Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

#121    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 September 2009 - 05:09 PM

View PostQ24, on 06 September 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

I’m sure you mean to say “possible” rather than “expected” - whilst the severe case inputs were set to their maximum possible limits they certainly were not expected.  As is made very clear in NCSTAR1-2, the base case was expected whilst the severe case was beyond that expected.

Oh dear, we are back to the old familiar situation.  You ignore my main points and nit-pick about minor things like this.  The base case used the best estimate of a number of impact parameters, but these parameters all had ranges of possibility.  Anywhere in that range would be "possible", all that would be "expected" is that the actual impact would be contained in that range.  To claim that only the base case is "expected" is like claiming that every 10 coin tosses will give 5 heads and 5 tails.  

Quote

You know what NIST needed to do to prove their case, you are the one who first brought it up in our discussion - the crossover point in the simulations from ‘no collapse’ to ‘collapse’ had to be established.  You actually said that this is what I needed to ascertain to prove the buildings should not have initiated collapse and yet ironically this is also the same point NIST needed to determine to prove they should have initiated collapse (and they are the ones provided a multi-million dollar budget to carry out the investigation after all).  By finding the last case at the end of the ‘no collapse’ range and the first case at the beginning of the ‘collapse’ range NIST could have concluded which situation was the best match to the actual damage seen in visual evidence.

As it stands, the last simulation prior to collapse is the base case and the next simulation after collapse is the severe case.  NIST have stated the actual damage seen in visual evidence, certainly in the case of WTC1, is closer to the base case.  If any conclusion is to be drawn from this, it is that the simulation tells us the building should not have initiated collapsed.

The very least that can be said is that NIST did not prove the impacts and fires would cause collapse initiation and when I have previously asked the question, “Did NIST simulate the reality of the situation on 9/11?” the answer even you gave was, “No”.  Further than this involves speculation and I don’t see why anyone should find NIST’s indefinite investigation to be acceptable.
I will just repeat the points from my last post which you have ignored:

Say they did a few more cases to fill the gap between the base and severe cases. We would then have a better handle on what parameters would result in collapse initiation, but you still wouldn't know where the actual impact parameters were.

Given the small changes in the matches to the impact damage with the existing base and severe cases, there is no reason to think that the intermediate cases would give a noticably better match.

Quote

I do not think a 20% uncertainty in failure strain is “unreasonable” per se, but it is “unexpected” in relation to the building design properties...

I have no idea what you mean by this.  What point are you making about the failure strain numbers if you don't think it unreasonable for there to be a 20% uncertainty?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#122    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 September 2009 - 01:35 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 07 September 2009 - 05:09 PM, said:

The base case used the best estimate of a number of impact parameters, but these parameters all had ranges of possibility.  Anywhere in that range would be "possible", all that would be "expected" is that the actual impact would be contained in that range.  To claim that only the base case is "expected" is like claiming that every 10 coin tosses will give 5 heads and 5 tails.  
I like this example – it supports exactly that some areas in the “possible” range are “expected” whilst some are “unexpected”.

If we toss a coin 10 times then the most expected result would indeed be 5 heads and 5 tails – this is exactly equivalent of the way NIST input variables to the base case.  If we toss a coin 10 times then the most unexpected results would be 10 heads or 10 tails – this is exactly equivalent of the way NIST input variables to the less severe and severe cases.

If we toss 10 coins, here are the chances of achieving a given number of heads: -

0 heads = 0.10% (equivalent to less severe case)
1 head = 0.98%
2 heads = 4.39%
3 heads = 11.72%
4 heads = 20.51%
5 heads = 24.61% (equivalent to base case)
6 heads = 20.51%
7 heads = 11.72%
8 heads = 4.39%
9 heads = 0.98%
10 heads = 0.10% (equivalent to severe case)


In summary:  the base case is the most expected outcome, the cases adjacent are still highly expected but the further we depart from that the less expected the situation becomes until we reach the less severe and severe cases at the extreme ends as the most unexpected of outcomes.  Of course the variables in NIST’s computer simulations were far more complex than the toss of a coin which can only give one of two results.  This would in fact mean that the extreme cases had a lower probability of occurrence than even the example above.

And remember: -

  • Base case (expected) equals no collapse initiation
  • Severe case (unexpected) equals collapse initiation

View Postflyingswan, on 07 September 2009 - 05:09 PM, said:

I will just repeat the points from my last post which you have ignored:

Say they did a few more cases to fill the gap between the base and severe cases. We would then have a better handle on what parameters would result in collapse initiation, but you still wouldn't know where the actual impact parameters were.

