NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by snoopy
by using a misleading site such as ae911, then I will make sure to speak up.

Yes. Speak up. I'd like to know EXACTLY what you find misleading or untrue in the AE911 site. Please. Write your own damn paper for once instead of claiming the site is false. Are YOU up to the challenge? I highly doubt it.

one being an engineer or architect does not qualify them to be experts in this area. This is where the fraud begins. trying to mislead people into thinking such things.

One being a structural engineer who studies statics does not qualify one either. Dynamics are usually handled by mechanical engineers. This is where the fraud and ignorance of the physics involved STARTED to begin with. Trying to mislead people into thinking such things.

Here's a good example. One of those expert listed as a member died on 9/11 in the attacks. Yet they list him as a member. That alone is flat out fraud. Even you cannot deny that. What's desperate and pathetic is to try to pass off fraud by exploiting job titles. Much like Pilots for truth which tout all these pilots when the majority of their members aren't even pilots.

Prove these statements. ALL of them. If not, you are what you say you dislike. A LIAR!!!!!!!

And look at your claim as well. You make the argument "are you saying that 200 experts are wrong?". Well, you are saying that 10s of thousands of experts are wrong. So isn't that aq bit hypocritical?

Again, I'll ask. When have all these 10's of thousands of engineers seen the construction documents to verify the information themselves? Or do they just take the NIST's word for it without looking into it themselves?

Originally posted by snoopy
Ryan just posted on here through proxy. His paper was published and peer reviewed.

Another lie Snoop? No it wasn't and he admits that it hasn't been peer reviewed. But, since he believes the same as you, you automatically assume it has been. Where? JREF? If that constitutes a peer review, I'm sorry to tell you ALL papers written on 9/11 have been peer reviewed then.

Do you even know what peer review is? It is a scientific method where outsiders copy the means and methods and come to the same conclusion. Since Mr. Mackey's paper is a rebuttal to an earlier paper, there are NO means and methods to review. Therefore no peer review. Understand?

But I am ignorant...

If the shoe fits.

This coming from the same group of people who use dead people as members.

Please prove this. Or I call for a ban on a member who is posting knowingly false information.

Should I mention that I myself once signed up for ae911 and was accepted as a member?

Yes, probably back when everyone was just posting names so they could turn around and say "hey, look, they're using false names". Couldn't have been you Snoopy could it? Because, talk about fraud.

Sure they have increased the requirements now,

Yes, they do. They verify each member now. It takes about 3 or 4 days for them to verify that your not just some JREFer coming to cause trouble. Like you have admitted to Snoopy.

but it doesn't change the fact that they are simply trying to mislead people and not a single one has been able to present a legitimate case in regards to an inside job or demolitions.

It doesn't change the fact that what we are originally being told (official story) has not been able to present a legitimate case in regards to an outside job with incompetence running rampant and laws of physics taking the day off.

I think the onus is not on us but on the people trying to peddle their story. But, yet again, you'll take their word for it.

Originally posted by snoopy
The core columns weren't made for a lateral load

Something being designed for and something being able to withstand are 2 different things. Do you think those huge columns couldn't handle a lateral load? Because if you do, then I have my answer as to why I have quit debating physics, engineering and material sciences with the ignorant.

Originally posted by snoopy
LOL at the remark about winds. Yes they were designed for lateral loads as wind and hundreds of thousands of tons of building are one in the same.

You really have no clue as to what you are talking about do you? Why do you people keep trying this crap?

First, in a column (a long slender member that stands vertical) you have vertical forces (which are the dead and live load.....the hundreds of thousands of tons as you describe them), then you have horizontal loads (the wind load). Now, the 2 seperate loads act on the column in 2 TOTALLY different ways. The weight (vertical) acts along the member and puts the member in compression. The wind (horizontal) acts along the member and puts the member in shear and bending moment. To say that they are one and the same is a total lack of knowledge on your part.

Sorry to be blunt, but I'm getting sick and tired of you guys claiming to know what the hell you're talking about when you have no clue.

Griff, this has all been covered in this thread already. But I will repeat if you insist. I know you would like to believe I am attacking ae911.org. But let's look at reality here. ae911.org is being used to justify conspiracy theories. For example, a person on this thread tries to pass off some nonsense as an engineering argument. When called on it, the response was "well there are over 200 engineers on ae911.org who disagre with you" or something to that nature.

The real fraud of it is that the whole basis of the organization is to pass off the same 9/11 cult theories as all the other cult sites, but by exploiting credentials so as to somehow pretend these same baseless claims suddenly have merit and people such as that poster can just get out of an argument by using the group.

