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

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#676    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,871 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:33 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

And if I look in more detail at the NIST report, am I going to see something along the lines of 'this study has fairly conclusively shown that there was at best a 49% chance of the buildings collapsing and we are confident we have enough data to determine that', or something close?
NIST say that they determined the "probable collapse sequence for each tower" and evaluated these against "key observables", but don't put a number to "probable".

Edited by Saru, 15 November 2012 - 04:44 PM.
Fixed quote

"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- )

#677    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

So there may well be a 75% chance of one of the building collapsing given your system here, which I don't really buy anyway.  Despite saying there is no explanation for a fire and damage based collapse that has been demonstrated within the bounds of reality.  Even if I'm kind and cut it in half to 25% probability of collapse and we leave WTC7 out of it, that means, using your math, chances are 57% (75%x75%) in favor of neither building collapsing.  On what planet is 43% in favor of at least one collapse outside of the bounds of reality?  We can put it in your favor at 90% leaving a 19% chance of at least one collapse and I don't consider that outside of the bounds of reality either.

I need to clarify in a few places because I can see that you are not clear and getting arguments crossed – that’s my fault.  I did warn that I am being overly generous to the official theory.

First, the system of generating probabilities used above is a very simplistic method based upon possible theoretical outcomes/simulations within a margin of error determined by NIST.  It is important to understand how this works so that you know what the probability above really represents.   If we visualise a line of increasing damage severity – at the left hand end is a less severe case, at the centre is a best estimate case, at the right hand end is a more severe case – this is the product of NIST’s simulations.  Over half of that line (>51%), from the less severe case to the best estimate case, did not produce collapse.  I use this fact for no other reason than its simplicity, to point out that two tower collapses is somewhat against the odds.  As we have seen, this method alone results in a 24% (49% x 49%) probability of both towers collapsing as the official theory and therefore a 76% probability that something other than the official theory occurs; one or less collapses.

Now that you have turned that second probability upon me as supporting at least one collapse, I will need to go into further detail than the simplification above.  Here the next fact to realise is that not all points on our line above are of equal probability.  The method NIST used to create the less severe case and more severe case involved simultaneous adjustment of numerous variable factors away from their best estimate to account for a margin of error.  I.e.  in the severe case the tower structure was made weaker, the airliner was made stronger and faster and the angle of impact adjusted to impart more energy to the core columns, etc.  The more variables that are adjusted in one direction to favour a particular outcome, the more unlikely the case becomes.  That is to say the area around the best estimate case on our visualised damage severity line has a much greater probability of occurrence than either left or right hand end of the line where the less severe case and more severe case lay.  It’s somewhat parallel to the probability of a sequence of coin tosses (ten in this example): -

0 heads = 0.10% equivalent to less severe case (no collapse initiation)
1 head = 0.98%
2 heads = 4.39%
3 heads = 11.72%
4 heads = 20.51%
5 heads = 24.61% equivalent to best estimate case (no collapse initiation)
6 heads = 20.51%
7 heads = 11.72%
8 heads = 4.39%
9 heads = 0.98%
10 heads = 0.10% equivalent to severe case (collapse initiation)

Or in graph format (showing standard deviation from a best estimate): -

Posted Image

The x axis represents our visualised line of possible theoretical outcomes/damage severity.  So, although NIST did not determine the exact non-collapse to collapse cross over point, let’s suppose that 70% of the line represents no collapse and 30% represents the tower survival.  Using the figures from our coin example, we are actually looking at 70% of the line (from 0-7 heads) representing a 95% probability (0.10 + 0.98 +4.39 +11.72 +20.51 +24.61 + 20.51 + 11.72) of non-collapse.  This now leaves the probability of both towers collapsing at a quarter of a percent (5% x 5%).

And still I am being extremely generous to the official theory as we have not even begun accounting for the fire severity which NIST also ‘turned up’ and the additional manual inputs NIST required on top of the severe case to induce collapse initiation in the model.  That’s another notable point by the way – all the time here we are dealing only with the collapse initiation, not the progression (whose own problems are dealt with separately).

The last point to note is that you are intermixing my arguments.  My reference to ‘within the bounds of reality’ is an add-on to all of the above.  Going back to our visualisation of the line representing lesser and greater theoretical outcomes of damage severity, it is apparent through comparison with photographic evidence, that a segment of that theoretical line never existed in reality.  I.e. the damage produced by NIST’s theoretical severe case exceded the damage severity seen in reality.  This is the area that I deem ‘beyond reality’.  What this means is that a part of the line which theoretically produces collapse in the model must be taken away.  Going back to the coin example, we would perhaps be looking at 0-7 no collapse, 8 collapse, 9-10 beyond reality (let’s say we have already seen 2 coins land on tails and know that 9-10 heads are now impossible to achieve from our 10 coin tosses).  The probability for the official theory shrinks ever further.  It is also quite possible in the WTC case, and this is what I believe, that 0-7 produces no collapse and 8-10 is beyond reality.  This is quite permissible within NIST’s results, and where does that leave the official collapse theory?  At a minimum, NIST needed to show that the cross over point from non-collapse to collapse was within the bounds of reality, but they declined to do so, thus failing to prove a collapse as any sort of possibility at all.

