If Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy were a US political party, it would rank #1

Originally posted by talisman

Where does NIST *DEMONSTRATE* the Inevitability of GLOBAL COLLAPSE? All I am seeing is blunt assertion, no logical formula, nothing.

First you can start with my quote here:

You can't seem to understand that if the causes are found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse, then you do not need to model the post-initiation phase.

But you just insist that you need to model the collapse itself to know the causes of the collapse.

Then you can read the documents I have referred you all to. After that, you can tell us how NIST and every one else demonstrated that one does NOT have to model the collapse itself to understand WHY the towers fell.

For instance, you will be able to calculate and tell us what the impact forces were of the top of each tower on to the rest of the building and the significance of that.

This has been a lesson on why 9/11 Truthers are happy to believe what a few of your "leaders" tell you, but are never willing to do any research on your own to see why they've led you down the garden path of ignorance and nonsense.

Originally posted by jthomas
You can't seem to understand that if the causes are found to be sufficient to initiate global collapse,

What is "global collapse"? What does it consist of, physically? Where is this proven? Etc.

then you do not need to model the post-initiation phase.

No, then you've only modeled the very first theoretical second of everything that happened. And they didn't even do that consistently.


Where did they prove that it would continue past the first floor to fall?

Nowhere in their report. They did not demonstrate it.

Where did they prove it would roll right on through the second?

They didn't.

Where did they reconcile their own statement that a single floor could withstand 6 under dynamic loading?

They didn't.

Where did they prove that the PE available in 13 floors was sufficient to destroy 97 denser intact floors?

They didn't.

Where did they prove an entire floor (many independent trusses) could fail together, so as to mimic the symmetry of the actual "collapses"?

They didn't. They even admitted themselves that this was an unlikely scenario!

Where do they show if destroying a floor by another floor falling onto it, is a net kinetic energy increase or decrease?

NIST never showed it.

Where do they consider KE lost due to mass being launched out of the buildings in arcs (no longer available for falling onto anything), and the KE lost to provide the energy to launch it in the first place?

They never considered it. They never considered global collapse in general, if you don't get the point yet.

What was the actual physical phenomenon that allowed the structures to completely collapse, floor by floor by floor?

NIST never offered a global collapse mechanism or any global collapse analysis at all. They just refuted "pancake theory" and offered a hypothesis as to why anything began moving (deflecting) at all. That's all.


If you're trying to imply that you and NIST are just too smart to have to see if your collapse theory actually works, how is that not just arrogance? How do you confuse the scientific method, with arrogance? Is it really that easy to do? Just giving "global collapse" a name and asserting it was inevitable is NOT science, by any definition of the word I have ever known in my life. If they didn't even establish a theory as to how global collapse propagated, how in the hell are you going to believe them when they just baldly say that it was "inevitable"? Have you ever had an engineering class in your life? Any engineering experience whatsoever?

reply to post by jthomas

Most of what you posted are abstracts from ASCE papers behind a subscriber firewall; could you post what in them is pertinent here?

I agree with you; I don't see why anyone should be making money from 9/11, and its unseemly for anyone following this thread to pony up $100 each for a "Proceedings Research Library Card [RED] - 15 downloads - Price: $100.00" so I'll await your excerpts before judging what they actually offer in way of analysis.

So, for what is freely available, let's have a look:

A review of previous work by the authors on modelling the collapse of tall buildings in multiple floor fires has been presented. This work has produced two possible failure mechanisms for tall buildings in multiple floor fires.

From: "Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall
buildings"

Well, that's that. We got us "two possible failure mechanisms." I guess you get what you pay for.

On to NIST. 480 pages, lots and lots of color charts, impressive show. And what do they say about the mechanisms and modelling of global collapse?

WTC 1 collapse sequence (p. 314):

Global collapse ensued.

WTC 2 collapse sequence (p. 321):

Global collapse ensued.

Thanks for the document dump. That really cleared things up.

