Where are the AE911 models?

That's entirely not the point. I want NIST to release their data. I want Gerry to release his data.

So why should Gerry not?
Because you can't always get what you want. Do you know how many people want NIST to release their data (yourself included)? Again, you're burden shifting. Maybe you should start sending NIST some emails to try and get them to do it. After all, their entire argument hinges on this data they have locked up, and you'll never know the figures at this point. But you still accept it as being the most probable sequence, and even when people like gerrycan come along and point out discrepancies the tendency is to still stick with NIST's conclusions and ask for the other person's data, without yet having NIST's. How weird if you ask me.
 
Because you can't always get what you want.

That's not a reason. This thread was about people other than NIST doing models of WTC7 etc. Gerry posted a picture of one. I asked for the actual model. He declined to post it. I asked why.

I'm still asking.

Please do not try to change the subject again.
 
The point is, based on your own arguments, the model is worthless without verification. It could have been done in photoshop.
Thanks for pointing out this similarity between the screenshot of the model I gave you and NISTs own models. They are BOTH indeed worthless without verification. So why do you place so much trust in NISTs analysis, yet none in this. Your bias is clearly on display. What you need to do, is to get a hold of someone that you trust and get them to do an FEA for you. It will be interesting to see the results of that.

What I'm asking is WHY can't you release the model? Surely that's a very simple question?
What you need to do is dispute the model as it is. I am under no obligation to be open with anything, but I am being as open as I can, i think that is fair. NIST on the other hand are a federal agency who should be answerable to the public, but clearly are not. Whilst your comparison between the validity of my screenshot and NISTs models is fair, in terms of verification, your angst over the lack of data for mine is coupled with a willingness to use the NIST models when they suit your argument. That is disingenuous.
 
That's not a reason. This thread was about people other than NIST doing models of WTC7 etc. Gerry posted a picture of one. I asked for the actual model. He declined to post it. I asked why.

I'm still asking.

Please do not try to change the subject again.
No, the thread is about ae911truth's models or lack thereof, not mine, not anyone elses. Email them and ask.

edit, when you say that you want the 'actual model', what is it you are actually after?
 
Just explain why you are unable to post the actual model, or I'll ban you.
I am truly sorry, I cannot do that. I respect peoples requests when they do me favours and that prohibits me from doing so. If that gets me banned then so be it, I would rather keep my integrity. Also, if that gets me banned, then this is hardly a level playing field is it? Again, you should therefor debate me in a live open forum where we both have the same rights and can speak our minds. Shame that it has come to this.
 
I am truly sorry, I cannot do that. I respect peoples requests when they do me favours and that prohibits me from doing so. If that gets me banned then so be it, I would rather keep my integrity. Also, if that gets me banned, then this is hardly a level playing field is it? Again, you should therefor debate me in a live open forum where we both have the same rights and can speak our minds. Shame that it has come to this.

You don't have to explain in depth. Just give the reason, like "It's not my model, I don't have the original". Or "The person who made the model asked me not to share the actual model with anyone".
 
You don't have to explain in depth. Just give the reason, like "It's not my model, I don't have the original". Or "The person who made the model asked me not to share the actual model with anyone".
The person who made the model asked me not to share the actual model with anyone
 
The real way to do this Mick is to hand that kind of project off to an independent company like ANSYS, (although that particular company, and others eg ARA would have a conflict of interests). These are the guys who have single PCs with 96gb ram all networked up. To split the task into parts, send them out, then piece the whole thing together again leaves the final product open to personal bias. But it may be an interesting project regardless.
 
The real way to do this Mick is to hand that kind of project off to an independent company like ANSYS, (although that particular company, and others eg ARA would have a conflict of interests). These are the guys who have single PCs with 96gb ram all networked up. To split the task into parts, send them out, then piece the whole thing together again leaves the final product open to personal bias. But it may be an interesting project regardless.

But the open source aspect of it would counteract that bias. Everyone would have the models. Everyone would have the software. Everyone could run (limited) tests.

Are there any companies that would not have a conflict of interest?
 
But the open source aspect of it would counteract that bias. Everyone would have the models. Everyone would have the software. Everyone could run (limited) tests.
And everyone would have the correct dimensions and elements, unlike NIST. NIST need to redo their model and release it in an open way so it can be verified.

Are there any companies that would not have a conflict of interest?
Sure, lots of companies use FEA software. The way to counter potential bias is to get it run by 2 separate private companies who are not aware of each others participation, so providing corroboration.
 
Except for the top clip and the shims. Removed for clarity?
Yes, and also there is no girder expansion here. In the real world the girder would get trapped in between the side plates. A back of the envelope calculation taking into account the temp and length ratios both being 5/6 suggests that even the leading edge of the flanges would not clear the side plates.
 
NIST need to redo their model and release it in an open way so it can be verified.

So why don't you? You are behaving like NIST! I really don't get it.

