Doug,I pasted a .jpg graphic in my last post containing multiple frames. It shows Bldg 7 as it is collapsing. There are only a few seconds of video because the building fell at approximately free fall speeds. I tried to download some videos from http://www.ae911truth.org/ but they are quite large. Here is a youtube video that is about an hour long.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth?feature=mhum#p/u/4/CpAp8eCEqNA
Grover
This has been discussed here for years, but most of the people that took the time to try to get other members to open their eyes are now gone.I suggest you go into the Controversial Topics Section and do a search…I think you'll find much to continue your education, as well as a more substantial understanding of what used to take place here.
There are a number of different charge placement and timing patterns used in explosive demolitions, so it is probably better to talk about the twin towers and building 7 separately. So this post is about Building 7 (aka-World Trade Center Building 7, WTC7, "7" and the Solomon Building).
Building 7, The Classic Implosion
Building 7 is the easiest for most people to feel uncomfortable about 
as it was a Fire Safety Class 1 building (steel frame, cement floors, no flammable structural elements), was not hit my an airplane and did not have jet fuel spilled into it. (These are the issues used to explain why the twin towers collapsed.) A point whose importance simply cannot be overstated is that no Class 1 building has ever, before or since 9/11/01, collapsed due to fire even though there are about 400-500 documented cases of fires in Class 1 buildings.
And as Stan mentioned, the implosion demolition pattern is based on destroying basement and sub-basement support columns first to establish downward momentum in the building. Charges beneath different sections of the building are fired a few seconds apart, so that the different sections start their downward movement at slightly different times. This creates sheer forces between the sections that rip the building apart during its collapse. Sometimes they will start one end, and other times the mid section. (See video link below.) Starting with the center section is "cleanest" in that it pulls the outer edges of the building inwardly reducing damage to surrounding structures. Starting in the middle is essential for very tall buildings where the risk of tipping over is greatest.
World Trade Center Building 7 was such a tall thin building (47 stories). "7" was a BIG Building with a large height to width ratio making it very high risk for tipping over during its destruction.
To get a feel of what an implosion looks like, I'm including a nicely done compilation of the Implosions done in 2003. It is made by the professional society of demolition companies (ImplosionWorld). Even a few minutes of review gives a good feel for the characteristics of the implosion pattern demotion. Once exposed, this pattern is highly recognizable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno
David Collum concludes his 2011 Year in Review with a link to this compilation video of the collapse of WTC Building 7. Notice the drop in the central section of the roof first, wrinkling of the building face as evidence by window breakage, the almost perfect vertical drop of the entire building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg
Dan Rather describes what he sees:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
[quote=LogansRun]This has been discussed here for years, but most of the people that took the time to try to get other members to open their eyes are now gone.
I suggest you go into the Controversial Topics Section and do a search…I think you'll find much to continue your education, as well as a more substantial understanding of what used to take place here.
[/quote]
LR,
Thanks for providing the link to the Controversial Topics Section. I had posted a couple of posts to a thread that had been moved to this area (unbeknownst to me.) I was wondering why my posts weren't showing up on the "Most Recent" section of the main page. Now I know.
I find this portion of PP, "the dungeon," to be cumbersome (at best.) It is a good place to review what has been said, but terrible if you have a pertinent question that hasn't been answered before. Unless someone who knows the answer is lurking in the dungeon, you won't get an answer and will likely give up asking. Is there any notification mechanism? I haven't found it.
I don't mind answering the same question over and over. If I know the site and what related information has been said, I can search much easier, copy, and paste (with accreditation) and subsequently add nuanced meaning. I may even point the person to areas that may be pertinent.
Grover
I posted this message on ao's Definitive 9/11 Documentary thread. That thread was moved (at some time prior to my recent posts) to the dungeon where it has suffered the ignominy of abandonment. I could rewrite the post, but I'd rather just copy and paste it here. In it I refer to a video that Doug posted. It is only 4 minutes 5 seconds long. Listen to what is said and how it is said. My post works best if you listen to this first.
