jomper
Inactive Member
It makes it pseudo-science, doesn't it?
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
Not really, I think you'll find that the vast majority of scientific papers out there do not release their full datasets, usually because they are too large, and it's too much work. And yet what they do is still called science.
They DID release a very comprehensive report about the observed fire, and the damage it would cause. Did you read that?
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf (55MB)
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
It is surely its best attempt.
It is as accurate as can be expected. There is no way a simulation could be perfect. A large structure such as this would have small variations from any data set of its structure. Structures are never built perfectly to plan.
That's not true, the video shows an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade.
The facade alone deviates from what you expect? The facade ended up laid across the wreckage.
I thought we agreed it did follow the evidence until the facade remained.
No. The video evidence shows a collapse of the internal structure beginning low down on the left (below what can be seen in the video frame, which is pointed at the top of the building).
That is wrong. The indirect effects of the fire caused all three major collapses, by structural destabilization and consequent buckling. A falling floor will indeed cause a line of columns to fail, and in all three buildings some floors fell first, removing column structural stability, and then columns buckled. All similar slender-column/long-span beam structures will fail this way. That's why civil engineering codes are being/have been revised right now.
Or... ?
jomper
Inactive Member
An inverifiable computer model is not good science!
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, put that to one side then. Discount it totally.
What then? Did you read the report?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Sorry, but there is. Such events (the bringing down of large buildings) could be repeated.
Quite the reverse of what truthers say, slender column trussed towers with long-span floors are NOT highly-redundant, and are peculiarly prone to fire by differential expansion and detachment of floors causing column buckling. Armed with the specific knowledge recently gained (the original architects didn't foresee terrorist attack) it is not impossible to bring down similar buildings by means other than aircraft. There are many such buildings.
Revealing to the public domain details of such weaknesses is foolish, because terrorists are part of the public too.
The reason would be that terrorists would use it to determine the best location to place explosives to bring down tall buildings. Like they attempted to do with the WTC in 1993. They failed then, but better structural analysis might have changed things.
It's probably a bit of a stretch, but why take the chance?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Like I wouldn't already know to seek out any significant foundational vertical or horizontal attachment joints (expansion joints) at ground level or really within 15 floors from the top . . . seems all I have to do is strip away the fire proofing, disable the sprinkler system and start an office fire . . . evacuate the building and wait from two to six hours while preventing fire supression activities from the fire department . . . piece of cake . . .
Jazzy
Closed Account
In the video you can see the internal structure collapsing through the windows at the left. The roof house fell because the columns it stood on had buckled low down (below the video frame) the structure - as the simulation also shows. They buckled because the long span floors supported by them had expanded beyond their footings.
How many floors do you see in the video?
How many floors did WTC 7 actually have?
jomper
Inactive Member
Lol.
How many independent experts have been allowed to test and verify the computer animation that is the sole foundation of your conclusions about what you cannot see?
Oh, none.
But that's ok with you, because according to you duh tuh rusts might get access to ANSYS software and reverse engineer a fire simulation in one building to discover places they could put explosives in other buildings that they couldn't possibly figure out any other way. Shame for all the structural engineers around the world who do have access to ANSYS software and legitimate public safety reasons to understand exactly how fire could cause a building like WTC 7 to collapse the way it did, but you just can't take the risk, can you?
In other news, all Muslims are going to be banned from studying building design and doctors aren't going to publish medical research data in case duh tuh rusts work out that the heart pumps blood around the body.
Lol.
jomper
Inactive Member
If the complete dataset of the NIST sim was available, it would have scientific credibility. That is what I would like to see. But as long as it is not verifiable, it is no better than a cartoon.
Have you read the full report on the fire damage?
jomper
Inactive Member
I'm mainly interested in the model and its fundamental lack of scientific credibility. This could be easily fixed by simply releasing the whole dataset. It's the basis of the report's conclusions and I'm prepared to take Ronald Brookman's analysis of the details (http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf) as evidence of his qualification to analyse it.