Not to unlike your attempt to say "prove there are 10's of thousands of engineers who agree with NIST. But how many Structural engineers (and no I don't accept your argument that structural engineers are unqualified, I don't even acknowledge that remark any more) are there in the world? And what percentage do you think have paid attention to one of the biggest engineering issues known to the field? Probably a lot more than 200 wouldn't you say? And if they all disagree with the findings, do you think it is reasonable for you to just assume they are all sitting silent? And do you think it is therefore a fair requirement that unless they come out and say "I agree" that they don't? Where would they voice this agreement and why? When you disagree with something that is wrong you speak out, hence ae911.org. When you agree, you don't do anything. This is common human behavior.

So for you to sit there an assume that anyone who isn't in disagreement is either just holding their tongue for no reason, or is unaware, is simply not realistic. It's simply an attempt to try and validate ae911.org. It's like saying that we must assume the majority of the population don't disagree with the world being flat because they aren't speaking out about it, yet we have the flat earth society that says it is (and BTW the flat earth society is bigger than the truth movement). Do you think it's fair to say that the majority don't disagree with the world being flat? Because that's the same argument you are making with engineers.

now more importantly, ae911 is simply a tool used to justify these conspiracy theories. Case in point being that they have yet to actually legitimately refute anything. Sure, some have made some attempts such as the whole thermite claim white was blatantly shot down by logic. Or people like Val here who simply takes pot shots at other peoples work rather than doing it herself. You get claims from members like Ryan who says things like he certified the steel. That one is a complete lie. Just like their attempt to use people who died in the attacks as members. That constitutes fraud. And let's not forget that the majority of members are things like landscapers and electrical engineers, surveyors and other things which have no bearing what so ever. That constitutes fraud.

How about an example of a claim

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives. You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."

- What kind of nonsense is that?? But because they tout they are architects and engineers they can mislead people into thinking this kind of thing is honest. This also coming form a guy who claims the Fire and police were in on it, and of course provides no evidence.


So let ae911 drink and be merry. But it's not an argument for a discussion. One cannot retort iwth oh yeah, well there are over 200 engineers who say otherwise" or anything to that nature. because all they are doing is passing off the same theories as everyone else and pretending that they ahve some superior credentials that releives them of an obligation to prove them.

Originally posted by bsbray11

the energy was more than sufficient to ensure global collapse without modelling the collapse itself.

Nope. I've seen the numbers you're talking about, some JREF sleaze put it together. NIST never did such an analysis and neither has anyone else done a legitimate analysis. You can post the JREF'ers numbers if you want, but I don't know if you'll be able to talk to me intelligently about them except to tell me that I'm stupid.

Poor kid. You really need to catch up:

To explain collapse, it was proposed on September 13 [1, 6] that viscoplastic buckling of heated columns caused the top part of tower to fall through the height of at least one story and impact the lower part with a kinetic energy exceeding the energy absorption capacity of the lower par by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) supports this proposition.

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE

www.civil.northwestern.edu... 7.pdf

But then, even a rocket scientist here can't understand it.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by bsbray11

 

You know the old saying about arguing with fools?

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

You haven't dragged down reason a bit. You have illustrated 9/11 Denial in all its ugly forms, etshrtslr.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
LOL at the remark about winds. Yes they were designed for lateral loads as wind and hundreds of thousands of tons of building are one in the same.

You really have no clue as to what you are talking about do you? Why do you people keep trying this crap?

First, in a column (a long slender member that stands vertical) you have vertical forces (which are the dead and live load.....the hundreds of thousands of tons as you describe them), then you have horizontal loads (the wind load). Now, the 2 seperate loads act on the column in 2 TOTALLY different ways. The weight (vertical) acts along the member and puts the member in compression. The wind (horizontal) acts along the member and puts the member in shear and bending moment. To say that they are one and the same is a total lack of knowledge on your part.

Sorry to be blunt, but I'm getting sick and tired of you guys claiming to know what the hell you're talking about when you have no clue.

Pay attention to the conversation Griff instead of pretending everyone else is stupid. You keep thinking that the horizontal load is nothing but wind. Well when the upper portion is moving sideways, do you call that wind? Remember that tipping part? You know the one where people are trying to claim that NIST is somehow claiming that the core columns simply stand straight and don't encounter any kind of lateral load from this event? As if the core columns are some indestructable beams that can't buckle.

So please Griff, impress us and publish a paper showing just how wrong it all is and get it peer reviewed in an engineering journal so you can show everyone else just how clueless they all are. Tell us Griff, why haven't you or Val or anyone else been able to do this? Why do you instead chose to discussions with non-experts? Explain to them how a column can ONLY compress and that there can be no lateral load other than wind. I mean since we're all so clueless.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
The core columns weren't made for a lateral load

Something being designed for and something being able to withstand are 2 different things. Do you think those huge columns couldn't handle a lateral load? Because if you do, then I have my answer as to why I have quit debating physics, engineering and material sciences with the ignorant.