This is my second response to Doug's post. If you're interested, you can read the first response here: https://peakprosperity.com/comment/160998#comment-160998
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/161701#comment-161701Doug,
After I posted my last post here, I went to the front PP page. I noticed that my post didn't register in the recent comments. I opened the recent comments to look deeper. Still not there. Then, I looked for your post. Nope. Nowhere to be found. I thought about it for a couple of days and decided to flag my post so the administrator could check into it. I wrote my concerns in the justification for flagging. I never heard anything so I sent a PM to Jason on 12/5. I didn't hear anything back, so I copied the PM and sent it to Adam on 12/9. Adam responded on 12/20. He told me that he's working Jason like a "rented mule" and that it sometimes takes a while for comments to show up on the recent comment list. When receiving his PM, I looked through the recent comment list. It still wasn't there. I sent another PM, but haven't heard back. I'll give him a week to sort out the problems. Then, I'll post this on another thread.
That's the way it seems to be with anything related to 9/11. There isn't any conspiracy here. Nobody from any Czar's office came down to Chris and Adam and told them to react this way. There wasn't any need to. After all, if you just ignore the kooks, they'll crawl back into their holes and wait for other pieces of sky to fall. Right?
I'd like you to listen to that link you posted and (in your mind) substitute "Global Warming" anytime anyone says anything about 9/11 and replace "truther" with "wormer." (I know it should be "warmer," but you have to admit that they twist the word "truther" a wee bit.) If you do that, you'll see that Chomsky's tone wasn't exactly conducive to an open exchange of ideas. The Talking Head was even more closed minded.
If you compare the investigation of the towers collapsing with the space shuttle Columbia's disaster, you'll see the difference between a ramrod and an actual search for a cause. For the Columbia disaster, they collected space debris from several states and painstakingly arranged it in a hangar. After reviewing all the evidence, they concluded that some foam struck and damaged some heat shield panels. The following picture was contained in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grid_with_Columbia%27s_Debris_-_GPN-2003-00081.jpg
The towers never got that treatment. The steel superstructure was loaded onto barges and shipped to China for recycling. Granted, at the beginning, there was a rescue component to the 9/11 scene. After all, there were several thousand people in there. After it was obvious that there were no more survivors, they continued with the demolition operations. They didn't need to investigate because it was obvious that planes flew into the buildings and the buildings subsequently fell. That's where the story ends for most people. Anyone who questions the stories is derisively called a "truther" and then subsequently ignored.
So, Why don't I buy the official story? I'm not a structural engineer; however, I took at least one structural engineering class during each semester of my junior and senior years for my undergraduate studies. That was about 3 decades ago. The laws of physics haven't changed one iota. The practice of engineering has changed somewhat, but the underlying theories are still intact.
There were 3 buildings that collapsed that day. These were the first, second, and third, steel framed buildings in the entire world to ever collapse as a result of fire. To date, those 3 are the only buildings to ever collapse as a result of fire. (Reread that last sentence until you understand how unprecedented the collapses were.) Two of the 3 were struck by airplanes. All 3 collapses are beset by nagging questions. You see, when buildings fail … they don't fail into the strongest component.
Many 9/11 "truthers" focus on the WTC 7 collapse as the smoking gun. In my opinion, it's collapse is the most suspect. Nonetheless, the tower collapses were suspect also. Here is a documentary from NPR showing the building of the World Trade Center. It is only 18 minutes long and well worth watching! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bonus-video/newyork-construction/ (Sorry, but the video is part of the page. I don't know how to embed it here.)
The towers were constructed with a central core of 47 columns that carried about 2/3 of the building's load to bedrock. The other third was carried by the outer skin. These components were connected by the lightweight floors. The combination of all these components made a strong, resilient structure capable of withstanding all the loads it was subjected to … until 9/11.
When you watch the video, I'd like you to pay particular attention:
I can't imagine that anything during the construction of these buildings was left to chance. At the time, these were the tallest buildings in the world. New technologies and construction techniques had to be invented for these buildings to be constructed. I'm sure that the welding was performed by qualified personnel and tested by other qualified personnel. Every aspect of construction of these buildings was scrutinized and built within acceptable design tolerances. (I haven't reviewed the construction documentation, so I take this entire paragraph as an article of faith.)
