A scale model of the Twin Towers

[TruthSeeker1234]

Shrinker put forth

Quote:

Yes, repeatability is essentail in science. But what would be the point of using the same computer model in your repeated experiments? That's like videotaping an experiment and playing it back in different labs. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if you want to check NIST's findings you need to run your own unique experiment. In the case of computer simulation that means going back to before the creation of the model. You need to go back to the raw data and create your own model. Don't you?

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Why would the NIST be lying?

Why would they risk destroying their international scientific reputation???????

[Timble]

Are you capable of running it, are you capable of interpreting it?
Do you know anyone who could do it for you?
If not, why should they give it to you?

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Shrinker put forth

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Wow, so NIST is lying because they havent released a computer simulation that you probably cannot run on a PC?

How are YOU qualified to study the data anyhow?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am incorrect that the petition mentions the NIST computer model.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/petition/

It does not, I stand corrected. It does not change the point. NIST should release the model, and any conclusions based upon their model cannot be taken seriously as science until it has been examined.

Please, this is good stuff. Please continue with "reasoning" as to why NIST should continue to conceal their model.

[Pardalis]

Besides, even if they did allow you to see the computer model, it wouldn't satisfy you. It's probably not a full-scale model.

Their job was to figure out what caused the collapse. They did their job.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I am incorrect that the petition mentions the NIST computer model.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/petition/

It does not, I stand corrected. It does not change the point. NIST should release the model, and any conclusions based upon their model cannot be taken seriously as science until it has been examined.

Oh my good God - it has been examined by people who actually know how to interperet it.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Shrinker put forth

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Ah, so you want to perform peer review, not repeatability. Please, present some peers.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

[Pardalis]

Their computer model was probably created out of specs from the tower's blueprints, which anyone can get their hands on.

Plus, the simulation was based on scientific observations and calculations anyone in the field can reproduce.

So there is no reason for you to hold these infamous NIST computer models as the Holy Grail. If you want repeatability, make your own model and calculations.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Oh my good God - it has been examined by people who actually know how to interperet it.

HA HA HA, you're talking about educated, knowledgeable experts in their field, HA. Until the model is "observed" by the brilliant minds of people like killtown and johndoeX, a shroud will forever cloud the issue.

These are people who haven't wasted their time in institutions of high learning or frittering away their days "working", they've spent countless hours in front of a CRT, or for those with a larger allowance, an LCD display, googling the Internet for the riches which can be found there.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

JREF is a skeptics/science forum yes - as such people here are quite astute at noting fallacies and junk science. You've tossed out pretty much every fallacy in the book, been called on it, and now you've resorted to projecting....

And why are you repeating yourself, instead of answering questions of you?

[TruthSeeker1234]

It has been suggested that the truth movement build computer models. I agree. This would require the release of the detailed engineering drawings of the buildings involved.

Please join me in demanding the release of those documents. Science requires it.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis fabricated

Quote:

Their computer model was probably created out of specs from the tower's blueprints, which anyone can get their hands on.

No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid teased

Quote:

And why are you repeating yourself, instead of answering questions of you?

What questions? What fallacies? I am the one demanding that scientific method be obeyed, you guys are excusing NIST's blatantly un-scientific method.

[chran]

Truth: This is the computer models made by the NIST.

And call the Port Authority and ask for the blueprints yourself! We're not your monkeys.

What, you need permission from us to call them? Do you need burping and wiping too?

Originally Posted by kevin

There were several models. Some for modeling fire, others for modeling structural forces.

The fire models were:

Quote:

* Eight floors were modeled in WTC 1 (92 through 99) and six floors were modeled in WTC 2 (78 through 83). Each floor was modeled separately, since examination of the photographic collection indicated little evidence for floor-to-floor fire spread in the short times that the towers survived. Heat conduction through the floors was included.
* Detailed floor plans were available for the eight modeled floors in WTC 1 and the 80th floor of WTC 2. For the remaining floors in WTC 2, the layouts were estimated from the architectural drawings of the core space and from recollections by Port Authority staff and workers from the
tenant spaces.

Note: detailed floor plans mean partition/desk layouts. This was for modeling available fuels.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Pardalis fabricated

No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

Did you ask them?

[Dog Town]

Quote:

No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

For a hefty fee you can buy them, I would bet. Contact the original design firm. I hear they weigh alot!

[kevin]

I'd like to see the plans released but I think the port authority is sitting on them because they imagine the design will be second guessed and they'll be sued for not doing things in hindsight.

I like them released just because it would be neat to see them but I think it would take trooth seekers about a 100 years to plow through them (and the related specifications) and they still wouldn't understand them.

[TruthSeeker1234]

dogtown challenged

Quote:

For a hefty fee you can buy [the blueprints to the twin towers], I would bet

How much will you bet?

[defaultdotxbe]

before going on about how its so odd the blueprints to the WTC arent available did you stop to consider that it might not be odd at all?

how many other buildings have their blueprints publicly available? i was told i cant even have the blueprints to my own house because the construction firm holds the copyrights

[Pardalis]

Face it truthseeker, when it comes to the NIST, if you're trying to accuse them of foul play you're out for a wild goose chase.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Well, no I don't remember the square-cube law. I don't think I was ever taught it. Thanks for confirming my thoughts though. I'm a little more confident in discussing this with the kooks now.