Given the small changes in the matches to the impact damage with the existing base and severe cases, there is no reason to think that the intermediate cases would give a noticably better match.
As I said, NIST could have carried out a detailed comparison of the visual evidence against intermediary simulations to determine which side of the ‘no collapse’/‘collapse’ crossover point the actual damage fell.  You speculate changes in the simulated damage would perhaps be too small to observe.  I disagree – the models were detailed enough to do this if sufficient effort had been given to the task.

The least NIST should have done to support their conclusion is provide a simulated case that was the best match to the actual damage and caused collapse initiation.  What NIST actually provided was a best match to the actual damage that did not cause collapse initiation!  It’s madness – they need to change their conclusion to state that the collapses were unexpected due to the impacts/fires and renew the investigation to explore other initiators.


View Postflyingswan, on 07 September 2009 - 05:09 PM, said:

I have no idea what you mean by this.  What point are you making about the failure strain numbers if you don't think it unreasonable for there to be a 20% uncertainty?
To oversimplify in the hope of explaining, let’s go back to the coins.  It is not unreasonable to expect any given coin to provide a head.  It is more unreasonable to expect 10 coins to provide 10 heads.  Even putting aside that a fifth weakening of the buildings from the most expected case appears to be rather significant, it is combining with the other variables that the case becomes altogether unexpected.

And finally, when I am talking about unexpected situations here, that is for a single building to collapse and yet… it happened three times at one site, on one day.

Unbelievable.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#123    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 September 2009 - 01:35 AM, said:

I like this example – it supports exactly that some areas in the “possible” range are “expected” whilst some are “unexpected”.

If we toss a coin 10 times then the most expected result would indeed be 5 heads and 5 tails – this is exactly equivalent of the way NIST input variables to the base case.  If we toss a coin 10 times then the most unexpected results would be 10 heads or 10 tails – this is exactly equivalent of the way NIST input variables to the less severe and severe cases.

If we toss 10 coins, here are the chances of achieving a given number of heads: -

0 heads = 0.10% (equivalent to less severe case)
1 head = 0.98%
2 heads = 4.39%
3 heads = 11.72%
4 heads = 20.51%
5 heads = 24.61% (equivalent to base case)
6 heads = 20.51%
7 heads = 11.72%
8 heads = 4.39%
9 heads = 0.98%
10 heads = 0.10% (equivalent to severe case)


In summary:  the base case is the most expected outcome, the cases adjacent are still highly expected but the further we depart from that the less expected the situation becomes until we reach the less severe and severe cases at the extreme ends as the most unexpected of outcomes.  Of course the variables in NIST’s computer simulations were far more complex than the toss of a coin which can only give one of two results.  This would in fact mean that the extreme cases had a lower probability of occurrence than even the example above.

And remember: -

  • Base case (expected) equals no collapse initiation
  • Severe case (unexpected) equals collapse initiation
From your own calcs, 5-5 only happens a quarter of the time, so you actually expect something else.

Quote

As I said, NIST could have carried out a detailed comparison of the visual evidence against intermediary simulations to determine which side of the ‘no collapse’/‘collapse’ crossover point the actual damage fell.  You speculate changes in the simulated damage would perhaps be too small to observe.  I disagree – the models were detailed enough to do this if sufficient effort had been given to the task.
The models may be detailed, but most of the actual damage isn't easy to assess.  There could be big differences in interior damage for similar exterior damage, and only the latter is visible.

Quote

The least NIST should have done to support their conclusion is provide a simulated case that was the best match to the actual damage and caused collapse initiation.  What NIST actually provided was a best match to the actual damage that did not cause collapse initiation!  It’s madness – they need to change their conclusion to state that the collapses were unexpected due to the impacts/fires and renew the investigation to explore other initiators.
There you go again, ignoring the fact that the two cases gave similar matches to the actual damage, getting identical "very good" ratings for WTC2, and also ignoring the match between the predicted and observed collapse initiation, floors sagging and walls bowing.

Quote

To oversimplify in the hope of explaining, let’s go back to the coins.  It is not unreasonable to expect any given coin to provide a head.  It is more unreasonable to expect 10 coins to provide 10 heads.  Even putting aside that a fifth weakening of the buildings from the most expected case appears to be rather significant, it is combining with the other variables that the case becomes altogether unexpected.
That wasn't the point you were making initially.  You specifically picked out the 20% uncertainty in failure strain, as if it was somehow unreasonable, then when I queried it you back-pedalled.  Now you are equating it with "a fifth weakening of the buildings".  Do you even know what failure strain is?

Quote

And finally, when I am talking about unexpected situations here, that is for a single building to collapse and yet… it happened three times at one site, on one day.

