DEBUNKERS! Please respond to the following debunking of the NIST report!

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why are you talking about the Empire State Building?

Because yeah right wanted to use it as an analogy.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by yeah right
""The Empire state building was a totally different design, materials and construction methods from the WTC.

It was also built before the advent of computer technology, and thus was considerably over engineered"""

nope SORRY , CONCRETE AND STEEL.....buddy!
and BETTER DESIGN/TECHNOLOGY

Do you know the differences in the designs, materials and construction methods of the two buildings?

How about comparing the Empire State Building with the WTC towers on the following points:

What kind of passive fireproofing were used?

What types of cladding were used?

What types of floor beams?

What types of collumns?

How thic are/were the the floor slabs?

Originally posted by yeah right
yes sir i did see them BOTH LIVE
a cnn guy ,on the street talking about something (interviewing someone?)
then you heard the plane swoop down and in the top LEFT corner of the screen the 1st one hit....blew and started smoking....
while looking at that from a helicopter view..... the second one hit

i even took off work that day ,, dont know why either
it SURE WASNT tO WATCH TV
[edit on 12-7-2006 by yeah right]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by yeah right]

WOW, AN ATS FIRST!!!!!

You saw the first plane hit live on TV!










moron

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why are you talking about the Empire State Building?

Howard, I do not make outlandish claims about my knowlegdeg of light refraction as
you do. Moot point. You just like ot chime into ANY thread, question the single weakest argument then proceed with your derailment.

What outlandish claims? The principles of light refraction are really fairly simple to understand. They are usually covered in basic physics classes.

www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...

One doesn’t really need to know all that if you were to just realize that he whole idea that the bowing is actually light refraction is based on the assumption that there is a perfectly smooth bubble of hot air outside the building.

Why will no one speak to:

The FACT that the models used HORRIBLY unrealistic math and inputs?

For example?

- The fact the NIST FORCES THE ASSUMPTION that "global collapse" is "inevitable" following "collapse initation"? (A ludicrious claim)

Why is that ludicrous? Please provide the engineerin assessment by a licensed structural engineer that shows this.

- "The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone." WHAT? This makes no sense. Please clarify. When WTC2 camre down, the top 30 floors tilted and were not even collapsing onto the lower floors that apparently and magically offer "minimal resistance".

It’s called inertia.

- Why does the NIST ADMIT they looked for evidence of "missiles" but never claim to have suspected the sulphidation of steel to be related to thermite (far more likely)?

Why is it more likely? What about other sources of sulfur in the building and the environment? Furthermore, there is no evidence that the sulfidation occurred prior to the collapse.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
For example?

Come on Howie. Look at the table. Why would they arbitrarily increase or decrease ALL of the inputs to FAVOR the official explanation?

I do not see a 'case' where they "Increased tower strength 20%" , "Decrease Plane speed 29MPH" or "Decreaase fuel load 25%"...

Why are ALL of the inputs padded in "their"direction?

My FAVORITE is "Decrease Tower Strength 20%"

OR "Decrease Tower Live Load 20%"...

Who other than the NIST would not also model using the OPPOSITE inputs that would all CLEARLY show that they had to make up numbers to make their made up sequence work.

Originally posted by Howie
Why is that ludicrous? Please provide the engineerin assessment by a licensed structural engineer that shows this.

It is equavilanet to saying: After initial impact the death of the vehicle occupants was inevitable.

Horribly flawed "logic". Junk science. No License required.

Originally posted by Howarroark

It’s called inertia.

How do the STATIC floors offer "minimal resistance" due to inertia? Inertia may explain how the floors were crushed, but certainly does NOT explain why they were so weak as to offer "minimal resistance".

Originally posted by Howardroark

Why is it more likely? What about other sources of sulfur in the building and the environment? Furthermore, there is no evidence that the sulfidation occurred prior to the collapse.

Why does the NIST fail to make any of your arguments Howard? They don't say "it could have been from cutting torchs" or "wall board". They do niot support you one bit. They claim it is a MYSTERY to them. They could not figure it out with $20,000,000 but you CLEARLY have it all solved for them? "

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified""

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Come on Howie. Look at the table. Why would they arbitrarily increase or decrease ALL of the inputs to FAVOR the official explanation?