- At 2 minutes, 15 seconds, you'll see a oblique artist's rendition of a typical floor. You'll see the central columns, clear span floor, and exterior skin.
- At 9 minutes, 45 seconds, you'll see a section of one of the interior columns being hoisted. This column section is about 30' long and consists of 4 plates of steel (4' wide X 2" thick) that are welded together to form a hollow 4' X 4' square column section.
- At 11 minutes, 10 seconds, you'll see a flyover view from a helicopter that shows the central columns, the lightweight span, and exterior skin. There's another flyover at 13 minutes, 50 seconds.
The accepted collapse theory goes something like this: Planes flew into the buildings, asbestos insulation was dislodged from the lightweight trusses as a result of the impact, the fuel in the plane ignited and caused the lightweight trusses to heat up and lose strength, floors started collapsing, the added weight couldn't be supported by lower floors, and a "pancake collapse commenced. Once the lightweight floor trusses collapsed, the exterior skin lost support and disintegrated.
That almost makes sense. If support from the floors vanished, the exterior skin wouldn't be able to stand more than a few stories before collapsing.
Remember the 47 interior columns? The elevators, stair cases, and utilities were housed in this area. There was framing around the group of columns and that is what the lightweight trusses were connected to. Assuming all the floor trusses on the triggering floor collapsed simultaneously (highly unlikely given the eccentric airplane hit,) the collapse should have looked more like a donut than a pancake. After the collapse concluded, there should have been 47 weakened columns sticking a quarter mile in the air. This column group relied on the exterior skin to provide lateral support. Without support, the columns would have toppled haphazardly into adjacent buildings. That didn't happen.
The investigators want you to believe that the floors were weakened enough to instigate the collapse sequence, but were strong enough to take the 4' X 4' X 2" thick steel columns with them. Really??? There are many other inconsistencies with the accepted collapse theory, but this is the one that gives me the most heartburn.
To me, knowledgeable investigators would have been able to question the plausibility of every theory. Not one of the Commission members was an engineer. They were appointed by Bush II with blessings from the Republican controlled congress. They were tasked with producing a final report (and they did that) glossing over key details that could possibly be politically damaging. Here is a very short and succinct link that explains (in laymen's terms) some problems with NIST's WTC 7 collapse report: http://www.rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/
So, Why should we care?
When we look back at major events in life, we can remember where we were when we first heard the news. The bigger the event, the more details we will remember. Based on that definition, you have to agree that 9/11 was a very big event. Government leaders are expected to make changes to prevent these events in the future. Look at the space shuttle. They investigated the problem, determined the cause (foam blocks striking heat shield,) and instituted design and procedural changes to minimize the risk. That was appropriate.
Let's look at changes that have been instituted as a result of 9/11:
Those are just the high points. I'm sure we could list many, many more. The point to me is that all of this was predicated on an event that simply could not have happened as reported. And yet, anyone who questions the events (or the subsequent remedies) is considered a whack job conspiracy theorist. After that, everything that person says is considered suspect.
- We have a "War on Terror (WOT)." This is as nebulous as the "War on Drugs." There is no face or name that can be associated with it. When will it be over? How many resources are required to fight it effectively?
- We have a new Federal Agency - "Homeland Security." They are the first line defense on the WOT. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know that the NSA collects all manner of information about us. The computing power would have gotten to this point regardless, but would the people (as in "We The People") accept this intrusion without the WOT? (I'll bet this post has been analyzed and rated by the NSA before you had a chance to read it. Does that bother you?)
- Our then fearless leader declared war on Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda (and teach them a lesson.)
- We then shifted attention to Iraq because of purported weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had or was trying to develop. (They have gobs of oil, right?)
- We've spent $trillions, killed or wounded tens (hundreds?) of thousands, and created lifelong enemies. (No wonder the WOT can never end.)
So, where does it go from here? How do we stop the madness if we can't question the cause? Do you realistically expect anything (along these lines) to get any better with time? How many more liberties will be removed in order to "keep us safe"?
I hope it isn't too late.