Unbelievable.
It might be unbelievable if two airliners hadn't been crashed into them.  Seeing that two of the buildings were of the same construction and suffered very similar damage and fires, the fact that they collapsed in similar ways is hardly surprising.  The third was of a different construction and collapsed in a different way after a long and unfought fire.  

Hardly surprising.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#124    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 September 2009 - 01:12 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

From your own calcs, 5-5 only happens a quarter of the time, so you actually expect something else.
Yes, combining a range of results against the single 5 heads case means we would expect an unspecified ‘something else’.  The problem is that the actual event on 9/11 was not a range but a single outcome, and the single most expected outcome in our example is 5 heads.  If you want to look at the most expected range then this would be 4-6 heads at 66%, ie still close to what would be the equivalent of the base case.


View Postflyingswan, on 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

The models may be detailed, but most of the actual damage isn't easy to assess.  There could be big differences in interior damage for similar exterior damage, and only the latter is visible.
Correct, we know that small exterior changes in the damage carried through the building causing larger internal changes in the damage – for example, in going from base case to severe case double the number of core columns were severed in the simulations.  It doesn’t matter that only the external damage is visible in photographic evidence because if NIST’s models are accurate and got a match externally then the internal damage should be correctly simulated to match the actual damage also.


View Postflyingswan, on 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

There you go again, ignoring the fact that the two cases gave similar matches to the actual damage, getting identical "very good" ratings for WTC2, and also ignoring the match between the predicted and observed collapse initiation, floors sagging and walls bowing.
You earlier said you wanted to stick to one point.  If so, please drop the nonsense about the models predicting the bowing in the walls.  We have discussed more than once that this was an input by NIST rather than a prediction of the models in this instance – I don’t understand why you keep repeating it.  Would you like me to quote the relevant parts of NIST’s investigation again?


View Postflyingswan, on 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

That wasn't the point you were making initially.  You specifically picked out the 20% uncertainty in failure strain, as if it was somehow unreasonable, then when I queried it you back-pedalled.  Now you are equating it with "a fifth weakening of the buildings".  Do you even know what failure strain is?
The initial point was just to give one example of a parameter that NIST optimised to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.  Even if not entirely unreasonable, I find a reduction of the building strength by 20% from the most expected case to be significant.  The term “failure strain” is self-explanatory – the strain a material can withstand before failure.


View Postflyingswan, on 08 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

It might be unbelievable if two airliners hadn't been crashed into them.
NIST accounted for the airliner impacts (I’m not sure how you missed that) and still demonstrated the collapses to be unexpected.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#125    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM

View PostQ24, on 09 September 2009 - 01:12 AM, said:

Yes, combining a range of results against the single 5 heads case means we would expect an unspecified ‘something else’.  The problem is that the actual event on 9/11 was not a range but a single outcome, and the single most expected outcome in our example is 5 heads.  If you want to look at the most expected range then this would be 4-6 heads at 66%, ie still close to what would be the equivalent of the base case.
Your claim that only the base case was "expected" is similar to claiming that only 5-5 is "expected".  In fact, three times out of four you get something else.  On your analogy, a more severe case of some sort is more probable that baseline, for instance.

Your actual probabilities are not relevant.  Just because I picked ten tosses, you claim that the severe case is as probable as ten heads.  If I'd said six tosses or twenty tosses you'd have come up with different numbers.

Quote

Correct, we know that small exterior changes in the damage carried through the building causing larger internal changes in the damage – for example, in going from base case to severe case double the number of core columns were severed in the simulations.  It doesn’t matter that only the external damage is visible in photographic evidence because if NIST’s models are accurate and got a match externally then the internal damage should be correctly simulated to match the actual damage also.
But if both the baseline and severe cases give very good matches to the external damage, and you can't see the internal damage, how do you assess which case is better?

Quote

You earlier said you wanted to stick to one point.  If so, please drop the nonsense about the models predicting the bowing in the walls.  We have discussed more than once that this was an input by NIST rather than a prediction of the models in this instance – I don’t understand why you keep repeating it.  Would you like me to quote the relevant parts of NIST’s investigation again?
Would you like me to explain what a calibration test is again?  

The bowing was indeed observed, but it was also predicted as a consequence of the sagging floors pulling the walls inwards.    This is a combination of prediction and observation that none of the demolition theories can match.

I agree to drop this, anyone interested can look up the old thread.  I'd hate to distract you from your debates with Scott G, which I find immensely entertaining.  You've found someone even better at confirmation bias than you are, and as for you getting banned from those forums...priceless.

