more attention to the cleanup crews than in trying to look at the actual wreckage.

What does the above have to do with this forum? Every day I find myself venturing into this message base. Day after day I read the same tripe put up the Troofers and their ilk. And I realize that I loathe these people.

I can’t even give them a pass because they’re young & foolish. We were all young at one time. We’ve all done foolish things. But Dylan Avery and his cultists aren’t like the young girl who has embarrassing photos surface when she’s older; these people are doing serious harm to the survivors & family of the victims of 9/11.

Seriously, what kind of horrifically warped imagination does it take to even THINK UP a lie that says a father went golfing while he knew his son was about to be murdered? Or to laugh at box cutters being used to hijack a plane?

Where does such a mindset start? If you speak to mental health professions about their most deluded patients, those are the type of stores they’ll relate. Something so incredibly stupid, so hurtful, and so obviously mind-boggling wrong…yet they have cattle lapping it up and screaming for more. It makes me wonder about our future.

Then I read the replies from the JREF folks. For the most part they are patient, articulate, support their arguments with facts & evidence. And I realize that the troofers are the wreckage, not the future. I come here because I enjoy watching people I loathe get their asses handed to them in a briefcase & proving they’re not intelligent enough to realize it happened.

But seeing the responses on the JREF board gives me a similar feeling that seeing the rescue teams in action gave me. I hated seeing that car wreck. Real people got hurt much like real people get hurt because of the lies the loosers try and perpetuate. And even though their mindset will never allow them to admit it (they wouldn’t have believe in the CT to begin with if they had the ability to reason), I am consistently impressed with the ease at which the CT’ers are proven wrong.

For all of your tireless efforts in crushing the 9/11 conspiracy dopes I present to you:

The “Destroyer of Quackery” merit badge.

http://scq.ubc.ca/sciencescouts/10quackery.jpg

In which the recipient never ever backs down from an argument that pits sound science over quackery.

http://scq.ubc.ca/sciencescouts/index.html#10

[The Almond]

Being an engineer doesn't place a crown on your head beachnutter.

Go polish your preening mirror.

You toss around numbers and claims in the typical manner of the smug and arrogant playing to a crowd guaranteed to never question the group dogma.

Sheep go "baaa"...I hear a lot of that sound in the replies here.

MM

I'm astounded by the childishness of this post. Beachnut made several excellent points, all of which you ignored in favor of calling him names.

[The Almond]

You are still using that avatar that suggests; excessive self release spasm. I would have thought embarassment would have lead you to remove it by now Mark?

So rather than address Gravy's points, you're criticizing his avatar? Why?

Regarding my comment about Christophera, I said "if" and not did. There's a big difference in meaning between the two words. You might want to crack open a dictionary.

MM
This is another baseless attack against Gravy.

[WildCat]

If you folks are so right in your beliefs, why do you evade explaining the valid points about the WTC7 collapse being 'forced'?
What valid points are those? So far you've offered nothing but arguments from incredulity.

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.
So you think first-hand accounts from the scene have no value? Of course you do, because they don't support your pre-determined CD explanation. It takes some work to be so deliberately ignorant, doesn't it MM?

Just the fact that no one here will entertain 'doubt' is symptomatic of your inability to think as individuals.

As individuals your afraid of the reaction from the rest of the JREF club if you make a minor concession.
If a CT came here and made a valid point there would be a concession. So far you've all come here w/ complete bunk. The rantings of idiots is unlikely to get you support here.

And you ask me why engineers are afraid to come forward and challenge the status quo?
Couldn't possibly be because they're satisfied w/ the NIST report, could it? no, they are threatened and bullied into accepting a conclusion they know to be wrong... welcome to tha paranoid ignorance of the CT world!

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.
You're ignorance of this forum is total.

Talk about a herd of sheep.
The correct word is "sheeple", get your troofer lingo straight.

[The Almond]

And you davidjames are so smart...you don't even have to bother thinking at all any more.

Ad hom.

If you folks are so right in your beliefs, why do you evade explaining the valid points about the WTC7 collapse being 'forced'?

Because you're trying to redirect the argument. Talk about someone who refuses to conceed a point!

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.