The way to counter potential bias is to get it run by 2 separate private companies who are not aware of each others participation, so providing corroboration.

Open source open model then everyone can corroborate.
 
Last edited:
So why don't you? You are behaving like NIST! I really don't get it.
Open source open model then everyone can corroborate.
First of all, I am not a federal agency, so don't answer to the American population, and secondly, I personally would prefer to get a model that would be of evidence grade, and that takes people who are considered experts in their field.
 
First of all, I am not a federal agency, so don't answer to the American population, and secondly, I personally would prefer to get a model that would be of evidence grade, and that takes people who are considered experts in their field.

Do any members of AE911 qualify?
 
On a professional level yes, of course. But on the other hand, I believe that an independent FEA from people who are not connected with either side of this debate would be preferable.
 
On a professional level yes, of course. But on the other hand, I believe that an independent FEA from people who are not connected with either side of this debate would be preferable.

Preferable, but unlikely to happen.

So should AE911 start up an open source project?
 
@gerrycan

All I can say is that, given the way I have been embarrassing myself on this forum by rejecting the NIST report as unscientific given non-release of the model (which I still maintain), surely I now have to do the same for your report, else @Jazzy will throw a punch that will floor me:confused:.
 
@gerrycan

All I can say is that, given the way I have been embarrassing myself on this forum by rejecting the NIST report as unscientific given non-release of the model (which I still maintain), surely I now have to do the same for your report, else @Jazzy will throw a punch that will floor me:confused:.
I can't see how you can equate NIST and Gerry like that. NIST refused on the grounds of National Security... Gerry et al need be careful here or they could find themselves up on a charge of 'aiding the enemy'.

So far Gerry has used figures which are in the public domain. Anyone crowd sourcing the model and publication of figures would need legal advice IMO or it should be released anonymously via wikileaks.
 
I can't see how you can equate NIST and Gerry like that. NIST refused on the grounds of National Security... Gerry et al need be careful here or they could find themselves up on a charge of 'aiding the enemy'.

So far Gerry has used figures which are in the public domain. Anyone crowd sourcing the model and publication of figures would need legal advice IMO or it should be released anonymously via wikileaks.

Sounds like a very weak cop-out to me. Any model made from information that is in the public domain is also in the public domain (assuming the modeller wants it to be). There's no law against doing a bit of math.
 
Sounds like a very weak cop-out to me. Any model made from information that is in the public domain is also in the public domain (assuming the modeller wants it to be). There's no law against doing a bit of math.
What sounds weak is expecting more from a private individual that you get from a federal agency. In all honesty Mick, how many times have you requested this information from NIST ?
 
Gerry et al need be careful here or they could find themselves up on a charge of 'aiding the enemy'.

That I can appreciate.

Any model made from information that is in the public domain is also in the public domain (assuming the modeller wants it to be). There's no law against doing a bit of math.

Are you sure?

All I am asking is
  • are you sure that Gerry's modeler will be at no risk from releasing this data in the current political environment?
--------------

Surely the idea of an open source open model (even if it must be started from scratch) is a way forward?

While I don't think fire induced collapse is probable and Mick does, we both think such a model would resolve the argument.


@gerrycan I was aiming this question at AE911.
 
That's not a reason. This thread was about people other than NIST doing models of WTC7 etc. Gerry posted a picture of one. I asked for the actual model. He declined to post it. I asked why.

I'm still asking.

Please do not try to change the subject again.
Yes, the subject is about AE911's models, which YOU derailed by asking about gerrycan's models. Not me. I simply responded. If you want to use your godly moderating powers to ban me for pointing this out, have fun with it.

I would suggest if you want AE911 to release models, you either go ask THEM for their models, or invite them here to post some.

Sounds easy enough, right? Gerrycan's models have nothing to do with them. Again, you brought his models into the picture, not me, I'm just defending that fact.

If you want to broaden the topic to 'models other than NISTs' then I suggest you change the title to that and not move the goalposts to suit your argument. But last I checked this topic was specifically about AE911s models, which you aren't even discussing.

Hell, if you want other models, I could design some for you. It will cost you some money though, and I'm not cheap.
 
Yes, the subject is about AE911's models, which YOU derailed by asking about gerrycan's models.

Because Gerry posted a model.

I also assume here that Gerry is a member of AE911 (in the sense of signing the petition) (?) I know that Tony is. AE911 seems like the obvious focus, as there's a collection of motivated individuals, some with relevant experience. But anyone could contribute.
 
Because Gerry posted a model.
Nope, screenshot.

I also assume here that Gerry is a member of AE911 (in the sense of signing the petition)
You assume too much
AE911 seems like the obvious focus, as there's a collection of motivated individuals, some with relevant experience. But anyone could contribute.
The focus is their models or lack thereof. I asked you earlier how many times you had asked NIST for their model inputs. How many times have you asked ae911truth about their model, or lack of?
 