Once we throw in WTC7 (three such unlikely collapses in one day) the probability becomes astronomically small – simply unworthy of consideration.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

I think this is all a game anyway as we and NIST also cannot know the exact percentages because it was simply not possible as they do not have the data necessary to accurately determine these probabilities to the granularity that is required for the argument you are attempting to make.  Thus saying 'the mid-point base case did not produce a collapse' doesn't really say so much; the significance of the mid-point case is reliant in large part on being able to accurately determine these probabilities.  I suspect that NIST recognized this also.

The NIST study is the most accurate simulation of the towers, impact damage and fires, with the most scientifically sound results, that are available.  There is no reason that the physics and model properties should not be reasonably accurate given the known data – the observable match between the simulated base case and reality was, after all, very good, thus validating the results.  As those results demonstrated the collapses to be ‘unlikely’ (being generous – see above), I do understand why you would like to discredit the inherent probabilities in this case.  I’m not sure it’s exactly unbiased of you, but I do understand it’s the best route your argument has to go.  Personally I must accept the results as I find them.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

It's not what we would call a scientific conclusion then, correct?  NIST nor most any scientist would say, 'this study has demonstrated that the probability of a collapse occurring is definitely less than 50%, we are confident we have enough data to determine that', you agree?  But you don't agree with why they wouldn't say that?

It is unlikely that any NIST scientist would publicly admit it (well, James Quintiere, NIST's former Chief of Fire Science did: "the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause"), but I don’t see that any other probability can be derived from the scientific results.  The only saviour which could turn probability in favour of the official theory would be if NIST had made an unfathomable mess of one or more of their estimates including margin of error somewhere – I have no reason to believe this is the case, do you?

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.

#678    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 15 November 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

NIST say that they determined the "probable collapse sequence for each tower" and evaluated these against "key observables", but don't put a number to "probable".

You messed up the quote box; the quote is from LG - could you fix that please?

And indeed NIST did determine the probable collapse initiation sequence, infinitely small probability that it was, when confining oneself to an impact and fire theory.

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.

#679    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,871 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

You messed up the quote box; the quote is from LG - could you fix that please?
Sorry about that, but too late for me to change it.  I'll ask the mods.

"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- )

#680    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

The x axis represents our visualised line of possible theoretical outcomes/damage severity.  So, although NIST did not determine the exact non-collapse to collapse cross over point, let’s suppose that 70% of the line represents no collapse and 30% represents the tower survival.  Using the figures from our coin example, we are actually looking at 70% of the line (from 0-7 heads) representing a 95% probability (0.10 + 0.98 +4.39 +11.72 +20.51 +24.61 + 20.51 + 11.72) of non-collapse.  This now leaves the probability of both towers collapsing at a quarter of a percent (5% x 5%).

I just re-read what I wrote (bold) – that situation would be very unfair; heads I win, tails you lose  :lol:  I'm sure that you worked it out anyway but please revise “and 30% represents the tower survival” to “and 30% represents the tower collapse”.

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.

#681    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

I just re-read what I wrote (bold) – that situation would be very unfair; heads I win, tails you lose  :lol:  I'm sure that you worked it out anyway but please revise “and 30% represents the tower survival” to “and 30% represents the tower collapse”.

Ha, I did notice that on my first read through, no prob. I'll try and respond in the next couple days.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#682    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,742 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:36 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 15 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Sorry about that, but too late for me to change it.  I'll ask the mods.

It has happened to me more than once, and others as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 November 2012 - 07:37 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#683    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Ha, I did notice that on my first read through, no prob. I'll try and respond in the next couple days.

Ok.  I’d prefer us not to get sucked entirely into this one branch of discussion about results of the NIST study because it is something we have already been over in the thread – see post #66 for the first mention and post #98 where I provided more detail and discussion began, though it progresses slowly as we were occupied by the WTC7 collapse foreknowledge at the time.  Hmm, then again... when discussing the subject before, we were dealing more in absolutes than our probability theory of now... so this different angle is certainly worth continuing.