Who would have thought! An intelligent person does not presume to know all of the answers, but rather references experts in the field. Rather than claiming to have knowledge and experience he clearly does not, he defers to people who know more than he does. You could learn a lot from him.

Just the fact that no one here will entertain 'doubt' is symptomatic of your inability to think as individuals.

Ad hom, yet again. Why can you not produce a coherent argument or response without resorting to personal attacks?

As individuals your afraid of the reaction from the rest of the JREF club if you make a minor concession.

Oh no! I will lose the respect of people I've never met before! How will I survive!!!!

And you ask me why engineers are afraid to come forward and challenge the status quo?

Because engineers tend to have a moral compass that directs them to expose fraud for the sake of the public. That stands against, of course, people like Dylan Avery, who willfully deceives the public for profit.

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.

Talk about a herd of sheep.

MM
Back to the insults. This is the tactic of someone who has lost all of his points, but tries not to loose face by becoming beligerant. It's sad, really.

[twinstead]

I don't care what you say MM, I will NOT throw you a bone and agree with a single word you say as long as you are accusing people of mass murder with the lame excuse for evidence you, and your entire stupid movement, present.

You are creating a new reality that you shoehorn into your world view, and I for one think there is no room for such a spittle-spewing ideologue to be involved in an unbiased, rational investigation of ANYTHING.

I would say the same thing to a rabid neocon jingoist trying to convince me that Bush and his administration is God's gift to this Earth. You're no different than he, but sadly neither one of you realize it.

[R.Mackey]

I am familiar with bounding envelopes in modeling but I fail to see how your bringing that up argues a counterpoint to my case about NIST using excessive assumptive data to make their model comply with the desired result?

It wasn't. That was a counterpoint to your assertion that the NIST model was "too coarse."

As for your claim that NIST used "excessive assumptive data," I simply asked you to show where they did that. You haven't. Please proceed.

[T.A.M.]

Hey Almond, isnt that the secret ensignia for operation "Stiff Mallard" I alluded to elsewhere. I didn't think the ensignia was declassified yet?

TAM:)

[The Almond]

Hey Almond, isnt that the secret ensignia for operation "Stiff Mallard" I alluded to elsewhere. I didn't think the ensignia was declassified yet?

TAM:)

Well now it's not! Thank's a lot TAM, now we'll have to erase the minds of everyone who knows.

What were we talking about again?

[Miragememories]

All the excellent points brought up to you above, and THIS is all you have?

To me your entire point is a layman's "it doesn't look right to me". The vast majority of real experts on Earth disagree with you. That makes it a tall claim, sir.

You are the sheep because you believe conspiracy sites no questins asked. MAKE YOUR CASE.

Cough cough..excellent points?

You folks love making the claim that the masses agree with ya just because they are silent.

Without the support of the JREF herd you are nothing.

Just a club of back slappers.

MM

[Miragememories]

I'm astounded by the childishness of this post. Beachnut made several excellent points, all of which you ignored in favor of calling him names.

You astound all too easily almond.

MM

[WildCat]

106 posts now for MM. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Par for the course for CT's.

[Miragememories]

So rather than address Gravy's points, you're criticizing his avatar? Why?

This is another baseless attack against Gravy.

Not an attack..an observation.

Mark didn't respond to my point. He responded to his point which was just more ego gratification.

I also think he can reply for himself without people like yourself toadying up a response.

I guess if you need the merit points than more power to you.

MM

[WildCat]

107

[T.A.M.]

MM:

Do you have anything else to say besides whining about the JREFers?

TAM

[Miragememories]

It wasn't. That was a counterpoint to your assertion that the NIST model was "too coarse."

As for your claim that NIST used "excessive assumptive data," I simply asked you to show where they did that. You haven't. Please proceed.

There is no rebuttal to dogma.

People convinced in their beliefs open no doors to doubt.

It's not a matter of providing evidence. I see little indication that anyone here cares about proof or reasonable doubt.

You can call me names and label my responses all you like but I'm not so dumb as to play the fool's game of trying to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people.

How can you honestly say you want to discuss evidence when all your responses clearly indicate an inability to consider anything other that your current tight-fisted beliefs?

Do you really believe you still retain the individual capacity to change your minds?

I have never encountered such a group of people who were so firmly entrenched in their beliefs and so afraid of conceding little maybes as if they were major points.