Quote

The initial point was just to give one example of a parameter that NIST optimised to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.  Even if not entirely unreasonable, I find a reduction of the building strength by 20% from the most expected case to be significant.  The term “failure strain” is self-explanatory – the strain a material can withstand before failure.
And "strain" in an engineering sense means?

Hint, it doesn't mean strength, as you again seem to think.

Quote

NIST accounted for the airliner impacts (I’m not sure how you missed that) and still demonstrated the collapses to be unexpected.
Only on your personal definition of "unexpected".

Edited by flyingswan, 09 September 2009 - 07:39 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#126    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 September 2009 - 02:10 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

Your claim that only the base case was "expected" is similar to claiming that only 5-5 is "expected".  In fact, three times out of four you get something else.  On your analogy, a more severe case of some sort is more probable that baseline, for instance.
I have never known anyone with such an ability to twist the most basic of concepts – claiming that anything which is “possible” is also “expected” as you are effectively doing isn’t going to fool anybody.  The single most expected outcome in your example is 5 heads, as was the single most expected outcome of the WTC damage reflected in the base case – the one which used all best estimates based on available evidence and showed no collapse in the simulations.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

But if both the baseline and severe cases give very good matches to the external damage, and you can't see the internal damage, how do you assess which case is better?
I don’t accept that simply describing the damage as “very good” is the best analysis that could be carried out.  A detailed analysis could have identified precisely how “good” the simulated external damage was in comparison to the actual external damage.  We know that NIST studied the WTC1 external damage well enough to determine that the base case provided a “better match” to the actual damage – I will mention again that is the case that showed no collapse.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

Would you like me to explain what a calibration test is again?  
What has the calibration test got to do with the fact that NIST’s sagging floor mechanism could not reproduce the level of bowing actually observed?  What has it got to do with the fact that when the simulations did not predict the full bowing, NIST directly input this into areas of the façade based on what was actually observed?  NIST’s sagging floor theory could not reproduce the witnessed event and therefore alternative mechanisms should have been explored.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'd hate to distract you from your debates with Scott G, which I find immensely entertaining.  You've found someone even better at confirmation bias than you are, and as for you getting banned from those forums...priceless.
Nice to see you taking an interest.   :tu:


View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

And "strain" in an engineering sense means?

Hint, it doesn't mean strength, as you again seem to think.
Do you have a relevant point or are you just being pedantic?


View Postflyingswan, on 09 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

Only on your personal definition of "unexpected".
Expected is a case regarded as likely – the likely case is that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed.  As I have proven, NIST demonstrate this in their investigation.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#127    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2009 - 02:10 AM, said:

I have never known anyone with such an ability to twist the most basic of concepts – claiming that anything which is “possible” is also “expected” as you are effectively doing isn’t going to fool anybody.  The single most expected outcome in your example is 5 heads, as was the single most expected outcome of the WTC damage reflected in the base case – the one which used all best estimates based on available evidence and showed no collapse in the simulations.
You are claiming that the baseline case is "expected" and that anything else is unexpected.  My point is that the exact centre of a range of possibilities can have a small actual probability of happening, and is thus not "expected" is the sense you appear to be using the word.  Even on the coin toss example you are using to give yourself probability figures, an outcome of "more heads than tails" is a lot more probable than "five of each".  There is nothing "unexpected" about the actual impact parameters, as shown by the match to the visible damage, being more severe than the baseline.

Quote

I don’t accept that simply describing the damage as “very good” is the best analysis that could be carried out.  A detailed analysis could have identified precisely how “good” the simulated external damage was in comparison to the actual external damage.  We know that NIST studied the WTC1 external damage well enough to determine that the base case provided a “better match” to the actual damage – I will mention again that is the case that showed no collapse.
Sorting out which aspects of the damage are more significant for a rating system isn't a straightforward task.   If you, or anyone on the conspiracist side, can come up with such a procedure, I'm sure NIST would be interested in hearing about it.  Good luck.

Quote

What has the calibration test got to do with the fact that NIST’s sagging floor mechanism could not reproduce the level of bowing actually observed?  What has it got to do with the fact that when the simulations did not predict the full bowing, NIST directly input this into areas of the façade based on what was actually observed?  NIST’s sagging floor theory could not reproduce the witnessed event and therefore alternative mechanisms should have been explored.
First you say you don't want to discuss more than one point, now you do?

What NIST did was first to run simpler calibration models to find out how the forces due to the sagging floors related to the bowing of the walls, and then in their global model to use the visible bowing as an indicator of where the sagging floors were still attached to the outer walls and where they had broken away.  They could have simply assumed that all floors were attached, which would have predicted greater bowing and made collapse more likely.  Your claim that "the simulations did not predict full bowing" is a cherry-picked quote about only some of a range of simulations.  Other cases in that range overestimated the bowing.