Where exactly did that table come from? Do you have page numbers? I just did a quick scan through the NIST report again and I didn't find it.

What you seem to be missing here is that they changed the inputs on their computer models to fit the observed data. If a hypothesis does not fit the observed data then according to the scientific method it is wrong.

Again, would you be happier if the model did not fit the data?

Please elaborate on why this is bad math, and horribly unrealistic. You show us this table and expect us to take your word that this table represents bad math.

Why don't you show us more precisely what you mean. The report goes into detail on the different cases used in their computer simulation. They certainly didn't hide the fact that they tried different scenarios and then used the ones that fit the data.

It's called science.

en.wikipedia.org...


Edit: I thought this thread was about the essay on the first post, not the NIST report. Why are you derailing your own thread slap nuts?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Where exactly did that table come from? Do you have page numbers? I just did a quick scan through the NIST report again and I didn't find it.

You OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT read the report at all if you did not observe:


Global Impact Analysis

Pg. 107

Table 6-5

Input Parameters for Global Impact Analyses

In the document entitled (just in case you DO decide to actually read it)

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Come on Howie. Look at the table. Why would they arbitrarily increase or decrease ALL of the inputs to FAVOR the official explanation?

I do not see a 'case' where they "Increased tower strength 20%" , "Decrease Plane speed 29MPH" or "Decreaase fuel load 25%"...

Why are ALL of the inputs padded in "their"direction?

“their direction?” You probablu meant to say that they adjusted the parameters (within acceptable ranges) until the model matched the observed and documented sequences of events, didn’t you?

That’s how models work. If they don’t produce results that match reality, you tweak them until they do.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

- "The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone." WHAT? This makes no sense. Please clarify. When WTC2 came down, the top 30 floors tilted and were not even collapsing onto the lower floors that apparently and magically offer "minimal resistance".

-

So are you saying that the top 30 floors weren't bearing down on those floors even if they were tilting? The footprint of each tower was over an acre if I am not mistaken. The majority of each of those floors were hitting the floors below them in some manner even with some tilt going on. Even if an entire 2/3 of the floors (20 stories) weren't involved 10 floors smacking down would have been enough to start the ball rolling downward. The remaining floors were not engineered to withstand that scale of force. They could withstand partial collapses of a floor or two, not a sudden massive collapse of multiple floors hence the term they used; "minimal resistance".

Why would they arbitrarily increase or decrease ALL of the inputs to FAVOR the official explanation?

And your evidence that they actually did this "to favor the official story" is..??

Excuse me..there WAS no 'official story' until after the evidence was studied.

Why are ALL of the inputs padded in "their"direction?

If you're saying the figures and methods were bogus from the start, why not 'pad' them the other way...you know..give them even more wiggle room ?

My FAVORITE is "Decrease Tower Strength 20%"

Whats wrong with that?? The towers WERE damaged you know. I guess two huge planes hit them or something....maybe you saw it on T.V.?...I hear it was in all the papers too.

"Decrease Tower Live Load 20%".

How does that help?

Who other than the NIST would not also model using the OPPOSITE inputs that would all CLEARLY show that they had to make up numbers to make their made up sequence work.

So their methodology was flawed? No one noticed that.?
How did you deduce this?

It is equavilanet to saying: After initial impact the death of the vehicle occupants was inevitable.

That makes no sense.

How do the STATIC floors offer "minimal resistance" due to inertia? Inertia may explain how the floors were crushed, but certainly does NOT explain why they were so weak as to offer "minimal resistance".

The bracing system was lost...the building was falling apart.

Why does the NIST fail to make any of your arguments Howard? They don't say "it could have been from cutting torchs" or "wall board". They do niot support you one bit. They claim it is a MYSTERY to them. They could not figure it out with $20,000,000 but you CLEARLY have it all solved for them? "

Because it was basically meaningless and 2 areas constitute a minor anomoly and could by no streatch of the imagination have any bearing on the collapse.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Vushta]

WOW you guys are very passionate about this subject. one question? how many debunkers could a debunker debunk if a debunker could debunk

Originally posted by skitzo
WOW you guys are very passionate about this subject. one question? how many debunkers could a debunker debunk if a debunker could debunk

These guys are just showing off at eachother, I wouldnt even call this debunking I call it a retard bash.

Originally posted by pavil
So are you saying that the top 30 floors weren't bearing down on those floors even if they were tilting?