No argument is ironclad whether you are on the side of the 9/11 Truth Seekers or the JREF sceptics.

I've yet to see you brilliant folks prove that the possibility of CD at WTC 1,2 & 7 is beyond reasonable doubt.

The firefighters were not experts in phenomenon that never occured before, yet to suit your purposes, you treat them as such.

Controlled demolitions create rapid, symmetrical footprint-like collapses, yet you folks eagerly embrace the conclusion that in the case of WTC7, debris damage and fire amazingly achieved the same result. No hesitation to believe, no doubt it was a normal occurence. The firefighters never said it would happen that way. Not one of the voluminous firefighter quotes even hinted that a collapse of that nature was a possibility. Never happened before but of course you all knew on 9/11, that was the day it would happen..obvious to you all.

The NIST Report. The 10,000 page shock and awe bible. What a pillow to sleep with at night. All those juicy pages of textbook rehash by people beholding to those who finance their budget. People who know any disagreement with White House spin will court ugly repercussions. Look at the crippled 9/11 Commission if you have any doubt about how interested the White House was in a complete and fair investigation.

MM

[Miragememories]

106 posts now for MM. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Par for the course for CT's.

A far cry from your thousands of crap baaaa posts catboy.

MM

[WildCat]

109 posts.

Zero content. Typical troofer... :rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

And you davidjames are so smart...you don't even have to bother thinking at all any more.

If you folks are so right in your beliefs, why do you evade explaining the valid points about the WTC7 collapse being 'forced'?

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.

Just the fact that no one here will entertain 'doubt' is symptomatic of your inability to think as individuals.

As individuals your afraid of the reaction from the rest of the JREF club if you make a minor concession.

And you ask me why engineers are afraid to come forward and challenge the status quo?

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.

Talk about a herd of sheep.

MMI see you avoided my questions and just rambled. I'm not surprised. You have nothing, mm, not a lick of evidence. All you have are the simple (very simple) thoughts in your head. You're going nowhere MM, nowhere. Good luck with your life, and don't reproduce.

[stilicho]

Well I'm sure some folks believe a flock of birds trained by terrorists could have done it as well.

MM
You mentioned an "unquestionable computer model". What is that?

[The Almond]

Not an attack..an observation.

BS. Could we dispense with your "I'm the victim" style revisionism?

Mark didn't respond to my point. He responded to his point which was just more ego gratification.
Rather, he called you on a particularly poor statement for which you had no evidence.

I also think he can reply for himself without people like yourself toadying up a response.
I see we're stooping even lower. How do you think you appear to the fence-sitters? Do you think you're acting like a rational adult?

I guess if you need the merit points than more power to you.

MMChildish namecalling and baseless accusations.

[The Almond]

There is no rebuttal to dogma.

Except for facts. How about if you get some?

People convinced in their beliefs open no doors to doubt.
Oh! Why won't people accept my poorly researched opinion as fact! Woe is me!

It's not a matter of providing evidence. I see little indication that anyone here cares about proof or reasonable doubt.
Gee, if only someone could provide reason to doubt...

You can call me names and label my responses all you like but I'm not so dumb as to play the fool's game of trying to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people.
CALL YOU NAMES??? What have you been doing for the last 4 pages of this thread, exactly?

How can you honestly say you want to discuss evidence when all your responses clearly indicate an inability to consider anything other that your current tight-fisted beliefs?Oh! Woe is me! No one will listen to me and agree with me! Why can't they just accept my words over rationalism and evidence?

Do you really believe you still retain the individual capacity to change your minds?
Do you have the capacity to develop a coherent argument?

I have never encountered such a group of people who were so firmly entrenched in their beliefs and so afraid of conceding little maybes as if they were major points.
So, we should conceed points so that you don't think we're close minded? Thanks, I'll cast your opinion of me to the wayside and consider myself better for it.

No argument is ironclad whether you are on the side of the 9/11 Truth Seekers or the JREF sceptics.
And yet, some arguments are made based on moronic premises. For instance, the one that NIST made too many assumptions to have a valid model, or the one that they didn't consider controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions create rapid, symmetrical footprint-like collapses, yet you folks eagerly embrace the conclusion that in the case of WTC7, debris damage and fire amazingly achieved the same result.
So do space aliens. I demand that you prove to me that space aliens did not bring down WTC7.