Your suggestion that duh tuh rusts could reverse-engineer the model in ANSYS for nefarious purposes is just hysterically paranoid -- as far gone as any conspiracy theory. That's the reason it's OK for NIST to chuck the scientific method out the window? Consider that against the clear public interest case in understanding exactly how fire is supposed to have caused a building to collapse in such an unprecedented manner.
It's maybe an overreaction - but that's how people get when dealing with such events. I imagine the thinking would be: why take the chance?
Let's pretend the model does not exist for a moment. What evidence is there that it was a controlled demolition? Any loud bangs directly before collapse?
jomper
Inactive Member
Yes, it would be terrible if fire caused another building to collapse like WTC 7, wouldn't it? Better make sure the best explanation's hidden from the analysis of other structural engineers, then.
Well, it certainly was a waste of millions of dollars.
I imagine they though that terrorist bombs would be a more significant threat to tall buildings than fire after the fire codes were upgrade to account for the findings fo the WTC7 inquiry.
Not at all, a lot of useful information came out of it, specifically the code upgrade recommendations. Did you read the full report? It's fascinating reading. It actually gives you perspective on why the building fell.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I simply don't buy that explanation for denial . . . like every demolition expert in the world doesn't know this information . . . have these experts been fully vetted by Homeland Security . . . ??? Someone must suppress their knowledge . . . classify their documents and demolition guides . . . no one must computer simulate their work . . .if they do the data must not be shared with engineers, architects, physicists, and the rest of the security risks . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
RolandD
Active Member
and not just a fire, but an uncontrolled, unfought fire.
I think the specific thing they want to stop getting out there is: where would placing a bomb do the most damage.
I'm not sure if it's justified, but then someone made the call. Maybe they were wrong.
jomper
Inactive Member
That's right. Fires that are suppressed in some way cause steel-framed buildings to collapse towards the most fire-damaged area in an irregular fashion, whereas uncontrolled, unfought fires cause steel-framed buildings to fall straight down in a surprisingly symmetrical manner. Happens every time.
jomper
Inactive Member
I'm certainly starting to feel like I ought to be a claustrophiliac around here.
jomper
Inactive Member
Do you really think this is something duh tuh rusts would need ANSYS simulations of other buildings on fire to figure out? "Gee, Mohammad, this building's got structural columns -- run that ANSYS sim for a few more months, cos I think we might have to start a fire on a couple more floors if we want to bring it straight down, or even use a bomb."
As I said, this paranoid nonsense needs to be weighed against the clear public interest case in understanding how fire is supposed to have brought WTC 7 down in such an unprecedented manner. And yet the source of this hysterically anti-scientific fearmongering is NIST itself.
jomper
Inactive Member
How does a computer model that has not been independently tested or verified and cannot be examined by independent structural engineers constitute useful knowledge?
Jazzy
Closed Account
lol.
I just wish to show you that if you don't feel the need to answer my questions then I needn't feel the need to answer yours.
lol.
Jazzy
Closed Account
It isn't "useful knowledge". That is the point.
Had you answered my question honestly, I would have pointed out that the video and simulation did indeed match, and the facade of WTC 7 draped itself over the building wreckage.
jomper
Inactive Member
That's fine. If the report you base your opinions on was independently verifiable, they might be worth reading.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So hypothetically . . . if a crime is committed but you don't know how it was accomplished . . . and someone has withheld information that could be useful to understanding how the crime was accomplished but you are denied access to the evidence because you don't know how the crime was committed. . . .OK. . . .
So hypothetically . . . if a crime is committed but you don't know how it was accomplished . . . and someone has withheld information that could be useful to understanding how the crime was accomplished but you are denied access to the evidence because you don't know how the crime was committed. . . .OK. . . .
We know how the crime was committed. Hijackers hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. We understand how this was accomplished.
What you are talking about are just after-effects of the original crime, and not even intended after-effects.
No. We don't.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry, it pegs my BS meter . . .
jomper
Inactive Member
Oh, which plane flew into WTC 7?
- Status
Similar threads