Look at the pictures of the top block of WTC 2. The VAST majority does not appear to be "Bearing dow" on anything but the street. So... NO. It certainlly did NOT have the symmetry required for the ensuing straight down clooapse.

Originally posted by pavil
The footprint of each tower was over an acre if I am not mistaken. The majority of each of those floors were hitting the floors below them in some manner even with some tilt going on.

Source? All I see in the videos is exploding pulverization of everything. I see NO evidence of crushing from above, "thrash compacting" or pancaking.

Originally posted by pavil
Even if an entire 2/3 of the floors (20 stories) weren't involved 10 floors smacking down would have been enough to start the ball rolling downward.

HOW would anything be SMACKING down UNLESS floors were removed by some other force? THERE IS NO MAGICAL INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION CAUSING TIS "smacking" you claim.

Could you please use some more precise terms regarding the forces?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

“their direction?” You probablu meant to say that they adjusted the parameters (within acceptable ranges) until the model matched the observed and documented sequences of events, didn’t you?

That’s how models work. If they don’t produce results that match reality, you tweak them until they do.

They adjusted the inputs until they achieved the "PRE-DRWAN CONCLUSIOB" not until the matched the "OBSERVED AND DOCUMENTED EVENTS"... had they they would have explained where all of the energy came from to pulverize concrete, etc.

They never even explain how their initial estimates of loads, etc. could be SO FAR OFF. For $20,000,000 they cannot calculate the these variables within a 20% margin of error?

Who are you kidding Roark? 20% is not a "tweak" it is manufacturing evidence.

Originally posted by Vushta
And your evidence that they actually did this "to favor the official story" is..??

Excuse me..there WAS no 'official story' until after the evidence was studied.

The Hijackers were nemaed within 48 hours... the pancake theory within 72. No evidence was studied until AFTER these conclusions were drawn.

Originally posted by vushta
If you're saying the figures and methods were bogus from the start, why not 'pad' them the other way...you know..give them even more wiggle room ?

That is WHAT I AM SAYING. Where is case E and F that are the "miminmal" scenario in whidh the towers do not collapse? A and C do NOT produce a collapse in the "normal" scenario so they went to "severe" and that was the ONLY way to produce the "evidence" for their pre-drawn conclusion.

Originally posted by vushta
Whats wrong with that?? The towers WERE damaged you know. I guess two huge planes hit them or something....maybe you saw it on T.V.?...I hear it was in all the papers too.

20% is a VERY LAGRE margin of error... then combine that with the other adjustments and the math becomes UNREALISTIC. "Say the towers were FAR weaker than we calculated... THEN say the planes hit HARDER than we calculated.... Then say there were more combustables than we calculated, then say the attack angle is changed to create more damage and VIOLA! We can make it collapse... barely in the most severe case."

Retarted.


[

Originally posted by vushta
So their methodology was flawed? No one noticed that.?

Many people have "noticed it". You know this and I will not wast keystrokes naming them. There are links above... do some research.

Originally posted by vushta
That makes no sense.

To any logical being it makes perfect sense. It is a parallel analogy.

Originally posted by Vushta
The bracing system was lost...the building was falling apart.

Find a source ofr me that shows HOW the "bracing system" (GIANT BOX COLUMNS" on the undamaged floors were "falling apart". This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Originally posted by Vushta

Because it was basically meaningless and 2 areas constitute a minor anomoly and could by no streatch of the imagination have any bearing on the collapse.
[edit on 12-7-2006 by Vushta]

A qoute like this from a guy who is claiming to teach me about scientific methods and investigation? How can you deduce that an EXTREMELY odd occurence that is synonomous with controlled demolition...

Originally posted by Vushta
...could by no streatch of the imagination have any bearing on the collapse.
[edit on 12-7-2006 by Vushta]

Vushta... once again proving he is a shill.

Many people have "noticed it". You know this and I will not wast keystrokes naming them. There are links above... do some research.

Ah, my favorite response.

If you are going to make a statement then be prepared to supply evidence.

Its just extremely lame to make a statement then expect others to do the research in order to back up your position.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Look at the pictures of the top block of WTC 2. The VAST majority does not appear to be "Bearing Donw" on anything but the street. So... NO. It certainly did NOT have the symmetry required for the ensuing straight down collapse.