The NIST Report. The 10,000 page shock and awe bible. What a pillow to sleep with at night. All those juicy pages of textbook rehash by people beholding to those who finance their budget. People who know any disagreement with White House spin will court ugly repercussions. Look at the crippled 9/11 Commission if you have any doubt about how interested the White House was in a complete and fair investigation.

MMTo sumarize this thread:
1) MM has no specific, technical criticisms of the NIST report.
2) MM thinks we're all too close-minded to take him at his word. It would be better for him if we just accepted his opinion as fact and didn't ask all these pesky questions regarding evidence and reference.

[twinstead]

MM I'm sorry. You are disgusting. I can't believe anybody so dogmatic, so steadfast in his beliefs, so willfully ignorant, so ideologically blind, can with a straight face accuse others of the SAME EXACT THING!

You need to go back to whatever hole of a forum you crawled out of before you came here and preach to the choir some more, because obviously you can't handle defending your views with anybody of the opposing viewpoint who is even a little articulate about it.

I'm done. You are accusing people of the most heinous crime ever committed in the US. You are accusing innocent people of mass murder, but you don't even care. To you and your ilk this is some kind of rhetorical exorcise, some kind of woo woo video game. If YOU are the best your 'movement' has to offer then we have nothing to worry about at ALL. You're all a bunch of idiots.

:mad:

[tsig]

A far cry from your thousands of crap baaaa posts catboy.

MM

We little sheep have lost our way Baa Baa Baa.

MM shall show us the way!

[Gravy]

It's not a matter of providing evidence. Just another intellectual coward, I see.

Why is the "Truth Movement" comprised exclusively of intellectual cowards?

Isn't it uncomfortable to live in a coward's skin? Doesn't it itch?

[H'ethetheth]

False.
[...]
False
[...]
False
[...]
I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.One thing, Almond, that I found a little unfair is that you did not reference the negations above. You called MM on referencing several times. It would have been better to actually slap him in the face with some pages in the report, which I assume is possible in this case.
Oter than that, I've enjoyed wasting another sunday morning on finding out again how warped the world of conspiracists must actually be.

[The Almond]

One thing, Almond, that I found a little unfair is that you did not reference the negations above. You called MM on referencing several times. It would have been better to actually slap him in the face with some pages in the report, which I assume is possible in this case.
Oter than that, I've enjoyed wasting another sunday morning on finding out again how warped the world of conspiracists must actually be.

I suppose you're right. The problem was that I asked him for genuine, specific criticisms, and he provided rather paltry generalist ones. For instance:

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

Doesn't really allow me to reference anything. I could point to NCSTAR1-2 and 1-5 which details the specifics of the computer model. But that's not really much better than saying "you're wrong."

Nowhere, however, does NIST state "Our entire thesis is based on this computer model." I'm aware of a few executive summaries which state "The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST." (NCSTAR1-6, lxvi) That's a misrepresentation of NIST's conclusion at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

I've asked him repeatedly to point to where NIST states that they were forced to use the extreme case. Thus far, he's blustered and has not produced anything resembling evidence. I honestly don't know where he got this conclusion or what part of the report says it. I can't do anything other than state that NIST began its investigation by reviewing hundreds of videos, thousands of people and interviewing firefighters and first responders. It seems to me that the physical scenario was greatly considered from the beginning of the investigation. NCSTAR1 states, "To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural componenets, and formal statistical methods to identify influential parameters and quantify the variablility in analysis results." (NIST NCSTAR1, xxxvii)

My point is that it's very clear that MM has never read the NCSTAR, and is rather parroting claims and criticisms he heard from other websites. The focus on UL and on the simulations is very typical of the scholars for truth garbage and David Ray Griffin's claptrap. Therefore, pointing to specific references in the NCSTAR is really pretty worthless.

[R.Mackey]

There is no rebuttal to dogma.

People convinced in their beliefs open no doors to doubt.

It's not a matter of providing evidence. I see little indication that anyone here cares about proof or reasonable doubt.

You can call me names and label my responses all you like but I'm not so dumb as to play the fool's game of trying to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people. [And on and on and on...]