I’d still like to go back to other areas in post #672.  In particular the fourth quote block  - I think an exercise of me putting forward a series of ‘coincidence’ and you evaluating them will show that it doesn’t matter whose intuition we use to determine probability; the odds will be excedingly small in the end – and of course the last quote block about U.S. and Saudi assistance to the hijackers which I think worth trawling over.  I’m content to leave discussion of the ‘battery-bomb’ theory where it is, as I think we have made our case and people can decide for themselves.

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.

#684    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,871 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

The more variables that are adjusted in one direction to favour a particular outcome, the more unlikely the case becomes.  That is to say the area around the best estimate case on our visualised damage severity line has a much greater probability of occurrence than either left or right hand end of the line where the less severe case and more severe case lay.  It’s somewhat parallel to the probability of a sequence of coin tosses (ten in this example): -

0 heads = 0.10% equivalent to less severe case (no collapse initiation)
1 head = 0.98%
2 heads = 4.39%
3 heads = 11.72%
4 heads = 20.51%
5 heads = 24.61% equivalent to best estimate case (no collapse initiation)
6 heads = 20.51%
7 heads = 11.72%
8 heads = 4.39%
9 heads = 0.98%
10 heads = 0.10% equivalent to severe case (collapse initiation)

Or in graph format (showing standard deviation from a best estimate): -

Posted Image


I thought we'd got rid of this idea that the various factors were completely independent so you could multiply probabilities.  You yourself have argued that the various factors were chosen to put more impact energy into damaging the building core structure.  You say it again in the words I've bolded in the quote above.  If you accept your own argument, all the factors are simply variations on that energy, and so the combined effect is obtained by adding the equivalent energy uncertainties in each factor, not my multiplying probabilities.  If you do that, you'll find that the aircraft speed uncertainty is equivalent to a much larger energy uncertainty than anything else.  If the severe case was based on just the speed factor, it would sit at the upper red/green boundary on your diagram, ie an uncertainty of one standard deviation from the middle.  Adding the other factors just pushes the severe case a little way into the green.

The difference in probabilities between the best estimate - maximum in the red - and the severe case - a little into the green - is nowhere near as big as you claim.

"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- )

#685    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:36 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 16 November 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

I thought we'd got rid of this idea that the various factors were completely independent so you could multiply probabilities.

Did you?  Oh well.  Factors such as the aircraft speed, weight, trajectory, etc are independent.


View Postflyingswan, on 16 November 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

You yourself have argued that the various factors were chosen to put more impact energy into damaging the building core structure.  You say it again in the words I've bolded in the quote above.

Yes.  NIST: “These variations contributed to more severe damage to the tower structure, by making the tower structure weaker and the aircraft structure stronger.”


View Postflyingswan, on 16 November 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

If you accept your own argument, all the factors are simply variations on that energy, and so the combined effect is obtained by adding the equivalent energy uncertainties in each factor, not my multiplying probabilities.  If you do that, you'll find that the aircraft speed uncertainty is equivalent to a much larger energy uncertainty than anything else.  If the severe case was based on just the speed factor, it would sit at the upper red/green boundary on your diagram, ie an uncertainty of one standard deviation from the middle.  Adding the other factors just pushes the severe case a little way into the green.

The difference in probabilities between the best estimate - maximum in the red - and the severe case - a little into the green - is nowhere near as big as you claim.

Way to convolute and confuse a simple issue.  In the example I have given, each variation is independent with its own probability of occurrence.  It is perfectly acceptable to multiply those various probabilities which NIST adjusted, to produce an overall probability for the case.  You are talking about something completely different - applying energy factors to determine how relevant each variable is, which is fair enough but not what I am saying here and does not affect the overall probability of occurrence.  Also with each variable having its own individual probability, seperate to the probability of the overall case, you cannot just ‘add each factor on’, each variable and the overall case require their own separate graphs.

And you have no basis to claim that any variable or overall case fall only at the ‘red/green boundary’ or ‘a little into the green’.  To do this we must assume that there are siginificant possibilities outside the margins of error that NIST determined, whereas I, trusting NIST’s analysis, take those margins as reasonably set limits.  For one example, there is no way that NIST could eek anymore speed out of Flight 175 because the maximum bound decided on was already above its maximum speed (a result of the dive at the end of the manoeuvre, I guess), i.e. the upper bound is to all appearance a maximum possible speed.  If there is this huge area of possibility you suppose, outside of NIST’s margins of error, then basically your argument is resorting to declaring NIST’s best estimates and max/min bounds trash, i.e. denying accuracy of the study.  I’ll be first to admit that my argument is based on an assumption that NIST’s estimates are reasonably accurate.

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.

#686    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,742 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:00 PM

Speaking of "foreknowledge" in regards to the collapse of WTC7 and the WTC towers.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory


"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down."
"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."