The whole point about the bowing is that it was an observed phenomena that fits in very well with the fires leading to a gradual collapse onset.  The bowing is a major problem for any controlled demolition theory, which is why conspiracists try to ignore it.

Quote

Do you have a relevant point or are you just being pedantic?
This is another example of your ignorance of engineering.  You take the 20% variation of failure strain, which you think is actually a measure of building strength, and suggest that it is somehow unreasonable.  You do not know what an engineer means by "strain".  It isn't strength, it's the amount by which a structure deflects when a force is applied to it.  Failure strain is highly dependent on the rate at which the force is applied and not something you can estimate at all precisely.

Quote

Expected is a case regarded as likely – the likely case is that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed.  As I have proven, NIST demonstrate this in their investigation.
See above for your misuse of the word "expected".

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#128    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 September 2009 - 08:13 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM, said:

You are claiming that the baseline case is "expected" and that anything else is unexpected. My point is that the exact centre of a range of possibilities can have a small actual probability of happening, and is thus not "expected" is the sense you appear to be using the word. Even on the coin toss example you are using to give yourself probability figures, an outcome of "more heads than tails" is a lot more probable than "five of each". There is nothing "unexpected" about the actual impact parameters, as shown by the match to the visible damage, being more severe than the baseline.
As always, misrepresentation of my position.  I am claiming that (on a scale): -

  • The base case is most expected.
  • The less severe and severe cases are most unexpected.
  • The further moved from base case to severe cases, the less expected the situations become.
You can misleadingly compare a single possibility to a range of possibilities all you want, but the above is an accurate description of how NIST’s cases sit.  This is very simple and I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to obfuscate the issue.


View Postflyingswan, on 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM, said:

Sorting out which aspects of the damage are more significant for a rating system isn't a straightforward task. If you, or anyone on the conspiracist side, can come up with such a procedure, I'm sure NIST would be interested in hearing about it. Good luck.
It was NIST’s investigation - they failed.


View Postflyingswan, on 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM, said:

First you say you don't want to discuss more than one point, now you do?
If you introduce additional points that are inaccurate then they will be addressed.


View Postflyingswan, on 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM, said:

What NIST did was first to run simpler calibration models to find out how the forces due to the sagging floors related to the bowing of the walls, and then in their global model to use the visible bowing as an indicator of where the sagging floors were still attached to the outer walls and where they had broken away. They could have simply assumed that all floors were attached, which would have predicted greater bowing and made collapse more likely. Your claim that "the simulations did not predict full bowing" is a cherry-picked quote about only some of a range of simulations. Other cases in that range overestimated the bowing.

The whole point about the bowing is that it was an observed phenomena that fits in very well with the fires leading to a gradual collapse onset.  The bowing is a major problem for any controlled demolition theory, which is why conspiracists try to ignore it.
We had this whole discussion over a year ago: -
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=2363710

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.


View Postflyingswan, on 10 September 2009 - 09:33 AM, said:

This is another example of your ignorance of engineering. You take the 20% variation of failure strain, which you think is actually a measure of building strength, and suggest that it is somehow unreasonable. You do not know what an engineer means by "strain". It isn't strength, it's the amount by which a structure deflects when a force is applied to it. Failure strain is highly dependent on the rate at which the force is applied and not something you can estimate at all precisely.
“Strength” could be defined as the ability of the structure to withstand collapse.  One question then: does the reduction in failure strain in the building model increase or decrease the chances of collapse?  The fact is that NIST optimised all variables to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#129    MysticOnion

MysticOnion

    The Intersect

  • Member
  • 3,675 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Lincoln England

  • That's so awesome I can't watch the road. ((SCREEECH OF BRAKES... CRRRAAASSSHHHH)))

Posted 11 September 2009 - 09:13 AM

I think that the towers falling is a very potent symbol.  

If it was a Tarot reading the falling of the tower is ruin and desolation.

Posted Image

Gun Bondage?

#130    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM

View PostQ24, on 11 September 2009 - 08:13 AM, said:

As always, misrepresentation of my position.  I am claiming that (on a scale): -

  • The base case is most expected.
  • The less severe and severe cases are most unexpected.
  • The further moved from base case to severe cases, the less expected the situations become.
You can misleadingly compare a single possibility to a range of possibilities all you want, but the above is an accurate description of how NIST’s cases sit.  This is very simple and I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to obfuscate the issue.
But, as you have admitted, the actual impact was between the baseline and the severe, nearer the baseline for WTC1 and about halfway between for WTC2.  This means that in both cases the baseline was an underestimate.  Given this fact, there is not much to choose in "expectedness" between baseline and severe cases, they are similar distances from actuality.