This is the longest and most ironic excuse yet to my question, which was to show me where in the NIST report, the NIST investigation team did what you claim they did.

You made that statement. You back it up.

[Pardalis]

This is the longest and most ironic excuse yet to my question,

I think you misspelled 'moronic'.

[R.Mackey]

Nah, I've got that word down cold (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2313851#post2313851).

[H'ethetheth]

I suppose you're right. The problem was that I asked him for genuine, specific criticisms, and he provided rather paltry generalist ones.

[snipped for brevity]

My point is that it's very clear that MM has never read the NCSTAR, and is rather parroting claims and criticisms he heard from other websites. The focus on UL and on the simulations is very typical of the scholars for truth garbage and David Ray Griffin's claptrap. Therefore, pointing to specific references in the NCSTAR is really pretty worthless.I guess so, but you gave him an opportunity to dodge, which he did. Then again, he would have in any case.

Ah well...

[gumboot]

Wow. 144 posts in this thread, and MM still hasn't provided a single aspect of the NIST report to have issue with.

-Gumboot

[Miragememories]

I suppose you're right. The problem was that I asked him for genuine, specific criticisms, and he provided rather paltry generalist ones. For instance:



Doesn't really allow me to reference anything. I could point to NCSTAR1-2 and 1-5 which details the specifics of the computer model. But that's not really much better than saying "you're wrong."

Nowhere, however, does NIST state "Our entire thesis is based on this computer model." I'm aware of a few executive summaries which state "The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST." (NCSTAR1-6, lxvi) That's a misrepresentation of NIST's conclusion at best, and a blatant lie at worst.



I've asked him repeatedly to point to where NIST states that they were forced to use the extreme case. Thus far, he's blustered and has not produced anything resembling evidence. I honestly don't know where he got this conclusion or what part of the report says it. I can't do anything other than state that NIST began its investigation by reviewing hundreds of videos, thousands of people and interviewing firefighters and first responders. It seems to me that the physical scenario was greatly considered from the beginning of the investigation. NCSTAR1 states, "To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural componenets, and formal statistical methods to identify influential parameters and quantify the variablility in analysis results." (NIST NCSTAR1, xxxvii)

My point is that it's very clear that MM has never read the NCSTAR, and is rather parroting claims and criticisms he heard from other websites. The focus on UL and on the simulations is very typical of the scholars for truth garbage and David Ray Griffin's claptrap. Therefore, pointing to specific references in the NCSTAR is really pretty worthless.

From the NIST Report;
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors
were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180)

Just a sample.

MM

[Gravy]

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.Prove one claim of mine false, O fixéd star of ignorance.

You stand behind your words, don't you? Then proceed.

[Gravy]

From the NIST Report;
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors
were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180)

Just a sample.

MMYo, Einstein: they made those adjustments BOTH WAYS, towards more damage and towards less damage. The fact that you don't know that is evidence that you haven't read the report. Please do so, rather than continuing to argue from ignorance.

[The Almond]

From the NIST Report;
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors
were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180)

MM

So 4 pages of bluster and this is what you come up with? So the investigators adjust the parameters of the model so that is accurately models what happened. What is your issue? The more severe case was the one that actually reflects the video and photographic evidence.

The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases [...] were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.

Frankly, I don't see your comments as a valid criticism of the NIST report. The severe case was modeled because it was the one that most accurately reflected the observed damage. Why would NIST choose to model less severe cases that patently disagreed with things like the presence of smoke and fire and broken windows?

Your criticism stems from a blatant misrepresentation of NIST's methodology. You, like Griffin, think that NIST changed the model to fit the hypothesis. Rather, the NIST report clearly states that the model was changed to fit the data, giving precedence to observable data, not to the model.

[R.Mackey]

So 4 pages of bluster and this is what you come up with? So the investigators adjust the parameters of the model so that is accurately models what happened. What is your issue? The more severe case was the one that actually reflects the video and photographic evidence.

Exactly. This is just like fellow laughing-stock A-Train, finding it "suspicious" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2324859#post2324859) that the recovered CVR from Flight 93 supports the 9/11 Commission report.

It's a fancy variation of the "assuming the consequent" fallacy.