Grover
Thank you, Grover, for your very well written post on your misgivings, as an engineer, about the demise of the World Trade Center buildings. I notice the care you took in writing this post and interpret that as an act of conscience, intelligence and caring for the world that we leave to our children.
The task of sorting out the many writings on 9/11 has become a bit of a Herculean task. Perhaps I could ask other pp’ers to take away a single point: Some very intelligent and perceptive people who have studied it closely, feel sure that the official story just does not add up.
This is a group of very high caliber individuals:
-2,100 Architects and Engineers who disbelieve the official explanation for the building collapses.
-400 Professors who openly disbelieve the story we are told: Professors of mathematics, physics, computer science, geology, architecture, religious studies, psychology.
-Neils Harrit, Professor of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, who reports finding large amounts of thermite, an explosive used to cut steel beams in the demolition of steel framed buildings, in dust from the world trade center.
-Graeme MacQueen, Professor of Religious Studies University of Ontario, who analyzed the Oral Histories of 9/11 and found that 118 firefighters spontaneously reported hearing explosions and believed that the buildings were being destroyed by explosives.
David Ray Griffin, Professor of Theology, who documents the failure of the FAA and the military to follow normal procedures regarding hijacked aircraft. He documents the evolution of THREE incompatible and entirely different stories offered to explain this failure.
If I may, could I kindly ask people to simply peruse through the list of the 400 Professors who question 9/11. Simply notice that many very bright and high quality people are listed there.
I reviewed the video link Grover provided that shows a video comparison with the engineering simulation of the building collapse.
I found the critique of the NIST model to be inflammatory, and does not reflect an understanding of the principles and objectives of dynamic structural simulation.
I do not wish to become embroiled in the controversy, but I have domain expertise in this area so I will comment.
The introduction suggests that selection bias was in place due to the analytical method used in comparing the video of the collapse with the simulation results. This statement is not necessarily accurate, as it is common to “calibrate” simulation models with observable events in order to insure validity of a priori critical assumptions used in model construction. Some of these would include the phenomenological material models, boundary conditions, connecting ties, strain rate dependencies, work hardening curves of the steel material properties, etc. One would also expect uncertainty of distributed mass within the building floors, which is unknown to the analyst, such as the presence and placement of dead loads prior to collapse- any of these can cause significant artifacts and deviations in the simulation results.
It is not clear from the simulation results if the exterior shell of the building is modeled.
The solver used for this simulation is LS-DYNA, which is an explicit non-linear code. It is routinely used for (automotive) collision simulations as well as explosive blast wave modeling. It is well suited for simulating this type of dynamic structural failure in a relatively short time domain. A coherent interrogation of the model results would not rely on an animated movie to divine engineering data. A frame by frame comparative framework would be established, using the clock or time stamp as a means of model correlation.
Trust me, if the analysts wanted this to look just like the collapse, they could have done so with far less effort than trying to create an engineering benchmark.
A quick web search yielded one of the summary reports on WTC1 and WTC2. You can download it here:
http://www.dynalook.com/international-conf-2006/24ImpactAnalysis.pdf
I looked this over, and I am very familiar with the methods and constitutive models used in this analysis, including the fluid/structure interaction model space. I see they used SPH elements (smooth particle hydrodynamics), essentially point elements with assignable state variables such as viscosity, surface tension effects, etc. I do not see anything untoward in the way the model was setup and run, at least as outlined in this brief summary document.
It looks like the objectives and methods were realistic and correctly implemented, with multi-step validation phases.
I do not see any results documents for Tower 7, so I cannot comment, but I would have no reason to believe that the methods were suspect, although I would mention that the simulation would be significantly easier than the other two towers as they were not hit by high velocity aircraft with resulting fuel dispersal- and as such do not require the fluid/structure interaction component of the other simuation.