Are you suggesting that the top of WTC2 sheared completely off and slid entirely off the footprint of the rest of the WTC? Explain to me how that is occurring, the amount of energy required for all of those floors of 208 ft. by 208ft. to move entirely off it's footprint without any of it hitting said footprint must be staggering.

HOW would anything be SMACKING down UNLESS floors were removed by some other force? THERE IS NO MAGICAL INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION CAUSING TIS "smacking" you claim.

Could you please use some more precise terms regarding the forces?

By smacking I am referring to the mass of multiple floors adding their weight to a structurally intact existing floor without the support structure those falling floors had. There is no way a single floor is designed to take such a load, even if it is over engineered. I guess the term smacking implies speed, that was not my intent, just a word to describe the visual in my mind.

Sorry about the math this is the easiest way for me to explain my viewpoint.

This is nowhere near my area of expertise, let me know what you think about my estimates. Keep it at a reasonable debate level as I am hopefully trying to answer your questions.

I am not sure what you are asking for but given that the WTC was 208 x 208 and a average weight per sq. foot of floor being 50 pounds you get 2,163,200 lbs per floor assuming 43264 sq. ft. per floor, 4 inch concrete at 12.5 lbs per sq ft.


The numbers are estimates as I don't know about the dimensions ect of the core. For 30 floors that is 64,896,000 lbs. even if only 5% of the 30 floors hit that would be 3,244,800 of extra weight that the floor had to support. That's only 1.5 floors, more likely that at least 15% (if not more) of the mass of the 30 floors fell unto intact floors. That would be 9,734,400 lbs laying on that floor. I contend that the existing intact floors could not support that kind of weight. Each successive collapse of a floor would add more to the weight coming down on the next.

Could someone provide me with an estimate of what kind of maximum load a single WTC floor could withstand. I saw one someplace then didn't bookmark the site. Thanks

Originally posted by Skibum

Many people have "noticed it". You know this and I will not wast keystrokes naming them. There are links above... do some research.

Ah, my favorite response.

If you are going to make a statement then be prepared to supply evidence.

Its just extremely lame to make a statement then expect others to do the research in order to back up your position.

A partial list...

Full Members


Michael M. Andregg (FM)

Domestic intelligence, Justice and Peace Studies, St. Thomas University, St. Paul, MN


Kevin Barrett (FM)

Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, mujca.com


Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)

Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, whose web site, 911forthetruth.com, covers the RICO lawsuit that is pending against Bush, Cheney and 53 other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York


Tracy Blevins (FM)

Bioengineering, Rice University

Robert M. Bowman (FM)

Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions

Robert S. Boyer (FM)

Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer Science; University of Texas, Austin


Clare Brandabur (FM)

Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul


Andreas von Buelow (FM)

Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years


Larry Burk (FM)

Radiology, Medical hypnosis


John Bylsma (FM)

French language and culture


Harriet Cianci (FM)

Tunxis Community College, CT


William A. Cook (FM)

Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"


Richard Curtis (FM)

Philosophy, Seattle University


Alexander L. Dent (FM)

Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine


A. K. Dewdney (FM)

Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario, physics911.net/spine.htm


Joseph Diaferia (FM)

Political Science and History, State University and City University, New York


Albert Dragstedt (FM)

Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA


Mike Earl-Taylor (FM)

Criminal Profiling, Investigative and Forensic Psychology, Rhodes University, South Africa

Ted Elden (FM)

Architect, Communicator


Jeffrey Farrer (FM)

Physics/ Materials Science, BYU


James H. Fetzer (FM)

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T


Marcus Ford (FM)

Humanities, NAU


Ruth Frankenberg (FM)

American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books


David Gabbard (FM)

Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University


Daniele Ganser (FM)

Historian, Basel University, Switzerland


David Ray Griffin (FM)

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University, Author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"


Derrick P. Grimmer (FM)

Physics, Alternative energy


David Griscom (FM)

Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications


David Hawkins (FM)

Forensic economics, Joint-venture enterprise, Management and network design


Bruce R. Henry (FM)

Mathematics, Worcester State College


James Hill (FM)

Intellectual property attorney, Radiology, USC School of Medicine


Timothy Howells (FM)

Computer Science, Medical Software, Akademiska Sjukhuset


Charles Hux (FM)