Anyway, distractions aside, here's the original quote from MirageMemories:
The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.

And we're still waiting for any kind of support.

[The Almond]

And we're still waiting for any kind of support.

I think this is what he's been driving at all along. My issue is not with the fact that NIST used the extreme case, it's with his characterization that it was speculative data. That's a terrible misrepresentation of the method. NIST set out 3 distinct cases, and found through experimentation that all but the most severe of the considered cases were incapable of matching the physical and visual evidence.

Again, I don't find this to be a valid criticism. Are scientists just supposed to throw up their hands when the first iteration of the model does not work and proclaim, "It was explosives! We're all wrong!"?

[Miragememories]

So 4 pages of bluster and this is what you come up with? So the investigators adjust the parameters of the model so that is accurately models what happened. What is your issue? The more severe case was the one that actually reflects the video and photographic evidence.



Frankly, I don't see your comments as a valid criticism of the NIST report. The severe case was modeled because it was the one that most accurately reflected the observed damage. Why would NIST choose to model less severe cases that patently disagreed with things like the presence of smoke and fire and broken windows?

Your criticism stems from a blatant misrepresentation of NIST's methodology. You, like Griffin, think that NIST changed the model to fit the hypothesis. Rather, the NIST report clearly states that the model was changed to fit the data, giving precedence to observable data, not to the model.

Bluster? LOL. You folks have that game down pat. I wouldn't think of spoiling your post frenzies.

I can't wait for some of your future thread topics;

What Dylan had for breakfast today.
What Dylan had for lunch today.
What Alex Jones had for breakfast today.
What Alex Jones had for lunch today.
Yadadada

Back to NIST;

I have no quibble that the extreme case model was the one that NIST required to generate their ultimate conclusion.

Since the collapse of the twin towers was such an unlikely event under the circumstances that existed, it stands to reason that extreme data would be
required to achieve collapse initiation.

What I take issue with in particular, is that when the extreme data set failed to match the video evidence of a collapse, they further adjusted the input data until they persuaded the model to respond more closely to the observed data.

They never said how much they adjusted but only qualified this activity as;

"To the extent that the simulations deviated from the
photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. For instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142)

Physical reality? Well how definitive is that?

In a paper by fire-engineering experts, Lane and Lamont, in the UK, they stated: The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion …Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers.... All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing... The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of
the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141)

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings....
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said....
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and [B]there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)

MM

[Lurker]

No hurt feelings here pussy, I mean WildCat.

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.

The computer model is only as good as the data it's provided with.

NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

Actually, if you are referring to the FEA model, it is common practice in ANY FE model to use a combination of coarse and fine mesh depending on the areas of interest. Where the stress gradients are low, a coarse mesh will suffice. This is to allow the model to converge within a reasonable timeframe.

Engineering judgement is used to ensure that the FE model is appropriate.

Lurker

[R.Mackey]

[Off-topic flame-baiting deleted]

Back to NIST;

I have no quibble that the extreme case model was the one that NIST required to generate their ultimate conclusion.

Since the collapse of the twin towers was such an unlikely event under the circumstances that existed, it stands to reason that extreme data would be
required to achieve collapse initiation.
Assuming the consequent again. You have not demonstrated that the collapse was an unlikely event, you merely asserted it. Stop doing that. Let's continue:

In a paper by fire-engineering experts, Lane and Lamont, in the UK, they stated: The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion …Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

I assume you're referring to the unpublished, unreviewed presentation by Lane and Lemont, available here (http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf).

If you actually bother to read it, you will note that Lane and Lemont absolutely do not agree with you that the collapse was due to anything other than damage and fire. They are quite satisfied that no explosives, no space-based laser beams, no subterfuge of the kind occurred.

Instead, they are arguing -- and justifiably, in my opinion -- that there are still more physical mechanisms in something like the WTC case that deserve scrutiny. In particular, they argue for better modeling of thermal expansion and its impact on structural integrity. Which, by the way, is all over NISTNCSTAR1-6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf); it hasn't been ignored, rather there may be room for sharper refinement still.

