[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: The Significance Of The Flawed Nist Model Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format Loose Change Forum > World Trade Center > The Significance Of The Flawed Nist Model Posted by: miragememories Apr 16 2007, 05:50 PM There appears to be some doubt about the significance of the flaws in the NIST WTC 1 & 2 computer models. It has been suggested that the fact that in the less severe, base and extreme case scenarios, that the NIST model failed to produce the observed opposite side exit damage, that this is insignificant because it only indicates that even the worse case scenario was an under-estimate and therefore still valid. The problem with this is that we know landing gear exited WTC 1 (North Tower). "Landing gear was observed exiting the south side of WTC 1 at about 105 mph." (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344) For WTC 1, the NIST WTC Report states: “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.” We know that landing gear and a jet engine exited WTC 2 (South Tower). “None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower.” (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.353) If the model fails in all 3 scenarios to reproduce an observed fact that should have occurred in the model, then the model is behaving in a manner contrary to the observed behaviour of the buildings the models are supposed to mimic. Reality shows us one thing but the model must be creating something different because it is failing to show us the known reality. This is very important because NIST concludes that collapse initiation was the result of aircraft impact damage and the subsequent steel weakening fires. With the NIST Models, they are accurate to the point of aircraft entry into the towers. Once the aircraft are inside the towers, we have no idea how the models are handling the collision data because they fail to reproduce what was observed on the opposite wall of the collision. Since the aircraft parameters were precisely known, and since the parameters of impacted towers were precisely known, the model should have accurately mimicked what actually occurred inside the towers concluding with the observed opposite wall damage, which would validate the accuracy of the models. Without that impact/exit corroboration, we know that the model is taking known data, i.e. the landing gear that was known to eject from the opposite wall of WTC 1 (NCSTAR 1-2B, p.344), and is now processing it differently, “No portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core.”(NCSTAR 1-2B, p.345) . It also means exit wounds that existed in reality, do not exist in the model which means ejected jet fuel and the observed fireball at those points, is now 'internalized' and factored differently inside the model. Here's an example of one problem with the NIST Computer Model for WTC 1 (North Tower); The landing gear is not ejecting from the WTC1 (North Tower) at 105 mph as it was observed to be. We therefore have to assume the Model which has all the data for the impacting jet, is now processing this heavy steel landing gear and it's kinetic energy, contrary to the known reality, because of it's failure to show it exiting out of the building at 105 mph. Erroneously, the NIST Computer Model must be misshandling this heavy landing gear, which should be ejecting from the opposite wall at 105 mph, and is modeling it in some unexpected fashion inside the building model. We know the model has accurate data for both the landing gear and the building. Clearly, this means significant, erroneous damage is being created inside the tower by the model. Damage that could NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. We now have a Model of the tower which has greater damage inside than we know was there. The model maintains this excess damage for all 3 scenarios since the generated error is based on the part of the event they all share in common. Even with this erroneous additional damage, the less severe and the base scenarios, were unable to induce the flawed WTC 1 Model to start a collapse initiation! Once NIST subjected this flawed WTC 1 Model to their extreme case scenario, they were able to successfully achieve a collapse initiation. Similarly, in the WTC 2 (South Tower) Model we have landing gear and a jet engine apparently wreaking havoc when the observed reality was that they exited the opposite side of impact. Once NIST subjected this flawed WTC 2 Model for to their extreme case scenario, they were able to successfully achieve a collapse initiation. This is why the flawed WTC 1 and WTC 2 Models significantly and critically reflect on the observed results. MM Posted by: miragememories Apr 17 2007, 02:41 PM Predetermining the Cause is NOT a Scientific Investigation! To expand on my points that the flaws in the NIST Models for the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 seriously undermine the credibility of the finished NIST Report, I offer these additional points. We know that NIST accepted the Model results from the most extreme scenario as being representative of what must have lead to the collapse initiation for both WTC 1 & 2. I'll set aside for the moment, the debatable point regarding what constitutes acceptable margins of error in the NIST Computer Model due to the discrepancies between what was observed to happen, and what the NIST Model generates as happening. The NIST WTC Report rejected the less severe case because they claim it “did not meet two key observables: (1) No aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10), and (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” (NCSTAR 1-2, p.167). The problem with this point is, and I expanded on this in my previous post, is that neither the base case nor the more severe case matched this “key observable” in either tower. (2) The less severe case did not match with an observed collapse of WTC 1 & 2. NIST states that; “the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.” This justification for excluding the less severe case is invalid because it is based on false logic. It's only logical to exclude that scenario if it's scientifically valid to only accept that the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were the sole possible cause of the buildings’ collapses. The main goal of NIST’s investigation and analysis was to determine the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers, it wasn't 'officially' mandated to prove a predetermined conclusion. To eliminate the less severe case solely because it would not create a collapse initiation in the NIST Model, means that NIST is assuming, and not determining, that the cause of the collapses was airplane damage plus fire. If the assumption is wrong, and the Towers did not collapse solely due to impact damage plus the resulting fires, then the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires were not the sole cause of the buildings’ collapses. As the NIST Petition states; "It is not scientific to selectively choose only those computer simulations that result in a preordained conclusion. To do so is to invite the accusation of political expediency." MM
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
The towers could not have come down without significant damage to the cores, not just in the impact zone, but throughout the tower.
#2. To: Kamala, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0) The towers were collapsed by an abrupt shearing of the centrol core columns - there can be no doubt about that. There's the NIST problem. Only controlled demolition could do that. (BAC does not approve of this message)
#3. To: SKYDRIFTER (#2) Then it must be true!
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn #4. To: Kamala (#0) This is the first I've read that the landing gear exited the towers on the other side. The NIST report proves one thing: How thoroughly compromised they are. The theory that pancaking took place at free fall rates is truly absurd. The mischaracterization of the structure and failure to address the strong steel core are the two biggest holes in the NIST report, IMO.
#5. To: SKYDRIFTER (#2) Yes, indeed. 1. Plane hits 2. An agent such as thermate is used at the entry point to begin to cut at one corner. 3. As the tower starts to tilt at the top as if it will soon break and fall in the direction of the damage, the central core is blown from the bottom, and it starts to drop. 4. Immediately following that, floors are taken down in sequential order, from the top to the bottom, exploding debris upward and outward.
#6. To: Paul Revere (#4) Landing gear exited both towers along with fuselage and an engine from WTC 2. None of the computer simulations could reproduce this outcome. So all the impact debris paths were incorrect. No matter if they were the less severe or more severe. NIST had to create completely new software versions of FDS and a new beta software called FSI. Lots of money was poured into developing these cartoon virtual realities. NISTs job was never to explain the collapse mechanics, just get the towers "poised for probable collapse".
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer #7. To: nolu_chan (#0)
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||