Quote

It was NIST’s investigation - they failed.
If you want to claim that they didn't do something that they should have done, it is up to you to show that it is reasonable and possible for the omitted task to be done.

Quote

If you introduce additional points that are inaccurate then they will be addressed.
Ditto

Quote

We had this whole discussion over a year ago: -
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=2363710
I know, so why start again?

Quote

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.
All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.

Quote

“Strength” could be defined as the ability of the structure to withstand collapse.  One question then: does the reduction in failure strain in the building model increase or decrease the chances of collapse?  The fact is that NIST optimised all variables to cause collapse in the severe case simulation.
That wasn't the question, the question was "do you think 20% uncertainty in failure strain is unreasonable".  We have now established that the answer is "you had no idea what failure strain was, but 20% sounded a big number".

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#131    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 September 2009 - 07:48 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

But, as you have admitted, the actual impact was between the baseline and the severe, nearer the baseline for WTC1 and about halfway between for WTC2. This means that in both cases the baseline was an underestimate. Given this fact, there is not much to choose in "expectedness" between baseline and severe cases, they are similar distances from actuality.
You make too many assumptions and there is no logic in your final statement.  Given that I don’t feel the need to drag this very basic issue into detail further, or discuss your newly created word “expectedness”, I will accept your simple understanding that NIST’s severe case was not representative of the actual reality on 9/11.


View Postflyingswan, on 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

If you want to claim that they didn't do something that they should have done, it is up to you to show that it is reasonable and possible for the omitted task to be done.
It seems you are claiming it was impossible for NIST to prove the WTC buildings should have collapsed on 9/11.


View Postflyingswan, on 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

I know, so why start again?
Why are you asking me?  You keep referencing the bowing.


View Postflyingswan, on 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

View PostQ24, on 11 September 2009 - 08:13 AM, said:

You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.
All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.
Yes, I’m sure we could get any “good” answer we want with a bit of tweaking.


View Postflyingswan, on 11 September 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

That wasn't the question, the question was "do you think 20% uncertainty in failure strain is unreasonable". We have now established that the answer is "you had no idea what failure strain was, but 20% sounded a big number".
I answered that exact question back in my post #117 – please do keep up with the discussion.  You have since been asking further questions all of which have been answered except the last because I got tired of their condescending nature.  I think we have established that the answer is: -

“Reducing the failure strain of the building models makes the simulation more susceptible to producing collapse initiation.  NIST reduced the failure strain of the building models, optimised other variables as far as possible toward favouring collapse and “tweaked their simulations” because that provided the only “good” answer.  In doing so, NIST created a case that was not representative of the reality on 9/11.”

The information is all right there in your own posts if you care to look – you excuse it, I see it for what it is.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#132    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM

View PostQ24, on 11 September 2009 - 07:48 PM, said:

You make too many assumptions and there is no logic in your final statement.  Given that I don’t feel the need to drag this very basic issue into detail further, or discuss your newly created word “expectedness”, I will accept your simple understanding that NIST’s severe case was not representative of the actual reality on 9/11.
Neither was the baseline case, the two cases bracketed the actuality.  Your claim that the baseline was the only "expected" case is just your own wish.

Quote

It seems you are claiming it was impossible for NIST to prove the WTC buildings should have collapsed on 9/11.
I am happy that NIST have demonstrated a highly plausible collapse mechanism that is consistent with the available evidence.  I don't see why they should do extra work to satisfy you, when you cannot demonstrate that such work is useful or possible.

Quote

Why are you asking me?  You keep referencing the bowing.
I keep mentioning the bowing because you keep ignoring it.  It is perhaps the single strongest evidence against your controlled demolition scenario.

Quote

Yes, I’m sure we could get any “good” answer we want with a bit of tweaking.
You "tweak" to get good results from calibration cases, then apply those same tweaks to the actual case.

Quote

I answered that exact question back in my post #117 – please do keep up with the discussion.  You have since been asking further questions all of which have been answered except the last because I got tired of their condescending nature.  I think we have established that the answer is: -

“Reducing the failure strain of the building models makes the simulation more susceptible to producing collapse initiation.  NIST reduced the failure strain of the building models, optimised other variables as far as possible toward favouring collapse and “tweaked their simulations” because that provided the only “good” answer.  In doing so, NIST created a case that was not representative of the reality on 9/11.”