@gerrycan

All I can say is that, given the way I have been embarrassing myself on this forum by rejecting the NIST report as unscientific given non-release of the model (which I still maintain), surely I now have to do the same for your report, else @Jazzy will throw a punch that will floor me:confused:.
You are just as safe as Gerry. :)
 
Nope, screenshot.

You assume too much
The focus is their models or lack thereof. I asked you earlier how many times you had asked NIST for their model inputs. How many times have you asked ae911truth about their model, or lack of?

I've asked anyone for their models except you. The point of this thread is that it would seem to be a rather obvious step for AE911 or other 9/11 Truthers like yourself and Tony, to create more accurate models, and release them to public scrutiny.

@Tony Szamboti, you are member of AE911. What do you think?
 
Nope, screenshot.

I asked you earlier how many times you had asked NIST for their model inputs.

NIST has been asked for inputs at least three times through FOIA. I have asked now three times outside of FOIA, (via email and mail). Ron Brookman has asked outside of FOIA also.

The question is, why is NIST so reluctant to share the math with the research community?

Could it be that they are not proud of their work?

Maybe that they fudged their model to create the desired results?

The more you look the more you can see that the latter is true.

Cripes! They won't even confirm that they looked at Frankel drawing #9114.
 
Last edited:
I've asked anyone for their models except you. The point of this thread is that it would seem to be a rather obvious step for AE911 or other 9/11 Truthers like yourself and Tony, to create more accurate models, and release them to public scrutiny.

@Tony Szamboti, you are member of AE911. What do you think?

Comparisons of the WTC 7 drawings and the NIST WTC 7 report show the omissions and they are clear and not very complicated. Hand calculations easily show that the girder could not have come off the seat with the flange to web stiffeners at the column 79 side on it, no matter what temperature the beams were heated to. Hand calculations also easily show that the G3005 beam would not buckle with the three beam stubs from the exterior frame on it.

So I don't think models are even needed to show that the NIST WTC 7 report's girder walk-off or rock-off hypotheses are not valid when the omitted structural items are included in the analysis.

I also don't think any additional data is needed from NIST to know and say that somebody involved in that report decided to omit items that would make the report's hypotheses for collapse initiation impossible.
 
Last edited:
So I don't think models are even needed to show that the NIST WTC 7 report's girder walk-off or rock-off hypotheses are not valid when the omitted structural items are included in the analysis.

But don't you think AE911 could make a model that validates their own hypothesis? Or at least allows a variety of hypotheses to be explored?

It's all very well to continually point the finger at NIST, but you know they are unlikely to have a new WTC7 investigation, so why not force their hand by having your own.
 
But don't you think AE911 could make a model that validates their own hypothesis? Or at least allows a variety of hypotheses to be explored?

It's all very well to continually point the finger at NIST, but you know they are unlikely to have a new WTC7 investigation, so why not force their hand by having your own.
Many of us have done our own investigation and the calculations show what NIST is saying is impossible if those omitted features are included in the analysis.

FEA is just another form of analysis. Everything doesn't have to be done via FEA. There are a number of hand calculations in the NIST report which did not require FEA either and are correct.

It is the collapse initiation analysis and buckling of column 79 that is in question and nobody even knows how they calculated that, as they refused to divulge whatever they did with the excuse that it "might jeopardize public safety". The one thing that is certain is that it is impossible with the omitted items included, and it would be naïve to not realize that is clearly why they were omitted.
 
The one thing that is certain is that it is impossible with the omitted items included, and it would be naïve to not realize that is clearly why they were omitted.

Really? You think NIST deliberately left out the stiffener plates so they could fudge the numbers so the building collapsed?
 
Really? You think NIST deliberately left out the stiffener plates so they could fudge the numbers so the building collapsed?
Yes, I do think somebody there made a decision to do that to make it plausible. Because it is not with them in there.

How would they get the flange to fold, as stated in the report, with the stiffeners on the girder?
 
Yes, I do think somebody there made a decision to do that to make it plausible. Because it is not with them in there.

How would they get the flange to fold, as stated in the report, with the stiffeners on the girder?

So maybe you and/or AE911 should do some public domain models of the full floor and column assembly to demonstrate that it's entirely impossible. I hear a lot of "it's difficult to see how...", but why not go the full step?
 
So maybe you and/or AE911 should do some public domain models of the full floor and column assembly to demonstrate that it's entirely impossible. I hear a lot of "it's difficult to see how...", but why not go the full step?
Although I am a signatory to the AE911 petition requesting a new investigation into the collapses of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers, I am not in charge of how funds are spent by the group. You will have to ask Richard Gage about funding an analysis where modeling and FEA is used to show the WTC 7 collapse initiation mechanism claimed by NIST is invalid, if you really feel the need to see that to understand.

What I can say as an engineer is that a model and FEA is not necessary to show that the NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is impossible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis. Hand calculations are more than sufficient in this instance.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top