So you disagree that the building was tilting then? Or are you saying that the building was designed for the top 20 floors to begin tilting? Please let the ignorant know which of these you mean oh great wise one.

snoopy/seanm,

Are you going to answer the questions:

What were the core columns doing during the pre-collapse tilt?

What did the core columns do when the top portion of the building corrected itself?

and then finally,

What did the core columsn do when the building went into global collapse?

Are you going to answer them?

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall

As for trolls who want to act like "changes in PE are what collapsed the building" and then model the collapse by stacking wooden blocks that have the alphabet on the faces - I don't feel like talking to them anymore.

I'm sure the hundreds of independent structural engineers, physicists, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists will get a real hoot being called "trolls" who modeled the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 "by stacking wooden blocks that have the alphabet on the faces."

That really takes the cake, Valhall.

As the good man wrote, one can never underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 Truthers.

Oh good gawd sean,

I have to always resort to enumeration to get you to follow:

1. the troll comment was about you, not some one else.
2. I'm not a 911 truther. I have no conspiracy theory involved in this. I'm an engineer that rejects the sloppy work of NIST.

reply to post by Valhall


I doubt they will since it's not in their "debunking 101" course notebooks.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Valhall

 

I doubt they will since it's not in their "debunking 101" course notebooks.

Well, more to the point, they won't unless they can find an existing white paper to answer the questions. Which apparently doesn't exist or some one would have linked it by now.

Originally posted by Valhall

NIST has admitted they will remove critical statements from the report because they don't want to be bothered with trying to answer questions about them. AND, they cherry picked the damage models they chose to report on based on whether those damage models would meet their a priori assumptions or not.

This distraction from those revelations won't change the fact that NIST has been woefully negligent and criminally dishonest in their conduct.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

Is that an exact quote Val?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by snoopy
Val, here's a paper that discusses the hinge issue you are addressing to Sean:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

I think that should help some.

Since you apparently found the answer to help me in that paper, and I have now did a cursory read that leaves me still seeking how the core columns reacted during the pivot, could you please help me by pointing out the exact section in that paper that will help me understand what the core columns were doing while the top of the building was pivoting to a 25 degree angle?

Apparently I'm having a weak reading moment.

No kidding?

Maybe a set of bifocals will help you with both reading and observation of reality.

Originally posted by Valhall
snoopy/seanm,

Are you going to answer the questions:

What were the core columns doing during the pre-collapse tilt?

What did the core columns do when the top portion of the building corrected itself?

and then finally,

What did the core columsn do when the building went into global collapse?

Are you going to answer them?

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

No we're not going to answer them. Just like you, we don't know, and we have no reason to know. But the problem here is your implication that without that exact answer (because you won't accept the crude principles involved) that it somehow invalidates everything else. Or this claim that having to know what happened to the cores during the global collapse invalidates the cause of the collapse.

Clearly everything else can be dismissed without showing how the 1000s of tons of debris coming down might somehow crush the columns on its way down. There's nothing wrong with them including this research, but what is wrong is your implication that this somehow invalidates the cause. And while you may not be a CTer, it's these kind of arguments that are being exploited by the cults to start claiming that such superfilous data proves everything else wrong. I don't think even YOU would dare say that.

Just like your creative and dihonest wording of how NIST addresses the issue.

You can't even keep up with the discussion.

snoopy linked that paper in reference to my question about the problematic core columns being neglected in your mythbuster paper...an oversight on the author's part that reduces his paper to an exercise in angular movement.. *clap*...*clap*...*clap*.

snoopy has already conceded that my question was NOT addressed in that link.

Maybe you should have read before you stepped back into your own mouth.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by snoopy

You can't represent the collapse of a multi-element structure while completely ignoring key structural elements of the structure. That's more than obvious.

Just like your creative and dihonest wording of how NIST addresses the issue.

Would you care to share where I did this?

Originally posted by seanm
Poor kid. You really need to catch up:

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I was talking about total energy gains/losses representing the "collapsing". I'll give you a hint if you want to try again: Joules. Watts. Looks like a list of numbers and has a bunch of +'s and -'s.

But then, even a rocket scientist here can't understand it.

Of course. It isn't you; it's the rocket scientist, the guy going for his PE, and the electronics engineering student. You know how to copy and paste. Guess there's nothing I can say. Literally, because you have no idea how to respond to my posts.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by bsbray11]