Key findings include:

*   Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.

*   Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.

*   The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC7

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Edited by skyeagle409, 16 November 2012 - 07:13 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#687    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,871 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostQ24, on 16 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Did you?  Oh well.  Factors such as the aircraft speed, weight, trajectory, etc are independent.
...but their effects are not.

Quote

Way to convolute and confuse a simple issue.  In the example I have given, each variation is independent with its own probability of occurrence.  It is perfectly acceptable to multiply those various probabilities which NIST adjusted, to produce an overall probability for the case.  You are talking about something completely different - applying energy factors to determine how relevant each variable is, which is fair enough but not what I am saying here and does not affect the overall probability of occurrence.  Also with each variable having its own individual probability, seperate to the probability of the overall case, you cannot just ‘add each factor on’, each variable and the overall case require their own separate graphs.
No, it's the correct way to look at it. While you can vary each factor separately, all you are doing each time is adjust the overall energy.  It may be very unlikely for every factor to go in the direction of increasing energy, but if they do, the net effect on the energy delivered to damage the core of the building is the same as a somewhat greater value of the speed, and the probability that the speed is that much greater is a much larger number than the probability of all the different factors varying.  Two ways, with very different probabilities, to get to the same effect.

Quote

And you have no basis to claim that any variable or overall case fall only at the ‘red/green boundary’ or ‘a little into the green’.  To do this we must assume that there are siginificant possibilities outside the margins of error that NIST determined, whereas I, trusting NIST’s analysis, take those margins as reasonably set limits.  For one example, there is no way that NIST could eek anymore speed out of Flight 175 because the maximum bound decided on was already above its maximum speed (a result of the dive at the end of the manoeuvre, I guess), i.e. the upper bound is to all appearance a maximum possible speed.  If there is this huge area of possibility you suppose, outside of NIST’s margins of error, then basically your argument is resorting to declaring NIST’s best estimates and max/min bounds trash, i.e. denying accuracy of the study.  I’ll be first to admit that my argument is based on an assumption that NIST’s estimates are reasonably accurate.
You're wrong there.  NIST got their speeds from analysing the available videos, and the uncertainties come from the video quality.  In fact, the best-estimate speed for one video was greater than the overall mean plus standard deviation obtained from combining the estimates from all the videos.  

I don't know where you get your number for the aircraft maximum speed from, but the NIST severe case value of 570 mph is nowhere near the maximum for an airliner.  It is admittedly a lot faster than it would be flown in normal operations, but based on events like the Silkair crash, an airliner can stay intact to the equivalent of around 600 mph at sea level.

"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- )

#688    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:32 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'm certainly not set up to do such a dangerous experiment, and I'd advise you not to try either.

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system.  Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more.  Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise".  There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

What metal ceiling are you refering to that may or may not have fallen on the batteries? A dropped ceiling which is basicly used in wharehouse and office buildings? If so, the metal only constitutes about five percent of the ceiling itself. The panels themselves make up the bulk of it and they don't conduct electricty. If not this kind of ceiling, what are you referring to?

But even the idea of anykind of false ceiling in a room that stores batteries for a backup system is nothing less than a waste of money on cosmetics. It's evedent in two of the picks Cz posted that they didn't bother with it in those rooms.

My last concern. Even if they decided to finish the room, who in their right minds would build a metal ceiling over a bank of batteries like that? There are building codes if someone wants to store a setup like that.

Edited by W Tell, 17 November 2012 - 10:34 PM.


#689    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:50 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 02 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Right... and they're all made of that special composite "Unobtanium-Q24™" which makes them impervious to damage. :rolleyes:

Some of those "protective covers" seem to be nothing more than coloured rubber dust caps on the terminals (second picture) which I highly doubt were designed to protect the terminals from anything much beyond dust.





Cz
They're not dust caps. If the leads are connected to the terminals, dust wont affect the connection. Those caps are there for the sole reason to protect the terminals from somehow arching. Call them flimsy, they don't care, because they're good at their job.


#690    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:15 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 08 November 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

It certainly cools to silver as it falls, a similar colour to the aluminium cladding of the tower.
Posted Image
[/background][/font][/color][/size]
And the same questions apply to his demos as well.  How big, how loud, would it work on an element that was part of a structure?

Your pic does not do it justice. The fall of the molten metal drops a lot further than that. Pretty much the full height of the building from where it occured. Aluminum doesn't fit. Steel could, but I doubt it since it's hard to tell how large the clumps are from both pictures and video. Falling through the air like that does have a cooling effect. No, the question is not what was "it" that cooled quickly as it was falling, but what was so "red hot" it fell so far. IMO.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users