They do so for three important reasons, all mentioned in the talk. The first is that their clients seek additional ways to solve safety problems, besides just slapping on excessive levels of fire protection, and better modeling will allow an architect to evaluate many different solutions. The second is that existing buildings may still have hidden vulnerabilities that might be inferred from a deeper analysis of what happened in the WTC towers. The third is that, like so many other facets of structural engineering, the WTC collapses were such a novel event that we still have much to learn.

But nothing in there about conspiracy theories, not even speculation. Sorry.

As usual, conspiracy nuts like yourself see disagreement between experts, which is a healthy and necessary component of the Scientific Method, as evidence that everybody is wrong, and therefore through application of the False Choice fallacy, you must be correct. It isn't so. Lane and Lemont's objections are valid criticism intended to refine the NIST conclusions. You are misconstruing their words intending to throw out the NIST report entirely. I call fraud.

If these are the best gems you and Steven Jones (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf) can bring back from the quote mine, then kindly retract your statement. You still have not backed up your claims about the NIST report, and you are even further away from casting doubt on its conclusions than you were before.

[H'ethetheth]

Hmmm! Finally I see what looks like arguments going back as well as forth.
:popcorn1

[Miragememories]

Assuming the consequent again. You have not demonstrated that the collapse was an unlikely event, you merely asserted it. Stop doing that. Let's continue:



I assume you're referring to the unpublished, unreviewed presentation by Lane and Lemont, available here (http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf).

If you actually bother to read it, you will note that Lane and Lemont absolutely do not agree with you that the collapse was due to anything other than damage and fire. They are quite satisfied that no explosives, no space-based laser beams, no subterfuge of the kind occurred.

Instead, they are arguing -- and justifiably, in my opinion -- that there are still more physical mechanisms in something like the WTC case that deserve scrutiny. In particular, they argue for better modeling of thermal expansion and its impact on structural integrity. Which, by the way, is all over NISTNCSTAR1-6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf); it hasn't been ignored, rather there may be room for sharper refinement still.

They do so for three important reasons, all mentioned in the talk. The first is that their clients seek additional ways to solve safety problems, besides just slapping on excessive levels of fire protection, and better modeling will allow an architect to evaluate many different solutions. The second is that existing buildings may still have hidden vulnerabilities that might be inferred from a deeper analysis of what happened in the WTC towers. The third is that, like so many other facets of structural engineering, the WTC collapses were such a novel event that we still have much to learn.

But nothing in there about conspiracy theories, not even speculation. Sorry.

As usual, conspiracy nuts like yourself see disagreement between experts, which is a healthy and necessary component of the Scientific Method, as evidence that everybody is wrong, and therefore through application of the False Choice fallacy, you must be correct. It isn't so. Lane and Lemont's objections are valid criticism intended to refine the NIST conclusions. You are misconstruing their words intending to throw out the NIST report entirely. I call fraud.

If these are the best gems you and Steven Jones (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf) can bring back from the quote mine, then kindly retract your statement. You still have not backed up your claims about the NIST report, and you are even further away from casting doubt on its conclusions than you were before.

Nice bit of cherry picking R. Mackey.

You looked at my response and picked the only item you could maybe squeeze some counter-argument out of while ignoring the rest of my post.

Lane and Lemont were a small portion of my response. They provided an example of disagreement with NIST. I never said they disagreed with the NIST conclusions. You worked as much of your own spin as you could into that small part of my posting.

What hypocracy!

You get on my case for not saying anying of substance, and when I do you selectively ignore my cited examples of those experts who question NIST's behaviour.

And you claim to wonder why people refuse to waste their time presenting arguments here.

MM

[Gravy]

MM, the fact that you're citing only one executive summary from NIST NCSTAR 1, and don't seem to be familiar with the contents of the other 9,700 pages, tells me that you've got some reading to do. Attempting to critique a report that you haven't read is a bad idea. We're not substitute teachers. We know the assignments. You haven't completed yours, and you can't fool those who have.

[R.Mackey]

Nice bit of cherry picking R. Mackey.
I just showed how you were using one of your three sources totally out of context -- and you accuse me of cherry-picking?


You looked at my response and picked the only item you could maybe squeeze some counter-argument out of while ignoring the rest of my post.

Lane and Lemont were a small portion of my response. They provided an example of disagreement with NIST. I never said they disagreed with the NIST conclusions. You worked as much of your own spin as you could into that small part of my posting.