The information is all right there in your own posts if you care to look – you excuse it, I see it for what it is.
I get a little tired of amateur engineers like you telling me how my job should be done, and when you come up with such an obvious example of your ignorance I like to emphasise the fact.  You only found out what failure strain meant because I told you, but you are sure that NIST are being "not representative" by taking a 20% uncertainty.  If you did not know what it was, how did you know that 20% uncertainty was "not representative"?  Because you wanted it to be so.  That is rather typical of your whole approach.  You find any convoluted reason you can to ignore the evidence against your controlled demolition ideas, just as Scott G can think up any number of reasons to ignore a witness who doesn't agree with his flightpath ideas.

You both exempify confirmation bias in action.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#133    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 12 September 2009 - 01:19 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

Neither was the baseline case, the two cases bracketed the actuality.  Your claim that the baseline was the only "expected" case is just your own wish.
Why do you attribute a false claim to me in nearly every post?  Is it because you cannot reasonably dipute what I’m actually stating, so you have to make something up instead?  Show me where I have ever said the base case is the “only” expected outcome.  Stop making things up – it’s dishonest.


View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

I am happy that NIST have demonstrated a highly plausible collapse mechanism that is consistent with the available evidence.  I don't see why they should do extra work to satisfy you, when you cannot demonstrate that such work is useful or possible.
No, why ever should NIST have done the work to prove that the buildings should have collapsed.  Granted it could be claimed that NIST’s work remained consistent with the evidence (that is, working around the evidence) but the investigation was certainly not supported by the available evidence.  Just one example of which there are many (NCSTAR1-3C): -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”


Whilst this does not necessarily oppose NIST’s study, it certainly is not supportive.  Another area I find contentious is where NIST’s fire models show approximately 1,000oC temperatures in locations where physical evidence was recovered showing no weakening of the steel – again, not necessarily contradictory but certainly unsupportive.  Apart from the physical evidence, even the experiments actually carried out by NIST did not support the case.  There is further not any precedent for what NIST concluded.

But sure, NIST did a job in keeping “consistent” with the evidence.


View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

I keep mentioning the bowing because you keep ignoring it.  It is perhaps the single strongest evidence against your controlled demolition scenario.
To say I ignore the bowing is a dishonest tactic yet again.  Follow the link I provided above – the bowing is addressed.


View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

You "tweak" to get good results from calibration cases, then apply those same tweaks to the actual case.
I have no doubt – we wouldn’t want to miss out on those “good” results.  NIST first tweaked the calibration exercise and then tweaked where the results would be applied to cause bowing in their simulation – a tweaking of the tweaks if you will.  


View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

I get a little tired of amateur engineers like you telling me how my job should be done, and when you come up with such an obvious example of your ignorance I like to emphasise the fact.
You can’t be serious.  It took numerous attempts just to drag you up to the point where you understood that NIST used the severe cases in their final simulations.  You demonstrated that you could not even follow a most fundamental part of the report by continually claiming that NIST used the base case in their final analysis.  You argued incessantly on this point until you were forced to admit that I was correct, and now look, you accept it like you never thought otherwise.  You may be good at whatever it is you do and true I may be a layman in the area, but I am not incompetent when it comes to understanding of these issues.


View Postflyingswan, on 12 September 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

You only found out what failure strain meant because I told you, but you are sure that NIST are being "not representative" by taking a 20% uncertainty.  If you did not know what it was, how did you know that 20% uncertainty was "not representative"?  Because you wanted it to be so.  That is rather typical of your whole approach.
This is all just more fallacy and dishonesty from you.  I have not said I do not know what failure strain is, nor have I incorrectly described failure strain.  You nitpick about my use of the word “strength” and yet point blank refuse to answer the question which clearly demonstrates failure strain can be linked to “strength” as a general term.

Further, I do not “want” anything to be so – I am entirely neutral, barring where the evidence leads me.  You mention confirmation bias, yet I am the one stating the base facts as they are found, ie NIST’s simulations do not conclusively prove that the Twin Towers should have collapsed or not either way.  You are the one having to slant your views to believe that NIST somehow proved the case.  The strange thing is that whilst you believe NIST proved their case sufficiently, you actually admit they did not when you say the actual reality was merely “bracketed”.

You are a classic victim of the George Orwell coined “doublethink”.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#134    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:10 PM

View PostQ24, on 12 September 2009 - 01:19 PM, said:

Why do you attribute a false claim to me in nearly every post?  Is it because you cannot reasonably dipute what I’m actually stating, so you have to make something up instead?  Show me where I have ever said the base case is the “only” expected outcome.  Stop making things up – it’s dishonest.
Possibly your saying things like this gave me that impression:
I’m sure you mean to say “possible” rather than “expected” - whilst the severe case inputs were set to their maximum possible limits they certainly were not expected.  