It is important to understand that the simulation is never going to mimic the video collapse, rather, the objective is to validate the physics behind the collapse explanation, and perhaps to compile a sensitivity study to determine high gain variables, and how these might impact the collapse dynamics.
for keeping this issue alive. I was on the streets of Edinburgh yesterday offering passers by leaflets, printed from the Rethink911 website, entitled "What you are not being told about 911". The leaflets are very professionally designed, and detail the points highlighted by "Architects And Engineers for 911 Truth" regarding the destruction of the 3 towers by 2 planes.The response from the general public was less than enthusiastic I have to say. It does seem to me that many people are trapped in the mindset of self interest and an overall collective delusion. I know and understand this, as I was once myself in this position.
Having said that, there were a handful of folk that did respond positively, and the guy behind the counter in old bookshop if I did not know any better could have been a PP member and a 911truth expert. Despite the lack of interest from the majority, the small number of positive encounters did make the whole experience worthwhile. I think a few more people are Rethinking911 this morning.
Did anyone else notice how rock-steady some of the cameras were? Almost as if they were pre-positioned on tripods in anticipation.
We are so used to seeing well composed action shots on TV that we take them for granted.
In contrast to the UFO amateur shot that have wobbly, unconvincing, out-of-focus representations of reality.
So why were the cameras steady?
Thanks, Darbikrash, for thinking and speaking on the subject of the modeling of structural damage to the towers by aircraft impact. If you would be willing to stay with the topic, I would love to hear your evolving assessment. I don’t get to converse with people with expertise in this field and appreciate the chance.
I also understand your desire to not be embroiled in this controversy. Unfortunately, the fight was brought to us–we are all already embroiled. Every TSA pat down, drone assassination and Muslim man who is tortured at Guantanamo is a result of this story. We must get it right.
Post-9/11 humor: "My First Cavity Search: Helping your child understand why he may pose a threat to national security."
We are all embroiled.
I personally do not have experience with computer simulation of building collapse but have heard talks from several people who do. And yes, many are inflammatory in tone. When one's impression is that the scientific method is being used to obscure or deceive, anger seeps in.
Reviewers critical of the computer simulations used by NIST include:
- Kevin R. Ryan, former site manager for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
- Jim Hoffman, metallurgical software engineer (whose critique of the NIST report is colorfully titled: “Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century")
- Steven E. Jones, former Chairman of the Physics Department, Brigham Young University.
- Crockett Grabbe, Professor of Applied Physics, Caltech.
- And several video presentations from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and contributors to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
(I'm sorry that I don't have links to isolated specific comments about the computer modeling issue as their comments were included in broader discussions.)
A main criticism is the use of computer modeling to create a plausible story only for the preconditions leading to collapse. When the analysis stops at the moment the collapse actually begins, the physical evidence for explosive demolition (which lies in the pattern and totality of the buildings’ destruction; the rate, symmetry and smoothness of fall; and content and layout of the debris field; witness testimony of sights and sounds of explosions) is excluded. Thus, there is concern that computer simulation models are actually being used to obscure the evidence supporting controlled demolition from those without the time skill or inclination to read deeply, i.e.-- the public.
Fire safety engineers criticize the government's reports (especially NIST) for failure to follow a crucial, standard, post-arson, forensic procedure—that of searching for residues of incendiaries and explosives in the debris. Yet the same reports conclude “We found no evidence for use of explosives.” When directly asked by Steven Jones, "Did you look for residues of explosives?" NIST responds, "No we did not."
Unfortunately, we are in a situation where the words of a scientist cannot be accepted without also considering who signs his paycheck. And NIST is a government contracted study.
Eastman and Cole recently presented a summary of the way the peer-reviewed literature on the cause of collapse has shifted over the last 12 years (WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature: 2001 — 2012). The conclusions (on page 5) are very worthy of review. They note an increasing numbers of papers in the last 5 years shifting away from the progressive gravity driven collapse (PC) hypothesis to the controlled demolition (CD) explanation and a complete failure of the professional community to reach consensus on this vital topic. This is unheard of.
Please stay consciously embroiled in this controversial story. 
Does the controlled demolition hypothesis seems plausible to you? What are your misgivings? I would love to hear your evaluation of this literature as it develops. Thanks for participating.
darbikrash,We only have our words, our screen names, and our avatars to relate to one another at this site. You and I have engaged in a few conversations over the last few years. Your moniker was always a mystery to me. At first, I read it like a pirate would see an economic crash from the lookout perch - "Dar be krash." That image stayed with me until yesterday, when I read your post. Now, I have an entirely different image in my mind.