[typos]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by gottago]

Let me refer you both to my previous post so we are finally all on the same page and you understand the subject matter:

After you actually read the material I've presented, if it is still unclear, here's a question for you both:

How would you both go about investigating whether or not the circumstances of WTC 1 and 2 would lead to global collapse or not?

Then list how you think structural engineers, architects, physicists, chemists, and forensic scientists would do it. What is the methodology? Is your claim that NIST would have to model the actual collapse in order to understand IF global collapse would occur or not valid or not?

Please demonstrate and cite references.

reply to post by jthomas


You aren't even trying anymore man. Are you really one of those people who will never admit they are wrong, just for the sake of argument or their ego or whatever else they think is so important? Or will you answer my question when I ask, do you have any engineering or lab experience whatsoever? That may also be the problem, I really don't know for sure.

It's not, "Well, things could start moving starting at this point, everything else is irrelevant to analysis! Inevitable, even!" You know what that really is? It's a crime. They neglected to analyze 99% of the collapses and you somehow think everything is explained, because you either don't know what in the hell you are talking about or your head is too inflated for you to realize you are wrong. You MUST have sense enough somewhere deep down inside to know that leaving the majority of the collapses completely unexplained is NEVER demonstrating the inevitability of it all.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ANOK
To say global collapse was inevitable and doesn't need explaining is complete #e.

They didn't "say" it - they demonstrated it.

This still sums it all up. You still haven't shown us the demonstration, and we're all still waiting for you to get your head on straight.


They didn't demonstrate it, they said it. Anyone who wants proof can either look back over your posts, or through the NIST report. Both are equally void of the demonstration that you claim.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

You aren't even trying anymore man.

I have been trying to get you to understand from the beginning.

Focus:

How would you both go about investigating whether or not the circumstances of WTC 1 and 2 would lead to global collapse or not?

Then list how you think structural engineers, architects, physicists, chemists, and forensic scientists would do it. What is the methodology? Is your claim that NIST would have to model the actual collapse in order to understand IF global collapse would occur or not valid or not?

Please demonstrate and cite references.

jthomas, in your opinion, what is demonstrating the inevitability of global collapse? What do you have to do, to prove that 13 floors will eventually completely crush through 97 others while simultaneously exhibiting all the known collapse phenomena (ie WTC1)?

Do you just have to suggest that you've already proven it by some a priori assumptions, to prove it? Or do you actually have to do some kind of mathematical analysis relevant to potential energies/kinetic energies (PE/KE), moments of inertia, impacts and collisions, etc.? Which do you think is an actual demonstration in the scientific/engineering sense of the term?

[edit on 22-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jthomas
Is your claim that NIST would have to model the actual collapse in order to understand IF global collapse would occur or not valid or not?

It is a FACT that they could not have known whether or not it would occur with their given theory, because they DID NOT HAVE a global collapse theory in the first place!

This is not a difference of opinion, this is a complete lack of information!

Originally posted by bsbray11
jthomas, in your opinion, what is demonstrating the inevitability of global collapse? What do you have to do, to prove that 13 floors will eventually completely crush through 97 others while simultaneously exhibiting all the known collapse phenomena (ie WTC1)?

Do you just have to suggest that you've already proven it by some a priori assumptions, to prove it? Or do you actually have to do some kind of mathematical analysis relevant to potential energies/kinetic energies (PE/KE), moments of inertia, impacts and collisions, etc.? Which do you think is an actual demonstration in the scientific/engineering sense of the term?

Recall your claim that one would have to model the full collapse of WTC 1 and 2 from the point of collapse initiation in order to understand THE CAUSE of the collapses

I have given you plenty of references demonstrating that your claim is wrong. You have yet to offer an explanation for your claim and why you think it's right nor have you told us how those who are experts do it.

Originally posted by jthomas
Recall your claim that one would have to model the full collapse of WTC 1 and 2 from the point of collapse initiation in order to understand THE CAUSE of the collapses

"The cause" was attributed by NIST to multiple things and not to any given instant in time. You mean the initiation point. Which I think was only the theoretical point in their computer simulations where they managed to reach a yield strength in a certain % of the columns, after ramping up temperature parameters and etc. like they did.