Quote

No, why ever should NIST have done the work to prove that the buildings should have collapsed.  Granted it could be claimed that NIST’s work remained consistent with the evidence (that is, working around the evidence) but the investigation was certainly not supported by the available evidence.  Just one example of which there are many (NCSTAR1-3C): -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”


Whilst this does not necessarily oppose NIST’s study, it certainly is not supportive.  Another area I find contentious is where NIST’s fire models show approximately 1,000oC temperatures in locations where physical evidence was recovered showing no weakening of the steel – again, not necessarily contradictory but certainly unsupportive.  Apart from the physical evidence, even the experiments actually carried out by NIST did not support the case.  There is further not any precedent for what NIST concluded.

But sure, NIST did a job in keeping “consistent” with the evidence.
First, steel weakens before the microstructure is affected, second the fire models are for air temperatures, not steel temperatures.  Third, for reasons we've discussed, the recovered samples are not necessarily from the heart of the fires.  There is nothing there that contradicts the NIST findings.  There were obviously large fires present, and fire weakens steel.  Again, we've discussed this ad nauseam.

Quote

To say I ignore the bowing is a dishonest tactic yet again.  Follow the link I provided above – the bowing is addressed.
You've certainly been avoiding it on this thread, which incidentally we seem to have thoroughly derailed and scared everyone else away from.  I first mentioned it in post #110, you didn't respond until post #124.

Quote

I have no doubt – we wouldn’t want to miss out on those “good” results.  NIST first tweaked the calibration exercise and then tweaked where the results would be applied to cause bowing in their simulation – a tweaking of the tweaks if you will.
As I've said before, I worked with computational models, I have no problems with that.

Quote

You can’t be serious.  It took numerous attempts just to drag you up to the point where you understood that NIST used the severe cases in their final simulations.  You demonstrated that you could not even follow a most fundamental part of the report by continually claiming that NIST used the base case in their final analysis.  You argued incessantly on this point until you were forced to admit that I was correct, and now look, you accept it like you never thought otherwise.  You may be good at whatever it is you do and true I may be a layman in the area, but I am not incompetent when it comes to understanding of these issues.
How long ago was that?  I remember disputing your claim that NIST only ran more severe cases because the baseline didn't predict collapse, as opposed to incorporating the measurement uncertainty from the start when deciding what cases to run.

Quote

This is all just more fallacy and dishonesty from you.  I have not said I do not know what failure strain is, nor have I incorrectly described failure strain.  You nitpick about my use of the word “strength” and yet point blank refuse to answer the question which clearly demonstrates failure strain can be linked to “strength” as a general term.
I was hoping that you would actally research the subject yourself.  

Failure strain is maximum distortion, it isn't strength, nor is it proportional to strength.  You picked up that 20% figure because it looked big, then started claiming it meant 20% of strength. This is enough to show that you do not understand a fairly basic engineering concept.

For your future reference, strength is how much force an element can withstand before it breaks.  Depending on the material and the circumstances, that break can occur at low strain or high strain.  Something that breaks at the same force but a higher strain has the same strength, but greater toughness.  It is this change in toughness with failure strain that changes the likelihood of collapse, not any change in strength.

Quote

Further, I do not “want” anything to be so – I am entirely neutral, barring where the evidence leads me.  You mention confirmation bias, yet I am the one stating the base facts as they are found, ie NIST’s simulations do not conclusively prove that the Twin Towers should have collapsed or not either way.  You are the one having to slant your views to believe that NIST somehow proved the case.  The strange thing is that whilst you believe NIST proved their case sufficiently, you actually admit they did not when you say the actual reality was merely “bracketed”.

You are a classic victim of the George Orwell coined “doublethink”.
You may very well think that, but your championing of incredibly complicated controlled demolition theories for which evidence is somewhat lacking shows that you have a very personal slant on "facts as they are found".  You dismiss everything that contradicts a controlled demolition by saying that it was a covert demolition, ie you can explain away any fact you don't want.

To repeat myself once again, I think that NIST proved their collapse mechanism because it matched the way that the actual collapses started.  The sagging floors and bowing walls looked exactly like a fire-initiated collapse and nothing like a controlled demolition.  As an engineer, I find this match to be very convincing, and that they had to invoke some plausible amount of measurement error to get their result is not important.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#135    businessclix

businessclix

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2009

Posted 14 September 2009 - 11:19 AM

View PostRastaman, on 28 August 2009 - 05:04 AM, said:



WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? [/b]

to destroy any shred of evidence





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users