You have an abundant vocabulary and you like to exercise it. There have been several times that I have to look up the words you've used - sometimes, because I haven't seen them before and sometimes because I want to capture the nuance that you intended. I appreciate your robust usage. Thanks.
I've also noticed that you rarely make definitive statements. This is a characteristic I've noted from people who are called in court as expert witnesses. They are judicious with the facts, quick to find faults, and sparing of opinions. From what I've seen, you exhibit all of these tendencies on this site.
That said, I find that you would make this admission quite intriguing:
Trust me, if the analysts wanted this to look just like the collapse, they could have done so with far less effort than trying to create an engineering benchmark.I've had to perform enough forensic modeling to know that models can be manipulated to produce whatever results are desired. I also know enough to question any model out there. If I, as a reviewer of the output, don't understand all the implications, assumptions, granularity, tensors, etc. built into the model, I would hire a trusted source who does and can convey the intricacies in a common language. Of course, in that case, I wouldn't be the best expert witness. Can you imagine any expert witness testifying in a court of law, under oath, about the output from a model that they didn't have the opportunity to review completely? If I were called to testify, I would state that I wasn't able to answer any questions related to the output and (when pressed) rattle off a litany of reasons. I can imagine that any reasonably competent attorney could easily sway a judge or jury that a non-disclosed model's findings were completely bogus. And yet, that (in essence) is what NIST is asking the American Public to do. They have a model of the Building 7 collapse that they claim is an accurate simulation, but they won't release their model data. There is no way to verify the model or question the reasonableness of the assumptions. Does this strike you as odd? I find it damning. [quote=darbikrash] I reviewed the video link Grover provided that shows a video comparison with the engineering simulation of the building collapse. I found the critique of the NIST model to be inflammatory, and does not reflect an understanding of the principles and objectives of dynamic structural simulation. [/quote] I agree that the tone isn't conducive to collegial debate. I see the tone to be more or less a result of scorn and frustration. NIST has been asked to release the model data. They have refused. The short web page was written for a laymen's level of understanding. [Insert tone of ardent disgust] Do you really believe that the architects and professional structural engineers who are legally responsible for designing and building skyscrapers wouldn't understand a useful tool like dynamic structural simulation? Really??? [/disgust] Grover
First of all, thanks for the thoughtful replies to my post #26. The purpose of the post was to comment on the link, which I felt unfairly accused the analysis team of selection bias, and the author(s) clearly did not understand the objectives of computer simulation.
I have no idea if the cause of the collapse was due to the initial conditions represented by the explanation (and the model), or if was due to deliberately placed explosive charges. Presumably, the analysts were given initial conditions, and left to their own engineering judgment to establish test data and modeling methods using these inputs as a given.
I doubt very seriously if they were given the leeway to examine alternative collapse theories, such as has been proposed by critics. Such studies would be extremely expensive, and well, who is going to pay for this?
But the conclusion that because the animation does not precisely match the video and as such, indicates fraud and deception is incorrect, and I wished to make that point. It also indicates the commentators (in the link) do not have the slightest clue as to how to interpret simulation data.
I find that the more I know about engineering simulation and correlation of same to the empirical (and observable) the less prone I am to making definitive statements. I have yet to have an aerodynamicist give a plausible explanation of how a bumblebee can fly, yet to consider that we can explain with absolute certainty how every particle displaced in a building collapse will behave with absolute precision seems more than a bit ambitious. The more you think you know the more apparent it becomes just how much you don’t know.
You are absolutely right though, any competent review would in fact delve deeply into the input deck. Have you ever seen an input deck for LS-DYNA? Lots neatly aligned rows and columns (thousands of pages) of integers- and not much else. Unfortunately, other than asking the questions that you’ve asked, the only way to really dig deeply into validating this type of work product is to have a third party completely re-do the analysis, at significant cost. I also am not surprised that the input decks are not released to the general public, this work product is likely owned, at least in part, by for-hire engineering consultants who would have contractual ownership over the data set. But here I speculate.