And by the way, obviously I meant a 415cm high model... (Thanks to lurker Bell who pointed out my blunder)

The square-cube law is right. Biologists mostly refer to it in terms of surface area/volume ratio, but it's the same principle.
If you scaled a stalk of wheat up to the size of a tree (with a magic wand), it would fall over pdq. The strength of the stalk is a function of its cross-sectional area (pi*r^2) but the mass is proportional to its volume (x^3). The mass goes up quicker than the strength, as the stalk "grows".

It applies in countless everyday situations. A small garden bird can get away with very skinny legs, but an elephant needs very stout legs (both relative to their body size) <etc etc>

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Arkan has sent us a computer drawing of a plane sticking out of a grid. Arkan, should NIST release their computer model, or not? Do you argee or disagree that correct science requires independent verification?

Let's establish concretely whether or not they have done a full simulation; and if so, if it has been released or not.

[TruthSeeker1234]

NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Nothing they did has been repeated. Thus whatever they did is not complete science yet, and in any case does not include behavior of the collpase.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, software is better. Otherwise Shrinker and the other JREFers will have to get me the materials I asked for to build the full-scale thing. (scroll down to the bottom of the post)

You know, you're joking here, but deep in my heart, I suspect a full scale re-enactment is about the only thing that could convince some of these "truth" people. Anyone know an eccentric billionaire with some time to kill?

I must say, after plowing through some of the WTC threads here, I'm in awe of the endurance of some of our JREF posters. I start getting headaches just reading these things, the thought of actually trying to argue with there guys......Ugh! Keep up the good work!

[defaultdotxbe]

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;1910754]They admit to not modelling the collapse itself.QUOTE]

if i drop a ball off my roof i dont have to watch it fall to know its not going to stop until it hits the ground

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Nothing they did has been repeated. Thus whatever they did is not complete science yet, and in any case does not include behavior of the collpase.

Please cite something specific (section, subsection, paragraph) from the NIST report that you feel can not be independantly verified.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse".

This is similar to how Manhattan Project scientists back in 1945 only modelled up to the point where a certain amoung of thier reaction mass had been converted to energy. Once X amount of energy was released in Y amount of microseconds, Hiroshima was @#$%ed. Modelling the effects of the blast wave in each building and structure would have been a waste of time.

The same reasoning, on a slightly smaller scale, dictates that once you have a 120,000 ton sledgehammer coming down on a building... she's good 'n @#$%ed.

Why bother with complicated modelling when you already know you're @#$%ed?

[chran]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released.

Really, now?

Take a look at this, bucko.

[Johnny Pixels]

From the NIST report, the computer simulations were done using ANSYS, which, for the sake of argument, would run on your home PC, if you could afford the licence for it. It's one of the ones that runs into thousands. I've used it at university for analysing deflections of car chassis.

Effectively NIST have released the models they created. They've given the bulk of information and the techniques used to model the elements in the flooring etc. I've not looked fully, but they've probably given enough information for someone that knows what they're talking about to understand that they're not BSing. It's the same process that I had to go through for my major project at uni. I used computer simulation to analyse air flow underneath cars. I didn't have to produce a copy of the model for marking, because I explained the model in my paper, to show that I wasn't making it up as I go along. My lecturer understood it and knew I had done the work because she has years of experience in computational fluid dynamics.

The reason loosers think that NIST are keeping the model secret is because the NIST report isn't aimed at the man on the street, it's aimed at engineering professionals. That's why it's packed with screenshots from ANSYS, an industry standard analysis package. The loosers can't see the wood for the trees.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan challenged

Quote:

Please cite something specific (section, subsection, paragraph) from the NIST report that you feel can not be independantly verified.

I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.

Quote:

Global collapse then ensued

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.

Are you mad? You don't agree that the towers fell down?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Johnny admitted

Quote:

I've not looked fully

No, Johnny, they have not released their visualizations, nor their input values, nor the original structural drawings, nor anything that would allow anyone to attempt to recreate their results. Please look "fully", and report back.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis issued a strawman agrument with

Quote:

Are you mad? You don't agree that the towers fell down?

Yes, Pardalis, the towers came down. The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse. NIST simply asserts this with no calcs, no study, no nothin.

The issue of whether the particular impact damage and fires could lead to local collapse is another issue, and was studied by NIST. That would be a different thread.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse.

So, in your expert opinion, after the collapse was initiated(through explosives or gravity), what should've happened if not global(progressive) collapse?

Any ideas?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Pardalis issued a strawman agrument with

Yes, Pardalis, the towers came down. The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse. NIST simply asserts this with no calcs, no study, no nothin.

This is simply not true. They did model the collapse up to the point where they knew it would become global.

The only thing they needed to find out was wether the first floor beneath the collapse zone would have the strength to arrest the collapse. It did not.

With all the floors posessing more or less identical structural properties, none of the other floors would be able to arrest the falling debris mass either.

If the first floor didn't stop it, the building is @#$%ed. It's that simple.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Arkan challenged

I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

It has been suggested that the truth movement build computer models. I agree. This would require the release of the detailed engineering drawings of the buildings involved.

Please join me in demanding the release of those documents. Science requires it.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.