Associate Professor, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School


Dillon K. Inouye (FM)

Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University


Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)

Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University


Andrew Johnson (FM)

Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering


Steven Jones (FM)

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum


Michael Keefer (FM)

English and theatre, University of Guelph


Stephen F. LeRoy (FM)

Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara


Davidson Loehr (FM)

Theology; Philosophy of science; Philosophy of religion


Catherine Lowther (FM)

Goddard College


Graeme MacQueen (FM)

Religious Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies


Jim Marrs (FM)

Author, Researcher, 9/11, JFK, more


Richard McGinn (FM)

Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University


John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)

Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues


Scott Meredith (FM)

Oriental languages; Theoretical linguistics; Computational linguistics


Robert Merrill (FM)

Literature and Humanities; Maryland Institute College of Art; Editor, Maisonneuve Press


Ted Micceri (FM)

Statistical Research, Planning and Analysis, University of South Florida


Tim Millea (FM)

ACCESS PI, Computer science


Michael Morrissey (FM)

English as a Foreign Language, University of Kassel, Germany


Raymond Munro (FM)

Professor of Theatre, Clark University


Richard C. Murray (FM)

Sociology, George Williams College, Downers Grove, Illinois


George Nelson (FM)

Colonel, USAF (retired)


Jesus Nieto (FM)

College of Education, San Diego State University


Daniel Orr (FM)

Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Illinois


Matthew Orr (FM)

Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"


John Pepper (FM)

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona

Peter Phillips (FM)

Sociology Department, Sonoma State University, Global Dominance Research, projectcensored.org


Jean-Pierre Petit (FM)

Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering


Diana Ralph (FM)

Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry


Naom Chomsky
Richard Falk
Howard Zinn (author of A People’s History of the United States),
John McMurtry (Canadian Professor of Philosophy),
Rosemary Radford Ruether (Professor of Feminist Theology),
John Cobb Jr. (Professor of Theology)
Joseph Hough (President of Union Theological Seminary)
Marcus Raskin of the Institute for Policy Studies
Michael Meacher of the British Parliament,
investigative reporter Wayne Madsen
Christian ethicist Douglas Sturm.


Shall I continue or do you want my specific list of engineers, mathematicians...

WHAT NAMES DO YOU WANT AND I WILL GIVE THEM TO YOU.


This was just easy to cut and paste.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by pavil
Are you suggesting that the top of WTC2 sheared completely off and slid entirely off the footprint of the rest of the WTC?

No, I said it lacked the symmetry leading to the perfect, straight down collapse of the rest of the unharmed structure.

Originally posted by pavil
By smacking I am referring to the mass of multiple floors adding their weight to a structurally intact existing floor without the support structure those falling floors had. There is no way a single floor is designed to take such a load, even if it is over engineered. I guess the term smacking implies speed, that was not my intent, just a word to describe the visual in my mind.

Sorry about the math this is the easiest way for me to explain my viewpoint.

This is nowhere near my area of expertise, let me know what you think about my estimates. Keep it at a reasonable debate level as I am hopefully trying to answer your questions.

Thanks, but your core assumption that if ONE FLOOR were to collapse that all would collapse, straight down is FLAWED. It is NOT only on floor offering RESISTANE... It is 1000 FEET of BOX STEEL COLUMS anchored in BEDROCK.

The math you offer is moot as you assume that if one floor is removed that there will be some sort of "terminal energy" that the structure could not arrest. This assumption is not supported by the design of the building.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You probablu meant to say that they adjusted the parameters (within acceptable ranges) until the model matched the observed and documented sequences of events, didn’t you?

That’s how models work. If they don’t produce results that match reality, you tweak them until they do.

Exactly.

They plug in all the variables as they would have been on 9/11, and can get nothing to happen. So they keep cranking them up until they reproduce what we saw.

Only one problem: They didn't reproduce what we saw on 9/11.

They didn't even try to reproduce any pancake collapses, ie show how exactly any of that would have actually worked once the first floor failed.

They just tried to show how the first floor could have failed (if reality ever matched those baseless parameter "tweaks"), padded by some thousands of pages of crap. And that was a damned breakthrough for you guys, wasn't it?



Maybe in five more years you guys and your federal agencies can model how the SECOND floor managed to collapse without explosives.