9/11

Thats no kind of evidence. A rejected computer model is a rejected computer midel

 

Where is this computer model you speak of?

 

Everyone was surprised at first. Then someone made a phony "report" and everyone understood how it could happen. And WE'RE the imbeciles. DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT DOT

 

Oh, looky here, copy and pasted from

asshat911truth.org

The Official Theory | Twin Towers

They too take an upper limit of temperature from a rejected computer model and try make out make out thats what NIST claimed.

 

Thats easy, Storch says so, for the top 360 feet of the building anyway, thats you by the way

 

You:"Thats no kind of evidence. A rejected computer model is a rejected computer midel"

Me: "Where is this computer model you speak of?" And tell me how it differs from what is in the Final Report.

I assume you can provide the computer model that the NIST settled on.

And I noticed that you had nothing to refute the following material . . . except for your complaint that it was copied and pasted.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to "[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." [3] These questions are not answered for simple reasons:

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.

Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out "[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse." [5]

In other words, "Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn't have time to do that. And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?"
__________________________________________________________________________________
Are you getting this?

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 ºC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC." [9]

NIST's collapse creed, repeated eleven times with identical wording (and once with a slightly different one) in the report of project 6 dealing with the collapse sequences, is this:

" The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." [10]

In other words: "Once the top started coming down, it was so heavy that the damaged columns could not stop it. Neither could the undamaged columns of dozens of floors do that, it seems. But we didn't need to model that for we've all seen that down it came."

Thorough, open, independent?

9-11 Review: NIST's Evasion

 

I'll leave it for someone else to figure out what this has to do with you being asked to cite your source for your claim that 99% of the population "gets it."

And while that someone else is trying to figure it out, why don't you actually support your claim that 99% of the population "gets it"? Otherwise, you leave everyone with the impression that this is yet another instance where you just pulled something out of your ass, hoping that no one would call you out on it.

 

Not even your own crap anyway.

Them saying they are not going to bother with the rest of the collapse isnt an argument

 

Make that 99.9% if you have to copy and paste someone elses non argument

 

What does copying and pasting have to do with you supporting your claim?

 

What does the material not being mine have to do with you addressing it?

And why do you think the NIST decided not to include the entire collapse data into their computer models?

 

They are false claims on the website to start with

 

Really? Go on . . .

 

NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.

Hoffman's critique points out that NIST's Report, while avoiding even claiming to model the collapses, implies, but does not show, that it modeled the onsets of the collapses. The Report's section entitled Results of Global Analysis" describes the tops of the Towers first tilting and then moving downward as intact blocks, but there are no images in the Report of its computer models showing this behavior. The New Civil Engineer (NCE), an engineering trade journal based in the United Kingdom, published an article highlighting NIST's failure to publish visualizations of its alleged analysis of "collapse initiation."

 

Can you cite something to support this claim?

And where are those rejected computer models? And how do they differ from the computer models from the Final Report?

 

Nothing credible about that site



This guys website, no need to bother with some guy who cant tell the difference between a couple cardboard boxes and a skyscraper

 

It would be better if you actually stated which part of what I've posted you disagree with. Then we can address our differences.

 

And this coming from the guy who posted this:

 

Really?

Do you care to refute this?

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.

 

Well they are architects and engineers supposedly, well thats assuming dentists, gardeners and the unemployed qualify as architects and engineers. Why not ask them why floors rated for a dynamic load 80 pounds per sq ft cant handle more than that. Get them to do a liitle computer model for you to show you what happens when stuff crashes through the floors. They have had 17 years to do it, probably at least a couple million in donations.

Ask them why they spent $316000 on a study for a building no one died in rather than finishing what they say NIST should have done for WTC 1, a building 1400 people died in. Would have been much more helpful to the victims families.

Although they probably would have modelled a whole bunch of cardboard boxes.

Everyone could have instead sent money to MIT to get the same thing done by way smarter people