This does not mean that the numerical input values could (and should) be released to the public, I’m not close enough to the controversy to know if they are available. But based on the (brief) summary report I found in less than 5 minutes and linked to in post 26, it should not be too hard to find.
Do you really believe that the architects and professional structural engineers who are legally responsible for designing and building skyscrapers wouldn't understand a useful tool like dynamic structural simulation? Really??? [/disgust]As to the above comment, I think you would be very surprised how naive so-called professional architects and engineers are when it comes to understanding and interpreting computer models.
One last remark, although I am loathe to deflect any potential compliment-I must advise you that your conclusion as to the meaning behind my screen and avatar, are shall we say, somewhat off the mark.
But thanks anyway.
darbikrash,
I can drive a car, but not well enough to compete in a NAScar race. I've never used LS-DYNA, but I've used (and written) other engineering modeling software. I know that I could hire a consultant to provide assistance in interpreting results of LS-DYNA if need be. Negotiating the rights to the data would have been easy to do before commencing the work. I can't explain why NIST wouldn't want to own the data. Perhaps the consultant who analyzed the building owns the data but is contractually prohibited from revealing it. That would be a convenient mechanism to lock up the results.
You nailed the problem when you said:
I doubt very seriously if they were given the leeway to examine alternative collapse theories, such as has been proposed by critics. Such studies would be extremely expensive, and well, who is going to pay for this?The controlled demolition theory was considered, but was dismissed early in the investigation. There is no possible way for explosive charges to be placed after the airplanes hit the towers. There wasn't enough time. The only way this could be an option is for explosives to be placed in the buildings prior to 9/11. Stage IV conspiracy (the highest level - Make It Happen On Purpose) is the only plausible explanation if explosives were the cause of the collapses.
The modelers were hired to find a possible mechanism that would explain the collapse. They knew the type, size, location, and connections of each structural component. They knew that diesel electric generators were present in 2 locations, and they knew that there was approximately 10,000 gallons of diesel for each generator. They had video to show how fires in the building progressed, and at least as much video as we've seen concerning the way the building collapsed. We don't know how many other significant known knowns they knew.
They could adjust any and all aspects of the model to achieve the purpose. They could play with furniture and file cabinet placement, but it had to be reasonable. If they needed a million pounds of weight, they had to explain how that got there in the first place. Temperature was the least controversial aspect to adjust. As you know, steel loses structural capacity rapidly as temperature increases above some point. The hotter the air in the immediate area and the longer the steel is exposed, the warmer the steel will become. At some point, it will lose strength and collapse will begin. (Let's ignore that this mechanism has not worked in any other steel frame buildings … ever.)
I'm assuming that the version they released (we've seen visual models built from the time stamped data) was as close as they could get without torturing the limits of reasonableness beyond recognition. (Actually, it doesn't make sense for NIST not to release the data if the shadow of reasonableness existed. I'm speculating about this.) All they needed to do was find a possible solution that fit reasonably well. They didn't need to find the exact cause.
So, we've got a published result and video based on model data that isn't very close to what actually occurred. NIST won't release the model data. Are the assumptions and model parameters reasonable? We simply don't know. Just as the NIST modelers didn't need to find the exact cause of collapse to be successful, the AE911Truth argument doesn't need to be completely accurate at every granularity. Their goal is to get the data and analyze it. If someone who is knowledgeable (like you) objects and can whip up enough support from Americans (who frankly don't have the stomach to relive the horror again,) then the AE crowd can refine the request based on the objection.
You have convinced me that there is no way to know exactly what happened. The best we can do is find out what possibly happened. If the explanation requires unrealistic situations in order to "work," they haven't found an explanation. Also, if the collapse of Building 7 were the only questionable event that occurred on 9/11, there wouldn't be the level of controversy that we have. If the Commission were able to provide a reasonable explanation for Bldg 7, there are still many more questions that were glossed over. This is just the most egregious.
Grover
PS - Your last post was the best I ever read from you. Constructive and very informative. Thanks. I'll keep searching for meaning in your screen name.