Besides that, what you say is obvious. We need a starting point for a full analysis. So where is the full analysis?

I have given you plenty of references demonstrating that your claim is wrong.

No, you haven't.

nor have you told us how those who are experts do it.

That isn't my responsibility. Look up the "scientific method" on Google.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Is your claim that NIST would have to model the actual collapse in order to understand IF global collapse would occur or not valid or not?

It is a FACT that they could not have known whether or not it would occur with their given theory, because they DID NOT HAVE a global collapse theory in the first place!

It didn't require a so-called "collapse theory."

This is not a difference of opinion, this is a complete lack of information!

I fail to see how the towers could be built in the first place if it were not for structural engineering and material sciences based on a foundation of math and physics that would allow architects to design structures that could withstand X amount of forces from X number of directions.

They did not need to develop a "building theory." Nor did they have to build the towers to find out if they would stand. They had ALL the information they needed to design and construct the towers. For exactly the same reasons, they had the necessary information for them and their peers in the various required disciplines, to calculate the forces necessary to cause global collapse under the existing circumstances with each tower, and that those forces that actually occurred were calculated and shown to be far in excess of that needed to cause global collapse.

And no one had to model the collapses of the towers after collapse initiation to know that fact.

If you don't believe it, I suggest you do your own research and learn it.

In other words there is no *demonstration* of what we are asking for and the skeptics (whomever else who fits this) is just assuming it and arguing forward from pure assertion.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by jthomas
It is a FACT that they could not have known whether or not it would occur with their given theory, because they DID NOT HAVE a global collapse theory in the first place!

It didn't require a so-called "collapse theory."

We don't need a theory as to how the buildings collapsed entirely to the ground, once they only began to move? Wow. Where's the punch line?

They did not need to develop a "building theory." Nor did they have to build the towers to find out if they would stand.

Someone actually did calculations, though, is the point. Where are the calculations that demonstrate global collapse was inevitable?



Depending on your response to this, I'm not even going to humor you anymore. Everything you have said is available for anyone to read at their own leisure, should they ever wish.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


Someone actually did calculations, though, is the point.

Exactly.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Someone actually did calculations, though, is the point.

Exactly.

I rest my case.

This is a perfect example why laymen are not encouraged to represent themselves in court.

bsbray's quote refers to the calculations done to ensure the building would stand, not any calculations to prove it would fall.

You don't just read the first set backwards to prove the second.

You rest your case without providing evidence and on a note of intellectual dishonesty.

Pretty much how it began.

Originally posted by gottago
bsbray's quote refers to the calculations done to ensure the building would stand, not any calculations to prove it would fall.

He can't be that stupid; he knows what he posted.

If he isn't interested in a intelligent discussion, then neither am I.

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Someone actually did calculations, though, is the point.

Exactly.

I rest my case.

This is a perfect example why laymen are not encouraged to represent themselves in court.

bsbray's quote refers to the calculations done to ensure the building would stand, not any calculations to prove it would fall.

Isn't that interesting? People would only do calculations to ensure a building would stand but, God forbid, they would never dare do calculations to see what energy was required to cause global collapse of the towers.

Gosh, who woulda thunk?

Whew, so many of you are poking holes in the sky with no apparent flight path in mind. I wonder how many of the doubters (and tormentors) are Israeli provocateurs , or their US lapdogs?

To dispute the WTC science and physics is futile; and instead, I suggest doing as the Europeans have done: examine the Pentagon news videos and 'Hunt for the Boeing.' Wreckage is either there, or its not. Damage is either equal to 100 tons of force applied at 300mph, or its not.

The rest of the world has looked and nearly 7 years later are still unable to find a Jetliner, or evidence of a heavy jet crash; and thus, extrapolate that a stink at the Pentagon (as it does) extends also to the WTC. No argument with that reasoning.

Stop letting the Jews pull your chains. Obviously they won't admit who they are, but who else could be so obtuse so often? And with what ulterior motive? The Truthers are the true Patriots and the rest, obviously, are not.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by swami don]