What hypocracy!

You get on my case for not saying anying of substance, and when I do you selectively ignore my cited examples of those experts who question NIST's behaviour.
You still never answered my original question.

Instead, you throw so much crap in the air, hoping some of it will stay aloft, that it's important to deal with it one at a time. Hence, I dealt with Lane and Lamont first.

Once I get some acknowledgement out of you, I'll be more than happy to discuss your other, equally quote-mined claims.

Deal?

[The Almond]

Bluster? LOL. You folks have that game down pat. I wouldn't think of spoiling your post frenzies.

I can't wait for some of your future thread topics;

What Dylan had for breakfast today.
What Dylan had for lunch today.
What Alex Jones had for breakfast today.
What Alex Jones had for lunch today.
Yadadada

As this has nothing to do with your argument, it would have been wiser to edit this childish opening.

Back to NIST;

I have no quibble that the extreme case model was the one that NIST required to generate their ultimate conclusion.


This statement:
The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.
Indicated to me that you did. But I'm glad we agree on this much.

Since the collapse of the twin towers was such an unlikely event under the circumstances that existed, it stands to reason that extreme data would be
required to achieve collapse initiation.

I beg your pardon? What statistical analysis have you done that shows this event is unlikely?

What I take issue with in particular, is that when the extreme data set failed to match the video evidence of a collapse, they further adjusted the input data until they persuaded the model to respond more closely to the observed data.

The extreme data set was the one that most closely modeled the damage shown by the photographic evidence. Why do you take issue with this? Why shouldn't the best model agree with most of the physical data?

They never said how much they adjusted but only qualified this activity as; [...]

Physical reality? Well how definitive is that?
I'll give you a hint. NIST did not invent wildly speculative numbers or breech the laws of physics to make their model work. They didn't hammer the square peg into the round hole. Physical reality means just that, all of the numbers were physically possible, and there is absolutely no reason to discard the model based on that.

Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

I'll leave you to R.Mackey's post on this. I would note, however, that this claim by Lane and Lamont is only half true. Thermal expansion is covered in exhaustive detail in NCSTAR1-6. Included are interesting notes on pages 113-115 where NIST shows the thermodynamic response to large sections of the towers due to thermal expansion. Page 195 describes the structural response of an entire floor including thermal expansion.

I understand Lane and Lamont's criticism that the entire frame was not modeled, but for the purposes of NIST's investigation, given the time frame and resourse limitations involved, this was an acceptable course of action. I would make it clear however, that such a simplification does not make the model less convincing. Any enhancements made to the model to include the entire frame would not reverse the hypothesis or prove NIST wrong in any way.

That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report: [Pages 142 - 143 in the revised draft]
The purpose of the UL test was not to simulate the real conditions in the WTC towers by combining load, stripped fireproofing and thermal response. Rather, the purpose, as stated by NIST, was to determine the effects of scale, SFRM thickness and test restraint conditions. Indeed, your argument seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what UL was attempting to accomplish. The results of their tests were not aimed at recreating the precise conditions of the WTC towers, but rather at establishing empirically three parameters whose influence on the destruction of the towers was paramount.

I also take issue with your characterization. NIST did not admit that the trusses remained in tact, but rather correctly reported that they did. You will also note that NIST cautiously included the results because of the scaling issues. I would direct you the fourth bullet point on page 143 showing that a full scale floor subsystem did not achieve the 2 hour fire rating that the 1/2 scale system did.

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

Before we get into this, I'm having a bit of trouble finding the full article. I can find stuff by Dave Parker, and stuff about NIST, but every link I follow is broken, including the Wikipedia article. Do you have the original weblink for this article?

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.

Ok, NIST's computer visualizations are listed here (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm). NIST did not make a dynamic simulaiton of the collapse, but rather numerous simulations of events leading up to the collapse. That page was updated in August of 2006, and I see that the date of the article, according to your reference, is 2005. It may be that NIST has since released the animations, however, without the full article, I can't make that claim yet.

[The Almond]

Bumped.

[The Almond]

I'm only going to bump this one more time. It's pretty clear to me MM has no concept of the NIST report, and his characterization of himself as someone with knowledge of structural engineering is woefully overstated.